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

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,374
5,825
The home of Dusty
I can’t remember. Did the AFL introduce the nomination rule because they thought your point about midfielders impeding ruckman was an issue?

Yeah, it came in when the third man up was banned so they would know who the two ruckman were and see that no other player got in their path to the ball.

The problem before were that teams without good ruckman (like Hawthorn) were going third man up every time to negate the opposition. It would have driven the pure ruckman types like Natanui, Gawn etc out of the game.
 

gutfull

Tiger Superstar
Jul 6, 2013
1,884
163
Bloody disgrace if your asking me , would think past few years the % of times players played on would already be 90+% of the time , so why implement a rule that will totally *smile* the game ?.
 

yandb

Tiger Champion
Mar 24, 2004
3,370
435
I believe the issue was players who were running in to be third man up were being blocked by their opponent not realising they were contesting the ruck as well.

So it was hard on the other players getting pinged for blocking while believing that they were just minding an opponent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
1,991
2,356
So if you're standing the mark and the ump yells "STAND!" you can't move otherwise it's 50m penalty (despite the instinctiveness of wanting to impede an opponent that's playing on).

In fact, how many times have we previously seen the poor bugger on the mark looking to the ump, waiting for him to call "play on" because the opponent has run off and the ump has been slow to spot it and call it? Happens multiple times per game.

So what will the ump in control be watching? Whether the player on the mark moves laterally? Or whether the player with the ball has moved off his line? I'm sure they won't be able to do both.

In Round 1 the Maggots will be watching us like hawks, ready to whack our blokes that move laterally when on the mark.
Round 1 2018 the Scum kicked five in the first, almost all from 50m frees.

Here we go again.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 3 users

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
24,363
3,605
So if you're standing the mark and the ump yells "STAND!" you can't move otherwise it's 50m penalty (despite the instinctiveness of wanting to impede an opponent that's playing on).

In fact, how many times have we previously seen the poor bugger on the mark looking to the ump, waiting for him to call "play on" because the opponent has run off and the ump has been slow to spot it and call it? Happens multiple times per game.

So what will the ump in control be watching? Whether the player on the mark moves laterally? Or whether the player with the ball has moved off his line? I'm sure they won't be able to do both.

In Round 1 the Maggots will be watching us like hawks, ready to whack our blokes that move laterally when on the mark.
Round 1 2018 the Scum kicked five in the first, almost all from 50m frees.

Here we go again.
Yep, assume the position. Amiright @The Big Richo ?
 

craig

Tiger Legend
Aug 19, 2004
31,465
8,452
Melbourne
These clowns are just taking the *smile* now seriously.

They are @#$%@%@ the game seriously LEAVE THE F#$%$#%&#%& GAME ALONE you PEENARSES.
 

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
1,991
2,356
Rule has clearly been introduced to end our supremacy. The AFL is sick of all these big crowds and associated revenue coming into the game and want to stamp it out once and for all.
Well played TBR!

I'm all for increasing scoring, which is what this (and many other rule changes) are meant to achieve. I just hate rules being introduced because some nob thinks "this'll fix it".

What happened to the trial of if you kick backwards in D50 it's play on? Wasn't that tested in VFL/SANFL/WAFL? Or am I imagining that?
I can't recall seeing that in any game.

All I can say is where is the evidence that this will fix the "problem"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
12,332
1,786
imagine trying to get them to stand still on the mark?
i worry how Nathan Broad will cope when an opponent is having a shot.

if there is a 5-10 mtr exclusion zone then I assume if a player is having a shot for goal closer than 5-10mts no one will be allowed behind the man on the mark?
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
12,332
1,786
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.
they do, but the interpretation is different every game. it is amazing how often deliberate is paid twice for a game, against one team, then against the other soon after, but i dont think that was a bad rule change, just an example of a rule that is difficult fpor umpires to interpret, and where there is clear grey area.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
38,323
7,783
Of all the proposed rule changes of recent years, this one seems to be the hardest to get right. The only person who sounds confident is Hocking. Even the umpires I've heard discuss the rule are clear on what is meant to happen, but aren't that sure how it will go. "We need to get used to it together" is what I heard one umpire say.

Do they take bets on the # of 50m penalties given in a game? Our Rd 1 against Blues will be a beauty, and whichever match Rayzor gets. God help us if Rayzor is doing our Rd 1 match.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: 1 user

davidc0055

Tiger Rookie
May 23, 2011
265
83
I assume that the new rule is an attempt to even out the disparity that the player with the ball is told to play on after taking one step sideways, yet the player on the mark could move sideways without penalty. Is that the reasoning behind it?
 

blx

Tiger Champion
Feb 11, 2004
4,504
981
Melbourne
I assume that the new rule is an attempt to even out the disparity that the player with the ball is told to play on after taking one step sideways, yet the player on the mark could move sideways without penalty. Is that the reasoning behind it?

I would say it's because they want to speed the ball up around the ground.

Give the team with the ball every opportunity to move it on.

As if the game isn't already a hot potato mess.

It won't be long before the ball will be knocked on from one end to the other for a goal.

The AFL always tell us that they listen to the supporters and followers and are only too happy to acknowledge it when they see fit but every year we say LEAVE THE *smile* GAME ALONE!!! but no... Another senseless rule gets added just to confuse us even more. Even the umpires get confused.

All I can say is, FMD!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
1,991
2,356
The 6 - 6 - 6 rule does nothing. This was supposedly to create lots more goals from streaming out of center bounces :mad:

Bigger goal square does nothing. This was supposedly to create lots more goals from driving the ball up to the wing. So the contest is now 10m further back? Big deal :mad:

Play on out of the goal square without kicking to yourself does nothing. This was also supposedly going to create lots more goals from driving the ball up to the wing. :mad: (but I'm ok with the look of this) :cool:

So now the guy on the mark has to make like a statue, wondering if and when the dumb maggot will call play on! The rules are getting bizarre.

I'm pretty sure that the AFL has analysed the effect of each of the rules they've recently introduced and determined that they are a bust. So rather than being open about it, they bring in a new one to "fix the problem".

I just wish they would make changes based on careful analysis of results from a season of trialling in lower leagues.
Personally I don't see the "problem" with the game but that may be because the Tigers have won three of the last four :gotiges
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

year of the tiger

Tiger Legend
Mar 26, 2008
7,272
2,185
Tasmania
I assume that the new rule is an attempt to even out the disparity that the player with the ball is told to play on after taking one step sideways, yet the player on the mark could move sideways without penalty. Is that the reasoning behind it?

Yes and it would be way too logical to change the interpretation so the player with the ball could take that extra step or two and not get called to play on (apart from shots on goal) and leave the man on the mark alone.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,495
5,094
Melbourne
The 6 - 6 - 6 rule does nothing. This was supposedly to create lots more goals from streaming out of center bounces :mad:

Bigger goal square does nothing. This was supposedly to create lots more goals from driving the ball up to the wing. So the contest is now 10m further back? Big deal :mad:

Play on out of the goal square without kicking to yourself does nothing. This was also supposedly going to create lots more goals from driving the ball up to the wing. :mad: (but I'm ok with the look of this) :cool:

So now the guy on the mark has to make like a statue, wondering if and when the dumb maggot will call play on! The rules are getting bizarre.

I'm pretty sure that the AFL has analysed the effect of each of the rules they've recently introduced and determined that they are a bust. So rather than being open about it, they bring in a new one to "fix the problem".

I just wish they would make changes based on careful analysis of results from a season of trialling in lower leagues.
Personally I don't see the "problem" with the game but that may be because the Tigers have won three of the last four :gotiges

It's not just in footy, when changes are made there seems to be no analysis of the impact, and the idea of reversing a change when it demonstrably does not work is completely off the agenda.

Management speak often talks of the need to silence those who are resistant to change. There's good change and bad change, change in itself is not a good thing by default.

The AFL need to be called out on all the changes they have made to the rules which have not delivered on the result they claim they were seeking. If the change doesn't work, persisting with it is idiocy.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

tiger76

Tiger Matchwinner
Mar 26, 2014
713
703
So what are the AFL geniuses going to do when their latest rule change is stymied by teams sending a player to guard corridor space and prevent the 45 kick they’re hoping to make an easier option through hobbling the man on the mark?

Only marks inside the 50 arcs will be paid in 2022? That’ll make the game more free flowing.

Haven’t they watched the Tiges play in the last 3 years? Or is it too upsetting for them?
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
4,374
5,825
The home of Dusty
I watched a bit of the Port Adelaide intra-club today (which was a great coverage on their website, hope the RFC does the same) and the new man on the mark stuff worked without a hitch.

Was adjudicated sensibly and didn't have a huge impact. One thing I thought was good was it takes out the slight cribbing on the mark the occurs almost all the time as a player moves to go. It went from the man on the mark being able to anticipate and start to move to the player with the footy having total control which I think is a good thing.

Overall though it had a very minimal impact on the game though, changes nothing in the corridor, opens up slightly to come inboard from the boundary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users