AFL considers more rule changes

[one-eyed]

AFL considers more rule changes
Michael Gleeson
The Age
October 10, 2006

MODERN football is much like screw-top caps on wine bottles: a lamentable development for the purist clinging to tradition but a progression unlikely to be stopped. But the AFL is trying to put the cork back in the bottle.

Tomorrow, the laws-of-the-game committee will meet to consider further changes to rules that encourage more individual contests in the game.

Among the changes suggested to date is a move for "play-on" to be called when a ball is kicked backwards to a teammate in the defensive half of the ground — a suggestion of limited value, for players seldom pass a ball to a player behind them who is in danger of having to contest for the ball.

Other changes include: limiting the number of interchange moves per game to tire players and slow the game; increasing the minimum distance a ball needs to be kicked for a legal mark from 15 metres (possibly to 25 metres) to make the chipping possession game more difficult; and possibly increasing to three (from one) the points conceded for a deliberately rushed behind.

All are worthy ideas. Equally deserving of consideration is a suggestion by former AFL player and assistant coach Robert Pyman, now a senior coach in the SANFL. Pyman wants a lateral approach focusing not on rules governing play, but the rewards for victory and loss. He suggests introducing a greater incentive for teams to attack, not a punishment or restriction on them in play.

He recommends a bonus point system such as operates in cricket's one-day internationals, where teams earn extra points for defeating a side in quick time. His idea goes one step further and offers some reward even to the loser for attacking play.

An AFL application would have an extra premiership point being awarded to a team that kicks more than 100 points in a game — whether it wins or loses. Thus, five premiership points for a win, not the traditional four, and more radically, the losing side also gets a point if it tops the ton in defeat. The philosophy is that offering a tangible benefit for attacking play, whether to the winner or loser, would improve contests and deliver further interest for supporters.

"The great attraction AFL has over other codes is it is fast-paced and high-scoring; we should be encouraging and embracing those benefits," Pyman said. "The purist may not like the idea of rewarding a team which loses, but that is shallow — it is rewarding the adventurous, attacking team."

In this year's home-and-away season, sides exceeded 100 points 128 times from 352 opportunities.

Predicting how such a bonus system would have affected this season is difficult, so it is perhaps more important to look at the number of times teams finished on 80 or 90 points in a match and speculate as to whether the bonus point might have encouraged more attack. Would it have meant forwards were not rested in "junk time"?

There were another 103 times in which sides kicked 80 points or more, but fewer than 100 points.

"The advantage of this is that it addresses a problem of wanting to encourage attacking play, but it does so without changing more rules of the game which is something that has frustrated a lot of fans," Pyman said.

Were his proposal a success, doubtless the AFL would be pulling more corks from bottles.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/10/09/1160246070796.html

[one-eyed]

Marking contest rule changes
01 December 2006   Herald-Sun
Mike Sheahan

MIKE Sheahan writes: A week ago, it was said to be nothing more than a stricter interpretation in marking contests.

Yesterday, it was exposed as a fundamental shift in the rule relating to contact in a marking contest.

From next season, a player who applies his hands to the back of an opponent, even if only to hold his ground, will be penalised.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said last night: "As soon as a player puts his hands in the back of an opponent in a marking contest, the umpire shall award a free kick."

It is a major change, one that will impact heavily on the style of many players including elite defenders James Clement and Darren Glass, and Sydney's star forwards, Barry Hall and Michael O'Loughlin.

Clement was genuinely shocked when told yesterday.

"That's ridiculous. If you're just laying your hands on someone, that's not pushing in the back," the Collingwood star said.

"As I read the news, they were just saying it's a stricter interpretation.

"I just can't help but feel the game is definitely being slanted the way of the forward."

He said he was saddened by the change, but understood it "because people want more goals".

Anderson indicated the change had been driven by the game's governing body, the AFL Commission, which traditionally confines itself to matters of policy.

"It's been an issue they've raised from time to time.

"The commission noted it wasn't permissible in the 1960s and '70s." (Commissioners Graeme John and Mike Fitzpatrick played in the VFL in those times.)

"It (the change) has received strong support from the commission."

Anderson said the change was "designed to assist the umpires by making the rule more black and white".

"There was concern over inconsistency in the application of the old interpretation," he said.

The announcement of the change was tucked away in a media release last Friday headed: "AFL Commission approves change to the Laws of the Game."

The biggest change relates to protection of a player with his head over the ball, and has met with almost universal approval.

Buried in the release was a sentence that said: "There will also be stricter interpretations . . . of two aspects of the game for the 2007 season, including stricter policing of hands in the back in marking contests . . ."

In truth, hands in the back are outlawed.

Clement said: "We're yet to be told as a playing group precisely what this means."

He admits to often laying hands on opponents, without pushing.

"I'm definitely one for using your hands. I'll just have to go back to the drawing board and find a new way to go about it.

"You can rant and rave . . . it's too bad."

Asked if he might content himself by having a rule named after him, as Matthew Lloyd has since the crackdown on the time players are given to kick for goal, he said: "They might call it the Darren Glass rule."

Reasoned as ever, Clement said: "If we're going back to a purer form of football, and everyone agrees, then I'm comfortable."

Not sure the umpires will be as comfortable early next season when they penalise Clement, Glass and Co. for what has been acceptable for at least 20 years.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,20851050%255E20322,00.html

[Gordon Bennett]

What happens if the forward has the backman in front of him, and slightly under the flight of the ball.The backman backs into him - how does the forward prevent him from doing so? Does he just use his body, or does he block with his forearms (which are horizontal) in front of his body?
It will be interesting how it affects Richo - could be good and bad for him - he's hard to shift. He also does use his hands a fair bit.

[cub]

What happens if the forward has the backman in front of him, and slightly under the flight of the ball.The backman backs into him - how does the forward prevent him from doing so? Does he just use his body, or does he block with his forearms (which are horizontal) in front of his body?
It will be interesting how it affects Richo - could be good and bad for him - he's hard to shift. He also does use his hands a fair bit.

Man that's exactly what I thought when I read it, Richo does like to wrestle too much imo, allways thought he should stay off 5 or so metres and take a run and leap (very hard to stop) - gunna be frustrating for everyone interpreting this one  ???

[mightytiges]

It will be interesting how it affects Richo - could be good and bad for him - he's hard to shift. He also does use his hands a fair bit.

Shhh GB    . Richo does like to wait and wrestle a bit too much (took the words right out of mouth CUB). Although the Umps don't pay Richo frees when he's being scragged all the time .