5 replies to this topic

[Caveman]

Here are two rule observations - one is to a new rule the other an interpretation about a current one.


Firstly a new rule which in my mind will improve the game 100%.


THE RUSHED BEHIND / DELIBERATELY CONCEDED BEHIND[u]


The deliberately conceded behind is a blight on the game and is being done more and more in the last two seasons. Now with the bloke kicking out from a behind NOT having to wait until the goal umpire waves the flag, it is tactical thing not just to have a free kick, but it has now evolved tactically as a QUICK kick. This is an outright advantage to the defending team who concede a behind.

So therefore to conquer this always cowardly( and now in the last two seasons tactical strategy) remove the free kick out from the defending team.
A rushed behind would still be one point to the attacking team, but once the goal umpire waves the flag (and it must be waved)- there will be a ball up at the end of the goal square. This is what happens when the bloke kicking out kicks it from outside the rectangle. Should the field umpire see it- he blows his whistle and the ball is returned to him for a ball up on the end of the rectangle.

That scenario should be extended for a deliberately conceded behind. A rushed point should not be a free kick for the team who concedes it- they should nor benefit from surrendering a point to the opposition.

All the rules committee would need to do is select a new signal to be added to the goal umpire's repertoire, which would thus indicate that the point was the result of a deliberately conceded rushed behind. I am poitive that this will rule out the rushed/conceded behind.


DELIBERATE OUT OF BOUNDS

This rule is way over the top now and it is paradoxically making the game more defensive.

The new interpretation has made the umpires way too strict on this rule. If a player boots the ball forward and it rolls out of bounds, then to my thinking- that is acceptable play. He shouldn't be penalised for deliberate out of bounds. He has booted the ball forwards towards his goal.

As the umpires are red hot on this now- players are more likely to kick the ball backwards to a team mate. One is for the obvious easy uncontested possession, the other reason is to avoid the possibility of being pinged for a deliberate out of bounds, should they kick it forward to open space.

Also there is no rule which states that you must kick the ball "straight down the guts"- at all times. If there was, then why would we have wingmen? The boundary line is the boundary line- whats inside the boundary line is still in play. You can use all parts of the ground if you like- 2 metres in from the boundary is still part of the field, as much as the centre square is.

The time on rule was changed in 1994, so kicking the ball backwards to an unguarded team mate is more time wasting than kicking the ball deliberately out of bounds. Time on is not added for the ring a ring a rosy football.


One last point- I think we should revert back to two field umpires instead of three. Maybe as a trade off- have four boundary umpires. My logic for dropping back on field umpires is because our game is all about interpretations. Two different interpretations is better than three- that is what confuses the players and spectators. Darren Goldspink's interpretation may be different from Ray Chamberlain's etc etc. So also bring back the wait for the goal umpire has waved the flag before a kick out. This will slow the game down a bit more, making it easier for players and umpires.

[andre]

I definitely agree on the deliberate out of bounds.
I also don't like the hands in the back rule, some of the decisions are so soft.
Can't say I like the new interpretation of the holding the ball rule either. It just seems that if you go to ground with the ball your screwed.

[Caveman]

The deliberate out of bounds is a near joke because it isn't really running down the clock. When the ball goes over the line for a throw in- it just allows players to have quick breather(well some of them not the ruckmen) Time on is added- this came in for season 1994- remember in the old days time on started at the 25 minute mark- since 1994 it has been the 20 minute mark.

What if someone does deliberately aim to kick the ball out of bounds and due to a absolute and total freak bounce- the ball hits on or just before the boundary line and then stays in play, due to the unusual bounce of our oval ball. The intention was there, but it didn't happen- do you penalise the player for deliberate- although the ball didn't cross the boundary line? It was deliberate - but it stayed in. If the player kicking the ball, aims to deliberately have it go out of play, but that kick fails to go out and a teammate of his gets the inflated pig skin first, does the umpire penalise that team(which is of course in possession) even though they have the ball and it never went out of the field of play?

Freak bounces do happen- not often but I vividly recall Angelo Petraglia's goal against Hawthorn at Princes Park in 1986. I was in the forward pocket that day and recall perfectly how the ball bounced through the goals. It was an absolute one in a million- but every time a one in a million will happen- overwise it would be a once in a never.

[Amelia Jane]

I agree about the rushed behind. I also think the goal umpire should still have to wave the flags before the player can bring the ball back into play. The hands in the back rule is also too over the top. Push in the back should always be payed but now any sort of contact can result in an incredibly soft free kick.

[DMcG]

I would love to get rid of hit the post.
I reckon the rules should be like soccer, if it hits the woodwork and comes back into play, play on, and if it hits the post and goes through, goal.

Everyone I tell disagrees with me but it just feels right to me.

[Maybe because I remember season 2004 I think we seemed to hit the post 3 times more than any other club]

[Caveman]

I would love to get rid of hit the post.
I reckon the rules should be like soccer, if it hits the woodwork and comes back into play, play on, and if it hits the post and goes through, goal.

Everyone I tell disagrees with me but it just feels right to me.

[Maybe because I remember season 2004 I think we seemed to hit the post 3 times more than any other club]

I am afraid I cant agree with you on that one.

Due to this scenario


A player has a long kick from miles out- a pearler of a kick a 65 metre torpedo(Malcolm Blight 1976 like) except that this hits the post near the top and goes straight back into play. The scores are level and that means that the scores remain level. Or his team are a point behind and thus they remain a point behind.

Another player from twenty metres out sprays his kick and it goes out on the full. A terrible kick but it is given as a behind because the goal umpire has made a mistake (ie St Kilda v Brisbane Doglands 2004) and that score stays. It was a bad kick but it gets a score unlike the massive torpedo that is a few centimetres off being a marvellous goal. It gets nothing.

If there were no behinds in football- just goals only like in soccer- that would be acceptable to me- but as we have multiple scoring- then the near miss needs some recognition equal to the shocking kick that sneaks in for a behind.