Are You Sick Of The Afl Changing Rules Every Year

[bulldogsthru&thru]

There is a skill in decision-making that prior opportunity has completely diluted. It gives players an out to just sit there and take the tackle, knowing there is a neutral stoppage as a result. If players cannot execute a skill such as decision-making, they do not deserve to be able to dictate a neutral stop-play by their inaction.

The rule could certainly be tightened and more strictly enforced but in my mind (and this is just finger in the air sort of stuff) a lot of stoppages occur because the player with the ball is tackled as soon as they gain possession. And they certainly have no way of letting the ball go. So i feel getting rid of prior opportunity wouldn't exactly lead to that many less stoppages. I'm actually going to make a point of looking for this over the next few rounds to see how many stoppages could actually be avoided by tightening the rule.

[hujsh]

Does anyone find it ironic that a thread complaining about the AFL changing the rules has become a discussion about what rules should be changed?

Perhaps there should be a more formal process for rule changing? Something that takes 3-4 years so there aren't any knee jerk reactions and the changes can trialed before being implemented.

[Twodogs]

Does anyone find it ironic that a thread complaining about the AFL changing the rules has become a discussion about what rules should be changed?

Perhaps there should be a more formal process for rule changing? Something that takes 3-4 years so there aren't any knee jerk reactions and the changes can trialed before being implemented.

I wish they'd waited a couple of years before they changed the third man up rule.

[jeemak]

This would be a bit unfair to teams playing a game in the wet though wouldn't it?

Getting rid of prior opportunity won't solve the problem. I agree it's surprising Buckley thinks this would solve the problem. It would lead to lots of tunnel ball and soccer to get the ball out of congestion as players avoid taking possession. This latter point is not something we want to see in our game. Tackling is one of the best aspects of our game and removing prior opportunity would lead to players avoiding taking possession. I can't see it alleviating congestion.

I'm more for speeding up play with less stoppages and less interchanges to encourage more play through the corridor.

For mine, i don't need high scoring. Strong, tough and fierce play with minimal stoppages is what i like to see. Just look at our grand final. Yes there is bias, but there are plenty of neutral supporters who were saying it was one of the best games of all time. And the score was 89-67.

There's plenty of inequities in the draw, this would just be another one.

I think the purpose of the model would be to take the grind out of the season, and remove the congested and drab games that don't seem to have as much appeal.

Your point on games like the 2016 GF is well made, the beauty of the system I'm proposing is that teams will learn throughout the year to play a less congested brand of football, but will toughen up during finals - hopefully giving us the best of both worlds.

Mostly what I'm saying is we can't penalise our way out of this mess, coaches, who are currently incentivised to be defencive, will remain defencive until we give them a reason not to be.

[Ozza]

I wish they'd waited a couple of years before they changed the third man up rule.

Yep, agree with this.

I would support the roll back of the 3rd man up rule.
I would likely support some sort of minimal zoning TAC cup style.

Otherwise, I’m in the ‘stay the same’ camp. I think the 80 rotations & 4 on the bench is about right.

[jeemak]

Does anyone find it ironic that a thread complaining about the AFL changing the rules has become a discussion about what rules should be changed?

Perhaps there should be a more formal process for rule changing? Something that takes 3-4 years so there aren't any knee jerk reactions and the changes can trialed before being implemented.

It wasn't lost on me..........

[bulldogsthru&thru]

There's plenty of inequities in the draw, this would just be another one.

I think the purpose of the model would be to take the grind out of the season, and remove the congested and drab games that don't seem to have as much appeal.

Your point on games like the 2016 GF is well made, the beauty of the system I'm proposing is that teams will learn throughout the year to play a less congested brand of football, but will toughen up during finals - hopefully giving us the best of both worlds.

Mostly what I'm saying is we can't penalise our way out of this mess, coaches, who are currently incentivised to be defencive, will remain defencive until we give them a reason not to be.

Another option could be to do away with percentage is a tiebreaker and replace it with whoever has the highest points for.

[jeemak]

Another option could be to do away with percentage is a tiebreaker and replace it with whoever has the highest points for.

Yes, that could work as well. Anything that genuinely incentivises a coach to change away from being defencively minded is the way to go. Sure, change the bits and pieces we think have gone too far and waste time unnessecarily, but doing what we have done with the game previously, i.e. messing with the rules to fix it and in the process (to some) making it worse, probably is the last thing we should be doing.

[craigsahibee]

There are some very simple remedies that will significantly alleviate the horrible congestion that has existed since Paul Roos single-handedly farked up the game in the mid 00's:

1. Umps to call ball-up as soon as the ball is in dispute and not moving out. They hover around forever waiting for the ball to come out, meanwhile 15 additional players converge. Call ball-up straight away so that there are only 3-4 players in the vicinity. Also throw the ball up immediately - none of this rubbish about telling players to move away from behind the ump and spending 5 seconds getting ready to bounce the ball, and none of this crap about nominating a specific ruckman which wastes even more time.

How about penalise the 3rd man in on a tackle? How often do you see a player come in and wrap both the ball carrier (generally a player on the same team) and the tackler up, in order to cause a stoppage. If it's one on one, it comes down to strength and ability to either stick the tackle or dispose of the footy correctly.

[bornadog]

Does anyone find it ironic that a thread complaining about the AFL changing the rules has become a discussion about what rules should be changed?

Perhaps there should be a more formal process for rule changing? Something that takes 3-4 years so there aren't any knee jerk reactions and the changes can trialed before being implemented.

Yeah, my idea is roll back the rules that created the situation, ie no prior, allow 3rd man up. I know that is changing, but as I said roll it back.

With 3rd man up it has created two problems:
1. 3rd man helped clear the ball from the congestion
2. The umpire could throw up the ball straight away, now they wait to see who is nominating for the ruck, and meanwhile the pack gathers.

Every rule has other consequences because the AFL don't think it out, all knee jerk reactions.

[Remi Moses]

The disposing of the third man up rule was knee jerk rubbish . Cleared the congestion , but alas the worry was the role of the ruck !
They’re not worried about other positions going the way of the dodo bird

[AndrewP6]

Not a rule change, but I'd love to see umpires be much less theatrical when calling a HTB.( I'm looking at you, Razor - though he's not the only one) Just blow the whistle and make the call, let us all get on with it.

I hate, hate, hate score reviews. They want umpires to be better regarded, let them do the job they're supposed to be there for - that, or make every score a review and don't have goal umpires at all.

[Topdog]

If you remove prior opportunity you will get people not going for the ball and just waiting to tackle someone. It needs to be improved, not removed

[bornadog]

If you remove prior opportunity you will get people not going for the ball and just waiting to tackle someone. It needs to be improved, not removed

Can't agree with that. Players will always go for the ball.

Here is a game where there was no official prior:

[hujsh]

Can't agree with that. Players will always go for the ball.

Here is a game where there was no official prior:

That's all well an good but that game has changed. Just because the game can be played that way without prior opportunity doesn't mean that removing prior will see that type of play become more prevalent