New Rules | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • 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

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
38,323
7,783
Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.
hands in the back
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Disco

Tiger Champion
Dec 4, 2004
2,990
1,036
Melbourne
Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.
I would argue that the ruck nomination rule achieves SFA and as such, is useless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

larabee

#13!
Jun 11, 2010
2,137
1,292
Tigerland
Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.
The exclusion zone.
Applied haphazardly, differnent umpires have different ideas of how far 10 metres is, and a 50 metre penalty for an act that has absolutely zero impact on anyone is too severe.

This new rule will be the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

Disco

Tiger Champion
Dec 4, 2004
2,990
1,036
Melbourne
The exclusion zone.
Applied haphazardly, differnent umpires have different ideas of how far 10 metres is, and a 50 metre penalty for an act that has absolutely zero impact on anyone is too severe.

This new rule will be the same.
This new rule is all about scoring.
But we know how their past foray into that worked.........lowest year of scoring since the 60’s.
 

No left foot

Tiger Cub
Aug 30, 2020
18
46
Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.
Touch a player with your studs in a marking contest, free kick. JR happy about that one.

Forceful contact below the knees, hardly ever paid correctly.

Suspension for accidental head clash that occurs during a legal hip and shoulder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,374
5,825
The home of Dusty
hands in the back

The 'Richo' version or the more recent change? I thought the previous rule was perfect, took away grey area and made it if you touch the back it's a free. Took away the diagnosis of a push v a player throwing themselves forward.

I would argue that the ruck nomination rule achieves SFA and as such, is useless.

How else can you only have the two intended players contest the ruck without being impeded?

The exclusion zone.
Applied haphazardly, differnent umpires have different ideas of how far 10 metres is, and a 50 metre penalty for an act that has absolutely zero impact on anyone is too severe.

This new rule will be the same.
Touch a player with your studs in a marking contest, free kick. JR happy about that one.

Forceful contact below the knees, hardly ever paid correctly.

Suspension for accidental head clash that occurs during a legal hip and shoulder.

Most of those examples are about the implementation of the rule by the umpires/tribunal, not the rule itself.

I'd still argue none of the above has had any real negative impact on the game.
 

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
14,575
9,640
Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.

the sub rule (and maybe 19th man?) was tough on individual players (fringe, serial subs who got 20 mins of footy in a month)?

some rules have been a total debacle at lower grade footy (e.g ive seen interpretations of DOB decide several 'important' games, impacting on juniors enjoyment)

its not a rule, but Selwood ducking degrades the game IMO.

Any rule that has a high degree of subjectivity (mind reading in the case of DOB), is consistently frustrating to the viewer

But Id probably nominate DOB as the shittest rule change. if it was simply an OB rule, it would take some getting used to and change the game, but still be better than DOB
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
1,991
2,356
I'm not against rule changes, but I have a real problem with bringing in new or modified rules where they have not been tested/trialed and analysed at say VFL, SANFL, WAFL level etc.

The rules should not change just because some bloke in Bullsh!t Castle has a bright idea that will supposedly fix a perceived problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,374
5,825
The home of Dusty
the sub rule (and maybe 19th man?) was tough on individual players (fringe, serial subs who got 20 mins of footy in a month)?

some rules have been a total debacle at lower grade footy (e.g ive seen interpretations of DOB decide several 'important' games, impacting on juniors enjoyment)

its not a rule, but Selwood ducking degrades the game IMO.

Any rule that has a high degree of subjectivity (mind reading in the case of DOB), is consistently frustrating to the viewer

But Id probably nominate DOB as the shittest rule change. if it was simply an OB rule, it would take some getting used to and change the game, but still be better than DOB

I think the sub rule was a good way to even the game in the event of injuries and I'd like to see it back in that format.

The deliberate out of bounds is always contentious but I maintain it is just because most people don't understand how it is applied and the name causes a lot of confusion in that.

The word deliberate is confusing because it isn't applied as deliberate, it can be accidental and it is still a free kick. It's an important distinction because otherwise the umpires have to be mind readers.

The umpires don't talk about 'deliberate', they talk about 'insufficient intent', ie you have to show you intended to keep the ball in play.

Next time you see a ball go out of bounds ask yourself if the player had a legitimate other option they were trying to execute. It doesn't include trying to stop it before the line so essentially they need a team mate or the goals in the area when the ball went out. Kick the ball 30 metres and it goes out with no team mate around = free kick, do the same with a team mate at the spot and it's a throw in.

When you look at it through that lens the rule is very consistently applied and well understood by the players.
 

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
14,575
9,640
1. I think the sub rule was a good way to even the game in the event of injuries and I'd like to see it back in that format.


2. When you look at it through that lens the rule is very consistently applied and well understood by the players.

1. Agree the rule was fine, but pointed out it was very hard on the sub player. I think a concussion sub is a great idea, but tweek it to protect the sub player??

2. disagree its consistently applied but dont blame the umps, I blame the rule maker. barristers use 'intent' as a euphemism for Maseratis and beach houses.

plus, its important to understand I was commenting from a grassroots level as well. A lot of people (in AFL house) forget that these rules get applied to kids.

I havnt got words that capture the true absurdity of watching a 13 year old kid in her first game of AFL, getting planted in a back pocket, and getting pinned for DOB by a 12 yo umpire, after she dropped her first ever kick from above her head and just caught a boot stud.

the same will happen with the no movement mark rule. They feed kids red frogs at 1/4 time these days. imagine trying to get them to stand still on the mark?
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Disco

Tiger Champion
Dec 4, 2004
2,990
1,036
Melbourne
How else can you only have the two intended players contest the ruck without being impeded?
Does it need to be "intended"?
Just let any 2 players contest the ruck - no need to nominate. If a 3rd goes up, free kick paid against that team.....simples.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,374
5,825
The home of Dusty
Does it need to be "intended"?
Just let any 2 players contest the ruck - no need to nominate. If a 3rd goes up, free kick paid against that team.....simples.

So how do you stop the opposition engaging the player with a midfielder to prevent them running at the ball and claiming they didn't know they were the ruckman?
 

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
14,575
9,640
So how do you stop the opposition engaging the player with a midfielder to prevent them running at the ball and claiming they didn't know they were the ruckman?


1. if a free isnt awarded for holding the man, or
2. blocking, and
3. the ruckman doesn't squash or barge over the mid, then
4. they are a mid down at the stoppage?
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
38,323
7,783
So how do you stop the opposition engaging the player with a midfielder to prevent them running at the ball and claiming they didn't know they were the ruckman?

I'd have an exclusion zone of 5m around the umpire where only the two players contesting are allowed in the 5m exclusion zone. If a team has two players in there, free kick
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,374
5,825
The home of Dusty
1. if a free isnt awarded for holding the man, or
2. blocking, and
3. the ruckman doesn't squash or barge over the mid, then
4. they are a mid down at the stoppage?

It doesn't need to be illegal. You can engage physically at a stoppage legally, you can put body on them, bump, or even just stand in front. The ruckman is far more likely to give away a free trying to go through them. Then if the other side does it too you end up with ball-ups not being contested and ending in a scrum every time.

I'd have an exclusion zone of 5m around the umpire where only the two players contesting are allowed in the 5m exclusion zone. If a team has two players in there, free kick

Would that be less complicated than having two guys put their hands up to say they are rucking?
 

Disco

Tiger Champion
Dec 4, 2004
2,990
1,036
Melbourne
So how do you stop the opposition engaging the player with a midfielder to prevent them running at the ball and claiming they didn't know they were the ruckman?
What did we do before the nomination rule came in?
Was the game less for it?
I don’t think so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,374
5,825
The home of Dusty
What did we do before the nomination rule came in?
Was the game less for it?
I don’t think so.

But anyone could go up then so it wasn't an issue.

I can't see anyway you can have a no-third man up rule and not nominate ruckman. It can't work unless everyone knows who is who.

Going back to anything goes is a different argument but personally I'd rather see the ruckman allowed to compete without being jumped on by midfielders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Disco

Tiger Champion
Dec 4, 2004
2,990
1,036
Melbourne
But anyone could go up then so it wasn't an issue.

I can't see anyway you can have a no-third man up rule and not nominate ruckman. It can't work unless everyone knows who is who.

Going back to anything goes is a different argument but personally I'd rather see the ruckman allowed to compete without being jumped on by midfielders.
I can’t remember. Did the AFL introduce the nomination rule because they thought your point about midfielders impeding ruckman was an issue?
Any holding or blocking should incur a free kick, much like it should against taggers.
We never allow front on contact in a marking contest but turn a blind eye to it at stoppages, but I digress.
I honestly can’t remember it being that much of an issue of 3rd man up that warranted a rule change.