Malcolm Blight wants 4 rule changes

[Demonland 72,217]

Thoughts?

 

[george_on_the_outer 7,604]

Forget No. 1.  The umpires cannot see who kicked a goal or not today, they would only manage to stuff this up on a regular basis. 

All the others are OK. 

But they make sense, so don't let Gil and Hocking know just yet....then they will think they came up with the ideas!

[sue 9,107]

1. Last touch out of bounds will really help getting the score  line up to ridiculous basketball levels.  No backman will ever dare spoil towards the boundary. The number of wrong decisions made when a pack goes for a mark near the boundary and the ball goes out will make the current error rate look miniscule. 

2. no big deal, though it may lead to more congestion.

3. more or less done by teams now except when a team is trying to use up the clock, so probably OK.

4. no idea. If aim is to reduce congestion there may be better ways.

Edited April 16, 2020 by sue

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1. SANFL have a good rule for this. Last touch unless it's a disputed ball, in which case, throw in.

2. or we could get umpires who know how far 15m is. When kicking, they think it's really short. When running with the ball, they think it's really long. They must get trained by fishermen.

4. let's try this one first and see if anything else is needed ...

3. ... such as backwards kicking. Man up if you don't like it.

[drdrake 3,178]

Amend the first one to be last kick out of bounds and only between the 50m arcs not inside the 50s.  It will be to hard for last touch with congested footy.

20m kick neither here nor there just gets rid of that questionable short kick that we see now.

I reckon bring back the 25m line means every point kick in should go beyond this line and helps umpires with kick distance inside 50m arcs

[Demonland 72,217]

I don't mind the last touch out of bounds but there is bound to be mistakes made.

Not phased about the 15m or 20m. Umps sometimes can't get that right so what's another 5 metres.

I like the play one for kicks backwards unless we're up with a few minutes to go and need to chip it around.

I was never a fan of fewer rotations so I don't like this one.

[sue 9,107]

46 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

1. SANFL have a good rule for this. Last touch unless it's a disputed ball, in which case, throw in.

Makes mre sense, though I'd like to know what the definition is of a 'disputed ball'. A handpass which misses a teammate and goes out under pressure on either reciever or sender- is that disputed?

[one_demon 826]

They're good ideas buy it won't solve the fundamental problem with game and that is that there are too many players around the ball

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

15 minutes ago, one_demon said:

They're good ideas buy it won't solve the fundamental problem with game and that is that there are too many players around the ball

Number 4 will do that

[Diamond_Jim 12,591]

the kick backwards or across the ground is an excellent attacking/defensive move. I could live with limiting it to one kick thus avoiding a chain but as other have said the other team is employing a zone and should suffer for not manning up.

The problem with the last touch rule is that the free kick is too big a penalty. We would end up like soccer where players are skilled at playing for a corner.

Happy with the fewer rotations and  throw in a reduction of the bench by one while we are at it.

20 metre kick .... maybe but if the other side is using zones the short kick can be a good zone breaking strategy.

Most importantly these rules should be trialled in other comps for at least one season before coming over to the AFL where they should in their first year form part of the preseason comp only.

The last set of rule changes were an absolute failure

[one_demon 826]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Number 4 will do that

It won't.   Even with less rotations the coaches will still try and put numbers around the ball.  The rule doesn't change the coaches' philosophy. 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by one_demon

[one_demon 826]

 

54 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The last set of rule changes were an absolute failure

Correct.   They didn't go hard enough to limit congestion. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by one_demon

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

23 minutes ago, one_demon said:

It won't.   Even with less rotations the coaches will still try and put numbers around the ball.  The rule doesn't change the coaches' philosophy. 

 

 

Disagree. Players will not be able to follow the ball, regardless of what the coaches would like. 
natural fatigue will dictate that

The Coaches will need to get smarter. 
 

Massive Rotations have made the coaches  lazy. 
15 of them sitting in a box and nothing happens!!

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

Last touch rule should be like they do in AFLW. It is only a turnover if it comes off the foot of an opponent and does not include the i50 arks. It is probably what Blight meant. Works well and should be in AFL too. It was the rule previously. 

[one_demon 826]

58 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Players will not be able to follow the ball, regardless of what the coaches would like. 
natural fatigue will dictate that

 

The players are so fit these days,  they're running machines so they will be able to follow the ball particularly in the first half. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

2 hours ago, sue said:

Makes mre sense, though I'd like to know what the definition is of a 'disputed ball'. A handpass which misses a teammate and goes out under pressure on either reciever or sender- is that disputed?

"The SANFL has decided to award a free kick against the team that kicks or handballs a ball out of bounds without being touched in a bid to lower the number of throw-ins and total stoppages.

"Players won't be penalised if they spoil or carry the ball over the line unless the umpire deems the action to be deliberate."

https://www.afl.com.au/news/92454/sanfl-introduces-new-out-of-bounds-rule-and-50-rotations-per-game

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

9 minutes ago, one_demon said:

The players are so fit these days,  they're running machines so they will be able to follow the ball particularly in the first half. 

They are fit. But with less rotations, they won’t run up and down the field for 2 hours

That only started once Sheedy had got his change. 
there are no positions on the field anymore, players don’t have one on one battles anymore 

That all changed with Sheedy’s rule in the 90’s

 

[one_demon 826]

12 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

They are fit. But with less rotations, they won’t run up and down the field for 2 hours

That only started once Sheedy had got his change. 
there are no positions on the field anymore, players don’t have one on one battles anymore 

That all changed with Sheedy’s rule in the 90’s

 

It's a moot point anyway,  the AFL is against it. 

[tiers 2,840]

4 hours ago, Demonland said:

Thoughts?

 

1. Hopelessly unfair due to the shape of the ball and the direction of the bounce. Will destroy the spirit of the game - can you imagine players deliberately hand passing the ball so that it ricochets off an opponent and over the line or a group of team mates shepherding the ball as it bobbles over the line. Free kicks in our great game should have to be earned from a contest, not from some bureaucratic mumbo jumbo.

2. No. For frees and marks, change rule so that kick must go 15m past the mark so as to advance the ball. How many times have kicks gone sideways and not even crossed the mark. Otherwise leave it alone. See also 3.

3. Can't hurt. Most backward passes lead to play on so let's formalise what is happening.

4. Change rotation system so that players can only rotate once per quarter. This will automatically reduce maximum rotations per quarter to 18 (based on starting 18). Once you are off per quarter you get a long rest. On again, off again is ruining our game. Strategies might develop to rotate players per quarter and will force changes to coaching when mismatches can not be so readily responded. Fun and games and remove the staleness of our great game.

Malcolm should stick to playing and coaching where he excelled because of an abundance of footy brains. Beyond that he is just another voice.

[Kiss of Death 755]

4 hours ago, Demonland said:

Thoughts?

 

Nope. I miss the good old wet days where you saw teams bomb it as long as possible along the boundary line. 

Nope. Can’t get 15 right, 20 wont be any better, and I love a short 20m worm-burner speared through traffic. 

Nope. If you want to stop teams sharing it around, go man on man, they’ll boot it to a contest pretty quickly. Surely you couldn’t penalise a forward for firing off a pass from the point post to a player 30m out dead in front, surely..

Nope. Rotate as much as you want. 

I will never understand this fascination with constantly tinkering with the game.

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

46 minutes ago, one_demon said:

It's a moot point anyway,  the AFL is against it. 

Sadly yes. 
the game has lost its soul

[one_demon 826]

1 hour ago, Kiss of Death said:

I will never understand this fascination with constantly tinkering with the game.

Do you enjoy congestion?

Edited April 16, 2020 by one_demon

[dworship 3,342]

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

They are fit. But with less rotations, they won’t run up and down the field for 2 hours

That only started once Sheedy had got his change. 
there are no positions on the field anymore, players don’t have one on one battles anymore 

That all changed with Sheedy’s rule in the 90’s

 

So you don't think the AFL are going to keep the shorter quarters that they introduced in round1?

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

22 minutes ago, dworship said:

So you don't think the AFL are going to keep the shorter quarters that they introduced in round1?

No idea what the AFL are going to do

2020 is a right off for me

Earth has been switched off!

[daisycutter 29,616]

1. nope....dogs brekkie

2. good one

3. yep, except backwards pass in attacking 50 should be ok (imagine stuck on boundary line near behind post.)

4. good one, overdue

5. minor infractions should be the old 15m (maybe 25m) ,  50m for more serious

6. drop nominated ruckmen rubbish .... still just 1 per team but anyone

7. stricter interpretation of holding the ball (reduce time)

8. quicker ball-up in scrimmages as it used to be (reduce ugly maul)