changes to the game, whats worked, what hasn't ??

over the years there has been numerous changes to the game, some good, some not so good, i'll start with this one & lets all add to them with our thoughts

the length of quarters were changed from 25 minutes to 20 minutes (both with time on) one of the reasons given was to help lengthen the careers of players etc......i don't think the quarters are any shorter anyway but has this change actually worked ?

I am probably a bit bias against the AFL - make that very bias but to me most changes the AFL makes have more to do with television presentation than the betterment of the game read $$$$$$$.

I feel the movement to protect players heads and necks supported by a very strong concussion policy (took a while) has been a great change.

I agreed with the interchange rule however it was flawed by too many on the bench and unrestricted interchanges. i praise the AFL now experimenting with restricting interchanges but acknowledge it will tke time to get the number and rules relating right --- credit where due they are addressing it

Reduction in length of quarters was about fitting into tv schedules with maximum of 30 minutes

"Like" button for what oldfella said. Has the OOB (OTF) rule worked? (give myself away, having to ask?)

Ditto to Old Fella.

I don't mind protecting players heads and other necessary changes that aren't really 'on field' things.

But I generally don't like messing with the rules to speed up the game, slow it down, make it more open or anything else for that matter (that aren't couched in player protection IE Heads).

I subscribe to coaches and players devising innovations and strategies (within the rules) to make their game more effective. This sort of thing is fascinating to observe.

IE
- Like the defensive huddle (now defunct) - was it Sheedy or Walls that came up with that?
- Clarko's rolling defensive zone
- back in the 70s, Kennedy putting all the Hawks behind the ball running forward leaving Hudson one out in the square
- Parko's paddock. Similar to the Hawks, but basically a means to isolate Carey at HF.
- Oatey's high use of handball in the late 60s / 70s to break through defense.
Among a multitude of other creative coaching ideas.

I don't see why the AFL or SANFL for that matter feel that they are the custodians to constantly control how the game has to look. Other football codes just don't do it anywhere like Aussie Rules.

As for the new out of bounds on the full, I'd like to see how it pans out this season before declaring its success. I saw some variances on that one by the end of the season.

Like many (most?) new rules or "interpretations", they are not often adjudicated consistently during a season. Hot for a few weeks then cold for the rest of the season. Or they're just too damn hard to umpire consistently. They don't really look after the umpires either in this respect. So it isn't always their fault.

Holding the ball
Over the years, what in God's name is this rule supposed to control?
It has had maybe a dozen variations in my time of wathcing footy (45 years). Is it even relevant anymore? This one needs to be worked out, then umpire it to the RULE (not interpretation) and then leave it be!

In the back
Almost ditto to the above.
Jumbo (Davies) would have been umpired out of the game on this one.
Happy that you can't push with hands, but you can use your body to stand your ground. How many times do you see this one umpired incorrectly?

3 umpires
We've had them for a good long while now, but there just shouldn't be an umpire making a call from 50m+ away. I think they should be used more like in basketball where you have 2 umpires observing the play at any one time and positioning themselves accordingly.

I have seen in recent seasons, umpires standing boundary line to observe the blind spot that the main umpire can't see. So kudos to that.

There should be more umpire training to capitalise on 3 of them being out there. Maybe for certain things, the main umpires should be able to ask the boundary umpires for opinion. They have eyes too.

You've got 9 of them out there in total, that can be used much more effectively. Then maybe you've got a fighting chance of correctly calling these obscure and very quickly occurring infringements.

the ''sliding into the legs'' rule, i'm not sure whether its still there or not but to change that rule because of one accident was ludicrous, for over 100 years every players main objective was to get to the ball first & then do something constructive with it, with this rule you can be more desperate & get to the ball first & lose the ball  via a free kick.......this rule may have cost the Power reserves a premiership when they lost to Norwood in 2014 as i remember seeing a Power reserves player get to the ball first & dish out a handball to a player running past & got pinged for ''sliding into the legs'' of his opponent.....this was late in the game & was on the wing members side...the umpire paid what he was told to pay so he did the correct thing, however that rule is wrong & after all wasn't it supposed to be the player making the play with his head over the ball be the one that the umpires would ''look after'' ?

Yes I think that was a dumb rule.

A bloke going low with his head over the ball should be more protected than a bloke's legs coming in late. They talk about the head being sacrosanct and then a rule like this one can make it secondary.

Wasn't keen on the SANFL out of bounds rule at first but have got used to it. I don't like the look of players shepherding the ball over the boundary as they will get a kick if it rolls over but overall it has sped the game up.

Dislike the "''sliding into the legs'' rule as it is now interpreted. I agree that players should not get a high contact free if they dive into someone's legs, but neither should someone get a free because they fall over someone else went lower and harder to get the ball in the first place and made contact with the first players legs.

Holding the ball - frustrates the hell out of me. Particularly if a player gets the ball in a pack and everyone just jumps on him. Apparently it is in the back if you touch someone during a marking contest but perfectly Ok to sit on them to get a HTB decision.

Uncle, I think there's a rule that there's no free kick if a player obviously shepherds the ball over the line.

agree with your comments about the HTB rule.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Yes I think that was a dumb rule.

A bloke going low with his head over the ball should be more protected than a bloke's legs coming in late. They talk about the head being sacrosanct and then a rule like this one can make it secondary.

That is why it was introduced .

The time on rule Bayman had something to with the ball being out of bounds from memory..
Holding the ball is the one that needs to revert back to the rule. I believe the 3rd man jumping in should be a free kick.

The out of bounds rule is good. Why wouldn't a player see it out ? No different than a player not taking a mark if it will go out on the full or a kick in from full back which hasn't been touched.

waddayamean wrote:The time on rule Bayman had something to with the ball being out of bounds from memory..
Holding the ball is the one that needs to revert back to the rule. I believe the 3rd man jumping in should be  a free kick.

The out of bounds rule is good. Why wouldn't a player see it out ? No different than a player not taking a mark if it will go out on the full or a kick in from full back which hasn't been touched.

my point re 20 minute quarters & time on is that most quarters would go the same if not more than when it was 25 minutes plus time on, so therefore how has it helped the longevity of playing careers ?

Yes agree mate. Good topic .

Agree with Uncle Huey re HTB, sometimes seems like no incentive for players to go in after the ball because if they get tackled straight away they get done by the player who was sweating off.

Dont mind the OOB rule, think the players adapted to it pretty well by seasons end.

columbo wrote:Agree with Uncle Huey re HTB, sometimes seems like no incentive for players to go in after the ball because if they get tackled straight away they get done by the player who was sweating off.

Dont mind the OOB rule, think the players adapted to it pretty well by seasons end.

Totally agree Columbo

OOB is a good one to bring up Luke Jarrad had to adapt his kick out of defence . Those long kicks that would roll out had to change with the new rule .