Message for Darce and idiot KB

[Sockeye Salmon]

There are two reasons players rush a point.

1. Nothing else they can do.

Defenders can no longer defend. They can't knock the ball out of bounds, they can't dive on it. When they're going for a mark they can't touch the arms when they spoil or place their hands anywhere near their opponents back (whether they push or not).


2. The reward is worth it.

By giving away a point you not only get the ball but you get it immediately, before your teammates are manned up. The reward is not only possesion, but quite possibly possesion up the other end.


Giving them the ball back after their teammates have been manned up will go some way towards reducing the advantage gained by rushing the point in the first place.

Removing the stupid hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules will stop forward from continually being gifted goals they didn't deserve. If defenders can actually defend instead of being witches hats for forwards, coaches won't have to resort so much towards flooding to stop goals.

Apologies for quoting my own post but I didn't want to hijack the other thread.

Now that Darce is on the rules committee, this is what I'd like to see them do.



1. Scrap the hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules.

The problem in the first place was never the rules, it was the intepretation. It used to be that you couldn't make two movements with your hands and that worked perfectly well. Sometime in the 80's they decided that a little push was OK, then a slightly bigger push was allowed until eventually full pushes in the back were the norm. If the umpires advisors had done their job properly in the first place we wouldn't be stuck with this un-umpirable rule.

The chopping-the-arms rule is making our game like basketball in that only guys 7 ft tall will be able to play key back soon. One of the great things about our game is that it doesn't matter if you're built like Libba or Harry Madden, you could still play.


2. Scrap the quick kick-in from points (see above).


3. 2 interchange and 2 reserves.

Coaches are carrying on about wanting two reserves to bring on for injuries. What a fabulous idea! Reduce the bench to 2 interchange and 2 reserves. Coaches will have to rest players on the ground, we might end up with ruckmen and rovers resting in the forward pockets again. Fatigued players can't flood.

While we're at it, scrap the over-reaction to interchange breaches. A free kick is fine.


4. Keep 4 boundary umpires

We'll see the return of the ruck-rover. Faster play, more fatigue, less flooding.


5. Ban the backwards mark in the defensive half.

It works well in the VFL and all the time-wasting shits everyone.





OK. Do your best.

[Pembleton]

I reckon you are just about spot on with all of that. Not too sure about making it two interchange and 2 reserves, but i think it has some merit.

[Go_Dogs]

Not convinced about your interchange proposal.

I don't mind the hand in the back rule, encourages a player use their body strength rather than their hands to out-body an opponent. I know Twodogs will agree.

Agree that the chopping arms needs some revision, but not sure what can be done about it. Defenders need to be able to defend against quick leading forwards, but at the same time forwards need to be able to get their hands to the ball without 30 sets of hands dragging their arms down.

I agree with the kicking backwards, and rushed behind rule. Although, I think if it is not a rushed behind, the current rule applies.

[LostDoggy]

Dont agree with the backwards kick rule change. If you dont like backwards kicking just play man on man

[G-Mo77]

1. Scrap the hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules.

I wish they would! Being a very undersized defensive player I would love a change on that rule. All these rule changes get brought down to country level and the umpires we have just aren't good enough to make the calls.

When I think about it neither are the ones at AFL level

[Sockeye Salmon]

I don't mind the hand in the back rule, encourages a player use their body strength rather than their hands to out-body an opponent. I know Twodogs will agree.

My main problem with the hands in the back rule is that is so infrequently applied and it seems pot luck as to which ones they call (and almost always against the defender).

I heard KB say that everyone was over-reating because there were only (on average) 3.5 frees per game for this rule. The problem is that it actually happens about 20 times a game though.

[Go_Dogs]

My main problem with the hands in the back rule is that is so infrequently applied and it seems pot luck as to which ones they call (and almost always against the defender).

Agree the interpretations need work. Professional umpiring is the go for mine, I've been sprouting it for a few years.

[LostDoggy]

How about for once they don't change the rules, these Rule committees are stuffing up the game.
Hands in the Back - Crap (Push in the back ok, but ticky touchwood soft frees are woeful)
Chopping the arms isn't great - defenders gotta be allowed to go for the ball

Please don't ban the kicking backwards mark... We especially shouldn't want this rule with our style of play... oh yeah that will mean Lake never gets a kick or mark : )

Rushed behind... leave it alone. The Joel Bowden ones the umpire should bounce but in general play leave em alone.

[westdog54]

How about for once they don't change the rules, these Rule committees are stuffing up the game.
Hands in the Back - Crap (Push in the back ok, but ticky touchwood soft frees are woeful)
Chopping the arms isn't great - defenders gotta be allowed to go for the ballPlease don't ban the kicking backwards mark... We especially shouldn't want this rule with our style of play... oh yeah that will mean Lake never gets a kick or mark : )

Rushed behind... leave it alone. The Joel Bowden ones the umpire should bounce but in general play leave em alone.

As much as I have doubts over the chopping the arms rule, isn't this a bit of a contradiction in terms? "They've gotta be allowed to go for the ball so they should be allowed to chop the arms".

As for 'constantly changing the rules', call me cynical, but this is yet another example of media-initiated hysteria. The rules of the game have been evolving since the game's inception, and its only the need for newspapers to be sold that it gets so much attention these days.

[Sockeye Salmon]

As much as I have doubts over the chopping the arms rule, isn't this a bit of a contradiction in terms? "They've gotta be allowed to go for the ball so they should be allowed to chop the arms".

As for 'constantly changing the rules', call me cynical, but this is yet another example of media-initiated hysteria. The rules of the game have been evolving since the game's inception, and its only the need for newspapers to be sold that it gets so much attention these days.

I find that post astounding, Nick.

By any measure, there have been an enormous number of rule changes ever soince the started up the rules committee (just by having a committee means they were going to change rules whether they needed it or not just to justify their existance).

There was never a rule preventing you from hitting the arms - I was taught to do it in under 10's - and if you are shorter than your opponent it is almost impossible to spoil otherwise. One of our great games best features was that anyone could play, all you had to be was good enough. It didn't matter is you were short, tall skinny, solid.

If this rule was in place in the 70's and 80's Francis Bourke and Bruce Doull would never have been able to play key back at the end of their careers.


PS. Don't get me wrong, journos are scum and half the problems we have in the game are due to them trying to beat up a story to sell papers (and are in no small way part of the problem by pushing to get rule changes brought in in the first place eg. rushed behinds ATM) but they are not beating up the damage these rules are doing to our game, that's real.

[The Coon Dog]

PS. Don't get me wrong, journos are scum

Obviously there are exceptions. G'day Mark.

[westdog54]

I find that post astounding, Nick.

By any measure, there have been an enormous number of rule changes ever soince the started up the rules committee (just by having a committee means they were going to change rules whether they needed it or not just to justify their existance).

There was never a rule preventing you from hitting the arms - I was taught to do it in under 10's - and if you are shorter than your opponent it is almost impossible to spoil otherwise. One of our great games best features was that anyone could play, all you had to be was good enough. It didn't matter is you were short, tall skinny, solid.

If this rule was in place in the 70's and 80's Francis Bourke and Bruce Doull would never have been able to play key back at the end of their careers.


PS. Don't get me wrong, journos are scum and half the problems we have in the game are due to them trying to beat up a story to sell papers (and are in no small way part of the problem by pushing to get rule changes brought in in the first place eg. rushed behinds ATM) but they are not beating up the damage these rules are doing to our game, that's real.

With respect Jim, I wasn't at any stage standing up for the rule thats in place, I've stated (probably not clearly enough) that I wasn't sold on the rule, more that I was pointing out that a defender can't possibly be "going for the ball" if they chop a player's arms. Putting aside any discussions about rules and legends of the game, that statement is a contradiction in terms.

I also stand by my comments about how much media hysteria there is. One day, you've got people screaming for a moratorium on rule changes, the next day there's 10 different possibilities as to how the issue of rushed behinds could be addressed by the rules commitee. They latch on to the sentiment of the day, flog it for all its worth, and move onto the next thing.

[LostDoggy]

Rushed behinds are a vital part of our game BUT the double rushed should be driven from the game. If from a kick out the player rushes the ball again then there should be a bounce from 15 metres out. Simple.

[Sockeye Salmon]

With respect Jim, I wasn't at any stage standing up for the rule thats in place, I've stated (probably not clearly enough) that I wasn't sold on the rule, more that I was pointing out that a defender can't possibly be "going for the ball" if they chop a player's arms. Putting aside any discussions about rules and legends of the game, that statement is a contradiction in terms.

I also stand by my comments about how much media hysteria there is. One day, you've got people screaming for a moratorium on rule changes, the next day there's 10 different possibilities as to how the issue of rushed behinds could be addressed by the rules commitee. They latch on to the sentiment of the day, flog it for all its worth, and move onto the next thing.

Serves me right for addressing seperate points in the same post without using multi-post.

I absolutely agree about the media hysteria, only that there certainly has been plenty of rule-changing as well.

[bornadog]

Every single rule change, changes the game in some way. Coaches find another way to get around the rules, the style of play changes and supporters get upset because the game isnot the same.

As SS has pointed out, the quick return to play after a behind is now leading to another change being wanted for rushed behinds. Rushed behinds is part of our game and if changed, will change the game forever.

I don't agree with kicking backwards to be called play on, what is the point in doing it?

Hands in the back - got to ridiculous levels at one stage, it was always a matter of enforcing the rule, however, now we have stupid interpretations, like a hand resting on a shoulder which has no effect on the general play, and being called hands in the back. There is a big difference between a push in the back and hands on the back.