Oh no!!!...they're at it again..

[unknown source]

what if a side gets to its cap and then a couple players go down with an injury and can't resume for the match are they going to play with 16, what if it was a final?

[FlyingHigh]

2/ Length of the game wasn't an issue until they implemented stopping the clock for bouncedowns. Although I would go further and agree with Spelly, what was wrong with the 25 mins and only stop for goals and when umpire calls it?
5/ Agree best-on-hill. This proposed change is just another as a response to another rule they've introduced for no decent reason. Call the play up a bit quicker, bounce the ball straight away, players in the contest will get up quicker, all leading to not as much time for a bouncedown so the clock can keep running and "outsiders" don't have time to get to the contest and create more scrimmage. If they know they're wasting their time getting to a contest, they may not try, keep to their positions more, and the game will open up.

[Dutchy]

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

This one I dont mind, happens in nearly every other 3D sport and makes a lot of sense because a field umpire cant see everything no matter where he places himself. As long as they only ping the absolute obvious ones, if any doubt let it go.

[jointman]

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

This one I dont mind, happens in nearly every other 3D sport and makes a lot of sense because a field umpire cant see everything no matter where he places himself. As long as they only ping the absolute obvious ones, if any doubt let it go.

gees theres 3 umps out there now,have ample time to get in the right position...why dont they just leave the game alone and go back to basics and stop confusing the hell out of people...!!!!!

[Dutchy]

cause it makes sense and could improve the game?

[jointman]

cause it makes sense and could improve the game?

improve the game....its going backwards now..was a better game when the game was a basic game to play..!!!!

[jointman]

cause it makes sense and could improve the game?

3 umpires cant even get it right...and you want the boundry umpires to call it aswell...!!!!!!

[Dutchy]

maybe they arent getting it right because they cant see every angle? this change will assist that

[Hondo]

cause it makes sense and could improve the game?

Exactly

I think you are falling on deaf ears here. It's a blanket rule apparently ... no new rules regardless of whether the game could be improved. Just don't even consider anything new.

The game has to stay as is now forever.

[X Runna]

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

This one I dont mind, happens in nearly every other 3D sport and makes a lot of sense because a field umpire cant see everything no matter where he places himself. As long as they only ping the absolute obvious ones, if any doubt let it go.

gees theres 3 umps out there now,have ample time to get in the right position...why dont they just leave the game alone and go back to basics and stop confusing the hell out of people...!!!!!

The reason umpires miss a lot is because unless there is slow play which gives them time to reposition out wide, 95% of the time they are in the corridor. We can't expect them to see the frees which are hidden by walls of players.

The day will come the 4 boundary umpires will be able to call decisions as if they were central umpires & it will be a great idea.

[Rik E Boy]

cause it makes sense and could improve the game?

Exactly

I think you are falling on deaf ears here. It's a blanket rule apparently ... no new rules regardless of whether the game could be improved. Just don't even consider anything new.

The game has to stay as is now forever.

I don't think anyone honestly believes that last part Hondo but the average footy fan is frustrated by annual changes. I believe that the Rules Committee should be scrapped and replaced by a Rules Conference that meets every four years.

I also believe tha this Rules Conference should have some representation from the umpiring community. Are the umpires represented in the current rules Committee? Because the umpires are the people who cop the brunt of rules changes. Players still don't understand the rushing behinds rule and that was brought in two years ago and this decision has been implemented incorrectly on at least two occaisions that I can think of.

regards,

REB

[Hondo]

REB - I know no-one wants the game to stay the same forever I was just stirring.

I think 4 years is way too long to force our game to wait for any change. The coaches sure as well won't put tactical developments on hold for 4 years. Why is 4 years the right number anyway? Why not 2, why not 6?

Changing rules for the sake of changing rules is wrong I agree. But not changing them for the sake of not changing them is just as bad IMO.

I think take each idea on it's merits and debate it rather than debating the principle of rule changes.

[FlyingHigh]

REB - I know no-one wants the game to stay the same forever I was just stirring.

I think 4 years is way too long to force our game to wait for any change. The coaches sure as well won't put tactical developments on hold for 4 years. Why is 4 years the right number anyway? Why not 2, why not 6?

Changing rules for the sake of changing rules is wrong I agree. But not changing them for the sake of not changing them is just as bad IMO.

I think take each idea on it's merits and debate it rather than debating the principle of rule changes.

Hondo, it might seem when this topic is discussed people are always anti-change and that obviously annoys some people, but how many of the rule changes in the last 15 years have actually enhanced the game and the way it is played for the players and what supporters want to see? Not too many from this supporters POV.

[Rik E Boy]

REB - I know no-one wants the game to stay the same forever I was just stirring.

I think 4 years is way too long to force our game to wait for any change. The coaches sure as well won't put tactical developments on hold for 4 years. Why is 4 years the right number anyway? Why not 2, why not 6?

Changing rules for the sake of changing rules is wrong I agree. But not changing them for the sake of not changing them is just as bad IMO.

I think take each idea on it's merits and debate it rather than debating the principle of rule changes.

Are you serious? Coaches can't come up with tactical developments if there aren't any rule changes?

regards,

REB

[MatteeG]

Changing rules for the sake of changing rules is wrong I agree. But not changing them for the sake of not changing them is just as bad IMO.

Changing rules as a knee-jerk reaction is what fires me up. One weekend where a couple of goal ump errors happened and we suddenly have to change the scoring system?

No delay in kicking in from full back (why the hell was this brought in again?) led to more deliberate rushed points. Now no deliberate rushed points, which must be a headache to umpire..

Just one or 2 seasons with no changes would be good. This rules committee simply changes rules to justify their existence.

Should there be a footy 'referendum' amongst all club members for rule changes? as REB mentioned, at least involve the umpires and maybe the players too?

[Hondo]

Are you serious? Coaches can't come up with tactical developments if there aren't any rule changes?

Of course they do and will.

Every pre-season some coach has some new plan to get an edge. Most times it's a standard evolution of the game and you live with it. Sometimes it's blatantly against the spirit of the game (ie, deliberately rushing behinds when they was no pressure on the defender) and you have to be able to act on it if needed.

[The Dark Knight]

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

I'm a massive fan of this and I reckon it will work. The umpires often make a mockery of the advantage rule as there is sometimes confusion over whether the umpire will call it back or not. Therefore IMO, the player with the ball should be able to decide if they can take the advantage and play on.

[Hondo]

Hondo, it might seem when this topic is discussed people are always anti-change and that obviously annoys some people, but how many of the rule changes in the last 15 years have actually enhanced the game and the way it is played for the players and what supporters want to see? Not too many from this supporters POV.

Fair question. We'd need to see a complete list of these changes as a starting point. I couldn't find one on a quick search. Maybe a topic all of it's own if I can ever find a list or if someone else can.

I am just after some balanced discussion about the actual proposed changes rather than blanket debates on the principle of rule changes. Discussion like this: http://www.backpagelead.com.au/afl/2174 ... le-changes

Not saying I agree with it all, but at least some thought is going into it.

On the play on to advantage rule - if the clubs themselves support it (which they apparently do) it sounds like a consensus among all football people - not just the rules committee.

[Rik E Boy]

Are you serious? Coaches can't come up with tactical developments if there aren't any rule changes?

Of course they do and will.

Every pre-season some coach has some new plan to get an edge. Most times it's a standard evolution of the game and you live with it. Sometimes it's blatantly against the spirit of the game (ie, deliberately rushing behinds when they was no pressure on the defender) and you have to be able to act on it if needed.

I don't believe that tactic should have ushered in the rule change that players still don't understand two years later. So someone rushes a point big deal. This is exactly what people are talking about. Two blokes stepped over the line so what do KB's idiots do? Introduce another grey area!

regards,

REB

[Hondo]

We'll agree to disagree on the rushed behinds rule change then REB. I reckon it's been a great change. Yes, sometimes it's been confusing but I think generally it's been umpired well and it's lead to proper contents on the last line of defence instead of the white flag tactics of before. Just my personal opinion.