Are You Sick Of The Afl Changing Rules Every Year

[bornadog]

Watch recruiters bring in athletes that can run all day with no footy intelligence.

[soupman]

If you think tiring teams out is the answer thats fine but actually do it. What does reducing interchange from 90 to 75 achieve? Put it down to 40 or something where it might actually make a difference.

Also missed in the above the player on the mark is unable to be substituted, which might give us a nice break from seeing Caleb Daniel standing on it for every single set shot the opposition gets.

[Rocket Science]

It shits me I'm so easily triggered by their now entirely predictable schtick but just trying to imagine the policing involved with a routine kick from a mark or free kick that occurs what, a hundred times a game?

The umpire must presumably now intently watch both the kicker and man on the mark, simultaneously, to determine if anyone flinches laterally in which case it's either play on or a fifty metre penalty.

Except a kicker's routinely given leeway to scan and half-heartedly test options before being called to play on yet the umpire alone now determines when and if the man on the mark can react to a kicker's behaviour.

What happens when the kicker feigns left or right - as so often occurs - and the man on the mark instinctively reads this, gesturing left or right in response, while still maintaining the mark, or even if just to brace in case he has to set off in pursuit to try narrowing an escape angle.

*whistle*

Even if it's adjudicated consistently and correctly a half-step flinch is going to cost goals, and results, while strangling yet more instinct out of a game that's built on it and yet increasingly starved of it.

At what point do these spivs answer charges of continually disfiguring the product in the chase for moar advertising revenue under the specious guise that more goals = a more attractive product to anyone that isn't an advertiser.

It's patently about making the game as freewheeling as possible to manufacture more scoring to manufacture more ad spots during a broadcast and more leverage over advertisers to demand more dollars. And we can all agree, that's good for footy.

[soupman]

They keep trying to tighten things with rule tweaks and changes but they either don't make any real meaningful change or have unintended consequences. The more the rules try to force teams to play more attacking, instead of rewarding them for doing it, the more coaches try to mitigate risk and make the game more defensive and thus lower scoring.

If they want to "create more Dusty moments", a good start would be to enforce rules they already have. Gun mids/players are constantly held at contests without the ball. It's difficult for Bont to create a Dusty moment when he is dragging along the opposition tagger. Crack down on stuff like this and it will help immensely.

The rule changes they are employing are so minor that even if they are effective I'm not sure the cure is worth the medicine. If restricting the man on the mark opens up the game in a minor way is it not completely offset by the frustration of players being punished for moving on the mark a tad early and getting penalised 50m? The goal review system is a perfect example, even if it worked 100% of the time are people more pissed off about having to go through the goal review process than they are pissed off if the wrong call is made without it?

[jeemak]

How good is the man of the mark rule change. RS is a touch more eloquent with his views on it than I can bring myself to be. What happens if a player moves backwards and latterally.....is that to be penalised as well?

It beggars belief that this is what these guys come up with.

[whythelongface]

If the AFL seriously wanted to ‘bust open ugly congestion’ would you not just simply reduce the number of players on the field. If there was two less players per side then surely this would make much more of a difference than simply tinkering with the rules. These changes make it harder to officiate and really make little difference to the spectacle.

[jazzadogs]

It's an insane change. At AFL level, it will be frustrating and as others have said will likely result in huge penalties at important times for players doing a) something instinctive that they've done for their entire careers, and b) tiny little movements that have no bearing on the play.

I'm still playing local footy as well and as the AFL have taken control of a lot of Victorian leagues, often these rules come in to our competitions too. 6,6,6 has been frustrating but manageable. Play on from kick outs has actually been pretty good. This will be absolute crap for volunteer/inexperienced umpires.

[azabob]

How good is the man of the mark rule change. RS is a touch more eloquent with his views on it than I can bring myself to be. What happens if a player moves backwards and latterally.....is that to be penalised as well?

It beggars belief that this is what these guys come up with.

Yep. There is no rule saying you must man the mark. What happens when the team without the ball stands five meters behind the mark and protects the corridor? Is that a free kick?

[jeemak]

Yep. There is no rule saying you must man the mark. What happens when the team without the ball stands five meters behind the mark and protects the corridor? Is that a free kick?

Twelve week suspension and loss of premiership points for those weeks for putting the game into disrepute.

[Rocket Science]

How good is the man of the mark rule change. RS is a touch more eloquent with his views on it than I can bring myself to be. What happens if a player moves backwards and latterally.....is that to be penalised as well?

It beggars belief that this is what these guys come up with.

I for one am thankful they've FINALLY rectified the appalling blight of *checks notes* the bloke on the mark trying to read and react to the kicker's intentions.

Frankly it was turning me off the game.

[Happy Days]

It shits me I'm so easily triggered by their now entirely predictable schtick but just trying to imagine the policing involved with a routine kick from a mark or free kick that occurs what, a hundred times a game?

The umpire must presumably now intently watch both the kicker and man on the mark, simultaneously, to determine if anyone flinches laterally in which case it's either play on or a fifty metre penalty.

Except a kicker's routinely given leeway to scan and half-heartedly test options before being called to play on yet the umpire alone now determines when and if the man on the mark can react to a kicker's behaviour.

What happens when the kicker feigns left or right - as so often occurs - and the man on the mark instinctively reads this, gesturing left or right in response, while still maintaining the mark, or even if just to brace in case he has to set off in pursuit to try narrowing an escape angle.

*whistle*

Even if it's adjudicated consistently and correctly a half-step flinch is going to cost goals, and results, while strangling yet more instinct out of a game that's built on it and yet increasingly starved of it.

At what point do these spivs answer charges of continually disfiguring the product in the chase for moar advertising revenue under the specious guise that more goals = a more attractive product to anyone that isn't an advertiser.

It's patently about making the game as freewheeling as possible to manufacture more scoring to manufacture more ad spots during a broadcast and more leverage over advertisers to demand more dollars. And we can all agree, that's good for footy.

Nah you're wrong. Its gonna be awesome and me and all my friends have been demanding it, Steve Hocking told me so.

[Vred]

Why not just make 6-6-6 permanent and not let players leave their zones.

stop changing rules, bloody AFL.

[jeemak]

Why not just make 6-6-6 permanent and not let players leave their zones.

stop changing rules, bloody AFL.

BAD..............

[macca]

I would have thought fatigue would not only add to congestion but also increase the risk of injury.
If a player gets tired isn't natural to slow the game down and hold onto the ball and chip it around.
I'd call them wankers but its an insult to a wanker.

Yep, it will lead to more soft tissues injury as players have to play under more fatigue . The game is actually becoming harder to watch now. I reckon the interchange reduction will shorten players careers. The more soft tissue injuries you get the hard it becomes to recover and you lose the elasticity and spring in the muscles

I foresee players will be rested due to muscle tightness .

More terrible ideas from City Hall . Sigh ... I really struggle now to watch a whole game of Afl due to the new rule changes

[bornadog]

Why not just make 6-6-6 permanent and not let players leave their zones.

Hope you are joking.

6-6-6 has done ZERO to enhance the game. What a joke, umpires standing there counting the players in each zone.

Since 1996, name one rule change that is better for the game? (except, those protecting the head/player from injury)