The Rules of the Game: My Plan

[evs05]

the contentious "hands in the back" interpretation and many other things have caused this to come under strong scrutiny, particularly since nathan buckley so strongly opposed it. what is the point in having a current player on the committee if he is going to be ignored?

anyway, this is what i think should be done in regards to changing rules in the AFL.

1. Restructure the Rules of the Game Committee.
I am not sure how it is made up now, other than KB and Buckley are there, but I suggest something similar to

• one current AFL player (Group A - see below)
• one current AFL coach (Group A)
• one current AFL umpire (Group B)
• the umpires coach (Group B)
• one AFL representative (Group C)
• two former players / coaches with a minimum 200 games experience (Group D)

the first five are elected by their peers (ie players elect their representative, coaches do the same, etc). the two former players should have no current connection with any club (ie they aren't an assistant coach at a club, eg KB). the AFL puts forth the nominations but all other panel members must agree to the people chosen.

2. Changing the Rules Procedure

Trial Rules / Pre Season Cup

• The panel continues to meet at the end of each season and suggest rules to be trialled in the pre season cup.
• A majority (4 / 7) vote within the panel would be enough to suggest a rule to the AFL for adoption in the pre season cup.

Adoption into Season Proper

At the end of every second season, the panel is able to review any new rules that have been trialled in the pre season cup and suggest them to the AFL for adoption in the regular season, but the following criteria must be adhered to

• A new rule must have a minimum of 2 seasons trial in the pre season cup before it can be considered for adoption in the proper season. This will help to reduce the current frustrations with constantly changing rules.
• For a rule to be suggested to the AFL it must have at least 5 out of 7 votes from the panel, and this must include at least one member from each of the groups mentioned above
• The AFL has the power to not accept rule changes, but can not force its own rule changes without the support of the panel

I think the current AFL policy seems to be to bring in as many rules as possible to counter what they perceive as the ugly parts of the game, ie flooding, etc. However I think several teams have shown this year that the best counter to flooding is not rule changes but quick ball movement. Allow the game to evolve, and give the coaches and the players the chance to work out new tactics by only introducing rules every second season. This way we get two full seasons to fully understand the consequences of the last batch of changes before we start adding more.

certainly this is not a perfect solution, and i am under no illusions as to the fact there is no way the AFL would ever accept a model like this. this is only the fantasy of a supporter who is more frustrated with rule changes and umpiring inconsistencies than he is with flooding.

would love some feedback.

 

[Scroater]

I would also suggest a representative from each state.

As long as the AFL rep is not Adrian Anderson.

2 year pre season trial before being implemented has merit.

Free kicks for incidental contact thrown out.

Free kicks should only be paid to incidents that make you sit up and say "jesus, that's wrong."

 

[VanBerlo=God]

hate to rain on the parade, but 2 years before rule adoption = very bad

 

[Scroater]

Two years probably better than one year. Make sure rule actually benefits game before implementation.