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

[FlyingHigh]

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.

This has been in general been well-implemented and umpired, however agree with matteeg that this rule was only introduced because of another rule change for which there was little justification IMO. Plus the penalty is far too high. If the AFL are insistent on play-on after a behind, why not have a compromise - rushed behinds (and make the interpretation a bit stricter) have to wait for the flag to be waved, legitimate misses can be play-on.

[Drop Bear]

What's hard to understand about the rushed behind rule? If a player is under pressure he's allowed to rush it.

As for players deciding whether to take advantage and play on, what happens if it's not his team's free kick? Another reason to pay a 50, and there's already enough of those f*cking things.

[JK]

What's hard to understand about the rushed behind rule? If a player is under pressure he's allowed to rush it.

Thats whats hard about it, its open to interpretation which leads to inconsistencies on when the penalty is paid or not.

Unfortunately the pressure to rush a behind is greater late in a close game, especially games of greater importance, so could be an interesting one for finals ... But I digress.

Im not anti-all rule changes, just most and thats generally because it seems as though a rule needs to be brought in to address a loophole that wasn't closed on a previous rule that had been brought in.

That and the fact that there have been numerous rules brought in for what I'd deem to be little reason. (The Primus rule comes to mind)

The more that are created, then the harder it's always going to be for the umpires and the game will/has/does suffer for it IMHO.

[Drop Bear]

I understand where you're coming from. The rushed behind was bought in to stop tactics like the Hawks in the GF. I'd say it has been successful in stopping that. I'm not one who likes new rules year after year either.

[Sojourner]

Have to agree with the AFL on the Interchange / Substitution rule, historically there were no Interchange players, then one was brought in solely for the purpose of replacing an injured player, this was then extended a further three times all with the argument that it was to replace injured players. The bench was intended to replace injured players, not to be used to continuously interchange players to enhance zoning tactics. Watching an AFL forward kick a goal then go and bench himself because of a rotation policy goes so heavily against the spirit that the game is played in that its a total joke. In this particular case the AFL have to make a rule change simply to restore the game to what it was as opposed to actually changing the game and I am very much all for it on that particular rule. My suggestion is that they simply make the rule that if a player comes off that they cannot come back on for the remainder of the 1/4 and leave the bench for injured or genuinely rested players.

[JK]

Im far from a fan, but Cornes article in the rag this morning is pretty accurate I reckon.

[dedja]

Im far from a fan, but Cornes article in the rag this morning is pretty accurate I reckon.

Amongst all the crap, Studley gets it right every now and again ... today's effort is one of them

[whufc]

Im over the AFL, they want to super speed up the game but they dont want the consequences that come with that.

eg, the rushed behind rule, they let players kick out as quick as possible, teams then start using it as a tactic and instead of just changing the rule back, they then create a new rule 1a to counter this. Same has happened with players dragging the ball under opposition players to get the holding the ball decision, they are now looking at a counter rule which penalises any player who does this.

Honestly after watching a game of football how many people would have an accurate guess at how many interchanges were made. I know when im at game the bench is almost the last thing im watching or caring about.

AFL 2010 is a completely different sport to what the Crows played when they won their back to back premierships.

AFL before 2000ish = test cricket
current AFL = t20 cricket.

[Hondo]

eg, the rushed behind rule, they let players kick out as quick as possible, teams then start using it as a tactic and instead of just changing the rule back, they then create a new rule 1a to counter this.

In the GF Hawthorn weren't rushing behinds to get the fast break. They were basically doing it to get a free kick out and they would repeat it until they felt a hole had opened up in Geelong's zone. Guerra and co weren't rushing every time to play on either. It was mostly a get out of jail and re-set tactic. Making the defender wait until the flags were waved wouldn't have changed what Hawthorn did that day.

Joel Bowden didn't like the look of the options on offer so stepped back over the line to buy his team another 30 seconds to set themselves up better. It was more of a delaying tactic rather than a fast play on one.

As I recall some of the increase in rushed behinds in 2008 was attributed to the new play on rule but most was this new tactic of re-setting yourself from defence with the easy free kick for the cost of 1 point.

I don't mean to sound like I am President of the Rushed Behinds rule fan club. Just want to clarify these point as I think the negatives of the old rule get glossed over too quickly. I never liked the old rule, ever.

[whufc]

eg, the rushed behind rule, they let players kick out as quick as possible, teams then start using it as a tactic and instead of just changing the rule back, they then create a new rule 1a to counter this.

In the GF Hawthorn weren't rushing behinds to get the fast break. They were basically doing it to get a free kick out and they would repeat it until they felt a hole had opened up in Geelong's zone. Guerra and co weren't rushing every time to play on either. It was mostly a get out of jail and re-set tactic.

Making the defender wait until the flags were waved wouldn't have changed what Hawthorn did that day.

As I recall some of the increase in rushed behinds in 2008 was attributed to the new play on rule but most was this new tactic of re-setting yourself from defence with the easy free kick for the cost of 1 point.

true but it was becoming increasnigly popular to run the ball through the points coming out in between the goals without an opponent being allowed within 5 meters of you.

[Reddeer]

How about a net across the goals as well and allow hand balled goals. Might as well go whole hog with rule changes and then that brings it into line with soccer, Gaelic football, ice hockey. The games pretty much like sanitised rugby anyway!!!
Oh for the true football of the 60's and 70's

[Rik E Boy]

How about a net across the goals as well and allow hand balled goals. Might as well go whole hog with rule changes and then that brings it into line with soccer, Gaelic football, ice hockey. The games pretty much like sanitised rugby anyway!!!
Oh for the true football of the 60's and 70's

1960's true football? No thanks. I've watched a few games of 60's football and it was when in doubt boot it over the boundary line. While it was very physical the skills were way down and some of the games I've seen weren't much of a spectacle. There would have been some great games in the 60's of course but I believe that this is still the case today.

1970's football saw the evolution of handball following Ronald Dale's handball handball handball edict to his floundering Blues in the 1970 Grand Final. The game started moving and the centre square was introduced to clear out conjestion. So what Hondo has been saying has some merit. Some rule changes can be beneficial.

I think the modern game is not that bad but for me the purest football was played during the 1990's, not the 60's and 70's but older fans will tend to decry the current game while evaluating the past with rose coloured glasses.

regards,

REB

[valleys07]

How about a net across the goals as well and allow hand balled goals. Might as well go whole hog with rule changes and then that brings it into line with soccer, Gaelic football, ice hockey. The games pretty much like sanitised rugby anyway!!!
Oh for the true football of the 60's and 70's

1960's true football? No thanks. I've watched a few games of 60's football and it was when in doubt boot it over the boundary line. While it was very physical the skills were way down and some of the games I've seen weren't much of a spectacle. There would have been some great games in the 60's of course but I believe that this is still the case today.

1970's football saw the evolution of handball following Ronald Dale's handball handball handball edict to his floundering Blues in the 1970 Grand Final. The game started moving and the centre square was introduced to clear out conjestion. So what Hondo has been saying has some merit. Some rule changes can be beneficial.

I think the modern game is not that bad but for me the purest football was played during the 1990's, not the 60's and 70's but older fans will tend to decry the current game while evaluating the past with rose coloured glasses.

regards,

REB

Good post REB. The 90's, What a decade of footy......

[Media Park]

Strong marking forwards, Ablett, Lockett, Dunstall, etc, not pansies like we have now, playing for free kicks (exception being BBBB Hall). That was football!

[Gingernuts]

Strong marking forwards, Ablett, Lockett, Dunstall, etc, not pansies like we have now, playing for free kicks (exception being BBBB Hall). That was football!

Big ruckmen Like Rehn, Salmon, Primus etc. actually being able to clash in the middle properly without that stupid circle too. Loved a good honest ruck contest, especially when it didn't necessarily come down to height or 'vertical leap'.

[valleys07]

Strong marking forwards, Ablett, Lockett, Dunstall, etc, not pansies like we have now, playing for free kicks (exception being BBBB Hall). That was football!

Big ruckmen Like Rehn, Salmon, Primus etc. actually being able to clash in the middle properly without that stupid circle too. Loved a good honest ruck contest, especially when it didn't necessarily come down to height or 'vertical leap'.

Ginger, was it rehns knee injury in 96?? that prompted a review of the ruck system/rules

i think it was in the pre-season when he jarred the knee on the small circle where they used to bounce the footy, ever since then ruck rules change all the time to protect injuries....

[whufc]

tough hard but fair defenders like archer martyn silvagni leppitsch roos dunkley frawley

[Gingernuts]

Strong marking forwards, Ablett, Lockett, Dunstall, etc, not pansies like we have now, playing for free kicks (exception being BBBB Hall). That was football!

Big ruckmen Like Rehn, Salmon, Primus etc. actually being able to clash in the middle properly without that stupid circle too. Loved a good honest ruck contest, especially when it didn't necessarily come down to height or 'vertical leap'.

Ginger, was it rehns knee injury in 96?? that prompted a review of the ruck system/rules

i think it was in the pre-season when he jarred the knee on the small circle where they used to bounce the footy, ever since then ruck rules change all the time to protect injuries....

I reckon it was his 3rd injury in 1999?? It was that stupid hard disc that they had in the middle. I think he ended up sueing the AFL for that one.

[spell_check]

I think the modern game is not that bad but for me the purest football was played during the 1990's, not the 60's and 70's but older fans will tend to decry the current game while evaluating the past with rose coloured glasses.

regards,

REB

True, because this had the right mix of skills and pace before flooding really took hold.

[saintal]

I think the modern game is not that bad but for me the purest football was played during the 1990's, not the 60's and 70's but older fans will tend to decry the current game while evaluating the past with rose coloured glasses.

regards,

REB

True, because this had the right mix of skills and pace before flooding really took hold.

This.

I know they are considered ‘classic’ games, and don’t represent the norm, but you only have to watch some of the old games from the 90s that Channel Seven show on their second channel to be reminded of how good the sport was back then.