Will the new rules beckon significant changes for Aussie Rules?

[the claw]

THE GAME HAS ALREADY LOST MY BROTHER MY DAD HAS ALMOST LOST ME AT TIMES. AND NUMEROUS FRIENDS.AND WHY BECAUSE THE DICKHEADS IN CHARGE KEEP STUFFING AROUND WITH IT.FFS WHAT WOULD K BARTLETT KNOW ABOUT TOUGH FOOTBALL.DONT THOSE IN CHARGE REALISE WE DONT HAVE TO CHANGE THE RULES JUST POLICE PROPERLY THE ONES WE ALREADY HAVE.

 

[Tango]

claw calm down, you need to buy a Bonsai plant and spend some time trimming it and mellowing out, maybe meditation and a massage
oh and by the way - take your medication :hihi :cutelaugh

 

[AstroboyUK]

It seems to me the AFL is now caught in a spiral of rule changes it will not be able to escape from. Each of these changes is leading, inevitably to another: Why do we have flooding? The simple answer is "4 on the bench" instead of the traditional 2. Inevitably now the 3pt rushed behind will come in because of the downside of the previous rule. Why have we changed the kick-out rule? - the core reason is because of flooding, but its also because the addition of the 50m line has taken individual judgement out of the game and allowed even dumb players to know where to position themselves. Why are we having a kick-for-goal time limit? Because with the 50m line players can be more mechanical about kicking for goal - and are! Why are there less big grabs in the forward line - same reason...

Why are there more ball ups? because they changed the dropping the ball and holding the man rules. When 3 and 4 players pile in on a pack now days why isnt it pushing in the back? The pile ons do not construe a legal tackle and thererfore should not be allowed. It may be a 'tie' between the first two players (held to him etc) but what's the third and 4th player doing? Theyre not tackling - especially when the first 2 players are already on the ground. Pay a few of those and the scrums end overnight.

oh and god I wish they would go back to 2 on the bench! It was only done because Sheedy agitated for it- claiming it woud 'extend older players careers' What a load of BS. Its about rotating fast one-size fits all players through the centre- which has been Sheedy's general game plan for 20 years. (Remember he's the man who practically invented 'match ups' and fast interchange changes. 4 on the bench has one of the reasons some of the physicality has gone out of the game because it makes possesion football possilble, which makes zoning and flooding possible, which means, golly... we gotta keep changing rules.

phew... got there in the end....

 

[Tigers of Old]

oh and god I wish they would go back to 2 on the bench! It was only done because Sheedy agitated for it- claiming it woud 'extend older players careers'  What a load of BS. 

Excellent post ABUK. Ironic isn't it that all clubs are now in favour of a youth policy and the game has sped up so much that players careers are at the crossroads in their late 20s. There is a lot to be said for returning to the 2 man interchange system. Cheaper too.

 

[tigeronaharley]

Coaches should always be involved in proposed rule changes
'Go Tiges ' :emblem :thumbsup

 

[Legends of 2017]

Saw an interesting 'incident' on Saturday night. I think it was Bowden who went to kick out quickly after a behind. As he was doing so, an essendon player was slow in getting out of the square. Should he have been penalized for being there? Also, if Bowden went to play on (kick it to himself in the square), then could the essendon player have tackled him, even though he never left the goalsquare? Can any of my learned colleagues help with answers to this?