https://www.afl.com.au/news/696861/afl-to-crack-down-on-holding-the-ball-time-wasting

 

Will be wonderful to see the head-duckers get pinged. About time.

Lets see if it applies broadly or also includes Duckwood and co 

Hope it means that players get only one shot at a disposal - no 360 turns or pretend handballs.

In order to be fair, umpires should be lenient to those players who, while complying with this rule, cannot avoid putting the ball out of bounds due to the tackle.

21 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Lets see if it applies broadly or also includes Duckwood and co 

I'm hoping it will make people like the Bulldogs Hunter and Bears Mathieson unplayable.

And Spargo will want to watch himself also.

It's great news. Removing a blight on the game

The delaying play rule could be called rhe Harry Petty rule. He quickly established himself as one of the best in the comp at holding play up.

The holding the ball rule could prove tricky for someone like Petracca but in general as long as he keeps moving through a stoppage he won’t get pinged by tackles bouncing off him. Not unless the umps and rule makers have completely lost the plot.

Good changes in general but as with all afl rules there’s plenty of grey areas and they require consistent and quality adjudication and fans understanding it won’t be perfect.

55 minutes ago, faultydet said:

I'm hoping it will make people like the Bulldogs Hunter and Bears Mathieson unplayable.

Amen. My biggest fear on 25 September was losing to Hunter. (Well, not quite, but you get the point)

Driving the head into a tackle is one of my very pet hates, even more than the Selwood duck.  

It is extremely dangerous and will result in a broken neck if not stamped out, with the poor guy who has been in effect head butted being plagued with scorn and guilt.

Still I wonder how well it will be enforced.

I know the humidity has steamed my brain and the ash from the volcano has created a strange light but....

"a player who ducks their head prior to being legally tackled"

Prior means before so as after you are legally tackled, drop one shoulder and get it around the neck and a free kick

or 

duck your head, get it around the neck which is not a legal tackle and get a free kick

And what is the definition of Duck ( no quacking please).  What about squatting or falling like Hunter did to Spargo in the GF.

Ah the English language...

What time does the bar open.....

 

 

 

Love the crackdown on delaying play...if it actually happens. Hopefully, the instructions as to what deliberately delaying play means are clear. My pet hates are holding on to players who take marks or get free kicks, standing over said players preventing them from standing up  or standing over the ball to stop the player from picking it up.

The delaying play thing is important. Everyone does it, including us. I hope to see a number of free kicks/50m penalties doled out in Round 1, so that it sinks in. 

The holding the ball changes are in the right spirit but I imagine are going to just create more problems in their interpretation by umpires.

The yearly rule changes are terrible for no other reason than the first 3 or so rounds are spent with Dwayne Russell and his commentariat buddies burning my eardrums about whether the rule has worked/not worked/made the game better/made it worse, etc.

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

The delaying play thing is important. Everyone does it, including us. I hope to see a number of free kicks/50m penalties doled out in Round 1, so that it sinks in. 

The holding the ball changes are in the right spirit but I imagine are going to just create more problems in their interpretation by umpires.

I don't think I've ever seen us stand astride a player who was facedown and place a hand on their back preventing them getting up. The rule around delay of game has been there for a long time and it's non enforcement has irked me for as long. Ben Brown should have been awarded a 50 when it happened in the GF.

I understand we have been guilty of the delaying tactic as well but regardless of my bias, I think we are one of the few teams that don't go overboard with it. If adjudicated correctly and consistently, (I live in hope!) our style/game plan will benefit from this and the likes of Geelong will suffer.

I hate seeing our players playing for frees or complaining to the umpire's, play to whistle, don't try and suck the umpire's in by flopping to the ground like you have shot, don't throw your arms out and look at the umpire like you need his help , play hard and play fair and stand up and don't take crap

What is new about the bolded bit?:

They will also penalise players who don’t legally dispose of the football if they’re "balanced and steady" when tackled, if they have previously been awarded a mark or free kick, or if they drive their head into a legal tackle.

10 hours ago, dworship said:

the likes of Geelong will suffer.

Scott family dinners should be fun!

Chris: Thanks a bunch, bro. 🙄

The action that bugs me is the player on the mark with the ball wasting time acting confused who he should give the ball to. Nasher is a master of this. 

 

Get rid of it with a couple of 50s early on and it should disappear. 

 

The other one is the player lying on or impeding the free kick/mark winner by making a very clumsy and delayed attempt to stand up. Reckon this will be harder to police but happy for this to go to make the play move faster. 

35 minutes ago, Rocknroll said:

The action that bugs me is the player on the mark with the ball wasting time acting confused who he should give the ball to. Nasher is a master of this. 

 

Get rid of it with a couple of 50s early on and it should disappear. 

 

The other one is the player lying on or impeding the free kick/mark winner by making a very clumsy and delayed attempt to stand up. Reckon this will be harder to police but happy for this to go to make the play move faster. 

@Nasher

In relation to the delaying tactics, I want that stupid school-boy looking act of standing on top of the player where the mark would be meaning the player who’s earned the free-kick/mark had to either crawl out or be ridden like a horse be penalised immediately. Firstly it looks pathetic, the player doing it looks like a 5 year old doing play fighting with his 7 year old brother. Secondly it is easily the most deliberate act of time wasting that every team does. 

It looks childish and it’s a blight on the game. The umpire should communicate immediately “step back, let the player up” as soon as their up “there’s your mark, stand”. If the player doesn’t move, 50m penalty. 

It won’t happen but I would’ve also like to see the protected area/stand your mark rule reduced to 25m instead of 50m. Seems like such a harsh penalty for a relative innocuous rule breach. Comparatively it’s the same penalty as doing something deliberately dangerous and late. Doesn’t feel right to me. 

A benefit of the speedy determination of holding the ball should be that it helps eliminate dangerous and sling tackles. How often has a good tackle been taken too far because the umpire has delayed blowing the whistle? This is good, not just because it should improve the game, but it should also reduce the risk of unnecessary concussions caused by the longer tackle.

Rule changes that are not Rule changes.

Incorrect disposal and time wasting already exist.  Ducking the head not allowed.

It's just that the umpires have never applied the rules correctly in recent years, and as a result players are allowed to get away with actions that they weren't in previous years.

Finally the AFL wake up!

Now if they could wake up enough to enforce the rules around throwing the ball, and holding the man for the "3rd man in" type tackler, we will get the game a long way back to where it was.....

The main issue with the rules and umpiring is there are too many areas of interpretation. Holding the ball and tackling are always going to be difficult and I think the umpires do a decent job overall. (They always seem do a much better job when I am watching on TV, which gives a closer view, than when I am at the game.)

The main area I think they need to amend are the rules around out of bounds/deliberate to be more black and white. i.e. make last possession over the boundary a free kick and introduce a rule where all rushed behinds result in a ball up at the top of the square. 

They may also need to put some extra markings on the field to help the umpires measure 15m.

They also may need to change the rules to allow throwing in the future. A lot of the reason why tackling is dangerous is that players cannot dispose of the ball with one hand and protect themselves with the other. Allowing throws would increase the pace of the game and reduce congestion.

I am also a fan of reducing number on the field to 16.

6 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

They also may need to change the rules to allow throwing in the future. A lot of the reason why tackling is dangerous is that players cannot dispose of the ball with one hand and protect themselves with the other. Allowing throws would increase the pace of the game and reduce congestion.

Not without merit FT.

Would love to see it trialed in say the amateurs.

Mind you with best handballer in the league let's wait another three years.

13 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

The main issue with the rules and umpiring is there are too many areas of interpretation. Holding the ball and tackling are always going to be difficult and I think the umpires do a decent job overall. (They always seem do a much better job when I am watching on TV, which gives a closer view, than when I am at the game.)

The main area I think they need to amend are the rules around out of bounds/deliberate to be more black and white. i.e. make last possession over the boundary a free kick and introduce a rule where all rushed behinds result in a ball up at the top of the square. 

They may also need to put some extra markings on the field to help the umpires measure 15m.

They also may need to change the rules to allow throwing in the future. A lot of the reason why tackling is dangerous is that players cannot dispose of the ball with one hand and protect themselves with the other. Allowing throws would increase the pace of the game and reduce congestion.

I am also a fan of reducing number on the field to 16.

Getting into AFLX territory here.

As to the idea of 15 metre markings, while the idea is good in theory, it won't be practical on an oval shaped field.

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Getting into AFLX territory here.

As to the idea of 15 metre markings, while the idea is good in theory, it won't be practical on an oval shaped field.

We are the reigning AFLX champs as well!

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

We are the reigning AFLX champs as well!

Let's hope we also win the AFLW premiership as well. Then we can say we're the proud holders of the most recent two pieces of silverware and a piece of painted wood.