• automatically grade behind-play hits one level higher in 2020
• abolished its golden point in finals (Under previous rules for tied finals introduced in 2016, teams would have played two five-minute halves of extra-time, and, if the scores were still tied, the team that scored first (golden point) in the next period of play would be deemed the winner
• teams will now play two three-minute halves of extra-time if the score is tied at the end of normal time. If scores are still deadlocked at the end of the extra-time, they will play two more three-minute halves. That way, both teams have the chance to kick with the wind or benefit from any other favourable conditions
• crackdown on players who enter a melee (the third player into a melee, particularly during the quarter-time breaks, will be hit with a tougher punishment)
• The league will also review all matches within 24 hours, ensuring quick-decision-making across the round.

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

• The league will also review all matches within 24 hours, ensuring quick-decision-making across the round.

As long as it is the correct decision, I couldn't care if it took 48hrs. It's the outcome that is all too often dubious, particularly when it appears not based on objectivity

Edited December 18, 20196 yr by Moonshadow

I think the most important point is that none of the rule changes are to the basis of the game itself. I don't object in principle to rule changes which affect the game, but we've had so many in recent years it's time to let the game evolve within that framework.

Im just holding my breath waiting for the rule change that says "All alleged acts will be treated equally by the MRO and AFL Tribunal; regardless of player profile and/or impact on finals matches"

33 minutes ago, ding said:

Im just holding my breath waiting for the rule change that says "All alleged acts will be treated equally by the MRO and AFL Tribunal; regardless of player profile and/or impact on finals matches"

Ah yes, the Dangerfield/Ablett/Judd Rule.

Will never happen.

On 12/18/2019 at 6:28 PM, Moonshadow said:

As long as it is the correct decision, I couldn't care if it took 48hrs. It's the outcome that is all too often dubious, particularly when it appears not based on objectivity

Moonshaddow.  You are totally delusional to think that the AFL and its MRO (or whatever they call it next year) even know what the word "objectivity" means.

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

Moonshaddow.  You are totally delusional to think that the AFL and its MRO (or whatever they call it next year) even know what the word "objectivity" means.

Call me anything, but don't call me Deeluded!

?

On 12/18/2019 at 4:27 PM, Demonland said:

• automatically grade behind-play hits one level higher in 2020
• abolished its golden point in finals (Under previous rules for tied finals introduced in 2016, teams would have played two five-minute halves of extra-time, and, if the scores were still tied, the team that scored first (golden point) in the next period of play would be deemed the winner
• teams will now play two three-minute halves of extra-time if the score is tied at the end of normal time. If scores are still deadlocked at the end of the extra-time, they will play two more three-minute halves. That way, both teams have the chance to kick with the wind or benefit from any other favourable conditions
• crackdown on players who enter a melee (the third player into a melee, particularly during the quarter-time breaks, will be hit with a tougher punishment)
• The league will also review all matches within 24 hours, ensuring quick-decision-making across the round.

Define "enter a melee" and while that's being defined will there be an imaginary circumference around the so called two player melee?

At least this time they're only changing some administration-type things.  Maybe they've finally gotten the message to stop messing with the game itself. 

2 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

At least this time they're only changing some administration-type things.  Maybe they've finally gotten the message to stop messing with the game itself. 

at least they could have undone some of the recent dumb game related rule changes

13 hours ago, willmoy said:

Define "enter a melee" and while that's being defined will there be an imaginary circumference around the so called two player melee?

A melee is when Steven May looks at a player who has just dropped one of our guys,and it is called a scuffle if you are a protected player and start pushing and shoving.

Article in today's little paper ( in fact the only decent one in this rag) from Mick Malthouse:

MICK MALTHOUSE’S CHRISTMAS WISH LIST FOR 2020

"Fewer rule changes, less time wasting, no gambling sponsors and more competitive Victorian clubs. Here are 12 gifts Mick Malthouse wants Santa to deliver for the 2020 season."

(I can't get up a link without the HS trying to sign me up, but if there are any smarter people on this site that can provide a link.....)

 

In essence, he has articulated probably the most sensible 12 things that fans ( not Gillon) want to see for a fairer competition and game:

e.g ..rules that are rules, not interpretations.  ....a fairer fixture....a fairer and consistent match review system...a sponsor not involved with gambling or alchohol....

If only Santa were real......

AFL rule changes are made so the AFL can carry on like gods.

40 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Article in today's little paper ( in fact the only decent one in this rag) from Mick Malthouse:

MICK MALTHOUSE’S CHRISTMAS WISH LIST FOR 2020

"Fewer rule changes, less time wasting, no gambling sponsors and more competitive Victorian clubs. Here are 12 gifts Mick Malthouse wants Santa to deliver for the 2020 season."

(I can't get up a link without the HS trying to sign me up, but if there are any smarter people on this site that can provide a link.....)

 

In essence, he has articulated probably the most sensible 12 things that fans ( not Gillon) want to see for a fairer competition and game:

e.g ..rules that are rules, not interpretations.  ....a fairer fixture....a fairer and consistent match review system...a sponsor not involved with gambling or alchohol....

If only Santa were real......

Interesting take on gambling.

If you think about it a little the AFL are far more complicit in promoting gambling than cricket ever were with alcohol and tobacco. In the case of cricket they were "merely" promoting an evil to an existing market. In the case of the AFL they have been complicit in introducing gambling to people who would never have touched the traditional gambling routes of casinos, horses etc. They have taken a community sport and massively promoted it as a gambling tool. For the AFL to simply say that gambling is legal is too cute by far.

27 minutes ago, dl4e said:

AFL rule changes are made so the AFL can carry on like gods.

Two things spring to mind.

-they have people justifying their existence.

-they are addicted to fiddling with the game.

So no more drawn matches then? Or have I got that wrong? 

5 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

So no more drawn matches then? Or have I got that wrong? 

i understood it was for finals only....ie no golden boot game breaker after extra time. just continue extra time sets until a winner