Message for Darce and idiot KB

[mjp]

I want two changes - backward kicking = no mark and no freekick for chopping the arms. One is a new rule, one is reverting to the old rule...

And yes, I know the examples were from years ago but could have used other more recent examples that I think have helped (the 'KB' bouncing the ball rule, increase in kicking distance, ruckman taking clean possession, dragging the ball in) instead.

Oh - and anyone who reckons ruckman should be able to grab the ball from a boundary throw-in and not be penalised has either never played or was a ruckman...single best rule change ever (except that they shouldn't have waited til I retired to institute it!).

[westdog54]

I'm rather curious as to how the rule changes he's mentioned could be construed as bad. Anyone who believes they are is more than welcome to enlighten me.

[bornadog]

I'm rather curious as to how the rule changes he's mentioned could be construed as bad. Anyone who believes they are is more than welcome to enlighten me.

Sorry, meant to say good or bad for the game in the eyes of supporters, not bad as in a bad rule.

A rule is a rule (not bad or good) and no matter what you say, every rule is going to change the game forever and whether that is good or bad for the game, is debatable.

[westdog54]

Sorry, meant to say good or bad for the game in the eyes of supporters, not bad as in a bad rule.

A rule is a rule (not bad or good) and no matter what you say, every rule is going to change the game forever and whether that is good or bad for the game, is debatable.

Again I ask, how can the rules Mike mentioned be viewed as bad for the game? Why is change so negatively viewed when in many cases it improves the game?

[bornadog]

Again I ask, how can the rules Mike mentioned be viewed as bad for the game? Why is change so negatively viewed when in many cases it improves the game?

Improves the game in your eyes.

Ok, for example, the rushed behinds have increased due to players being able to bring the ball in quicker after a behind is recorded.

What is the point in not being able to pass backwards and claiming a mark. I don't get the reason for wanting to change.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Improves the game in your eyes.

Ok, for example, the rushed behinds have increased due to players being able to bring the ball in quicker after a behind is recorded.

What is the point in not being able to pass backwards and claiming a mark. I don't get the reason for wanting to change.

So teams can't waste time holding the ball up. The most boring and annoying aspect to our game, IMO a much bigger issue than rushed behinds.

[mjp]

Improves the game in your eyes.

Ok, for example, the rushed behinds have increased due to players being able to bring the ball in quicker after a behind is recorded.

What is the point in not being able to pass backwards and claiming a mark. I don't get the reason for wanting to change.

It will stop the time wasting kick backwards...and it will also (to me) reduce flooding...players will be more incented to 'hedge their bets' and not push forward too far and stay a bit closer to those defenders behind the ball - the chance of a turnover is that much greater if the kick and mark must be perfect.

How many times do we see a 'not quite perfect' backwards kick be collected by a player in 50m of space....if that 50m became 20m, all of a sudden he has to rush - and if he has to rush, more chance of an error = more chance of a turnover.

It is one rule that works well in the VFL.

[bornadog]

So teams can't waste time holding the ball up. The most boring and annoying aspect to our game, IMO a much bigger issue than rushed behinds.

so what.

Everytime that something looks boring, we should change the rules. The game is continually evolving and we don't need more rules in the most overgoverned, over policed game in the world. Next we will have four goal umpires, four boundary umpires, four field umpires, a third umpire for dodgy decisions etc etc.

Sorry, I can't take anymore rule changes.