rule changes not needed.

[Ed from WA]

I cant work out how someone gets 9 points for a long goal,but still only 6 for a daicos dribble or a banana kick or a shot from the boundary on wrong foot.
who decided that a long shot is harder?
its bullshit.
for GODS sake leave the basics of the game alone.

Maybe at a pinch if something has to change it would be the rushed point rule.
i would still give it only one point score but maybe the team should not get possesion after forcing it through.
say no kick in but a throw in or a free kick for deliberate from some possy set for this penalty.
i dont know
but we have just had the first close grand final in years,so why do we need to keep changing the rules?

[Cam]

Dude the 9 (or 7) pointer is exactly like the 3 pointer in basketball, behind the line. I would keep 1 point for hitting the post because it should be a b@stard when you come that close

In every other sport though, you only get the score no matter what you go through to get it. eg basketball, a layup scores the same 2 points as an offbalance lob with your eyes closed- or a birdie is still made whether you putt from 1 inch or chip from a bunker.

I agree with you though - don't mess with the rules. Although, hmm what you it be like if they introduced a couple of zones like netball - full-forward line and full-back line players weren't allowed outside the 50, and centres and wings had to stay inside the centre square?

Hard at it. The Collingwood way.

[Dr Alf Andrews]

The 9-point or 7-point goal is ridiculous. A goal is a goal is a goal.

The rushed behind should remain at 1 point ... deliberate or not. Umpires have a hard enough time adjudicating what they SEE, let alone trying to adjudicate on players' intentions.

The only rule I would change would be to get rid of the deliberate out-of-bounds rule. It's a rule that requires the umpires to be mind-readers. Instead, the last team to touch the ball should be penalised whenever the ball goes out of play ... deliberate or not. I'd suggest keeping the free kick for out of bounds on the full ... and maybe introducing a free-handball into play when the ball goes out after touching the ground. The deliberate out-of-bounds rule makes Australian Football a laughing stock.

Maybe one other rule change, if I may.

Players lining up for goal badly need a hurry up. It's ridiculous how long some of them take ... a certain number 18 for a prominent Victorian club comes to mind. Umpires should call play-on after 15 seconds. Grass throwers are a pox on the game.



GO HARD OR GO HOME
**************
Ph.D. thesis, "Football: the People's Game?" http://alf.magpies.net

[Cam]

I can see it now..

"... 10 seconds to go in the 2004 Grand Final and Benny J is pinged for deliberate out of bounds in the back pocket even though video replays show Chad Cornes was the last to touch it. He goes back and slots it. Balls bounced, siren goes and the pies lose by a point..."

Such is our brutal history


Hard at it. The Collingwood way.

[Presti35]

There should be one rule change:

1. No more changing rules!


"The Collingwood Magpies are not a football team, they are a way of life."

Who loves ya Presti?
WE DO!

MSN- presti1fan@hotmail.com

[dillo_09]

I think most of you havent read the proposal properly. The rule changes are experiments ONLY to be conducted in the pre-season competition with a veiw to creating a slightly different version of the game of Australian Rules Football. The idea is to create something different to attract new supporters and sponsors to the game, much in the same vein that one day cricket is differentiated itself from Test Cricket. Same game, different flavour.

The game needs to continue to look at itself and look for ways of improving and keep moving forward. If these idea's don't work, so what? At least they tried and we wont die wondering!! If they do work and make the game a better game, I am all for it. We should be thankful they have a vehicle, the pre season comp, to test these rules as I would hate for them to experiment with the regular season.

I hope they dont use these rules in the home and away games but to create something different for pre season is a great idea.

One of the hardest things to do, for most people, is accept change.

Although I quite like the play on rule if the ball hits the post but comes back into the general feild of play.

Cheers

[MargOZ]

I just get annoyed when they can't even get the current rules right and then they decide to bring in new ones - even if they are only experimental for the pre-season comp. In particular, any rule that means even more individual umpire interpretation and confusion is a complete waste of time - simple and obvious is the way to go!

The rules need to be looked at regularly and maybe some fun changes for the pre-season comp would make it more interesting - but what about giving clubs and players a say in any proposed changes (even trial ones)? As far as I can see it's just the AFL playing around with things and not consulting anyone - as usual.

GO PIES!
Marg

[Bartros]

May i just say that I would like to see this rule change in action... Nothing is better than seeing a goal from beyond the 50 meter arch so lets give it a go....

BTW it would actully stop the flooding too which I think most ppl would want!!!

Long Live the mite and power of
Shane Morwood (member of 1990 team,1988 Vic rep)

[This message has been edited by Bartros (edited 03 December 2002).]

[Ed from WA]

gee before we know it we will have One Day footy.

[Lorelei]

Imagine if it came in. The other clubs would throw a barney because look at how far our guys can kick....!

Jen

--
Floreat Pica
BRING BACK NED!
"This is a man's world
But it would be nothing
Without a woman or a girl"

[Bartros]

So what you are saying Ed that you would not wanna see ppl have shots from outside 50 meter arc??? Its not for the full home and away season its just for the pre season comp!!

Long Live the mite and power of
Shane Morwood (member of 1990 team,1988 Vic rep)

[CQ]

yeah what if you were 40M out and 6 points behind and the siren went, would u then be allowed to go wayyyyy back and kick it from 55-60? and then get the 9 points (or however many it is) instead of the 6?

im getting a bit tired of rule changes.

TARKO TARKO MAN!
I WANT TO BE A TARKO MAN!

[Donny]

Good point, CQ. What is in the proposal re. this part of the 9 point goal ? How far could the CQ query be utilised ? Mark in the goalsquare or 20 mtrs out, siren goes. more than 6 points needed to win. Can the player take his shot from beyond the 50 ?

The other part of that is: when a ball is kicked on the run from about the 50, wouldn't we need a video judgement ?

The out of bounds rule certainly needs looking at. I reckon take the 'deliberate' part out completely. Same for both sides and a player, having to make sure the ball bounces before going out, risks an infield bounce and a possible turnover anyway. Do we really want a GF decided on this rule (it's bound to happen) by a possibly dubious discretionary decision by an umpire ? We have enough of these in general play (Tazza, Lynch in last GF) Kick or handball out on full = free kick.

Donny.

Donny.
GO THE MIGHTY WOODSMEN !! ALL THE WAY IN 2003 AND BEYOND !!!!

[Bartros]

I think the rule would have to say that if the player marks the ball within the 50 meter arc it would be a six point goal otherwise if a player marks the ball outside the arch it would be then counted as a nine point goal!!!

Long Live the mite and power of
Shane Morwood (member of 1990 team,1988 Vic rep)

[AnthonyC]

Collingwood should enforce their own in-house rules.

Anthony Rocca should only be able to kick from 50+ out, even if he marks it in the goal square.

Sorry Pebbles



Go Pies!