| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jayel
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Location: Cairns, QLD
|
| Post subject: Rule Changes... |  |
|
I couldn't have been the only one last night to think that Wayne Campbell seemed to have a pretty loose grasp of the changes that are to be implemented. FFS, if he doesn't know, how the heck are the maggots gonna figure it out?
Now let's see if I have got this right. The AFL want:
(a) The head to be "sacrosanct".
(b) To eliminate "diving".
(c) To make the tackler accountable for his actions.
(d) To make the ball carrier take more responsibility for his own safety.
I propose to achieve this, a wildly new approach and rule set is required.
How about we get the umpires to penalise head high contact of any sort, except for when the ball carrier deliberately ducks his head. In which case the umpire will throw his arms in the air and scream, "Play On! Ducked His Head!"
The rules have become that convoluted and confusing that they have practically no hope of being able to be executed with any consistency and even if they were they have little hope of achieving the desired outcome. Back to the Basics I say and play the game in the manner it was originally meant to be played in. If those two simple rules/interpretations are enforced and there is sensible back up from the tribunal we would have a cleaner, faster and easier to follow game, without so much of the blasted scrimmaging that is a blight on todays football.
Just a thought. 
_________________
Every Thought In My Head, Someone Else Has Said ! |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Nope. Close but no cigar. Right idea, but the execution isn't there yet. Under your rules, there is still a lot of encouragement for the ball carrier to duck his head. Why wouldn't you? You have a 50% chance of getting "play on" (you have lost nothing) and a 50% chance of getting a free in your favour. (We are assuming that you try to disguise your head-ducking and game the system, of course.)
Here is an even simpler rule:
Head-high contact will result in a free kick against the player mainly responsible for it.
* If you tackle high - free against you.
* If you duck into a legitimate tackle, free against you.
* If the umpire cannot determine who was responsible for the high contact, then it's play on.
Remember, we don't care whether a player is risking another player's health or his own health. Either way, if we catch him at it, it's a free against.
Simple. Effective. Practical.
..... sigh ......
So the league will never buy it. They only like complicated, useless and impractical. If you don't believe this, Exhibit A is the interchange and sub rules. Exhibit B is the new father-son rules. And so on.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Define 'Duck into it"
joel Sellwood doesn't duck, he raises an arm and makes a tackling arm that is around his bicep slide up to his neck, drawing a freekick.
Should that action be illegal?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The 1st one should be is get rid of the Bloody Sub
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This knee jerk stuff is heavily motivated from the studies and reports coming out of America regarding brain trauma in contact sports. Past American footballers are now queuing up over there to sue the league now that they have something to hang their hat on.
The AFL have to show a duty of care to their employees in the work place ( footy oval ) Nobody likes rules on the run but player welfare is now one of the biggest issues that the AFL are obliged to prioritise. This won't be the last of it. It's a litigious world we live in.
Don't be completely surprised if helmets are compulsory in a few years ! |
|
|
|
|
John Wren 
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Define 'Duck into it"
joel Sellwood doesn't duck, he raises an arm and makes a tackling arm that is around his bicep slide up to his neck, drawing a freekick.
Should that action be illegal? |
on sunday, like others, in one instance pendles chose to drop his knees and won a free kick. not illegal but not in the spirit of the rule.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Nope. Close but no cigar. Right idea, but the execution isn't there yet. Under your rules, there is still a lot of encouragement for the ball carrier to duck his head. Why wouldn't you? You have a 50% chance of getting "play on" (you have lost nothing) and a 50% chance of getting a free in your favour. (We are assuming that you try to disguise your head-ducking and game the system, of course.)
Here is an even simpler rule:
Head-high contact will result in a free kick against the player mainly responsible for it.
* If you tackle high - free against you.
* If you duck into a legitimate tackle, free against you.
* If the umpire cannot determine who was responsible for the high contact, then it's play on.
Remember, we don't care whether a player is risking another player's health or his own health. Either way, if we catch him at it, it's a free against.
Simple. Effective. Practical.
..... sigh ......
So the league will never buy it. They only like complicated, useless and impractical. If you don't believe this, Exhibit A is the interchange and sub rules. Exhibit B is the new father-son rules. And so on. |
Not bad tannin.
My only issue is that I imagine the AFL would look at your third option ( play on ) and they would assume that action is likely to end in a ball up anyway. And that is just another one of their pet hates they are trying to eliminate from the game.
I'm with you though, anything to make it simple but as per my other post, the AFL are way more concerned with player welfare than simplifying rules right now. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| That's a great solution Tannin. Reckon you ought to send it to the AFL. |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | "The change of interpretation that will be immediately enacted from this weekend of matches ... requires the player with the ball to not contribute to high contact by driving or leading with his head into a tackling player."
Under the changes:
■ Any movement where a player drives or leads with their head into a stationary or near-stationary tackler will be deemed as a drive and will be umpired as the player with the ball having had "prior opportunity".
■ The player must immediately kick or handball or a free kick for holding the ball, under the prior opportunity rule, will be paid against him.
Evans said the tackling player will still be required not to be reckless or indiscriminate with his approach to the player with the ball. |
http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-introduces-new-rule-against-ducking-20150601-gheh3g.html
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
All pretty sensible, Jayel and Tannin. And yes, I'm sorry to say that Pendles did this repeatedly on the weekend. Not great to see.
I'm sick and tired of hearing commentators justify it as clever play. If you're playing for frees—dropping the knees, ducking into people's chests or exaggerating contact—you're essentially cheating. If we're trying to reduce head/neck contact in the game, why reward players who seek it out? It's nonsensical.
I don't necessarily blame clubs or players for trying to find every possible tactic to win a game of football, but that just means that umpires and the rule committee need to get smarter with this stuff. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | All pretty sensible, Jayel and Tannin. And yes, I'm sorry to say that Pendles did this repeatedly on the weekend. Not great to see.
I'm sick and tired of hearing commentators justify it as clever play. If you're playing for frees—dropping the knees, ducking into people's chests or exaggerating contact—you're essentially cheating. If we're trying to reduce head/neck contact in the game, why reward players who seek it out? It's nonsensical.
I don't necessarily blame clubs or players for trying to find every possible tactic to win a game of football, but that just means that umpires and the rule committee need to get smarter with this stuff. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. |
I can't agree, some of this actually is smart play. Charging head first at a player and forcing high contact is against the spirit and umpires no longer pay frees for this. Paying a free against the ducker in this case is fair.
But I'm not sure there's anything wrong with making it more difficult, though far from impossible, for an opponent to fairly lay a tackle. Why should a player not be allowed to take evasive action? If the tackler has poor technique he's going to give away a free and I see little difference to this than say protecting the drop zone in a marking contest and "forcing" the defender to hold.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | Quote: | "The change of interpretation that will be immediately enacted from this weekend of matches ... requires the player with the ball to not contribute to high contact by driving or leading with his head into a tackling player."
Under the changes:
■ Any movement where a player drives or leads with their head into a stationary or near-stationary tackler will be deemed as a drive and will be umpired as the player with the ball having had "prior opportunity".
■ The player must immediately kick or handball or a free kick for holding the ball, under the prior opportunity rule, will be paid against him.
Evans said the tackling player will still be required not to be reckless or indiscriminate with his approach to the player with the ball. |
http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-introduces-new-rule-against-ducking-20150601-gheh3g.html |
Interesting. That's getting pretty close to the version I suggested. I like it.
(Mind you, some of us here on Nick's were suggesting this years ago, repeat years ago. Why does it take the AFL so long to figure stuff out? Anyone would think they'd spent their younger years having their brains battered into jelly. Oh ... Good point.)
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | Define 'Duck into it"
joel Sellwood doesn't duck, he raises an arm and makes a tackling arm that is around his bicep slide up to his neck, drawing a freekick.
Should that action be illegal? |
on sunday, like others, in one instance pendles chose to drop his knees and won a free kick. not illegal but not in the spirit of the rule. |
He does it a bit, certainly the worst offender at our club. |
|
|
|
|
Cleomenes
Joined: 14 Dec 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The new emphasis makes sense to me, but I don't have much confidence that it will have any long term effect. Look at how that hands in the back and dropping the ball interpretations have eventually returned to the old situation. Not to mention the abject failure of the attempt to stop shepherding out of marking contests. I would have liked to see all of these persevered with.
The last interpretation change to actually work was the deeming of a player who bounced the ball to be in possession.
_________________
We have won every grand final until the replay has been watched. |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith 
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | John Wren wrote: | | Quote: | "The change of interpretation that will be immediately enacted from this weekend of matches ... requires the player with the ball to not contribute to high contact by driving or leading with his head into a tackling player."
Under the changes:
■ Any movement where a player drives or leads with their head into a stationary or near-stationary tackler will be deemed as a drive and will be umpired as the player with the ball having had "prior opportunity".
■ The player must immediately kick or handball or a free kick for holding the ball, under the prior opportunity rule, will be paid against him.
Evans said the tackling player will still be required not to be reckless or indiscriminate with his approach to the player with the ball. |
http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-introduces-new-rule-against-ducking-20150601-gheh3g.html |
Interesting. That's getting pretty close to the version I suggested. I like it.
(Mind you, some of us here on Nick's were suggesting this years ago, repeat years ago. Why does it take the AFL so long to figure stuff out? Anyone would think they'd spent their younger years having their brains battered into jelly. Oh ... Good point.) |
I must admit when growing up this is what I thought the rule always was, if a player ducks into a tackle it is deemed prior opportunity and they can be pinged for holding the ball |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
