One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: one-eyed on June 09, 2018, 03:52:20 PM
-
What rule will we likely see introduced next year? Whateley reveals it.
By SEN
9 June 2018
SEN footy commentator Gerard Whateley revealed one of the rules that he believes the AFL will tick off for the 2019 season.
Whateley is a part of Steve Hocking's look of the game committee that is attempting to come up with ideas to improve the spectacle of the sport.
One of the rules Whateley believes we will see next year is a longer goal square.
"This is the one thing I think will happen, we're going to see a bigger goal square," he told SEN's Crunch Time.
"You're twice as likely to score from a kick in, so moving the goalsquare out to 18 yards, you're more likely to clear the volatile space."
Whateley has revealed what he took away from the committee.
“So the mantra is how do we break the game back open?” he said.
“There’s a couple of guiding principles and these are really important. The changes have to be progressive, they are not trying to return the game to something it’s been in the past.
“They must fit with the current charter of the game – so it takes off the table, there will be no zones, no 16 players a side, there’ll be no bonus point for 100 points, that isn’t allowed within the charter.
“And finally it must honour the heritage of the game. So we’re not going to fundamentally move away from what footy has been through the years.
“This group is not a group of free-radicals that are going to change the game to something we don’t recognise, they want the game to be the best that it can be.”
Whateley also revealed what has been discussed the most so far.
"There are variations of starting points that are extremely prominent in these conversations," he said.
"Then there are proposals around stoppages around the ground and what you'll need to keep inside 50.
"You can still run anywhere once the ball's in play."
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/06/09/what-rule-will-we-likely-see-introduced-next-year-whateley-reveals-it/
Apparently the four main 'ideas' that this committee came up with were:
1) 25m goalsquare.
2) Players set in zones before centre bounces (6 forwards/6 mid/6 backs).
3) Clear last touch out of bounds is free to the opposition. Otherwise it's a throw-in.
4) 4 umpires (2 following the play plus one inside each forward 50 zone).
-
oh my god :banghead
-
:facepalm
Can't stand Whimpley....being next to Slobbotard only papers over what a massive flog he is himself, anyone can look smart in comparison if they constantky surround themselves with football types.....why the stuff are peeant journalists on the commitee anyway?
-
Whately is an incredibly smart man, to smart for the dullards here to comprehend.
-
Whimpley is the Stephen Fry of the AFL...a dumb person's idea of a smart person..... :shh
-
Whimpley is the Stephen Fry of the AFL...a dumb person's idea of a smart person..... :shh
oh bless me with your knowledge all mighty one :bow
-
In time grasshopper, in time..... :shh
-
Oh god this is so off. Everything about this thread.
-
:facepalm
-
:shh
-
What they need is 6 or 12 in the other forward 50 at kick outs from behinds that gives space for the kick out to go long with only 24 players to flood the defensive zone. The 60m torp to the wing would be a real option.
-
Change is a-coming. The only question is how much?
Jake Niall
The Age
11 June 2018
Worner's words will be viewed by many fans with cynicism, because, like all businesses, the AFL's free-to-air broadcaster is concerned largely with the bottom line. But it would also be unwise to dismiss his views, which Gillon McLachlan and his new football lieutenant Steve Hocking already know.
Without maintaining high TV ratings, AFL – and club – revenues will drop and this will mean more than simply cutting the bonuses of unpopular AFL executives. It will be harder to prop up the expansion teams and Brisbane, harder to maintain the current level of equalisation for North, St Kilda and the Dogs, harder to pay the AFL Women's players what they deserve and harder to attract the first choice athletes, female or male.
The TV rights are to the AFL what North Sea oil reserves are to Norway – they have enabled a vast welfare state and higher living standards for all.
The look of the game underpins everything.
The debate about what should be done is best understood as a battle between three loose factions, both within the game and in the stands/on the couch.
First, there's The Conservatives, whose position is best summarised by that hoary old war cry: "Leave the rules alone." They hope and pray that the game will find an answer, believing in evolution, rather than revolution.
Like Tony Abbott's Tories within the Coalition, the conservatives are shrinking in number and influence. They want the game to be what it was in 1988, without recognising that it can only retain some of those elements by changing.
The second group is The Incrementalists. They do not think the game will solve its own problems, but are squeamish about anything that seems to change what they think are the fundamentals. They want minor surgery, not the removal of what they consider vital organs.
Third, there's The Radicals. They resemble advocates for serious action on climate change, in that they believe the crisis is now and that major, contentious change is essential to save Planet AFL from catastrophe.
The Conservatives, sadly, can be dismissed as a force. Few within clubs and AFL HQ think Hocking and the AFL Commission should "do nothing". To do zilch would mean relying on the altruism and ingenuity of coaches to save the game from their own handiwork and from the forces of professional sport. It will not happen.
So, the real contest of ideas is between The Incrementalists and The Radicals. Change is coming to the competition. Be prepared for it. The question is whether it will be incremental, radical or some combination.
It is quite conceivable that incremental change will come first and if that doesn't decongest the game's blocked passages, extreme rule changes – eg: zones for stoppages or 16 a side – will eventually follow.
Incrementalists want tinkering with the rules, such as further reducing interchange rotations to ease congestion (a change ex-AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick championed) or to clear the scrums by paying more frees. Nathan Buckley and Alastair Clarkson have both called for reducing or eradicating prior opportunity - a view that McLachlan broadly shares.
To introduce starting positions – say, three players from each team inside the 50-metre arcs – at centre bounces only is a classical Incrementalist solution to congestion. To mandate the same at every stoppage is the panacea that many Radicals want.
Three reforms can be classified as Radical options. The first is what I described several years ago as The Nuclear Option of netball-style zones. If this is to happen – Rodney Eade is one of the early advocates – it would be introduced only for stoppages, with a few players having to stand in the arc at each end (or half of the field). Once the ball's thrown up or bounced, players could move where they like.
Reducing the number of players to 16, which Geelong coach Chris Scott favours, is the second Radical solution. The other Radical remedy is not simply the reduction of rotations, but the complete elimination of interchange and its replacement with soccer-like substitutes.
It would be a massive leap of faith for the AFL to introduce a Radical rule, such as compulsory starting positions at all stoppages – a tough rule to police – without trialling it in the pre-season competition. The safest choice would be go for the Incrementalist changes, while trialling Radical options in pre-season or the VFL.
"Last touch'' out of bounds – which exists in the SANFL and Malcolm Blight is pushing – is on the border of Incremental and Radical. It sounds extreme to many of us, but the impact might not prove so.
Is Hocking an Incrementalist or a Radical? At a briefing I attended last Tuesday, he mentioned that the AFL had to careful of "unintended consequences" of some changes. It is unclear how to read that comment.
My guess is he isn't wedded to either radical or gradual measures, but is committed to change and is willing to use either, and that the change is being hatched, right now, for 2019 and 2020.
We are being conditioned to rule changes by the AFL. It is no coincidence that they have formed more committees than the Politburo, and that influential figures such as Blight, Leigh Matthews and the two Gerards, Healy and Whateley, have been brought in to the tent to hear the state-of-game spiel.
I suspect that Incrementalism will be the first port of call, with Radicalism kept in the top drawer. But nothing would really surprise. Hocking shapes as a change agent.
Whatever he, McLachlan and the Commission decide, footy won't be the same in 2019. It's just a question of whether it will get a facelift or a new face altogether.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/change-is-a-coming-the-only-question-is-how-much-20180609-p4zkjy.html
-
SCRAPPING the interchange bench and playing more, shorter games across the season was one of the ideas floated at Monday night's informal coaches' dinner in Melbourne, Brisbane coach Chris Fagan says
Coaches met at AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan's house after participating in Neale Daniher's Big Freeze 4 for MND research at the Queen's Birthday Melbourne-Collingwood clash at the MCG.
Also in attendance at the dinner were football operations manager Steve Hocking and League general counsel Andrew Dillon.
Fagan said the discussion flowed with no set agenda, with the issue of reducing congestion in games and boosting scoring popular topics.
"I think there's a genuine concern about the fact that maybe there's not enough scoring happening in footy, that people want to see more of that," Fagan told SEN on Tuesday morning.
"When you sit around a table like that there are a million and one different ideas about how it can be done.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-12/scrapping-bench-shorter-games-on-coaches-agenda
-
I agree with dwaino's deleted post.... :shh
-
Big Dwayne wants to chuck it away. Can't handle premierships the big boy
-
:shh
-
EXCLUSIVE: Hawks, AFL in trial of on-field zones
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-12/exclusive-hawks-afl-in-trial-of-onfield-zones
-
Can't wait to watch the Australian Men's Netball League... :clapping
-
:shh
Love it. Every stoppage first it’s asked who are the ruckmen. Then there is a headcount in each arc. One team will wear red, the other black, a couple of player’s dads will act as goal umpires.
-
:shh
Love it. Every stoppage first it’s asked who are the ruckmen. Then there is a headcount in each arc. One team will wear red, the other black, a couple of player’s dads will act as goal umpires.
Coleman-Jones' dads can do both ends for us :gotigers
-
MELBOURNE co-skipper Nathan Jones has led a chorus of senior players in imploring the AFL to address the congestion and low scoring that has turned them away from the game as viewers.
Jones, Geelong Brownlow Medallist Patrick Dangerfield and GWS co-captain Phil Davis shared their thoughts on the state of the game on Fox Footy on Monday night.
"For me it's about bringing back the magic ... the game is not in the best position or state it could be," Jones said.
"Removing my playing hat – I love the game for its competitiveness as a player – but as far as watching it ... I used to be an avid watcher.
"But now I feel like I'm turning more games off. It's not as aesthetically pleasing, I'm not getting as much enjoyment out of it and it's not providing that excitement that it used to."
Dangerfield, who is also the president of the AFL Players' Association, is all for change and implored the 'leave the game alone' lobby to be open-minded.
"'Zones' is a terrible word within our code, but what it could potentially bring us, I think, is definitely worth investigating," he said.
"So, before you judge it take a look at it first because I think there's merit in it, without a doubt."
He said dwindling television ratings had injected a sense of urgency into the debate.
"I don't think the AFL are looking at this and saying, 'We've got time for audiences to decrease, we've got time for the revenue of the game to decrease' ... they want it moved now," Dangerfield added.
"It needs to be changed now ... we need to bump (TV) audiences up now."
Davis also sees merit in looking at rule tweaks, but believes players and coaches shouldn't be involved as they now are with the league's competition committee.
"I think what you've got to do is take certain stakeholders out of the decision-making process, because I don't care how the game looks if I win," he said.
"The coaches don't care how it looks as long as they win, so you've actually got to take us out of the decision-making process."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-10/bring-back-the-magic-stars-implore-afl
-
Footy boss Steve Hocking wants to take AFL into the future with introduction of starting positions
JON RALPH,
Herald Sun
July 18, 2018
THE AFL could dock rotations or limit the use of runners as penalties for clubs that next year flout rules over starting points.
AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking is charging ahead with the introduction of starting points, adamant he wants to “take the game into the future”.
The league will in coming weeks conduct a fourth club trial of starting points with St Kilda after successful 20-minute experiments with Hawthorn, Brisbane and Fremantle.
A full game trial is also being worked through with a state league side later in the season.
Ten AFL clubs have so far been shown footage of the trials, with Hocking adamant the difference in quality of football is “stark”.
He said on Tuesday starting points were already in effect in football, with down-the-ground vision used to instruct players exactly where they should be on the field.
The AFL is hoping introducing starting positions will ease congestion and improve scoring.
The difference with official starting points is that it would spread the ground out and allow skill-based players to thrive.
The AFL’s competition committee will meet on July 25 to consider a range of proposals that will in concert help to ease congestion.
Hocking was adamant on Tuesday the handful of flowing, open games only “reinforce” the need to act now.
The difficulty in introducing starting points to spread out the game is finding appropriate penalties if three pairs of players are not inside 50m at a stoppage.
For instance, if one player from each side at either end of the ground was only a metre out of the 50m zone at a stoppage, who do you pay the free kick to?
One solution is taking away the use of a runner or docking interchange numbers in that game or in following weeks.
“That is the challenge to crack. It’s a hard one. It can’t be fines,” Hocking said.
Almost certainly a handful of potential rule changes will be put to the competition committee for approval, then elevation to the AFL Commission in August.
“Starting points are already in place. It’s important to acknowledge that. Currently players are told where to stand on the field,” Hocking said of the congested nature of the game.
He said only a “marriage” of rules would solve the AFL’s issues given the pace at which clubs counteracted single rule changes.
“The days of one tweak which clubs catch up on in a pre-season are gone. They want the opportunity to catch up.
“We want to take the game into the future.”
But the scope of the interchange restrictions remains unclear, with Hocking saying a limit to 40 rotations might not be the “answer”.
He is also keen to retain the speed and power in football, believing those attributes are real highlights of the game.
The AFL is happy with its four-umpire trial but believes it could need as many as 20 new umpires in its squad to execute it each week.
There is a current senior squad of 34 umpires, with 27 umpiring every week.
Umpires were less fatigued when they completed double-up games over the bye rounds and believe they could do it more next year.
The league is yet to decide whether it would need four umpires to execute its starting point rule if it comes in next year.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/footy-boss-steve-hocking-wants-to-take-afl-into-the-future-with-introduction-of-starting-positions/news-story/78bdb09de374afcf41d34fa4f63f10c7
-
AFL Football Operations boss Steve Hocking has revealed that potential rule changes could take two or three years to come in, rather than in 2019 as many expect.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/07/18/could-we-have-to-wait-two-to-three-years-for-rule-changes/
-
So know it won’t be brought straight in? Lol more backflips
Yeah the strategic use of afl puppets - aka afl accredited media - is not having the desired affect on the masses with more and more concerned fans starting to speak out about the proposed changes.
-
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-rule-change-the-afl-is-likely-to-recommend-on-wednesday-20180724-p4zt8z.html
Yes and I'm sure no coach will just instruct the wingers to stand right on the edge of the arcs or the back edges of the square..... :shh
There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza.... :shh :shh
-
Rules: AFL to consider at least six changes
Nick Bowen
afl.com.au
Jul 25, 2018 7:33PM
AT LEAST six recommended rule changes will be put before the AFL executive as the bid to rid the game of congestion gathers pace.
The AFL Competition Committee endorsed the proposed changes at a meeting on Wednesday, which will require approval from the executive and, finally, the Commission before they can be introduced.
AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking was tightlipped about what the six recommendations were, but said they could be trialled in AFL games this season as League CEO Gillon McLachlan foreshadowed earlier on Wednesday.
However, Hocking said trials would first take place in state league games, with the competitions such as the VFL, SANFL and WAFL "queueing up" to be involved.
Hocking preferred to characterise the committee's recommendations as "game adjustments", saying fans should take "a level of calmness" from the League's approach to tackling congestion.
"We're not looking to drop things into the game to upset the rhythm of the game and that's important to actually call that out," Hocking said.
The committee has directed Hocking's team to do more work on the detail underpinning the endorsed changes, while he said the nature of those proposals would be kept under wraps until state league trial games were conducted in public.
The League footy boss did concede, however, that the widely mooted centre-bounce starting positions – whereby six players would be stationed in each of the defensive 50m zone, middle of the ground and forward 50m zone was "potentially" among the committee's recommendations.
Other proposals the committee is understood to have considered include expanding the goalsquare from nine to 18m, reducing the current rotation cap of 90 and introducing starting positions at around-the-ground stoppages.
Earlier on Wednesday, there was a significant public backlash to McLachlan's comments about potential AFL trial games, with concerns raised about how that would affect the integrity of the competition, the draft and the Brownlow and Coleman medals.
Hocking stressed any AFL trial games would have to be approved by the executive and the commission and said the concerns raised were "things we need to work through".
"Anybody that feels that you'd have teams involved whereby it could affect their draft position, those type of things, I don't think anyone would tip into that," he said.
Hocking was far more bullish about conducting state league trials and said clubs in those competitions were equally keen to be involved provided the game result would not impact their finals race.
"(The state leagues) would be our starting point definitely. We've got an opportunity where second-tier competitions are queueing up to actually trial the things that we're looking at," he said.
Hocking said such trials would be vital as the League looked to finetune its proposed changes given the existing trials with Hawthorn, Brisbane and Fremantle had consisted of just 10-minute halves.
"It was clear today from the group that the trials are excellent but it's only an hour's worth of work," he said.
"I've been very clear on the fact that we're not just going to plug those things in if it causes a ripple effect to the game."
Hocking was unsure whether all six proposals would be tested in every trial game, or whether they would be tested progressively "in layers".
The AFL football boss has repeatedly said any rules changes for 2019 will be communicated to clubs by this October.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-25/rules-afl-to-consider-at-least-six-changes
-
Never fear people....Waheed Aly's on the case now..... :shh
-
THE AFL has all but ruled out reducing the interchange cap next season.
Those at the briefing were left with the strong impression starting positions – the much talked-about 6-6-6 formation – and double-length goal squares would likely be the only major changes made for next season.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-08-21/interchange-cap-cuts-unlikely-in-2019
-
Sam McClure just announced on SEN the four official rule change recommendations that will be put before and voted by the AFL commission during GF week.
1. 6-6-6 formation at all centre bounces. One forward & defender in the goalsquare. Wings can stand anywhere along the centre square.
2. 18m goalsquare.
3. Runners only allowed on the ground after goals.
4. Tightening of 8 rule interpretations. One of them being a tightening of incorrect disposal.
-
Once again the AFL overreacts to a problem that doesn't exist and then puts a square peg in a round hole as a solution.
They want to increase scoring but the 18m goalsquare will cause coaches to discourage long range shooting & snaps from the pockets which are more likely to result in a behind & gift the opposition the ball from a more attacking defensive position. So we'll get less scoring.
Agree with this post on twitter:
And teams will be more careful how they enter the forward 50 and thus the game will slow down. Less goals and more kick to kick, the antithesis of what they're aiming for
https://twitter.com/andreamaryb/status/1040113856519884800
-
This is what happens when you cave in to media beat-ups and then put the journalists on the committee... :facepalm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfCQ-t7xY0
:shh
-
18 metre goal square....get on Jayden Short early for the Brownlow... :shh
-
18 metre goal square....get on Jayden Short early for the Brownlow... :shh
or the Coleman :shh
-
ANALYSIS: Who would win from rule changes
Nick Bowen
afl.com.au
Sep 13, 2018 6:42PM
THE COMPETITION'S elite ball-winners should become even more damaging if rule changes proposed by the Competition Committee get the green light.
AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking said recent VFL trials of six-six-six starting positions at centre bounces had shown midfielders had one to three seconds more to dispose of the ball.
Give that extra time to star midfielders such as Patrick Dangerfield, Dustin Martin, Nat Fyfe, Tom Mitchell and Patrick Cripps, and watch them tear opposition defences apart.
At the moment, forwards and defenders can line up on the edge of the centre square and charge in as soon as the ball is bounced, quickly crowding the space midfielders have to operate in
It's one of the reasons the disposal efficiency of inside bulls such as Dangerfield (67.7 per cent in 2018), Martin (65.2), Fyfe (70), Mitchell (71.4) and Cripps (67.9) is a far way below prolific defenders like Rory Laird (77.6) and Jake Lloyd (79.3).
But that gap should close now all defenders and forwards have to start within their 50m arcs.
It should also mean less hacked kicks forward from bounces and more pin-point inside 50 entries to forwards. Think Hawthorn circa 2015 and the surgical precision of Sam Mitchell, Luke Hodge, Jordan Lewis and co.
Given forwards also won't have to deal with teams starting a seventh man in defence, could next year be the season someone kicks 100 goals for the first time since Lance Franklin in 2008?
Jack Riewoldt's winning total of 63 goals this year was the lowest Coleman return since John Peck won with 56 goals in 1965, while Eagle Josh Kennedy, in 2016, is the only player to reach 80 goals in the past nine seasons.
If the Commission approves centre square starting positions at its next meeting in Grand Final week, at least one of Riewoldt, Kennedy, Franklin, Ben Brown and Tom Hawkins should match that feat in 2019.
Forwards won't have it all their own way, however, with the Committee's other main recommended change set to make it harder for teams to lock the ball inside their forward 50m arcs.
An 18m long goalsquare – will the more apt 'goal rectangle' ever catch on? – will transform mere mortals into Dustin Fletcher, helping them to emulate the retired Bomber great's torpedo kick-ins that occasionally reached the centre circle.
Although teams that turned the ball over using this tactic in the VFL trials left themselves exposed to a quick counterattack, defenders will be prepared to play this risk-reward card at times, especially when they need to score quickly late in a game.
Teams trying to hang on to slim leads in the dying seconds will be a little more nervous because of it.
However, it should make the game a better spectacle.
At least that's the hope of Hocking and his game analysis team, who have clocked up thousands of hours of work this year searching for viable cures to congestion.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-13/analysis-who-would-win-from-rule-changes
-
Yep - it's clear our forward press was the main target of Wimpley & Slobbo...er I mean the AFL.... :shh
-
:shh
-
stuff off with your rule changes.
-
The controversial hands in the back rule could be abolished next season, according to SEN Time On host Sam McClure.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/09/17/hands-in-the-back-rule-could-be-on-way-out-mcclure/
-
McClure looks weird and talks like a bum head
-
Once again the AFL overreacts to a problem that doesn't exist and then puts a square peg in a round hole as a solution.
They want to increase scoring but the 18m goalsquare will cause coaches to discourage long range shooting & snaps from the pockets which are more likely to result in a behind & gift the opposition the ball from a more attacking defensive position. So we'll get less scoring.
Agree with this post on twitter:
And teams will be more careful how they enter the forward 50 and thus the game will slow down. Less goals and more kick to kick, the antithesis of what they're aiming for
https://twitter.com/andreamaryb/status/1040113856519884800
I disagree, Sydney used to do that ad nauseum in 2005/06 and since then its been out evolved. Being forced to kick it quickly killed that tactic. Teams wont return to a failed strategy like they wont return to Pagans paddock or the flood.
-
I hope it doesnt return to Hawthorn circa 2015 with the coralling tactic until the defender stuffs up. God that was awful to watch, just error ball.
-
Once again the AFL overreacts to a problem that doesn't exist and then puts a square peg in a round hole as a solution.
They want to increase scoring but the 18m goalsquare will cause coaches to discourage long range shooting & snaps from the pockets which are more likely to result in a behind & gift the opposition the ball from a more attacking defensive position. So we'll get less scoring.
Agree with this post on twitter:
And teams will be more careful how they enter the forward 50 and thus the game will slow down. Less goals and more kick to kick, the antithesis of what they're aiming for
https://twitter.com/andreamaryb/status/1040113856519884800
I disagree, Sydney used to do that ad nauseum in 2005/06 and since then its been out evolved. Being forced to kick it quickly killed that tactic. Teams wont return to a failed strategy like they wont return to Pagans paddock or the flood.
I agree it evolved out as footy tactics have always evolved. The problem with these proposed rule changes such as the ridiculous extended goalsquare idea is they are revolutionary rather than evolutionary. The powers that be actually want the game to return to the ways/tactics of the past. However, as Dimma told them earlier this year, it's a case of being careful what you wish for. The worst of the past was terrible to watch as any Richmond supporter who suffered through our 37-year drought would attest.
There was no need to overreact as the AFL and Hocking have done this year based on a few bad games from bottom sides in the early rounds of this season (matched by their whinging fans in the media) and due to the AFL's own incompetence by fixturing these bottom sides (eg: Carlton) on so many Friday nights which affected TV ratings. Good teams play good footy and bad teams play bad footy; it's been that way for 150 years. The Grand Final has made a fool of Gill and Hocking yet they can't admit they wrongly overreacted once again. It's like the strict push in the back rule interpretation which the AFL rushed in (Richo says hi) and now they all of a sudden want to dump it :huh. It's always an overreaction to fix something that didn't need fixing rather than just allowing the game to evolve naturally :P.
-
We went to every Bears/Lions home game from when they moved to the Gabba until '00 or '01 and saw plenty of poo games.
-
Herald-Sun saying the 18m goalsquare idea has been dumped.
-
Thank Geez....now pee of rhe rest of Gerard Wimpley's stupid wanker rules..... :thumbsdown
-
The Rule changes
Traditional playing positions at centre bounces
* Clubs must have six players inside both 50m arcs, with one player inside the goalsquare.
* Four midfield players must start inside the centre square with the two wingmen stationed along the wing.
Kick-ins
* At kick-ins, a player will no longer need to kick to himself to play on from the goalsquare.
* Following a behind, the man on the mark will be brought out to 10m from the top of the goalsquare, rather than the existing five metres.
Marks and free kicks in defence
* When defenders mark or receive a free kick within nine metres of their own goal, the man on the mark will be brought in line with the top of the goalsquare.
Runners and water carriers
* Team runners may only enter the playing surface after a goal has been kicked and must exit before play restarts.
* Water carriers are not permitted to enter the playing surface during live play.
Umpire contact
* Players will be prohibited from setting up behind the umpire at centre bounces.
50m penalties
* The player with the ball:
* Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game.
* Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out.
Kicking for goal after the siren
* A player who has been awarded a mark or free kick once play has ended:
* Will now be able to kick across their body using a snap or check-side kick
* BUT must kick the ball directly in line with the man on the mark and the goal.
Marking contests
* The 'hands in the back’ rule interpretation has been repealed so a player can now:
* Place his hands on the back of his opponent to protect his position in a marking contest
* PROVIDED he does not push his opponent in the back.
Ruck contests: prior opportunity
* A ruckman who takes direct possession of the ball from a bounce, throw-up or boundary throw-in will no longer be regarded as having had prior opportunity.
* Where there is uncertainty over who is the designated ruckman, the ruckman for each team will still be required to nominate to the field umpire.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-11/new-rules-revealed-nine-changes-for-2019
-
Geez
wonder if this is happening for local footy too
-
So they keep the idiotic ruck nomination rule - the one rule absolutely everybody wants gone.... :facepalm
-
what's this setting up behind the umpire at stoppages crap. changing the way an on-ball division sets up after 150+ years. why
-
Because Richmond won and Gerard said..... :shh
-
Gerard on the committee...nepotism :shh
-
Journos on the committee period....laughable. :shh
-
These are rule changes for the sake of making rule changes. stuff off.
-
Thank Geez....now pee of rhe rest of Gerard Wimpley's stupid wanker rules..... :thumbsdown
:thumbsup