When I'm King...

[Sockeye Salmon]

Nup-Seldom brings in bad rules, no matter what what all the nuff-nuffs think
Nup-It's not the only thing causing congestion of play and at least you see the occasional marking contest.
Nup-Why would we want to get rid of something that is to our advantage. If we do drop it I want us to get two goals a week headstart to compensate.
Maybe-I'm not that fussed about it but I have to give you something I suppose.
Agree-it's a simp-le game and complicationg it is stupid.





P.S.I wonder if everybody bitched and moaned about the out of bounds rule they bought 40 years ago or if everybody hated the new fangled boundary umpires at the turn of last century or including points in teams tally when the VFL started in 1897?

You've got to be kidding me! All they do is bring in disgraceful rules!

Not all rule changes are bad.
The out of bounds on the full was a good rule change (circa 1968ish)
The centre diamond/square (1972/73)
Dropping the ball when Kevin Bartlett threw it out in front of him (1980)

The vast majority of rule changes have been bad for the game.

[Mofra]

You've got to be kidding me! All they do is bring in disgraceful rules!

Not all rule changes are bad.
The out of bounds on the full was a good rule change (circa 1968ish)
The centre diamond/square (1972/73)
Dropping the ball when Kevin Bartlett threw it out in front of him (1980)

The vast majority of rule changes have been bad for the game.

Agree Sockeye - some changes are good. I like the centre circle change, simply because it is designed with ruck's safety in mind.

Most of the recent changes (either to the rules or interpretation) appear to be trying to take some of the "grey area" out of the game. AFL is already one of the difficult games in the world to umpire because so many of the rules are interpretive (eg. what constitutes "deliberate out of bounds" is as much decided by the crowd as the umpire), not to mention how fit the umpires need to be just to keep up with the play.

[Go_Dogs]

The vast majority of rule changes have been bad for the game

I don't have a problem with the rule changes, consistency of decisions by the umpires is what lets it down. If it was the same at both ends all year, no one would complain.

[Twodogs]

You've got to be kidding me! All they do is bring in disgraceful rules!

Not all rule changes are bad.
The out of bounds on the full was a good rule change (circa 1968ish)
The centre diamond/square (1972/73)
Dropping the ball when Kevin Bartlett threw it out in front of him (1980)

The vast majority of rule changes have been bad for the game.

You're making my point for me. They are all good changes, the game would be much worse without them. But I'll bet there were any number of people complaining about them when they were made. Now we look back and know the changes were for the good. At the time I there would have been supporters threataning to burn down H. C.A. Harrison's house unless he stopped ruining the game.

[bornadog]

when does changing the rules stop then????

[hujsh]

You're making my point for me. They are all good changes, the game would be much worse without them. But I'll bet there were any number of people complaining about them when they were made. Now we look back and know the changes were for the good. At the time I there would have been supporters threataning to burn down H. C.A. Harrison's house unless he stopped ruining the game.

But there wouldn't be many more than what he said.

[LostDoggy]

Agree Sockeye - some changes are good. I like the centre circle change, simply because it is designed with ruck's safety in mind.

Most of the recent changes (either to the rules or interpretation) appear to be trying to take some of the "grey area" out of the game. AFL is already one of the difficult games in the world to umpire because so many of the rules are interpretive (eg. what constitutes "deliberate out of bounds" is as much decided by the crowd as the umpire), not to mention how fit the umpires need to be just to keep up with the play.

"Deliberate out of bounds" is a killer for me. Please help me see if I've got this right: if you take or knock the ball deliberately out of bounds a freekick is awarded against your team at the spot the ball crossed the line. Right?

Now, how is:

1. Spoiling a ball into the forward-line by punching it deliberately out of bounds
2. Running in a straight line and picking up the ball and immediately going out of bounds

and my favourite:

3. Picking up the ball and pretending to 'side-step' a player but taking the ball out of bounds as you do so

not 'deliberately' taking the ball out of bounds?

Isn't the whole point of the rule to force teams to try to keep the ball in and therefore force a more continuous, flowing game? Thus, if the rule is policed correctly,

1. A kick into the forward-line has to be spoilt back out towards the field of play or at least a general forward direction
2. A player running for a ball near the boundary line actually has to try to circle the ball and play it rather than run it straight out

and

3. If you have the ball in your hands you by definition HAVE IT UNDER CONTROL, so if you try to beat a player and step over the boundary line it MUST be deliberate, by definition! It CANNOT logically be anything else. It's the same case as taking the ball from a bounce and trying to beat your man constituting prior opportunity.

I think this rule as it is currently policed is just a blight on the game as it is the ONE area that players are actually rewarded by 'acting' stupid or clumsy, and dishonestly, essentially. Just so ridiculous when these elite athletes all of a sudden can't pick up a ball or run properly or pretend to fall over. Until we fix this area footy has no moral high ground over soccer players 'diving'.

[hujsh]

When the ball is kicked 50+m in the wet and it just rolls over the line and it is paid deliberate a little piece of all AFL lovers dies inside

[LostDoggy]

When the ball is kicked 50+m in the wet and it just rolls over the line and it is paid deliberate a little piece of all AFL lovers dies inside

YES EXACTLY!

Are AFL umpires actually deliberately unintelligent or unsophisticated? It's not just so much that they are generally inconsistent -- that's just human -- but there's this almost deliberate naivety, almost as if they were actually trying to frustrate the rational mind.

[Sockeye Salmon]

What if the rule was 'primary intention'?

If your primary intention was to spoil, you can punch it out.

If your primary intention was to gain yardage for your team, if it rolls out of bounds it should be OK. The grey area becomes how much is enough? That will always depend on the circumstance.

[Mofra]

If your primary intention was to gain yardage for your team, if it rolls out of bounds it should be OK. The grey area becomes how much is enough? That will always depend on the circumstance.

That's the problem. Depending on circumsatnce basically means it is up the individual umpire's decision at that time. Given the number of umpires in teh system, there is no way we can hope to gain consistency.

I can't think of any other sport that is as difficult to umpire as AFL.