Changes: The AFL tribunal....

[A Mum]

Thought some of you may be interested in this topic for conversation:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 12,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 12,00.html

[JK]

Im vehemently opposed to this, but I understand Im likely to be in the minority, so will keep the rest of my thoughts to myself lol

[Hondo]

It brings yet another interpretation based on the umpire's judgement which could be a problem.

If they police it as well as they did the rushed behinds rule last year so that only the blatant ones are pinged then I'll feel more comfortable about it.

[JK]

If they police it as well as they did the rushed behinds rule last year so that only the blatant ones are pinged then I'll feel more comfortable about it.

Saw some pretty blatant ones get through unpenalised that were no different to some that had been penalised.

[Hondo]

Yes, but at least they erred on the side of giving the players the benefit of the doubt. If they had gone free-crazy then that could have been a disaster.

I'll stand corrected but I think less than 10 frees were given for rushed behinds all season? Not many frees but a big impact on the number of ones tried on by the players.

If they do that with this staging then it might only be a handful of frees actually given but a big drop in "dives".

[Voice]

Not sure that you see many spear tackles in our code but I have to agree with being more stringent on the sling. Can be very dangerous, especially if you sling them into another player or they twist during the sling and land head first.
Obviously, with fines only being handed out for staging, they are going to review all cases of it after the matches so it shouldn't affect games in any way.

[Dirko]

Great the biggest stager of all in Lloyd retires and they bring the rule in

Ohh well it'll **** up Mon"frees" though.......

[the big bang]

Yes, but at least they erred on the side of giving the players the benefit of the doubt. If they had gone free-crazy then that could have been a disaster.

I'll stand corrected but I think less than 10 frees were given for rushed behinds all season? Not many frees but a big impact on the number of ones tried on by the players.
If they do that with this staging then it might only be a handful of frees actually given but a big drop in "dives".

exactly right there! the amount of times that players kept the ball in play isntead of rushing a behind like they would have a couple years ago would be un-countable. so i dont think the success of the rule should be gaged by how many free kicks were paid, but more so on how many times the ball wasn't rushed through.

[JK]

Yes, but at least they erred on the side of giving the players the benefit of the doubt. If they had gone free-crazy then that could have been a disaster.

I'll stand corrected but I think less than 10 frees were given for rushed behinds all season? Not many frees but a big impact on the number of ones tried on by the players.
If they do that with this staging then it might only be a handful of frees actually given but a big drop in "dives".

exactly right there! the amount of times that players kept the ball in play isntead of rushing a behind like they would have a couple years ago would be un-countable. so i dont think the success of the rule should be gaged by how many free kicks were paid, but more so on how many times the ball wasn't rushed through.

Wasnt questioning the success of the rule mate, just suggesting there were a couple of blatant mistakes (and fair enough, they are going to occur with a decision of any nature) occurred with it ... I do agree that rule actually served it's purpose of keeping the football continuous (still - I never had a problem with rushed behinds)

Just to prove that Im not a cranky old bastard who hates all rule changes, I like the one they've introduced for the NAB Cup, whereby if Player x tackles player Y on the ground and holds the ball under him, then Player x actually gets penalised.

[MatteeG]

Dont think they need to fine blokes who stage for frees. The biggest penalty for these is NOT TO PAY THE DAMN SOFT FREES IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Once again- making 'rules' where commonsense umpiring would suffice.

[Gingernuts]

Dont think they need to fine blokes who stage for frees. The biggest penalty for these is NOT TO PAY THE DAMN SOFT FREES IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Once again- making 'rules' where commonsense umpiring would suffice.

I disagree - in the heat of the moment and without the benefit of slow motion and 360 degree camera angles it's bloody hard for an umpire to pick up on a fake if it's a good one.

I say threaten the players with video review and a hefty fine and demirit points if a 'fake' is caught on camera. That'd stamp it out.

[CoverKing]

I believe this is a joke. All about revenue raising IMO.
Staging for free's have been apart of footy for a long time. People like milne, wanganeen were good at it, but everyone knew them as stages, even the umpires, eventually they are worked out.
Being fined is a joke for staging for free's. What a joke!

[JK]

Dont think they need to fine blokes who stage for frees. The biggest penalty for these is NOT TO PAY THE DAMN SOFT FREES IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Once again- making 'rules' where commonsense umpiring would suffice.

I disagree - in the heat of the moment and without the benefit of slow motion and 360 degree camera angles it's bloody hard for an umpire to pick up on a fake if it's a good one.

I say threaten the players with video review and a hefty fine and demirit points if a 'fake' is caught on camera. That'd stamp it out.

Problem with that mate, is that it will evolve ins the same manner as "Trial-by-video" .. Remember TBV was first introduced just prevent king hits and behind the play incidents, yet nowadays it get's used for the most inconsequential of incidents.

No doubt that's what will happen with this, it will commence as something in place for only the ultra obvious (something that obvious should surely be detectable on field then?) at first, but years down the track they will scrutinise to a far higher degree.

[Gingernuts]

Dont think they need to fine blokes who stage for frees. The biggest penalty for these is NOT TO PAY THE DAMN SOFT FREES IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Once again- making 'rules' where commonsense umpiring would suffice.

I disagree - in the heat of the moment and without the benefit of slow motion and 360 degree camera angles it's bloody hard for an umpire to pick up on a fake if it's a good one.

I say threaten the players with video review and a hefty fine and demirit points if a 'fake' is caught on camera. That'd stamp it out.

Problem with that mate, is that it will evolve ins the same manner as "Trial-by-video" .. Remember TBV was first introduced just prevent king hits and behind the play incidents, yet nowadays it get's used for the most inconsequential of incidents.

No doubt that's what will happen with this, it will commence as something in place for only the ultra obvious (something that obvious should surely be detectable on field then?) at first, but years down the track they will scrutinise to a far higher degree.

Yea, it has that potential I guess CP. I guess I was thinking of it more as a preventative measure to give the players a reason not to bothing trying to milk a free (risk outweighs benefit).

[JK]

I guess I just tend to think that playing for a free kick is not a new problem, but the umpires of the 70's and 80's handled it by being tough on serial divers - Players soon learnt it was to their own detriment to continue on this way.

At the end of the day, before a game commences, there is no rule advantage to either side and I reckon it becomes all swings and roundabouts over the course of the year.

Here's an interesting scenario with the new rule in place ... and granted it is a dramatic example (although after many recent Grand Finals it might not be that unbelievable).

Grand Final between (say) Cats and Saints, Saints are down less than a kick with 10 seconds to go, St Nick dives earns a free and kicks the match winning goal .. He's later found guilty and fined of an offence that won his team the GF - In many peoples eyes highlighting another fault of footy and it's laws at the highest level.

[Gingernuts]

Yep, fair call CP. I concede.

[Rik E Boy]

Yep, fair call CP. I concede.

What? It's September already?

regards,

REB

[Gingernuts]

Yep, fair call CP. I concede.

What? It's September already?

regards,

REB

Did a Cats fan just diss me about poor September form?? What's the world coming to....

[Rik E Boy]

Yep, fair call CP. I concede.

What? It's September already?

regards,

REB

Did a Cats fan just diss me about poor September form?? What's the world coming to....

The drought is over Gingernuts, it least, it is at Geelong. GO THE PROFESSOR!

regards,

REB

[HH3]

In my opinion the tribunal got Mooneys bump wrong. And the one on Selwood (i think it was Osbourne) was just a contest at the footy.