Rule Change number-1352987450425420723639578042 | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

Rule Change number-1352987450425420723639578042

blx

blx

Tiger Champion
Feb 11, 2004
4,511
989
Melbourne
Rule Change number-1352987450425420723639578042

A 50m penalty will now be taken from where ever the ball is positioned at the time of the free or from the middle of the ground whichever is the most advantageous.

Did i hear right that they're gonna bring in another pathetic rule next year without any trial again?
 
Are you perhaps talking about the new interchange rule? If teams have 19 players on the field they will face a free kick and 50m penalty.
 
nup, this was mentioned on the 7am news this morning as a totally new rule.

i might have heard it wrong, but im pretty sure that thats what i heard.

it was mentioned after they announced the new interchange rule.

Gee this current regime is so money driven its changing the fabric of this game ever so slowly.

at the burgs match on the weekend i could not believe how much the contested ball was being policed out of the game.

it was fair dinkum like Netball where you get penalised for even touching another player.

Dont get me wrong i love Netball, its just that this is a contact sport and if that level od policing happens in footy like it did on the weekend then one can only summise that this game is changing to a more non-contact sport.

i just hope they trial this new rule in the NAB first.

i know it used to be 15m but why would you want to make a change to a rule thats had no problems in 150years???

then do it without trialing it first???
 
The centre of the ground bit is the change, right?

I'm having a bit of trouble getting my head around this one.

Are they saying that if there's a 50m incident at the HBF the 50m is measured from the centre of the ground?

By centre do they mean centre point or a central line along the x or y axis? Which axis? In other words are they trying to bring the ball into the corridor or to a more forward position?

And I forgot to mention death to them all.
 
yup i did hear it wrong apparently it is tied in with the interchange rule and this is how it goes ...

a free kick will be awarded when:

# A team has 19 men on the field (this includes a situation where a replacement player enters the playing surface before his teammate has left the playing surface);

# A player enters the field before his interchange is approved by the interchange steward (in the case of Swans’ player Jesse White in round six no interchange involving the player had been approved by the interchange steward);

# A player does not enter or leave the playing surface through the interchange area (previously he was disqualified from participating in any of the remainder of the match).

The field umpire will award a free kick from wherever play was stopped or the centre circle, whichever is the greater penalty. A 50m penalty will then be applied.

my bad, sorry folks but thats what happens when you use the radio to wake you up at 6:59am :hihi

so in answer to your q about the centre dyer, there it is.
 
Ta, blx.

So this is one of those classic AFL rule changes.

Every time I think of Adrian Anderson I see him bolting a stable door and hear the sound of hooves in the distance.
 
Good rule change. The penalty needs to be immediate so we prevent arbitrational and legal threats once games are completed. It's disappointing that it took a serious breach of the 19th man rule to effect a change. But all's well that ends well I suppose - unless you follow the Kangas that is.

This certainly isn't a rule that needs trialling or waiting until the end of the year. The old rule was archaic. Dump it and get something better in place asap is the way to go. It's not like it's going to change the game we love, or anything like that.
 
blx said:
The field umpire will award a free kick from wherever play was stopped or the centre circle, whichever is the greater penalty. A 50m penalty will then be applied.
Click to expand...

So basically it ends up being a free kick close to goals no matter what. The funniest part of the new rule is that clubs will have to give the interchange steward a note with the interchange details on it, how unprofessional will it look to have post it type notes flying all over the place.

Personally I think its the AFL's way of finding a backdoor method of restricting interchanges, which I actually agree they should do, but they should be up front about it.
 
IanG said:
Personally I think its the AFL's way of finding a backdoor method of restricting interchanges, which I actually agree they should do, but they should be up front about it.
Click to expand...

Right you are, IanG. But that's not their style.
 
It's a great rule. Swans would have lost as they should have. The only change I'd make is you may as well just give a free 25 metres out instead of the interpretive ifs and buts form the centreline garbage.
 
I don't think this change will have much effect other than tightening up the process.
Non event IMO and I honestly doubt we'll ever see it in a game now that it has been introduced.
 
hopper said:
Good rule change. The penalty needs to be immediate so we prevent arbitrational and legal threats once games are completed. It's disappointing that it took a serious breach of the 19th man rule to effect a change. But all's well that ends well I suppose - unless you follow the Kangas that is.

This certainly isn't a rule that needs trialling or waiting until the end of the year. The old rule was archaic. Dump it and get something better in place asap is the way to go. It's not like it's going to change the game we love, or anything like that.
Click to expand...

It would be fair to say that the current administration have turned reaction into an art form. Being proactive? Ummmm...whassat?
 
It's a good rule change and doesn't need to be trialled. It will hardly ever be enforced because clubs will ensure that they do the interchanges properly or risk handing the opposition an almost certain goal. The old rule relied on the captain being aware of 19 players on the ground which allowed Roos to get away with it against North.
 
Another *smile* knee jerk reaction by the Nazis in corporate suits.
These mental gnomes have known from the preseason that there were huge problems with the interchange system.
They fined a couple of clubs but did nothing to rectify the problem. Needless to say there was a stuff up in the real season.
The gutless wonders then took the cheap and nasty way out by insisting that nothing could be done as the Kangas didn't follow the rules by calling for a head count ( they found it easy enough to change the rules after the fact when Freo played the Saints in Tassie).
Now mid season they invent another ruling to not simply remove the need for the captain to call for a head count and give the controlling steward the right to stop play and call for a count.
Now we need two stewards, a revamped interchange area and a note from your mother nicely asking for permission to enter the ground to play.
Worst of all, instead of having your score wiped for CHEATING it now costs you one measly goal, pretty harmless if your six or ten goals in front.
Is it any wonder I just love Dimi and the boys, specially Dimi's little mate Joylene Anderson.
 
nothing wrong with the rule, too hard for a captain to call a count these days with the speed of rotations, the speed of the game, and the fact he will be punished by the AFL if the count is "all clear"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< 6 Day break - a myth? | Cogs is availiable, who goes? >
Top Bottom