If they want to encourage longer kicking in after a behind how about NO MARK being awarded to the defending team until it clears the 50?

Sure as hell that would get them emulating Sam Frost’s Friday night special and not risking little chips back and forth across the defense. 

On 7/31/2018 at 10:55 PM, DV8 said:

infuriating.

idiots. 

The afl do not deserve to be running Our game.

 

They're literally running it into the dirt.

DV8.   Spelling errors.

The word you surely meant was ruining, not running. 

These changes are becoming worrying:

"The AFL Commission is set to abolish the "hands in the back" rule when it meets next week to consider recommendations from the league’s competition committee." ....................

"If the move is rubber stamped by the AFL commission next Monday, the rule will revert to its original form where simply placing a hand on an opponent’s back is legal, until it becomes a push."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/hands-in-the-back-rule-to-be-abolished-by-afl-commission-20180917-p504c1.html

These people are weirdos.

The ":below the knees" rule is is desperate need of clarification.

The "message" sent out by the free against Brayshaw on Friday (maybe to a lesser extent Lewis too) is frankly dangerous.  It suggests that if a player is down getting the ball trip over him and get a free.  Extremely dangerous.

We have heard for years that the head must be protected but here we have a player going in for the ball, collecting it, and an opponent IMO deliberately initiating contact with the head with his feet and getting rewarded.

I am extremely concerned that if this continues, than there will be a serious and permanent head or neck injury - after which of course they will come out and express surprise and concern.

It is a pity that the AFL are too bloody weak to come out and say that head high (or head low) contact takes precedence over below knee contact.

 

9 minutes ago, monoccular said:

The ":below the knees" rule is is desperate need of clarification.

The "message" sent out by the free against Brayshaw on Friday (maybe to a lesser extent Lewis too) is frankly dangerous.  It suggests that if a player is down getting the ball trip over him and get a free.  Extremely dangerous.

We have heard for years that the head must be protected but here we have a player going in for the ball, collecting it, and an opponent IMO deliberately initiating contact with the head with his feet and getting rewarded.

I am extremely concerned that if this continues, than there will be a serious and permanent head or neck injury - after which of course they will come out and express surprise and concern.

It is a pity that the AFL are too bloody weak to come out and say that head high (or head low) contact takes precedence over below knee contact.

 

The intention of the "below the knees rule" is sound but I agree it needs to be re-thought. It should be used when players collecting the ball actively take the legs out of an opposition player, not when an opposition player trips over the ball-getter. 

It's not the only rule that needs clarifying or re-tooling, though. I'd rather fix a number of the rules that already exist rather than creating new ones. As an example, it has become increasingly clear that after a mark or free kick, players are being deliberately restricted by their opponent for longer. The 50 metre penalty introduced to stop this needs to be more strongly enforced. That will help stop congestion because the delay is intended to give the opposition time to flood back.

On 9/17/2018 at 12:02 AM, layzie said:

I have not heard one decent explanation for the extended goalsquare. It seems like it is focused on one thing only, kick ins.and one spect of the kick in, kicking long. How dare they infiltrate the state of the game discussion with this crap.

This has me confused also

My understanding of this is to give more advantage to the defending team kicking in to clear the defensive area and therefore helping the game spread out. They presume all players must move further towards the centre of the ground, thus spreading out

After the 2008 GF - the AFL brought in a rule to stop deliberate rushed behinds in response to Hawthorn as the defending side using the tactic as a way to get an advantage in time, space, to kick out and clear defensive area...

These two rule changes appear somewhat contradictory

On 9/17/2018 at 1:56 PM, Diamond_Jim said:

These changes are becoming worrying:

"The AFL Commission is set to abolish the "hands in the back" rule when it meets next week to consider recommendations from the league’s competition committee." ....................

"If the move is rubber stamped by the AFL commission next Monday, the rule will revert to its original form where simply placing a hand on an opponent’s back is legal, until it becomes a push."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/hands-in-the-back-rule-to-be-abolished-by-afl-commission-20180917-p504c1.html

Diamond - this is actually a good thing. I hope the clarification will also address players flopping forward in a tackle and drawing an in the back free as well. Push being the key word. Two of my biggest peeves (accepting that holding the ball will always be difficult to get the balance right with and adjudicate no matter how much you tinker with the rules) 

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:14 PM, Earl Hood said:

I could not find another thread on this. Merge if I am wrong please. 

I was thinking today that the proposed 2019 rule change is the 6/6/6 configuration for all centre bounces next year. This could be very beneficial for us. Given our cluster of see ball, get ball, inside mids, giving them extra space to work in. It could be a god send. You don’t need outside receivers if you are running straight out of the centre looking for a target.

The proposed setup should/will allow for more time and space for clearance players to get ball, run and deliver and we have a number of clearance beasts in Oliver, Viney, Brayshaw, Jones etc. 

We can only hope for some even up given the changes to the ruck circle seriously curtailed Jeff White’s ruck dominance. 

And voted on by all but 1 person who has played at the game!!

BEGGARS BELIEF??

LUNACY INCORPORATED!