This must be the only sport in the world where senior coaches get to have a whinge about a rule in the middle of the season and it gets changed by Tuesday.

It’s a good change, but why does Damian Hardwick get to decide the rules of the game? 

34 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

This must be the only sport in the world where senior coaches get to have a whinge about a rule in the middle of the season and it gets changed by Tuesday.

It’s a good change, but why does Damian Hardwick get to decide the rules of the game? 

Agree wholeheartedly. Purely bizarre. 

I am glad we're playing on Sunday as hopefully it's bedded in better by then after the umpires completely eradicate the notion of prior opportunity Thursday to Saturday

According to N Buckley it is more to do with the fact a player has the arm holding the ball free. Umpires have been told that if that arm is not held in the tackle, then the current 360 degree tackles arent "Holding the Ball". He also said that umpires may change interpretation this week.

Has anyone told the umpires?

Watch the overreaction this weekend

 

Rule of the week will see 30 HTBs every game

4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Has anyone told the umpires?

Watch the overreaction this weekend

 

Rule of the week will see 30 HTBs every game

Good thing.

It will means players will dispose of the ball, instead of “taking the tackle”

Well know the rule works if Cripps can no longer do 720degree turns while looking to dish off a handball

A lot of the problems are because players are now tackling at 80% force, not wanting to bring the ball carrier to the ground and risk suspension.

For the umpires, it is not as simple as paying holding the ball more often, as the rules require the ball carrier to have prior opportunity before the tackle is laid. IMO the umpires need to it ball up more, even if there is a bit of momentum in the player being tackled.

If I were coaching, I think I would tell players to tackle at close to 100% force and risk suspensions. 

I love how some rule changes are addressed with “we’ll look at that in the off-season” and others get this knee jerk reaction

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Well know the rule works if Cripps can no longer do 720degree turns while looking to dish off a handball

That won't be changing. He can also run 35 metres without bouncing.

What is "reasonable time" ?

This will be another overcorrection and disaster. Prepare for another unwatchable round of football ruined by umpiring, this time with even more game deciding unnecessary free kicks 💩

Edited May 28, 2024May 28 by Lord Travis

2 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

This will be another overcorrection and disaster. Prepare for another unwatchable round of football ruined by umpiring, this time with even more game deciding unnecessary free kicks 💩

One of the advantages of being a Sunday game - the umpires should have ‘relaxed’ the overcorrection by then 

3 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

One of the advantages of being a Sunday game - the umpires should have ‘relaxed’ the overcorrection by then 

After Alice umps will have no fear of being ‘sent to the country’ so hopefully ignore HQ’s rule of the week.

Seriously what other sport in the world would do this?

Just leave the game alone during the season.

Sorry to disagree with everyone, but I think it is great. 
 

Alistair Clarkson said years ago that if they want to get the game more free flowing, they should enforce holding the ball.

I just wish they would stop changing the rule 20 times per game and especially when Clarrie gets the ball.

 

Oh boy, Thursday night's game is going to be a poo-show.... can already see it now

6 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

I just wish they would stop changing the rule 20 times per game and especially when Clarrie gets the ball.

 

Clarry gets pinged for throws all the time and Cripps nothing.... different rules for different players as we all know

• "It has become clearer throughout the season that  in discharging their duty of care whilst executing a tackle, tacklers are positively electing not to take tackled players to ground in the tackle or are generally doing so in a reasonable way including by not using excessive force," the AFL said in a statement on Wednesday morning. 
• "As a consequence, we are seeing players hold onto the ball slightly longer and challenging the definition of “reasonable time”.

So, the AFL is saying the reason players are able to hold on to the ball too long is that they no longer get instantly smashed to the ground.  Something just doesn't ring true and is a recipe for further interpretations to come. 

• "Our umpires are clear on the interpretation of holding the ball and it continues to be a focus of umpire coaching each week. We want to ensure our Clubs, Coaches and Players understand the rules and how they are being officiated."

Typical poli-speak. If they are so clear on the interpretation why do we see so many inconsistencies?

The test is the dropping of the ball whilst being tackled with prior opportunity.

If these adjustments to the rules mean anything it should be holding the ball/ incorrect disposal come Thursday night.

The rules as they currently stand benefit 2 teams greatly, 1 of them is playing Thursday night.

Edited May 29, 2024May 29 by YesitwasaWin4theAges

mid season rule change

decided on a couple of days analysis after saying no problem here

to be implemented within less than a week

scores of umpires to be "re-educated" (when, how?)

what could go wrong?

I don't find myself subject to the Mandela Effect very often, but AFL rule interpretations is an exception. 

I could have sworn that shortened reasonable time interpretations were instituted at the start of year maybe two or three seasons ago and very quickly dispensed with. Did I just imagine this? 

Another that I'm certain was tried many years ago (and which made sense, but would have been difficult to umpire) was that if the tackling player dragged the ball in and held it to the player over the ball, they (the tackler) got done for holding the ball. This happens all the time these days. 

Another was that a push in the back was a free kick. Ha ha. What a duffer I am. As if that would ever be a rule. 

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

What is "reasonable time" ?

It should be immediate. 

If you get tackled you have to immediately attempt to dispose of the ball. Simples.

3 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

I don't find myself subject to the Mandela Effect very often, but AFL rule interpretations is an exception. 

I could have sworn that shortened reasonable time interpretations were instituted at the start of year maybe two or three seasons ago and very quickly dispensed with. Did I just imagine this? 

Another that I'm certain was tried many years ago (and which made sense, but would have been difficult to umpire) was that if the tackling player dragged the ball in and held it to the player over the ball, they (the tackler) got done for holding the ball. This happens all the time these days. 

Another was that a push in the back was a free kick. Ha ha. What a duffer I am. As if that would ever be a rule. 

The front on rule is also a joke.

As is the Goodes sliding the knees. The way Goodes used to slide in was dangerous. Now we have players theatrically diving over a player on the ground to try and elicit a free (ANB is a culprit)

While we are at it the Intentional OOB, the protected area, the stand rule

The interpretations of all of these are farcical.