-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
New Rules
- Thread starter yandb
- Start date
This.
I've seen it too many times before too.
You oppose something and they brand you as resistant to change. Why? Because change is good, by definition it is good, by definition opposition to change is bad.
It is one of the single dumbest attitudes going around.
Change can be good, change can be bad - change is like anything else, you need to judge the impact.
The problem here is that the AFL have the attitude that any change they propose is good, any opposition to their changes is bad and their changes are so good they don't have to try them out or assess the impact once implemented. In fact, change is so good things should change all the time, lots of changes, all the time, you'll love it.
TBH, yes 100% correct decision and also 100% rubbish outcome - what does that tell you about the new rule?
DS
The new rule is true to the game. When I was young, it was the standard that the player on the mark stays on the mark until the player with the ball plays on or kicks it. Somewhere along the line, players were allowed to move off the mark, as long as they didn't cross the line of the mark - something the player with the ball CAN'T do. Players on the mark being given an advantage over the player who won the kick is intrinsically unfair, and the new rule solves that. I genuinely can't understand the philosophical counterargument.
do you think it is ok for the AFL to introduce rules that create harsh penalties for insignificant actions that have no impact on the play?
I'm interested to see how it works, Hut. And I genuinely believe the Tigers will benefit from this rule (except for the Round 1 reaming we typically get).
My gripe is a lack of trialing and evidence that it will do what it is purported to do i.e. increase scoring.
The trialling of new rules makes sense, until you think back to the last time they trialled rules, which was the 6-6-6 and maybe kickout rules. They decided to trial mid season in a game between two teams not destined for finals.
Now I understand why they don't trial rules first. The AFL is run by millennials who believe in instant gratification. When they get an idea for a new rule, they can't bear the thought of waiting a year or two to implement it. It needs to be done ASAP.
Now I understand why they don't trial rules first. The AFL is run by millennials who believe in instant gratification. When they get an idea for a new rule, they can't bear the thought of waiting a year or two to implement it. It needs to be done ASAP.
AFL propaganda video now up. I've totally changed my mind by the way this rule will definitely lead to 45 goal games.
I still struggle to believe anyone came up with this. Unequivocably and objectively moronic. Calling it half baked is being super generous.. stupid, desperate, wrong-headed, rushed attempt to justify wages and cowtow to advertisers.
Heard from players, both first hand and published accounts, that agree. It stuffs with the structure and culture of the game, and for what?
Heard from players, both first hand and published accounts, that agree. It stuffs with the structure and culture of the game, and for what?
abusing an umpire is wrong and should be punished. pushing an opponent out of play is wrong and should be punished. having an extra player on the field is wrong and should be punished. taking 2 steps back when on the mark has never be wrong in the 125 years the VFL/AFL has existed, but is now punished the same.
Straw man argument. Rule changes that were aimed at improving the game, and have stood the test of time do not have any relationship to this rule change. I predict this rule will become a joke and be canned. The AFL will spin it as a worthwhile experiment.
Here is the thing, this is meant to be a world-class, best-practise organisation. What was the assessment process for this? Does anyone know? Get a few mates down to the park and see what they look like when they make like statues? It is an embarrassing joke.
The free-kick recipient or marker'd duel with the man on the mark is one of the most fundamental elements of our game, it is or was brutally simple, don't go over it if you're on the mark, kick over or run around if you have the ball.
It would seem that the AFL have finally found a use for the Crow’s power stance. That’s how the player on the mark will now be required to stand.
Ahead of their time they were.
GWS took it one step further in 2019 by applying it to the whole game after the first 15 minutes.
There ya go TBR. Nothing to do with the coaches. It's all these meddling wankers in suits changing the rules every five minutes that have stuffed the game n made for the lowest scoring in history. All on dry perfect decks which should make rapid flowing play easy as.
Create interchange players. Create more n more players to interchange. Allow unlimited interchanges. Allow the runner to enter the ground every five seconds then spend half an hour on the ground to pass a message on to every player in the team and fill gaps on the ground while doing so. Create rules that don't allow the rucks to engage in a strength contest by forcing the umpires to separate the rucks to a satisfactory distance and also nominate who is going to jump for the tip off wasting enough time for a tribe of thirty to congregate around the contest. Create a thirty second shot clock for any player within sixty five metres of goal so they can either run the game time down or spend forever waiting for the cheat opportunity before short passing into the little hole that opened up after everyone fell asleep waiting for the shot.
Apparently there's a 5m "protected zone" around the man on the mark, so Hawthorn's tactic is out the gate. Also prevents a teammate standing directly behind the man on the mark and covering the space sideways. I guess you could have two players effectively standing the mark, side by side and 5m apart.
Wouldn't want to see 50m penalties for players going too close to teammates standing the mark...
Interesting, so what happens if an opposition player goes within 5 metres of the player on the mark? Is there a free kick to the player on the mark?
This becomes more farcical by the minute.
I'm not against change, I understand that the strategies have changed and the rules sometimes have to be changed to suit.
What I am against is the way the AFL now seem to feel a need to change at least 3 rules annually.
I am against the knee jerk reactions they come up with.
6-6-6 s**ts me because it goes against the nature of our game which has always been a game of no set positions and no off side. The centre square was enough to reduce congestion at the re-start and remember, that was trialled in a game between Carlton and Fitzroy a few years before being introduced (yes, a real game for 4 points).
I have no problem with the play on from a kick out either, it has become harder to get out of the defensive 50 and the little kick to yourself was becoming a bit of a farce. I am just thankful they avoided the stupidity of extending the goal square.
Flick passes were always controversial, banned in the 1920s, unbanned in the 1930s but barely used until the 1950s and 1960s, and when it did make somewhat of a comeback at some clubs in that era, it was banned again.
There's good change and bad change, this one don't look good.
Plus, there is change for the sake of change, and the sheer number of rules they seem to feel the need to change every bloody year, looks a hell of a lot like change for the sake of change. Australian Rules Football is an old game which has developed over 160 years, It is a game with a long heritage. Changes should be well considered and trialled before we mess with a great game.
DS
This becomes more farcical by the minute.
I'm not against change, I understand that the strategies have changed and the rules sometimes have to be changed to suit.
What I am against is the way the AFL now seem to feel a need to change at least 3 rules annually.
I am against the knee jerk reactions they come up with.
6-6-6 s**ts me because it goes against the nature of our game which has always been a game of no set positions and no off side. The centre square was enough to reduce congestion at the re-start and remember, that was trialled in a game between Carlton and Fitzroy a few years before being introduced (yes, a real game for 4 points).
I have no problem with the play on from a kick out either, it has become harder to get out of the defensive 50 and the little kick to yourself was becoming a bit of a farce. I am just thankful they avoided the stupidity of extending the goal square.
Flick passes were always controversial, banned in the 1920s, unbanned in the 1930s but barely used until the 1950s and 1960s, and when it did make somewhat of a comeback at some clubs in that era, it was banned again.
There's good change and bad change, this one don't look good.
Plus, there is change for the sake of change, and the sheer number of rules they seem to feel the need to change every bloody year, looks a hell of a lot like change for the sake of change. Australian Rules Football is an old game which has developed over 160 years, It is a game with a long heritage. Changes should be well considered and trialled before we mess with a great game.
DS
I'm basing my premature judgement on
Frankenstien's castle's documented history of getting this kind of stuff either wrong or very not right on a fairly regular basis. It won't ruin the game BR, it'll just make it look stupid quite often and drive me and many others round the tube again.
Does the umpire nominate the player to ’man the mark’?
I can only find a reference to the player on the mark being unable to be substituted.
The inability of say, Nank to hand off manning the mark responsibilities could cause havoc with our running patterns, and given the tighter policing of movement on the mark , expose us to potentially successive 50’s if the player with the ball is essentially faster than the nominated player on the mark.
www.afl.com.au
I can only find a reference to the player on the mark being unable to be substituted.
The inability of say, Nank to hand off manning the mark responsibilities could cause havoc with our running patterns, and given the tighter policing of movement on the mark , expose us to potentially successive 50’s if the player with the ball is essentially faster than the nominated player on the mark.
Clarity needed over 'ridiculous rule'
The new 50m penalty infringement rule has everybody baffled
www.afl.com.au
So now the 5m protected zone is another assessment for an umpire to make regarding the mark. He's watching the player on the mark to ensure he doesn't move, the player with the ball to ensure he calls play on if he moves off his line, and the area around the mark to ensure no one gets within 5m. What could go wrong?
