what do you think of the rule changes?

[fan4collingwood]

[bokka]

You can probably guess....stop screwing with the flickin rules

[bokka]

....on the other hand now I think I might understand the grab rule (????) and if it is applied correctly it prevents rucks from repeatedly holding up play as I think CAm said.
However that rule is unnecessary because it is already covered by holding the ball and its prior oportunity clause - but I spose the maggots are not terribly bright and needed it spelt out with a new rule, but all these new rules will strain their memory banks...
That also depends on interpretation of the HTB rule - I think it should mean that a player (ruckman or not) has to judge whether he can grab the ball and still have time to get rid of it legally - so if he misjudges that then he deserves to get pinged simce he could have gone for a knock or tap option instead. But again this might be a bit taxing for the magoo-ites to comprehend.

[Sanabas]

It wasn't already covered. Last year, ruckman grabs ball out of ruck, gets tackled immediately, it's another ball up, as he HASN'T had prior opportunity to get rid of it. Same as someone else receiving a handball and getting tackled immediately. This year, choosing to grab the ball instead of hitting it counts as the prior opportunity. Good idea, it will reduce the amount of times that the play consists of a few ballups in a row. And for those who couldn't work out why one on Friday wasn't paid, it's because the rule applies to all ballups and boundary throw ins, but not to the centre bounce.

As for the other one, there's no rule that says you can't handball to yourself. There's one that says you can't throw the ball to yourself, like Russel Robertson did to keep the ball in play as he went round the point post last year.

[MagpieMad]

The bad part of the new ruck rule is that you are now excluding a whole type/style of ruckmen, most of you guys say you didn't like primus grabbing the ball out of the ruck, yet last year he was one of the dominent rucks in the game, now he won't be so therfore his signiture on a contract will be worth less, its the same with us as we don't have a dominent tap ruck, stunna last year was servicable but this year he will be less so B'cos of this new rule, how many good tap rucks are there in the league? 5 or 6? how many clubs have young rucks on their lists that now will be under presure B'cos they don't suit the new rule? how many young rucks are going to have the chance to develope under the new rule? if your body isn't big enough to jump into an opponent and tap the ball what chance do you have.
IMO the AFL have screwed up big time here, they have left half the rucks in the game standing on the ground watching the ball up with nothing to do, all so the game can look more like basketball.
small changes can ruin our game, look at the changes made to rugby league and the way it is dying, they thought to speed the game up by getting rid of having a real scrum, wich in turn led to them having no need for big boof headed front rowers, wich led to the game becoming softer and now looks more like the poofy english version of league, now they try to promote punch ups to make it look tough but its lost its thousands of supporters and would prolly go belly up if it wasn't for the propping up of the game by Ch9 and fox's tv money.
I personaly like the game the way it is and this constand need to change the rules gives me the sh*ts, I think its less about making the game faster, than people wanting to "leave their mark on the game".
this year we have seen the afl tell us about how hard the umps have got it with abuse ect. then they bring in new rules that will be once more left upto the interpritation of the ump which will only lead to more confusion from the fans and more abuse.
Get your act together afl, they tweak the rules of the game year after year but the tribunal where it is fairly unanamously agreed gets it wrong time after time never gets touched.

[Pies rock]

I agree totally Magpiemad. I can't see how it's fair to change the rule mid-stream when certain ruckmen have trained their whole careers playing one way, ie crosing the line and blocking the run of their opponent. Now blokes like Primus and Mckee (god willing!) have to re-model their style of play and turn into totally different centre bounce ruckmen. This rule hasn't received too much media attention, but it is so hard on this style of ruckmen to totally alter the way they've played at this stage of their careers. Has to be looked at IMO.

Besides, it was only a couple of years ago when they were saying the centre bounce clashes were putting too much strain on a ruckman's body and causing unnecessary injury. Now they're promoting these bone crunching centre bounce clashes. Make up your mind!

[I@n S]

[DaicosMagic]

The ruck rule (not being able to grab the ball unless you dispose it before you are tackled) is very vague. What if the umpire bounces a shocker and it falls directly into a rover''s lap. What, he's not meant to grab it for fear of being tackled? Rubbish. What if the 2 ruckmen mistime their jump and the ball falls too low to tap out. Are they just meant to let it hit the ground? No, they should be able to catch it. The rule has not been thoroughly thought out - they are ruining the spirit of the game. And umpires are so 'by-the-book' they wouldn't even know how to interpret these rules in 'the spirit of the game'. I don't care what anyone says, but I play football and Sam Neuman is totally right when talking about umpires' lack of umpiring in the spirit of the game. ie. incidental contact to the shoulder that has no bearing on any outcome is not a free kick, etc.

PS. are you alowed to handball in front of yourself and then chase it? This is the first I've heard about not being able to handball to yourself. Why not. What Rodan did was brilliant last Friday.

[I@n S]

yep you can't handball to yourself. They didn't pin Rodan for it and if that other richmond dickhead could kick proberly the ball would've got to Richo instead of Tex LOL

[MagpieMad]

[Sanabas]

[bokka]

Sanabas after saying it isn't covered by HTB you now seem to be almost agreeing with me. Actually now I think about it even the prior opportunity rule is crap - anytime you take possession of the ball and then are caught with it, it should be considered your fault and you get pinged, because you should be able to judge whether you will have opportunity to dispose of it. If a teammate passes it to you and you don't have time to see then you can say either you are taking a punt in grabbing it or you should not grab it but knock it on hopefully to advantage, and also that is arguably also partly the teammates' fault for passing it to you in that situation.
But really you should be assessing all the time what the situation is arond you if you could receive the ball at that time. I think this would greatly improve the game and make it much easier for the poor maggots to adjudicate. What I'm really sick of is seeing players doing the fake "trying to punch it out of their own hands when tackled" routine, and getting away with it.
So I suppose I take your point but now I say the whole holding the ball rule should be like this new rucking rule - you should not grab the pill if you can't get rid of it and if you get caught too bad.

I'm sure players like Primus will adapt to the rule - perhaps do things like instant grubber kick aways etc.

REgarding rucking I think the rules do need to change, there is much too much allowance for physical contact in ruck duals - you often see them jsut smashing straiht into each other - no other game with ruck duals allows this, it just reduces bounces to caveman crashing matches - I dunno about others but this is not my idea of footy. It was bad enough when I used to play in the ruck and have corugated shins every game - but having the rest of your body corrugated is too much.

[DaicosMagic]

Bokka, you have got to be kidding yourself. With such a holding the ball rule, our game would become so frickin' boring. You'd have no-one taking opponents on (one of the most exciting aspects of our game), you wouldn't be able to pick up a ball passed to you on the half volley because your opponent would just claim you from behind. Are you sure you don'y work with the rules committee. It's rash decisions like this that ruin our game. Think these things through, for Christ's sake! Introducing so many rules to make the game aesthetically more appealing is so ludicrous. There are so many variables in football that introducing a new rule to eradicate a perceived 'problem' is frought with so much danger, and virtually kills the game. If you don't want fans to be so pissed off during games, stop umpires giving away free kicks in ruck infringements, particularly boundary throw-ins, and especially in front of goal. I've said it before, ruck contests are so overrated around the ground - they are not worth a kick at goal from inside 30m.

[bokka]

Believe me I have thought about this change to the HTB rule for years - it wasn't/isn't much of a problem at low levels since tackling not as good and players not as fit and hard running but at the top levels it wrecks it a bit. The way to test this out would of course be to try it out in the preseason comp. But I don't agree with your objections but only trial would tell.
In particular I think it would make the game *less*boring esp the continual ballups due to indecisive caught-with-the-ball stoppages and the player histrionics that go along with it esp the pretending to punch it out of your own arms caper I've already mentioned.
LIke most rules it's equal disadvantage to both sides and you can never rule out the element of luck, it would make the game more exciting and tense and give less oportunity for negative tactics by defenses. This would be much better for the attacking side of the game than all the artificially tacked-on out-on-the-full, deliberately OOB etc.
What I am talking about is a fine balance and split second decision making, balancing taking possession vs risking getting caught etc - almost always culminating in one side winning out and almost never leading to a ball-up - a highly skillful open, fast moving unpredictable and electric brand of footy - also another area for development of subtle and complex coaching tactics - that's my idea of what footy is all about.

[Brown26]

Sanabas, you're totally right, you are allowed to take the ball out of the ruck, (I thought you weren't allowed to handball it to yourself anymore, but I'm not sure on that) you just ahve to get rid of it. If you are tackled and cannot dispose of the ball correctly, the new way the umpires will interperet the rule is that it is holding the ball, as you have had prior oppourtunity to get rid of it via a ruck hitout instead of taking possesion.

now, all I want to see is the umpires call it properly. They've come out and said that they would call it HTB, I've only seen it called once on McKee in the two games we've played in. And it has happened a lot.

whether you agree with the rule or not, it'd sure be nice if they called it the way they said they were going to just two weeks ago! It's impossible to play a game when you don't know the rules - can anyone out there last night, umps included, explain the push in the back rule when the player is over the ball? The answer to that is no - demonstrated by players unwillingness to tackle a player with any force if he was over the ball.

I for one think it would be better to stop changeing the rules and just get the ones you do have right more often than not!!

- Ben