AFL wanting fan feedback on rule changes

[db swannie]

The same people who scream and shout about goal umpires making important mistakes should be applauding the poster rule, which will make for more goals, and will virtually eliminate the "Hawkins". If the ball hits the post but goes through, it's a goal. Too simple really. The game becomes easier to umpire because of this rule, which should be a good thing for all concerned.

Keep the quarters the same length, reduce the half-time by 5 minutes (it's way too long) and let boundary umps rule on blocking and holding around the rucks.

As for capping the interchange...dunno.

 

[Captain Kouta]

Yeah, great idea ... let's give a goal to someone for hitting the post.

Let's change the 150 years of history and part of the very fabric of our game, all because goal umpires get the odd decision wrong.

IDIOTS

 

[Blueboy3]

Afl want fan feedback on rule changes - So they can ignore it and change them anyway

 

[doofdoof]

Interesting bit about the ball hitting the post and going through "should it be a goal?" In the small print it says


So dribbled goals would not be adjudicated in this manner? What if a ball kicked from the boundary bounces on the goal line, hits the post padding, and goes through?

Let me see, another grey area and an extra ruling to confuse the umps!

Nice one AFL, you're ace!

.... and it won't stop goal umpire errors. They have managed to miss which side of the post the ball has gone entirely also.

 

[doodl]

There probably would be less errors. Tom Hawkins goal wouldn't be disputed from the 09 GF. I had those sorts on incidents in mind when I thought it would be a good idea but if someone full on kicks it into the post and has a massive deflection through the goals, rather than a slight tough, then it would seem stupid.

So no rule changes this year. Laughable how they want to slow the game down after they wanted to speed it up a few years ago.

If that goal umpire couldn't see the ball deflect off the post on the inside of it then what makes you think he would have been able to tell if it deflected on the other side of it? I'd bet that there will be calls of goals or points where it was the opposite. At least all you have to do to pay a point is see the ball deflect off the post. Now you'll have to be 100% sure of exactly which side it deflected to. Less is more.

 

[Bell Ringer]

Tell 'em to get stuffed

 

[pies_this_year]

Soooooo, the AFL speed the game up with rule changes....then introduce more new rules to slow it back down........*bangs head against wall*

PS, how good are the "more interchanges resulting in more injuries the last 7 years" stats......rotations are up 313% with new injuries up just 10%.
The AFL are trying to brainwash us into thinking interchange cap is a good idea. IT MAKES ME SO ANGRY

GRRRRR

 

[slidetribe]

My 2c:

The holding the ball rule change is not a good idea - it would be far too hard to adjudicate, only exteremely obvious cases would be penalised. Simply, if the umpire can see that the ball is being held to them, don't penalise them for holding the ball... no need to change the rules.

The advantage rule - I agree with the change however it does not mention anything about a time limit. Currently, the umpire will give it 3 secs or so before deciding whether there is advantage. If players choose, i.e play on, then the umpires should still have power to enforce a strict time limit within which the player can decide, say 3 secs max from the time the free kick is paid.

 

[AndyLesPaul]

Wow, loaded as question on the first page regarding the interchange caps

 

[AG]

If that goal umpire couldn't see the ball deflect off the post on the inside of it then what makes you think he would have been able to tell if it deflected on the other side of it?

Because the post would obstruct the view of the ball. That's the easy part of goal umpiring, the hard part is knowing if it brushed the post.

I'd bet that there will be calls of goals or points where it was the opposite. At least all you have to do to pay a point is see the ball deflect off the post. Now you'll have to be 100% sure of exactly which side it deflected to. Less is more.

How is that any different to awarding a normal point or goal? At the moment umpires have to judge which side of the post the ball crosses (point or goal) but also if it hits the post. If they bring in the new rule all they have to worry about it which side of the post the ball crosses the line.


Anyway I changed my mind because it seems ridiculous that a ball can slam into a post and go through at a right angle and still be called a goal.

 

[J_Moore]

I hope everyone fills this out. Seriously, don't whinge and be like "they'll enver listen." Make your voice heard.

And seriously, **** them for asking 'do you think there should be an interchange cap?' then following it up with 'which interchange cap would you support?". What *****.

 

[PTizzle]

Agreed, I said that was against the very fabric of the game and unnecessary.

That one annoyed me the most, but I also hated how there was no option for 'don't change it' with the interchange cap rule. Talk about a loaded question.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Interesting bit about the ball hitting the post and going through "should it be a goal?"
...
Let me see, another grey area and an extra ruling to confuse the umps!

Goal umpire also has to decide if the ball hits on the full or bounces just in front. More potential for error.

Anyway I changed my mind because it seems ridiculous that a ball can slam into a post and go through at a right angle and still be called a goal.

It could also theoretically bounce back into play, then over the line. Surefire goal of the year!

Approximately 20% of respondents on the HS website purport to be in favour of this rule change, however comments that "every other football code does it" miss the point entirely - that the game is being stripped of its Australian flavour and is piece by piece becoming a generic ball sport. One day, the oval ball may well be its most distinguishing feature.

 

[Final Siren]

The same people who scream and shout about goal umpires making important mistakes should be applauding the poster rule, which will make for more goals, and will virtually eliminate the "Hawkins". If the ball hits the post but goes through, it's a goal. Too simple really. The game becomes easier to umpire because of this rule, which should be a good thing for all concerned.

Yes!! I'm definitely in favour of this one. Stop making goal umpires try to figure out whether a tiny part of a leather ball travelling at 80kph brushes any part of a 12m high post! It's too hard to adjudicate and mistakes happen almost every week. It came close to robbing St. Kilda of a flag last year!

This wouldn't be adding a new rule, it would be getting rid of an existing one. I have never been able to understand why we need a special rule saying that if the ball goes through the goals but touches a post on the way, it's a point.

 

[dumb]

My 2c:

The holding the ball rule change is not a good idea - it would be far too hard to adjudicate, only exteremely obvious cases would be penalised. Simply, if the umpire can see that the ball is being held to them, don't penalise them for holding the ball... no need to change the rules.

agree, terrible rule idea that one. give away a free kick because you hold the ball to an opposition player in a tackle? sweet christ. umpires jobs are hard enough aren't they?

 

[doodl]

How is that any different to awarding a normal point or goal? At the moment umpires have to judge which side of the post the ball crosses (point or goal) but also if it hits the post. If they bring in the new rule all they have to worry about it which side of the post the ball crosses the line.

Hmm, yeh I'll have to concede that point, it would be less visual information to process in a split second. I guess I'm just frustrated that instead of coming up with a way to get it right they just throw out the whole rule. Considering how much resources the afl has they should be able to come up with a better solution than this.

Also frustrated that between them a goal umpire, nearest boundary umpire and field umpire can't get it right. Surely the nearest field umpire should have seen that deflection in the GF, they would have been far enough away from goals to not have to look vertical and they should have seen it clear as day. Not that I'm complaining that my team won.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I voted for no change wherever possible on every question. I have no doubt that I'll be ignored though. I hate the AFL and their ever-changing vision of our game.

 

[Rassilon]

I don't like the fact that the couple of posters here supporting the "off the post" rule are fellow New South Welshmen.

 

[Rohan25]

I voted not to change anything and was as scornful as possible in the comments section.

 

[JOELY]

don't penalise the player for dragging it under an opponent, just don't penalise the bloke who got the ball dragged under him! less rules, less decisions.

 

[DNine]

What will the AFL look like in 20 years??? Unrecognisable is my tip, if the idiots running the show keep attacking every rule within the rule book, and changing them on a whim.

How stupid is this one that if it hits the post and bounces through, it is a goal....PLEASE!!! Our past players who have died, would be turning in their graves. Who do these clowns think they are.

If AD and AA ran the soccer, would they take the goal keeper out.

Why are all these past players, that would detest such changes, sitting on their hands.

Umpires are becoming more confused, we have sightings of stupid orange flags, and other changed rules, that players have not been brought up with. We are the only game in the world, that has different rules for juniors than seniors.

With our country, rightly the people vote for who they want in the top job. With our game, anyone can get in there, and changed it all on a whim. WHY can't we make these people accountable, in that they need to go up four yearly against someone with other ideas. Fans can vote, and someone can't take the league down his own track.

Very sad time for Football at the moment, and it is about to get worse, with these two sides, about to suck the life out of the AFL bank balance, and as a result, we will lose one to two Victorian based clubs. One thing that is scarier than that, is that going on opinions I have heard, AFL have been successful, in convincing supporters to not care if another side goes out. In fact they have brainwashed some to think it is a good idea.

Disgraceful people AD and AA are, can't wait to see the back of them.

 

[Old Spice]

Sure it's already been mentioned, but I love the options for capping interchanges. No option for not capping at all. Wow, 'people power', this must have been what the 60s was like.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Sure it's already been mentioned, but I love the options for capping interchanges. No option for not capping at all. Wow, 'people power', this must have been what the 60s was like.

Just don't select an option and write your thoughts in the comments section.

They are all shit changes and the post one is the worst of a bad bunch.

 

[Gods_Son23]

Just did the survey -

Interchange - went for the 80 option, is the best of the 3. while im here, numerous times i have heard/read ppl saying 'what happens if a player gets injured and they have used all their interchanges' - like the world game, obviously you'd keep a couple in reserve until late...no big deal, not sure why it's brought up.
Posters - No!
Boundary Umps awarding frees - No
Advantage Rule & Draging the Ball Back In - Yes (A long time coming, particularly the advantage rule)
Length of the Match - Who Cares

 

[mdenn69]

i agree with everyone here, don't change the rules. except where the player chooses their own advantage, so many times a player runs on to kick a goal and they're called back for god knows what reason, then they miss. the poster rules are disgusting, if they bring them in i (and i'm sure most footy fans) will be furious. don't think it'll happen tho, i think a change with the interchanges is inevitable given it's been such a huge topic lately.