-
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
Adelaide might lodge a harassment n mental intimidation complaint.
Media like Whateley often take their cues from AFL House. In 2018 when we sat on top of the ladder after six rounds and it was apparent that 2017 was no fluke, he started banging on about rule changes being needed. I have perceived sinister intent in every change since and will continue to do so.
"The price of success is eternal vigilance." Or something like that.
Didn’t he come out and say more sc
that was what I meant earlier post.
Don’t man the mark.
I have nowhere said that this is a plot against Richmond (nice straw man though), what it is, is yet another bloody rule change dreamed up by some committee which will mess with the game.
If they want to disallow the player on the mark from moving sideways, then the logical corollary is that the player in possession must not deviate off their line - they deviate it is either play on, or they have to go back and kick over the mark (remember when they enforced that one?).
If they really want to reduce rotations with the intent to create fatigue, reduce the bench to 3. FFS it used to be 2, before that it was 1, and originally there was no bench.
Maybe it will work, although the record of rule changes over the last few years is that they have had either no, or the opposite, of the intended effect.
They just keep changing the rules every year, it is a farce.
DS
If they want to disallow the player on the mark from moving sideways, then the logical corollary is that the player in possession must not deviate off their line - they deviate it is either play on, or they have to go back and kick over the mark (remember when they enforced that one?).
If they really want to reduce rotations with the intent to create fatigue, reduce the bench to 3. FFS it used to be 2, before that it was 1, and originally there was no bench.
Maybe it will work, although the record of rule changes over the last few years is that they have had either no, or the opposite, of the intended effect.
They just keep changing the rules every year, it is a farce.
DS
Apparently that is exactly what will happen i.e. “play on” will be called as soon as the player with the ball deviates off his line
Last edited:
As the mini-me contrarian, I tend to agree. I think our team's maturity, fitness and skill set advantages us whenever these rules are changed. We can adapt more quickly even if it has to change an aspect of our game to benefit.
If the AFL is really out to get us then they are doing a damn poor job of it.
Hocking was on Sen this morning, and as usual sounded like a guy not fully confident and fully aware of what he was doing. At least he wouldn't say it would increase scoring.
I'll believe that when I see it, and see it consistently.
This rule may well benefit our team, but that is not the point. We are currently the best team going around so most things will benefit us.
What pisses me off is the constant rule changes and the complete, and I do mean complete, lack of any reflection on the impact of the changes, and willingness to review whether the changes were a good idea and consider that the rule changes could be reversed if they don't work.
Let the game evolve and stop fiddling around every 5 minutes.
DS
They should wind the rules back to 1990s rules and play a season like that to rebase the game. There are so many ill thought out rules laid down on top of ill thought out rules that the umpires have lost the capacity to feel a game. They are too busy trying to arbitrate rules that are too technical at a speed that test low end PCs.
The more the AFL layers rules over the top of ineffectual ones, the more we're heading into a messy place. If they were honest Hocking would admit some rules have had no effect, or an opposite effect, and roll them back before trying something else. But the AFL don't make mistakes.
The more the AFL layers rules over the top of ineffectual ones, the more we're heading into a messy place. If they were honest Hocking would admit some rules have had no effect, or an opposite effect, and roll them back before trying something else. But the AFL don't make mistakes.
4 Subs. No rotations.
Stay on the ground or off for good. Manage your subs or play undermanned. Up to the coach. Wont be much congestion in the 4th quarter and the flood will disappear.
Great post...my only comment would be we are already in a messy place for all the reasons you mention.
I heard some of that. He was dreadful. Wouldn’t answer when they asked why the new rule wasn’t used in the AFLW comp. Deflected and then said ‘oh well, they don’t need the rule, because they don’t move on the mark.’ Tried to justify 6x6x6 saying that it didn’t increase scoring , but that’s ok because now everyone is used to the rule. WTF?
They may see more footage and understand more about the game than we do, but it does not follow that this means they have better solutions to whatever problems they think the game has.
Their track record speaks for itself. It is the AFL's rules committee, or whatever they are called, who cited their own aim of increasing scoring a couple of years ago, made changes to make it happen, and failed, utterly failed, to produce the result they said they were aiming for. They are the ones who set the goal for the rule changes to achieve, yet it failed and that is apparently fine.
To make an analogy with climate scientists is patently absurd. Climate scientists publish data, publish actual findings, create models and then compare with what actually happens. They change their views based on the data they discover.
Hocking gets asked about 6-6-6 not leading to increased scoring and his reply is that everyone is used to it so let's leave it despite the fact it did not achieve the goal they themselves set.
There is no comparison, science works on disproving hypotheses, Hocking and co work on ignoring any challenge to their hypotheses.
To give another example, the powers that be at the AFL keep insisting that the game is too long and they need to shorten it. Apparently we don't have the attention span to watch a whole game (funny, the crowds are bigger now and the number of TV viewers is huge). But, hey, never let evidence get in the way of an unproved hypothesis. Have these morons ever tried to watch the Super Bowl? They're lucky to fit that into only 1 day.
In any case, last time I watched Australian Rules Football is a fast paced exciting game with a very large fan base, record attendances (ok, not 2020), record membership numbers - gee there must be something wrong with it
DS
Their track record speaks for itself. It is the AFL's rules committee, or whatever they are called, who cited their own aim of increasing scoring a couple of years ago, made changes to make it happen, and failed, utterly failed, to produce the result they said they were aiming for. They are the ones who set the goal for the rule changes to achieve, yet it failed and that is apparently fine.
To make an analogy with climate scientists is patently absurd. Climate scientists publish data, publish actual findings, create models and then compare with what actually happens. They change their views based on the data they discover.
Hocking gets asked about 6-6-6 not leading to increased scoring and his reply is that everyone is used to it so let's leave it despite the fact it did not achieve the goal they themselves set.
There is no comparison, science works on disproving hypotheses, Hocking and co work on ignoring any challenge to their hypotheses.
To give another example, the powers that be at the AFL keep insisting that the game is too long and they need to shorten it. Apparently we don't have the attention span to watch a whole game (funny, the crowds are bigger now and the number of TV viewers is huge). But, hey, never let evidence get in the way of an unproved hypothesis. Have these morons ever tried to watch the Super Bowl? They're lucky to fit that into only 1 day.
In any case, last time I watched Australian Rules Football is a fast paced exciting game with a very large fan base, record attendances (ok, not 2020), record membership numbers - gee there must be something wrong with it
DS
'Stand' free paid again in WC/Freo game. Audible groan throughout AFL community. It's the stupidest new rule ever devised. Kill it now.
Farcical buddys arc used by Joe Daniher, umpire forgets to call play on (or calls it too late) so he has shot on goal from outside 50 with effectively no one on the mark. Who could of predicted that this rule would be a joke - oh that's right 99% of us.
