Message for Darce and idiot KB

[Sockeye Salmon]

I'm also firmly of the belief that one of the main criteria for the rules committee is to make sure that there are plenty of goals kicked so the broadcasters can get a suitable number of ads in, just to make sure they can squeeze extra $$$$$ out of them every 5 years.

[mjp]

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

Chopping the arms? Agree with all of my heart. Hands in the back? I don't really care about this - if they paid it consistently I think it would be fine...unfortunately the umpires only seem interested when it involves a marking contest, a full-back and a full-forward.

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

Nope. Keep it. I hate the whole 'wait for the peanut with the flags to wave them' thing that I had to put up with as a player...move the ball.

3. 2 interchange and 2 reserves.

4 interchange is fine.

4. Keep 4 boundary umpires

Agree. I also think this will have a massive impact on ruckman in the next 12-months and they will be FORCED to start playing behind the ball.

5. Ban the backwards mark in the defensive half.

Agree. Great rule. It is easy to say 'Just man-up', but players will be more incented to do exactly that knowing that their opponent MUST play on...hence it will lead to more kicks to contested situations...

[Go_Dogs]

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

Nope. Keep it. I hate the whole 'wait for the peanut with the flags to wave them' thing that I had to put up with as a player...move the ball.

This suggestion was only for a rushed behind though wasn't it? IMO, better than anything the AFL have put forward so far to 'fix the rushed behind problem', which they seems hell bent on doing.

[Sockeye Salmon]

This suggestion was only for a rushed behind though wasn't it? IMO, better than anything the AFL have put forward so far to 'fix the rushed behind problem', which they seems hell bent on doing.

I'd be happy with only making them wait for rushed behinds but it would still mean that umpires still had to decide which was and wasn't rushed.

[Desipura]

Lets experiment with making the backman kick the ball 50 metres from the kick in when the ball has been rushed through.
Only problem being on a very windy day it may be a difficult thing to achieve

[Twodogs]

Nope. Nothing that gives teams a chance to set up zones should be tolerated.


Zone defences, and to a lesser extent, set plays will kill our game unless we come down on them hard.

[Desipura]

But it is ok to have 11 rushed behinds in a game?

[bornadog]

But it is ok to have 11 rushed behinds in a game?

so what, not the end of the world.

[ledge]

I would take 11 rushed behinds if it won us a premiership! Unlike when they outlawed the flickpass which did us over in 61.

[Twodogs]

But it is ok to have 11 rushed behinds in a game?

So long as they can restart play without waiting for the gol umpire whats the problem?


Rushed behinds are a tactical problem and it will be the coaches who sort it out-not the rule makers.

[Sockeye Salmon]

So long as they can restart play without waiting for the gol umpire whats the problem?


Rushed behinds are a tactical problem and it will be the coaches who sort it out-not the rule makers.

Re-starting play without having to wait for the goal umpire is the reason it's so attractive to rush behinds.

They changed a rule which created another problem. Put the first rule back the way it was and the 2nd problem will go away.

[Desipura]

I would take 11 rushed behinds if it won us a premiership! Unlike when they outlawed the flickpass which did us over in 61.

So why did we create this thread talking about changing the rules then? You are stating the obvious in regards to your comments re: premiership.

[Desipura]

So long as they can restart play without waiting for the gol umpire whats the problem?


Rushed behinds are a tactical problem and it will be the coaches who sort it out-not the rule makers.

I do not believe you should be rewarded with a "kick in" for giving away a point. It is a unfair advantage that clubs (including ours) have been able to score a large number of goals from.

[mjp]

That is a bit simplistic bad - lots of rule changes have been positive (centre square, out-on-the-full etc). And to suggest flooding is not a problem...well, I am not sure I agree. But it is so completely pervasive in the game that no-one mentions it now.

[Sockeye Salmon]

That is a bit simplistic bad - lots of rule changes have been positive (centre square, out-on-the-full etc). And to suggest flooding is not a problem...well, I am not sure I agree. But it is so completely pervasive in the game that no-one mentions it now.

Centre square was brought in in 1972 and out on the full was brought in in 1968!

One new rule a decade is about right!


I actually agree that flooding is a problem, I just think that making a defenders job harder is exactly the wrong thing to do about fixing it.

The only way is to tire the players - keep the ball in play and don't let them rest as much.