New Rules

[Quickdraw]

Not a new rule as such but the AFL has announced the Grand Final is back to a day time slot.

Fair to say the widespread suggestion the AFL would use last year's different landscape to maintain the changes is looking pretty silly.

Maybe, TBR, but I think it's fair to say that the AFL/broadcasters would prefer a night or twilight GF.

Maybe they took the safer route this year and reverted back to a day GF so as not to cause further angst within the AFL supporters. There has already been enough this year over the man on the mark rule.

No need to further spook the herd this year. They'll do it next year.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Word has it [Hocking] studied Richmond closely while in the hub in Queensland and grew increasingly angry at how the Tigers pushed the envelope when they stood the mark.

Captain Trent Cotchin is said to have been the No. 1 culprit, or expert depending on which way you look at, when it came to shutting down the corridor by encroaching on the mark.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...e/news-story/5bfd3cb5621aceb115cb44207d08afcb

Suspicions confirmed.

These *smile* don't deserve us. Time to start flexing our muscles and threaten to take the big clubs off to a breakaway comp like we did in the 70's. *smile* you AFL *smile*.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

The AFL Prospectus have revealed the side with the toughest learning curve may be 2017 premiers and 2018 minor premiers Richmond.

The Tigers lined up in a 6-6-6 formation in just 3.4 per cent of centre bounces, compared to their favoured 7-6-5 formation, which they had 71.1 per cent of the time, while the 8-6-4 (11.5 per cent) and other formations (12.2 per cent) also had heavy workouts.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/a...s/news-story/a83ff216c168449c2edca94155c2d78d

The "Rules Committee" is effectively the Stop Richmond Committee.

 

[TigerMasochist]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/a...s/news-story/a83ff216c168449c2edca94155c2d78d

The "Rules Committee" is effectively the Stop Richmond Committee.

So we simply adjust a tad n move on to the next flag.
Rules committee is like the Cavalry in the old western movies or the Plod at illegal activities. They always rock up after the event n then hang around looking busy fixing *smile* up. Meanwhile, back at the ranch. The perps will just stick another in the cabinet.

 

[TT33]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/a...s/news-story/a83ff216c168449c2edca94155c2d78d

The "Rules Committee" is effectively the Stop Richmond Committee.

What a pathetic individual SHocking is. As if Richmond is/was the only team doing it. Nothing was said when Whorethorn were doing it for all those years, or for that matter when they blocked an opposition player on the mark, which used to really p155 me off.

This article just reinforces my thinking that this clown is out of his depth.

I have an intense dislike for the AFL, I have felt for many years that they are a corrupt organisation & things that have happened recently only reinforce that.

I love Richmond, unfortunately if I want to follow them I have to put up with the stench of the AFL.

 

[Redford]

I can see where along the boundary, the man on the mark "change" can open up the ground a bit more for movement, but is it that or the reduced rotations and coaches and players managing for that that's having the bigger impact ? I wouldn't be surprised if we see a reduction in scoring anyway when the proper stuff starts.

 

[Redford]

Another change coming - on the eve of the start of the season.

 

[TigerForce]

Another change coming - on the eve of the start of the season.

23rd man. Here comes that sub vest again....

Just get 6 on the bench.

 

[Redford]

23rd man. Here comes that sub vest again....

Just get 6 on the bench.

Yep.

 

[DavidSSS]

What gets me is that they messed with rules like standing on the mark and rotations immediately after the season. Seemed an urgent issue to make sure they had their requisite rule changes ready to go just after the season.

But real issues, like concussion, oh, they need reminding to deal with something as unimportant as the long term health of the players.

Somewhere the priorities are very screwed up.

DS

 

[MD Jazz]

Clarko controlling the AFL again??
what a ridiculous suggestion they’ve made. And a typical knee jerk reaction from the AFL. It seems they are going to agree to an injury sub going by Gil last night.

 

[TT33]

Clarko controlling the AFL again??
what a ridiculous suggestion they’ve made. And a typical knee jerk reaction from the AFL. It seems they are going to agree to an injury sub going by Gil last night.

Didn't we have an injury sub a few years ago & it was stopped because it was thought to be unnecessary.

Again the AFL demonstrates what a bunch of numptys they are.

 

[Redford]

Without seeing the finer detail yet, isn't this all largely groundhog day again with the 23-sub rule ?

If they introduce a concussion sub rule, then it's hard not to have a general medical sub-rule because as Hardwick said last night, you can't have someone go off and get substituted with concussion but yet the other team gets a broken leg and can't make a sub at all. Then, if you make it a general medical sub rule, you have all the problems we had with it the last time e.g. players faking injury so they can purposely make a substitution etc.

There's 4 on the bench. If you're left with 3 or 2 because of injury, that's footy. Deal with it. We dealt with it in a GF and won.

 

[Ridley]

Without seeing the finer detail yet, isn't this all largely groundhog day again with the 23-sub rule ?

If they introduce a concussion sub rule, then it's hard not to have a general medical sub-rule because as Hardwick said last night, you can't have someone go off and get substituted with concussion but yet the other team gets a broken leg and can't make a sub at all. Then, if you make it a general medical sub rule, you have all the problems we had with it the last time e.g. players faking injury so they can purposely make a substitution etc.

There's 4 on the bench. If you're left with 3 or 2 because of injury, that's footy. Deal with it. We dealt with it in a GF and won.

Hear hear Chumpford. This is definitely one of your least worst posts.

This incessant tinkering with rules is just garbage. SHocking is a disaster; one of the worst footy administrators I've ever witnessed. And as much as I love Dimma for what he has done for our club, I take coaches' views on these things with a grain of salt. If it was up to coaches we'd have 8 on the bench with unlimited rotations.

We used to have a 19th man, then a 20th man, then 2 man interchange, then 3 man interchange, now 4 man interchange. When does it stop? Enough is enough. Play with the cards you're dealt. We've been doing that for 4 years and have won 3 flags. It can be done.

This potential sub rule will not stop players getting concussed as some are trying to claim. As if having that sub will now mean that doctors won't be sending potentially concussed players out on to the ground! What??? That is not happening now and hasn't happened for a few years. Doctors are king in these circumstances and given what we now know about concussion there is no way they are sending players onto the ground when they shouldn't.

I heard a couple of minutes of Lethlean on SEN this morning between 25,000 ads. He was even intimating that he would like to see clubs be able to use the sub rule to help players returning from injury to be eased back into the game via minutes restrictions. . FFS they are already trying to think of ways to manipulate the rule before it is even in place.

 

[Redford]

Hear hear Chumpford. This is definitely one of your least worst posts.

This incessant tinkering with rules is just garbage. SHocking is a disaster; one of the worst footy administrators I've ever witnessed. And as much as I love Dimma for what he has done for our club, I take coaches' views on these things with a grain of salt. If it was up to coaches we'd have 8 on the bench with unlimited rotations.

We used to have a 19th man, then a 20th man, then 2 man interchange, then 3 man interchange, now 4 man interchange. When does it stop? Enough is enough. Play with the cards you're dealt. We've been doing that for 4 years and have won 3 flags. It can be done.

This potential sub rule will not stop players getting concussed as some are trying to claim. As if having that sub will now mean that doctors won't be sending potentially concussed players out on to the ground! What??? That is not happening now and hasn't happened for a few years. Doctors are king in these circumstances and given what we now know about concussion there is no way they are sending players onto the ground when they shouldn't.

I heard a couple of minutes of Lethlean on SEN this morning between 25,000 ads. He was even intimating that he would like to see clubs be able to use the sub rule to help players returning from injury to be eased back into the game via minutes restrictions. . FFS they are already trying to think of ways to manipulate the rule before it is even in place.

Hear ! Hear Chumpley Chimpley ! (Note: the use of exclamation points is mandatory. Another failure by you.)

How many rule changes can this game make ? And the interchange/bench part of the game is just one single area that they've made countless changes to over the years let alone everything else. Rule change fatigue.

Give us a break Hocking you ahole. I thought Adrian Anderson was bad (and he was) but this guy is just off the charts. It was interesting to note last night on OTC that Huge Bald Spot Healy said that the man on the mark change was definitely the "Richmond Rule."

Watch Hocking near the interchange bench just before the final siren in the 2020 GF and Hardwick comes down onto the ground. Check out the expression on his face. Says it all.

 

[DavidSSS]

The sub rule could also have the opposite effect. Don't protect players from being concussed as it doesn't leave you a player down.

Not simple in a contact sport, I really don't know what the solution is.

DS

 

[Ridley]

It was interesting to note last night on OTC that Huge Bald Spot Healy said that the man on the mark change was definitely the "Richmond Rule."

Watch Hocking near the interchange bench just before the final siren in the 2020 GF and Hardwick comes down onto the ground. Check out the expression on his face. Says it all.

Yes Brown brought that up regarding the man on the mark rule and that it was brought in to curb Richmond. And Healy supported it.

SHocking hey

 

[Redford]

Yes Brown brought that up regarding the man on the mark rule and that it was brought in to curb Richmond. And Healy supported it.

SHocking hey

Well, the ironic thing is, if the standing the mark change is what's opened up play and scoring (still thinks its the interchange limits that are largely behind it but anyway), then that does not play to Geewhinge's advantage. They need the game played in a stop start and slow fashion. It's little wonder Salty Scott, Shrugwood and Clangerfield are all 'Geewhinging' about the changes.

Thanks Shocking !!!

 

[Quickdraw]

Just curious. If a player is on the bench as the sub (23rd man) and isn't required during the game, is he credited with having played the match?
I'm pretty sure that in the past the 19th & 20th man were credited with the game even if they didn't come on. Could ba an avenue to get Marlion to 100 games if we are getting close.

One other thought. Maybe they could bring in ANOTHER RULE that says if you use the sub, the player subbed off cannot play the next game. Might stop manipulation of the sub (if it is allowed to be used for more than concussion).

 

[Redford]

One other thought. Maybe they could bring in ANOTHER RULE that says if you use the sub, the player subbed off cannot play the next game. Might stop manipulation of the sub (if it is allowed to be used for more than concussion).

Was thinking about that last night i.e. as a possible solution to not having a general medical sub rule being abused, like it was the last time.