Jump to content

Rule Change proposed

sue
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

 

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 by deanox

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Love 1
     

    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.

  • Quote

    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

  • Quote

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    • Author
    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 by sue

  • Quote
    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 by Diamond_Jim

  • Quote
    •  
    • Author
    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.

  • Quote

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Love 2

    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

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote
    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Love 1

    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?

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote

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

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Love 1

    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.

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

      It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • 73 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Collingwood

      It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
      The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
      Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Clap
        • Love
        • Like
      • 216 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland
    View All