Rule Change proposed

[sue 9,240]

They could trial this in the GF.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/that-is-wrong-and-unfair-afl-greats-slams-crazy-rule-change-conversation/news-story/e118ca3e4ac211b1bd75db034e3c9e5d

[deebug 1,754]

Leave our game alone?

[deanox 10,059]

It's completely ridiculous.

The only possible time that is relevant as "deliberate" is when a player is by themselves, in 20 m of space and does a doublehanded uncontested punch to the bounday.

But even then how silly would that be? If the player thought they were safe to mark it, instead of going to a stoppage, they would. The punch would only ever happen if you felt percieved pressure, real or not.

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by deanox

[Willmoy1947 4,228]

Could result in many damaged fists and fingers...Change it to "if the ball hits or goes over the fence on the full", then it is a deemed deliberate.

[Diamond_Jim 12,723]

Good rule change

It doesn't outlaw the punch away down the line or out of bounds on the bounce but the easy punch away across the boundary line on the full should go.

We did the same for ruck tapouts many many years ago.

Increasingly the game is being played along the boundary line. Anything that detracts from that is worth trying.

It's not a big change but if there is concern trial it in the VFL

[Fat Tony 5,322]

This might suit our side. Kick it long to Gawn in the pocket and have our best snappers on the boundary line to take the free. 

[sue 9,240]

57 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Good rule change

It doesn't outlaw the punch away down the line or out of bounds on the bounce but the easy punch away across the boundary line on the full should go.

We did the same for ruck tapouts many many years ago.

Increasingly the game is being played along the boundary line. Anything that detracts from that is worth trying.

It's not a big change but if there is concern trial it in the VFL

But this won't discourage kicks along the line into the forward zone.  Quite the contrary.  Kick it there and if you don't mark it, then it will either be hit out on the full or back into the corridor - both cases probably giving you a shot at goal.  It would almost be madness to kick it anywhere else but down the line.  So the play will be closer to the boudnary than ever.

Edited October 15, 2020 by sue

[Diamond_Jim 12,723]

21 minutes ago, sue said:

But this won't discourage kicks along the line into the forward zone.  Quite the contrary.  Kick it there and if you don't mark it, then it will either be hit out on the full or back into the corridor - both cases probably giving you a shot at goal.  It would almost be madness to kick it anywhere else but down the line.  So the play will be closer to the boudnary than ever.

But it deters the defensive kick along the boundary line so the forward entry is much more likely to come from midfield.

It's the defensive exit that causes the play to be boundary side in the first place

Forward entries deep to a pocket would offer minimal scoring opportunity so I don't see the tactic of forward boundary hugging being a winner

Edited October 15, 2020 by Diamond_Jim

[sue 9,240]

11 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

But it deters the defensive kick along the boundary line so the forward entry is much more likely to come from midfield.

It's the defensive exit that causes the play to be boundary side in the first place

Forward entries deep to a pocket would offer minimal scoring opportunity so I don't see the tactic of forward boundary hugging being a winner

The percentages of kicking for goal from the boudnary may not be high, but you'll get a lot more shots at goal or the ball will be hit into the corridor where for good reasons defenders do not hit it now.  

As for a defensive exit causing the curent problem, it will be used even more with this rules change.  When you kick it to your tall player near the boundary opposition players often think it is a win if the hit it out on the full, thus turning loss of possesion into a 50 50.  You'll be keen to give them more opportunities to do so.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,089]

I've got a more basic question. What does "speeding up" the game actually mean? Is it code for "reducing congestion"? Because if that's what is motivating this idea, I suspect Demonland could come up with 10 better suggestions. I'll start by saying:

(1) get rid of the ruck nomination rule. It holds up play while the umpires wait for the ruckmen to get into position. 

(2) be more ruthless in paying 50 metre penalties whenever a player holds on to his opponent after that opponent takes a mark or is awarded a free kick. It is clearly a tactic being used to slow down play allowing defenders to congest a forward line

(3) pay a free kick against a player who tackles his own teammate in an effort to stop the ball from being released. 

[drdrake 3,203]

Poor defenders, you can't touch a forward with out a free kick, now your only friend when you are one out the boundary line may also be taken off you.

If you want scoring and a better game, just go back to juniors and what the AFLW play, last touch out of bounds between the arcs, that will stop teams kicking down the line and make them look inwards.

The rugby scrums occur in the centre third, take away the long safe kick down the line

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,379]

I also wouldn't be surpised if Gil and the boys want SE Queensland hubs to continue next year so they can continue the junket and escape Prison  Melbourne until a vaccine arrives.

[AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey 390]

This would make footy unwatchable. Plenty of ways to open up scoring besides this...

[deanox 10,059]

1 hour ago, sue said:

But this won't discourage kicks along the line into the forward zone.  Quite the contrary.  Kick it there and if you don't mark it, then it will either be hit out on the full or back into the corridor - both cases probably giving you a shot at goal.  It would almost be madness to kick it anywhere else but down the line.  So the play will be closer to the boudnary than ever.

This is their aim. More shots at goal. Increase scoring. Makes tv happy.

[daisycutter 29,927]

9 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

This would make footy unwatchable. Plenty of ways to open up scoring besides this...

like removing most of the rule changes made in the last 20 years would be a good start

[Hellish Inferno 992]

Think of the backmen!! The big spoil over the boundary is guaranteed crowd applause as the play holds up, with the defender running back to defensive 50 with a big smile on his face. With less than 10 possies per game, what will the Al Nicholsons and Matthew Warnocks of this world hang their hat on?

[dl4e 5,851]

They make too many rule changes as it is so if they are hell bent on this rule then trial it at VFL for a whole year and see how it goes.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

Our strategy of kicking wide into the pockets has just found its place.

[titan_uranus 25,212]

This is a truly terrible idea.

The ongoing pursuit of scoring, likely driven by Channel 7, is misguided, but putting that to one side this rule is just stupid. It robs defenders of an option in an era in which it's hard enough to be a key defender and make contact with your opponent without giving a free kick away, and if anything it will encourage sides to go down the boundary line.

It's completely unnecessary.

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Good rule change

It doesn't outlaw the punch away down the line or out of bounds on the bounce but the easy punch away across the boundary line on the full should go.

We did the same for ruck tapouts many many years ago.

Increasingly the game is being played along the boundary line. Anything that detracts from that is worth trying.

It's not a big change but if there is concern trial it in the VFL

It's a huge change! It's a fundamental change to how the ball considered "live" vs "dead".

I don't buy your logic that this will detract from moving the ball down the boundary line. Why would a side be afraid of the boundary line because of this? If anything it will attract them to it.

FWIW, I also dispute the proposition that the ball moving down the wings is "bad".

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I've got a more basic question. What does "speeding up" the game actually mean? Is it code for "reducing congestion"? Because if that's what is motivating this idea, I suspect Demonland could come up with 10 better suggestions. I'll start by saying:

(1) get rid of the ruck nomination rule. It holds up play while the umpires wait for the ruckmen to get into position. 

(2) be more ruthless in paying 50 metre penalties whenever a player holds on to his opponent after that opponent takes a mark or is awarded a free kick. It is clearly a tactic being used to slow down play allowing defenders to congest a forward line

(3) pay a free kick against a player who tackles his own teammate in an effort to stop the ball from being released. 

Agree.

We could also bring back the third man up rule - let midfielders get it clear of congestion.

I wholeheartedly agree on paying 50m penalties for all those repeated instances where players hold their opponent. If they take a mark or get a free, immediately get off them or a 50m (or maybe 25m) penalty is awarded.

I also wholeheartedly agree on the "stacks on the middle" penalty. If your teammate has tackled an opposition player, you don't get to join in. If you do (doesn't matter if you grab your teammate or the opponent), it's a free. Stay out, let the ball come out in the tackle or get the umpire to ball it up straight away.

But again, it all comes back to the fundamental proposition that the game needs to be higher scoring or "faster". Fast football, defensive-free football or high scoring football does not always equal good quality product.

[Pates 9,691]

Jeez who would want to be a defender in the AFL? Bit by bit they are taking away every avenue that they have available.

Rushed behind - basically gone
Disguised deliberate out of bounds - gone
Rush kick out of the 50 with it bouncing out - gone
Creating more rules making it easier for forwards to draw free kicks - in

I'm not saying all those rules being altered are wrong but they really aren't giving the defenders much of a chance. Killing the ball with a big spoil is an art and shouldn't be taken out of the game. If they're going to bring that in than they should be enforcing a harsher side of the "unrealistic attempt" rule, who many times do forwards do that, get a fingertip on it but take out two defenders at the same time.

[Gawndog98 364]

It won't be popular but I actually support this new proposed rule change, but I would prefer the AFL go all the way and change it to a last touched out of bounds rule. People talk about how hard it is for defenders, yet scoring is at its all time lowest. Spoiling the ball out of bounds is an easy kill, defenders should be made to try win the ball themselves. These are the effects these rule changes will have:

- teams having to use the corridor will lead to better ball movement = more scoring

- teams having to use the corridor will lead to more turnovers = more scoring

- less stoppages due to no throw-ins = more scoring

- less spoiling = more intercept marks

- less spoiling = more contested marks/hangers 

- more 1 v 1 contests

 

More scoring and highlight opportunities makes the game much more appealing to watch and play, I think it's a win for everyone involved.