One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: one-eyed on August 11, 2010, 03:22:55 PM

Title: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: one-eyed on August 11, 2010, 03:22:55 PM
Laws of the Game committee proposals

AFL general manager football operations Adrian Anderson today said he had written to all 17 AFL clubs, seeking their stuff on the key Laws of the Game topics that are up for discussion for the 2011 Toyota AFL Premiership Season.

Mr Anderson said that after consulting with clubs and key stakeholders throughout the season, the laws committee had put forward seven proposals for stuff from the football community. Following this final round of consultation, a final set of proposals would then be considered by the AFL executive and Commission later this year.

View the full Laws of the Game proposals document by clicking (PDF document will open in a new window)
http://afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/laws_050810_v3.pdf

The proposals for stuff are:

1. Restricting interchange by one of the following methods:
(a) Three interchange players and one substitute player
(b) Two interchange players and two substitute players
(c) Cap of 80 interchanges per match (including changes at breaks)

2. Length of game: adjust the timing of quarters to keep the average length between 29-30 minutes

3. Advantage rule: player not umpire decides if there is an advantage (as per 2010 NAB Cup trial)

4. Boundary umpires pay free kicks for holding and high contact at stoppages (as per 2010 NAB Cup trial)

5. Free kick against player who drags ball under opponent (as per 2010 NAB Cup trial)

6. Rough conduct (shepherd): make consistent with head down over the ball rule so that a player who shepherds is guilty of a reportable offence if he makes forceful contact to the head or neck, unless the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the shepherding player

7. Scoring system: If a ball hits the posts inside the goal-scoring area and goes through, it remains a goal. If a ball hits the posts inside the point-scoring area and goes through, it remains a point

Mr Anderson said the AFL was also seeking the public's stuff on these topics, and supporters can respond via afl.com.au.

Full article at:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/100109/default.aspx
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: Ramps on August 11, 2010, 03:25:35 PM
1a for me
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: wayne on August 11, 2010, 03:42:05 PM
1a for me

Same for me.

Also, rule 5, umpires are having a tough time with the regulation holding the ball rule, why make it harder for them?
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: one-eyed on August 11, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Here's the survey webpage to give your opinion

http://www.afl.com.au/aflrulesyoursay/tabid/16504/default.aspx
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: mightytiges on August 11, 2010, 05:53:39 PM
Here's a original idea - how about we leave the rules of the game alone for once and let the game evolve naturally as it should ::).

1. Restricting interchange by one of the following methods:
(a) Three interchange players and one substitute player
(b) Two interchange players and two substitute players
(c) Cap of 80 interchanges per match (including changes at breaks)
This only makes any sense if one side cops an injury early on in the game and they can't rotate the bench as much compared to their opponents. So if there has to be a change then 1a makes some sense. The 3 interchanges players are rotated tactically while the interchange is the spare. It still doesn't solve the rare times when a side is unlucky and is left with 2, 1 or no-one on the bench. Injuries are just part of the game and it's just bad luck. Sometime you gain from it and sometimes you are disadvantaged. Swings and roundabouts. Altering the interchange won't solve every situation and coaches will find new ways to abuse and take advantage of whatever system is in place.

Quote
2. Length of game: adjust the timing of quarters to keep the average length between 29-30 minutes
Pass. Sheesh I remember some quarters in the "old" days going for 35 mins plus.

Quote
3. Advantage rule: player not umpire decides if there is an advantage (as per 2010 NAB Cup trial)
Pass. It's the umpire's job to officiate the game.

Quote
4. Boundary umpires pay free kicks for holding and high contact at stoppages (as per 2010 NAB Cup trial)
Not the worse idea but why limit it to just certain frees. Either leaves things as they are or turn them into field umps positioned on the other side of a stoppage. The problem with that though is the talent pool for AFL standard umps is very thin as it is.
 
Quote
5. Free kick against player who drags ball under opponent (as per 2010 NAB Cup trial)
The umps are having enough trouble as it is to get the existing interpretations right let alone adding more interpretations.

Quote
6. Rough conduct (shepherd): make consistent with head down over the ball rule so that a player who shepherds is guilty of a reportable offence if he makes forceful contact to the head or neck, unless the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the shepherding player
I'm guessing this is a reaction to the Josh Kennedy shepherd on Colin Sylvia in the preseason which broke Sylvia's jaw. Doesn't a rule for illegal high contact already exist and the MRP is meant to be there to judge whether the illegal shepherd is worthy of a report?

Quote
7. Scoring system: If a ball hits the posts inside the goal-scoring area and goes through, it remains a goal. If a ball hits the posts inside the point-scoring area and goes through, it remains a point
The most stupid suggestion of the lot by daylight. Let's just change a fundamental aspect of the game because there are 3 mistakes a year out of the 5000 or so goals kicked. Furthermore this will just replace one uncertainty with a new one. So typical of the AFL's rule changes over the past 5 years under dopey Anderson. Tries to solve one problem that he only sees as a major issue by creating new problems which in turn he needs to create new rules for to "fix". Hey Anderson what happens when the ball hits the post and rolls along the goal-line and the goal ump calls it play on when the ball was actually over the line or the goal ump calls a goal when the ball was still partly inside the line and in play. Imagine the uproar. Yep AA let's change the game fundamentally and create new uncertainties and difficulties for the goal umps  :banghead.

Adrian Anderson is complete and utter moron. He goes on SEN just now that he wants to keep the game as the best spectacle it is but by changing the rules every 5 minutes he mustn't think it is  ???. Sack the little twirp please!  :banghead
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: WilliamPowell on August 11, 2010, 06:45:35 PM
One minute they want to keep the game flowing and not slow it down

Now they want to slow it down

PASS ON ALL

Leave it bloody well alone for gawd's sake  :banghead :banghead


Adrian Anderson is complete and utter moron. He goes on SEN just now that he wants to keep the game as the best spectacle it is but by changing the rules every 5 minutes he mustn't think it is  ???. Sack the little twirp please!  :banghead

Post of the decade  :clapping
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: Rodgerramjet on August 11, 2010, 07:21:35 PM
Great decision by the AFL to cap the interchange to 80 should have been done 2 years ago when it first started to be abused. If I had my way i'd make it 60 or less, there is no way in hell that a side needs that many interchanges a match its crap.
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: mightytiges on August 11, 2010, 08:28:22 PM
One minute they want to keep the game flowing and not slow it down

Now they want to slow it down

PASS ON ALL

Leave it bloody well alone for gawd's sake  :banghead :banghead
:clapping  :thumbsup

Adrian Anderson just makes it up as he goes along  :banghead
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: wayne on August 12, 2010, 09:05:05 AM
The most stupid suggestion of the lot by daylight. Let's just change a fundamental aspect of the game because there are 3 mistakes a year out of the 5000 or so goals kicked.

What about the history of the game?

Do we go back in time and watch every shot at goal Ablett, Lockett or Dunstall ever had and give them goals for posters they may have kicked, or do we have an asterisk next to future champion goalkickers' names saying that although they have beaten Lockett's record, we counted posters in their overall tally??  ???
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: one-eyed on August 13, 2010, 04:37:13 AM
KB defended the new proposed laws yesterday ....

Bartlett said on his SEN radio program this morning that his committee try to be "one step in front" … of trends in football "so serious things (injuries) don't happen to players."

He says if fans are so happy with football the way it is, they have rule changes over the past five years to thank.

Bartlett compared his committee's work to changes in road laws aimed to avoid accidents.

Bartlett used his program this morning to canvas stuff on the rule changes, apparently one of the methods he uses to determine which aspects of the game are tampered with.

"All these areas that are being looked at have been talking points on this program for starters."


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bartlett-defends-rule-change-proposals-20100812-120b1.html
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: Tigermonk on August 13, 2010, 04:08:08 PM
Leave the game as it is in fact of the removed some of the stupid rules the umpires would have more brains & make less mistakes

get rid of Anderson & Demetriou & put someone who likes football & not money in charge
And as much as l respect KB l think he needs to retire & travel the world  ;D
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: one-eyed on August 13, 2010, 06:52:56 PM
Hard to see the "goal off the post" one getting up when Demetriou said today even he is against such a change.
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: RollsRoyce on August 13, 2010, 08:25:08 PM
I think the theory with capping the number of interchanges is to stop this mega-flooding, lockdown tyle of game that has become so prevalent.
If the players don't have the amount of rest necessary to do the kind of up and down gut-running this style entails,theoretically the game will open up. Not surprisingly the loudest voice of dissent to this proposed change is Mick Malthouse,currently the worst exponent of this horrid, ugly, stifling style of congested rubbish.
If the theory works, then I'm all for it as a means to returning to an open, man-on-man, high scoring free flowing game. But I'm not convinced that an interchange cap in itself is enough.
Leigh Matthews posited a radical solution in The Age yesterday that I think has a lot of merit, whereby a rule keeping 8 players per team at one end of the ground at ALL times could be introduced. I love the idea. I know a lot of you will jump up and down on this and say "leave the game alone". But you'd be the same ones complaining that you hate all the backwards, sideways keepings-off junk we currently have to endure.
The point is, the game wont fix itself, or evolve past this sorry state as many say, as long as tossers like Malthouse, Paul Roos, and Ross Lyon continue to shamelessly "uglify" the game in their pursuit of a flag.
Hell, even Dean Bailey was copying Mick's trick's last week. Does anyone remember how long the ball was locked up in our forward line going nowhere because he had the full-team "press" on? Something HAS to be done to stop this CRAP!   
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: Penelope on August 13, 2010, 08:56:46 PM
If they really wanted to open the game up they'd just get rid of the wings.
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: mightytiges on August 13, 2010, 10:34:36 PM
If the rules had been left alone over the past 5 years (excluding the ruck rule to prevent PCL injuries) and just allowed the game to evolve naturally the AFL wouldn't need to bring in more rule changes to fix the problems the initial rule changes caused. Let's see the AFL and in particular Anderson are complaining about the speed of the game now yet they were the ones who changed the kick-in rule and brought in rules to reduce stoppages to speed the game up. Go Figure! They are making it up as they go along  :scream.

Also remember it was only 4 years ago that non-Vic teams dominated the top 8 and there was supposedly a crisis in Vic football. Guess what no one touched anything and now Vic clubs dominate the top 8. Dopey Anderson needs to realise the game has evolved fine without his compulsive needs to intervene to "save it" and "fix it"  ::).

If they really wanted to open the game up they'd just get rid of the wings.
Spot on. That's the simplest solution - reducing the numbers on the field so there's more gaps in zones/floods and what's more it doesn't require a massive change to the rules. You should apply for AFL CEO al  ;).
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: RollsRoyce on August 14, 2010, 08:33:11 AM
Yes, but MT the game doesn't "evolve naturally". People have been saying for years that the game will evolve past all the flooding, but it's been stuffed like this ever since the days of Rocket Eade in Sydney, and Terry Wallace's "basketball crap" to counter Essendon in 2000. That's a helluva long time. And if anything, it's getting worse.
Now we have Collingwood sending a full-team "press" down when the opposition kicks in to lock the ball in their forward line, and Merry Mick making 150-160 interchanges per game to ensure everybody's rested up sufficiently to keep doing it.
When will it end? Why should we just leave it alone to work itself out?? It hasn't improved in 10 years. Its' gotten worse. Somebody needs to remind these win-at-all-costs-coaches that they are in the ENTERTAINMENT industry. And the last time I checked, there was nothing in the least bit entertaining about footy constipation.
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: mightytiges on August 14, 2010, 08:33:16 PM
Yes, but MT the game doesn't "evolve naturally". People have been saying for years that the game will evolve past all the flooding, but it's been stuffed like this ever since the days of Rocket Eade in Sydney, and Terry Wallace's "basketball crap" to counter Essendon in 2000. That's a helluva long time. And if anything, it's getting worse.
Now we have Collingwood sending a full-team "press" down when the opposition kicks in to lock the ball in their forward line, and Merry Mick making 150-160 interchanges per game to ensure everybody's rested up sufficiently to keep doing it.
When will it end? Why should we just leave it alone to work itself out?? It hasn't improved in 10 years. Its' gotten worse. Somebody needs to remind these win-at-all-costs-coaches that they are in the ENTERTAINMENT industry. And the last time I checked, there was nothing in the least bit entertaining about footy constipation.
Coaches will work to use and bend to the max. whatever rules exist though RR. Cap the interchange and some new tactic will come into play to exploit the new rule. Sadly for those who grew up with old school footy, the days of positional play and two opponents playing on each other for the whole 4 quarters has joined suburban grounds and the drop kick in the ancient history books. No amount of rule changes will turn back the clock.

The game hasn't evolved 100% naturally over the past decade because that moron Anderson changes the rules every 5 minutes to fix the problems created by previous rules he's introduced :banghead. In any case the game has evolved in spite of Anderson's compulsive problems. The flood of Sydney under Eade where everyone was behind the ball bar two players no longer exists. We've gone from the defensive flood (Sydney) to a midfield flood (Hawthorn) to a forward press/flood (Collingwood). That change has got nothing to do with rotations. It's all tactical. Nothing stops other clubs rotating even more than Collingwood does. They just have the personnel to be able to forward press so effectively. It's up to other clubs/coaches to counter it. Who knows Geelong may destroy it in finals or on Grand Final day when the pressure goes up. Seeing Geelong tonight they are back to their best and they don't rely on any fancy pressing. The fact is apart from 2005 and 2008 the premiers over the past decade played on their merits rather than special tactics.

The reason IMO a number of games are dull affairs is because at least 2/3rds of the teams in the AFL are crap and/or too young. The standard across the comp. has fallen and there's a massive chasm between the top sides and the rest. That won't change for a couple of years yet when the mature sides start losing their best players via retirements and the up and comers start hitting their peak.
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: RollsRoyce on August 14, 2010, 11:56:15 PM
But this is my point MT. When left to its' own devices, the only "evolution" that the game has undergone is from a defensive flood, to a midfield flood, to a forward line flood. Wowee. It's all still flooding.
If an interchange cap wont work, then FFS, let's try something more radical, and like Leigh Matthews suggests, enforce having an 8 player per team in one end of the ground rule. All you need is a linesman on each boundary line.
Sheesh, if we can borrow all the crappy things from soccer that make it so dull, surely we can borrow an off-side type rule to make footy exciting again.
I'm dead-set so disillusioned with the modern game that I feel like giving it away many times. It's only my ongoing emotional investment in the Tigers that keeps me coming back 
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: mightytiges on August 16, 2010, 01:57:49 AM
But this is my point MT. When left to its' own devices, the only "evolution" that the game has undergone is from a defensive flood, to a midfield flood, to a forward line flood. Wowee. It's all still flooding.
If an interchange cap wont work, then FFS, let's try something more radical, and like Leigh Matthews suggests, enforce having an 8 player per team in one end of the ground rule. All you need is a linesman on each boundary line.
Sheesh, if we can borrow all the crappy things from soccer that make it so dull, surely we can borrow an off-side type rule to make footy exciting again.
I'm dead-set so disillusioned with the modern game that I feel like giving it away many times. It's only my ongoing emotional investment in the Tigers that keeps me coming back 
Ah I typed up a semi-lengthy reply and it crashed  :scream

True RR it's all flooding although the forward press is better than the old defensive flood as at least you see 1-on-1 contests up forward if you can break through the press. There's probably a 4th type of flood now which is flood the stoppages. Akin to little league where you have 30 guys around the ball and if you can get the ball out of there you can score fairly easily as there's a massive amount of space outside the stoppage flood and your forwards are 1-on-1 with their direct opponent. In any case all these negating tactics still occurred even though we've supposedly had all these rule changes of the past 5 years designed to open the game up. Why should further rule changes make any difference when Anderson's previous rule changes have failed their intended purpose?! Coaches have exploited the rules no matter what Anderson and the AFL have come up with.

This is just my opinion but if offside rules and netball zones came in then we might as well all pack it in. The one thing I've treasured most about Aussies Rules is the free-form nature of it. You can run anywhere. Everywhere is legal. It represents Aussie culture which is fairly carefree. I know flooding goes against that and I don't like it either but I'd rather see a Geelong with it's quick moving free game overcome these negating tactics such as St Kilda's than dramatically and fundamentally alter Football. Hang in there RR. Footy will be a hell of a lot better to watch when the Tiges are finally successful on the park  :pray.
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: RollsRoyce on August 16, 2010, 09:22:51 AM
Most of Adrian Anderson's rule tinkering has been done to speed up the game, with instant kick-ins etc, but I don't think they've done anything to free up the game as yet.
The proposal to pay a goal for hitting the post is stupid, and a complete waste of time. The possible cap on rotations is a step in the right direction, but in itself I reckon will be nowhere near enough to "de-congest" the game. A reduction of the number of players on the bench would be more effective. But I still wish the media would keep driving Leigh Matthews proposal until it gains public momentum, rather than being a one-off article that will be tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper.
Just one last point on our recent Melbourne game. What frustrated me so much about that match was, we spent the first 10 minutes of the match with the ball in our forward line, but couldn't buy a goal with the massive press they had on. Jack had three on him at all times, every bit of space was clogged up, and the pill was just bouncing around like a pinball. Then inevitably we lost posession,its' swept upfield in the blink of an eye, and bang,they get a goal from their first entry because the other end of the field's as open as a prairie. This more or less happened all day. Then to rub salt into the wound, Bailey and the media carp on endlessly about what a great job Frawley had done on Jack, as if he'd played a lone hand.
This to me is modern footy in a nutshell, and guess what. IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!       
Title: Fans' call: three plus sub is way to go (afl)
Post by: one-eyed on August 16, 2010, 06:30:52 PM
Fans' call: three plus sub is way to go
By Adam McNicol
Mon 16 August, 2010


ALMOST 12,000 people have so far responded to the AFL rules survey, with many supporting the introduction of a substitute as a way to reduce the number of rotations in games.

At present, 51.7 percent of respondents believe the league should reduce the number of interchange players to three and complement them with one substitute.

The option to cap the number of interchanges to 80 per game has also proved popular, with almost 39 percent of voters favouring that idea.

But less than 10 percent of votes have supported a system involving two interchange players and two substitutes.

Footy fans have until Wednesday to complete the survey.

“A lot of the comments provided by people demonstrate that they’ve thought about it carefully and have been genuine with their stuff, and we’re very grateful for that,” AFL operations manager Adrian Anderson said on Monday.

“When it comes to the interchange situation, there are some mixed responses.

“We will continue explaining why we think it is an important issue for the laws committee to look at, and fairness is a key aspect of that.

“Melbourne was no doubt disadvantaged by having Aaron Davey out of the game early and not being able to rotate as much as Hawthorn.

“You always get examples when a team can still win with injuries, but our research shows the increasing rotations are making it harder to win when you go a player down than it was in the past.”

There have been clear-cut responses to a number of other potential rule changes put up for discussion, while the idea to change the scoring system has also garnered little support.

Almost 80 percent of respondents believe a ball that hits the goal post should always be registered as a behind.

Around 75 percent believe a ball that hits the behind post should always be treated as having gone out of bounds on the full.

“We’ll certainly factor that into our analysis,” Anderson added.

“One in five voters actually supported a change, but you’d have to say the clear majority want the scoring system to stay the way it is, even if that produces more errors.”

Almost 73 percent of voters are in favour of the player, not the umpire, deciding when to implement the advantage rule after a free kick.

Nearly 60 percent of respondents favour a free kick being paid against a player who drags the ball under an opponent.

And around 60 percent support the boundary umpires awarding free kicks for holding and high contact at stoppages.

“What we usually see in surveys of this nature is that there’s a big tendency to vote for not changing anything,” Anderson said.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/100483/default.aspx
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: mightytiges on August 20, 2010, 10:24:54 PM
Just one last point on our recent Melbourne game. What frustrated me so much about that match was, we spent the first 10 minutes of the match with the ball in our forward line, but couldn't buy a goal with the massive press they had on. Jack had three on him at all times, every bit of space was clogged up, and the pill was just bouncing around like a pinball. Then inevitably we lost posession,its' swept upfield in the blink of an eye, and bang,they get a goal from their first entry because the other end of the field's as open as a prairie. This more or less happened all day. Then to rub salt into the wound, Bailey and the media carp on endlessly about what a great job Frawley had done on Jack, as if he'd played a lone hand.
This to me is modern footy in a nutshell, and guess what. IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!       
Sorry RR missed this post. As frustrating as it was and as often we copped the sucker punch on the rebound, we can only blame ourselves for being too Jack-centric that day and not being smarter and more patient moving the ball around waiting and lowering our eyes for a leading marking option even 40-45m out. In fairness Dimma has kept our attacking forays very basic this year (old school long balls inside 50 to the forward(s)) as he's been mainly concentrating on the defensive side of our gameplan. Gary March a week or so ago mentioned that Dimma has two phases to the gameplan he is teaching. We've only had phase one so far which reading between the lines is that defensive side. Phase two will be introduced over summer. We're probably already learning this second phase in the last few weeks going by what Morton said on the radio where he said we're trying new things recently which takes time to learn.
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: the_boy_jake on August 22, 2010, 09:18:25 PM
Simple change should be to get rid of % and go to points differential to split teams on the same points.

A game with a 90-40 score line is worse than 150-100 because at least in the latter one both sides had a red hot go. This year Saints have scored 600 odd less points than the Cats, but the % doesn't reflect that.
Title: Re: Laws of the Game committee proposals
Post by: mightytiges on August 23, 2010, 02:58:19 AM
Simple change should be to get rid of % and go to points differential to split teams on the same points.

A game with a 90-40 score line is worse than 150-100 because at least in the latter one both sides had a red hot go. This year Saints have scored 600 odd less points than the Cats, but the % doesn't reflect that.
The reason points differential isn't used is it favours teams who plays regularly on the dry grounds compared to the wet.

The SANFL to be different to Victoria does for/(for + against) as their %.