unpiring & rule changes for 2016

[Booney]

Boundary throw ins a blight on the game?

Only been a part of it for about forever.

[bennymacca]

Boundary throw ins a blight on the game?

Only been a part of it for about forever.

i didn't say its a blight on the game, i said it doesn't add anything to the game. Just because it has been a rule for a long time doesn't necessarily mean its a good rule.

I still can't think of another game where if it goes out of bounds it becomes a neutral ball again.

[Corona Man]

Boundary throw ins a blight on the game?

Only been a part of it for about forever.

i didn't say its a blight on the game, i said it doesn't add anything to the game. Just because it has been a rule for a long time doesn't necessarily mean its a good rule.

I still can't think of another game where if it goes out of bounds it becomes a neutral ball again.

So why does that matter?? It is a unique part of our Australian Game....

[RB]

^This. Embrace the uniqueness, I say.

[bennymacca]

to some extent I agree, obviously we want to keep Aussie Rules as unique as possible, because thats what makes the game great.

But to me the unique aspects of the game are the high scoring, and the pace at which the ball moves. Anything to encourage both of those things is a good thing imo. Neutral boundary throwins (or indeed going back 50 years, kicking it out on the full) do not encourage this.


Watching the AFL this year, I think the interchange cap, the strict interpretation of the deliberate out of bounds, and the 10m exclusion zone around the mark have all worked towards keeping the ball in play and moving for longer periods of time, which I think has had a pretty big positive effect on the game. Initial reports on the last possession rule from reading this forum seem to indicate that the rule works well in the SANFL too.

Maybe it is too early to make that call, but the signs are good.

[Booney]

Boundary throw ins a blight on the game?

Only been a part of it for about forever.

i didn't say its a blight on the game, i said it doesn't add anything to the game. Just because it has been a rule for a long time doesn't necessarily mean its a good rule.

I still can't think of another game where if it goes out of bounds it becomes a neutral ball again.

I can't think of a game anything like Aussie Rules. Surely some of the game needs to stay as it has always been, it will become unrecognizable if we continue to change the fundamentals of the game?

Things like the 5 or 10m "exclusion" zone, so what, 25m penalties instead of 15m, so what.

I think the new out of bounds rule is pure bollocks, an absolute mess, from what I've seen and the players I spoken to they think it's terrible.

[Booney]

to some extent I agree, obviously we want to keep Aussie Rules as unique as possible, because thats what makes the game great.

But to me the unique aspects of the game are the high scoring, and the pace at which the ball moves. Anything to encourage both of those things is a good thing imo. Neutral boundary throwins (or indeed going back 50 years, kicking it out on the full) do not encourage this.


Watching the AFL this year, I think the interchange cap, the strict interpretation of the deliberate out of bounds, and the 10m exclusion zone around the mark have all worked towards keeping the ball in play and moving for longer periods of time, which I think has had a pretty big positive effect on the game. Initial reports on the last possession rule from reading this forum seem to indicate that the rule works well in the SANFL too.

Maybe it is too early to make that call, but the signs are good.

What about goals scored from ball ins close to goal? What about the suspense when the game is tight, moments to go and there's a ball in close to goal?

The only really neutral boundary throws in are between the 50m arcs and they give sides an opportunity to set up and attack.

Boundary throw ins inside either sides 50m arc are an opportunity to set up to score or defend>then set up to score.

The current thought that high scoring games are good games isn't worth changing the fundamentals of the game for.

[bennymacca]

The deliberate out of bounds rule has changed massively over the past decade already.

A last touch rule would remove the bullshit umpiring inconsistencies around deliberate too which is an added bonus

[Corona Man]

The deliberate out of bounds rule has changed massively over the past decade already.

A last touch rule would remove the bullshit umpiring inconsistencies around deliberate too which is an added bonus

What and give Razor Ray an out.... that's no fun!

[Wedgie]

Love the new out of bounds rule, probably the best thing to happen to the game in my lifetime but would be interested as to why it was canned to be replaced by throw in about 80 years ago.

[Jim05]

The deliberate out of bounds rule has changed massively over the past decade already.

A last touch rule would remove the bullshit umpiring inconsistencies around deliberate too which is an added bonus

Except you will get players and coaches to adapt and bend the rules. Imagine a player is hemmed in on the boundary and about to be tackled all he simply does is handball into his opponents body to win the OOB free. The other concern for me is the corridor will become too congested as probably 20-30% of the ground wouldn't be used.
I think the cap rotations has done more to lift the scoring rather than the OOB.
No good having an OOB rule either when defenders can just walk the ball across the goal line either, for me that's far worse than walking it across the boundary

[Booney]

The deliberate out of bounds rule has changed massively over the past decade already.

A last touch rule would remove the bullshit umpiring inconsistencies around deliberate too which is an added bonus

Last touch? I'd say we might as well make the ball round then.

[bennymacca]

Probably should clarify. I don't think balls punched over the line should be penalised, but I think kicks, handballs, and people tapping it or walking it over the line should be penalised. If its a marking contest and a spoil goes over the line then it should still be a throwin

[Wedgie]

The deliberate out of bounds rule has changed massively over the past decade already.

A last touch rule would remove the bullshit umpiring inconsistencies around deliberate too which is an added bonus

Last touch? I'd say we might as well make the ball round then.

If you don't like rule changes then the ball would still be round anyway!

[bennymacca]

Last touch? I'd say we might as well make the ball round then.

How much worse would soccer be if it was a neutral ball every time the ball was kicked out? you would just have keepers booting the ball up the other end of the field kicking for touch basically.

So not sure what point you are trying to make, except that we can see that it makes soccer a better game, and could make Aussie rules a better game too.

[Booney]

Last touch? I'd say we might as well make the ball round then.

How much worse would soccer be if it was a neutral ball every time the ball was kicked out? you would just have keepers booting the ball up the other end of the field kicking for touch basically.

So not sure what point you are trying to make, except that we can see that it makes soccer a better game, and could make Aussie rules a better game too.

I couldn't give a flying **** about soccer, nothing could make that worse. If it was made neutral you'd have to have two players compete and there'd be carcasses laying strewn all over the field from the physical contact they'd have to endure.

[daysofourlives]

Ports success through the 70s, 80s and 90s was built on playing the boundary line and continually knocking the ball out of bounds and at the subsequent throw in knocking it out again, Phillips, Delaney, Fiachi etc made a career out of it, I suspect this is why Booney is so against it. Footy has well and truly moved past this point

[Wedgie]

Ports success through the 70s, 80s and 90s was built on playing the boundary line and continually knocking the ball out of bounds and at the subsequent throw in knocking it out again, Phillips, Delaney, Fiachi etc made a career out of it, I suspect this is why Booney is so against it. Footy has well and truly moved past this point

I thought it was built on kicking more goals than the opposition! I'm sure not even Booney would care about how it may have impacted on any defunct club he used to follow.

[Booney]

Ports success through the 70s, 80s and 90s was built on playing the boundary line and continually knocking the ball out of bounds and at the subsequent throw in knocking it out again, Phillips, Delaney, Fiachi etc made a career out of it, I suspect this is why Booney is so against it. Footy has well and truly moved past this point

It's got nothing to do with Port, plenty to do with being a stupid rule.

[Booney]

Ports success through the 70s, 80s and 90s was built on playing the boundary line and continually knocking the ball out of bounds and at the subsequent throw in knocking it out again, Phillips, Delaney, Fiachi etc made a career out of it, I suspect this is why Booney is so against it. Footy has well and truly moved past this point

I thought it was built on kicking more goals than the opposition! I'm sure not even Booney would care about how it may have impacted on any defunct club he used to follow.

Indeed it was.