worse rule changes in AFL

what does everyone here think the worse rules changes have been. I think the interchange sub rule and the alternative strip rules are some of the worse

 

Amen to that, Terry!

Willy, I'm not a huge fan of them dumbing the physicality of the game down, yet at the same time I can understand the AFLs reasoning for doing so, given the way society has changed with organisations able to be help liable for a greater variety of things these days.

I guess that wasn't a single rule change either, but more of a progressive trend. But I still don't like it.

 

The worst rule I remember being introduced was in the 80's (or maybe 90'S) that banned a player from being able to handpass after they were awarded a free kick (or it may have been for a mark too). The player's were only allowed to kick the ball, it was a shocker & only lasted one season.

 

Hands in the back & chopping arms for mine. Far to easy on the forwards! If u can jump high enough to slap Buddy's forearms, I say good luck to you. No probs with frees for over the shoulder & punch to the head (disguised as trying to hit the ball). PS Anybody wanna guess what third of the ground I played in! lol

 

The deliberate behinds rule. Creates confusion and the umpires have got it wrong most times since it has been introduced.

AFL mindset:

Oh no, Hawthorn won the GF. That's not what we wanted. It must have been because Hawthorn rushed behinds. It couldn't possibly be because they were the best team on the day.

*insert rolling eyes here*

 

Also, when they decided to ditch the McIntyre final 8 system & adopt the current system. The McIntyre system was much better as it meant 1st played 8th, 2nd played 7th etc.. The current final 8 is a bit dodgey, there is no difference between finishing 1st or 2nd & the top team has to play the 4th team instead of the worst team, the 8th side.
I think this was changed after Carlton made the Grandfinal in 1999 after finishing 6th & losing our 1st final. But since the two lowest losers were eliminated under the McIntyre system & the 7th & 8th team also lost in week 1 of the finals, Carlton progressed, winning their next two finals & making the GF WHICH WE LOST :-(

 

The issue with the McIntyre system was that 3rd and 4th could be eliminated first week if there were 4 upsets, and teams 5th and 6th would get the week off (bye).

And then there was the silly issue with lower ranked winning teams getting home finals against teams that finished above them on the h&a ladder just because they won the first week.

Granted it had it's Pros as well though.

Agreed re. the clash guernseys. If you make a mistake and dish it off to an opposition player, so be it. The coach/team mates will have a quick yell at you and you'll be sure not to do it again any time soon.

Understandably, the game has sped up so decision making has to be quicker and there's less time to look around etc and a higher chance of dishing it off to the wrong person, but who cares? Learn to differentiate the two or be dragged

 

disagree credmi re the finals system. much prefer the current one. It's never going to be without flaws, but I would much prefer to see 3rd & 4th in the same boat as 1st & 2nd, then 6th place in the same boat as 3rd place.

The jury's still out on the sub rule for me, although I think it's a flawed version of a sub rule. I don't see why you can't have all your emergencies as potential subs. enabling to sub like for like in case of injury, or bring on a specific type of player to tactically try and change the game in your favour.
What annoys me though, is that the AFL introduce it without having trialed it ANYWHERE first. The first time we will see the effect it has will be game one round one.

I have no gripe with the principal behind the deliberate behind rule, but it needs to be black and white, the interpretation has devolved to the point that players who get pinged for it are seen as unlucky, which just isn't good enough

on a whole though, I think the game's pretty awesome where it's at now, even with low scoring defensive, zoning football, watching two top teams go at each other can be absolutely intense for 4 quarters. even as a neutral observer.

:end rant

 

@Spud
I don't see a problem with the 1st & 2nd teams not getting the byes in week two if there are 4 upsets. They had their opportunities to play the two worse sides & stuffed up by losing. They shouldn't be blaming the system, they should be blaming themselves. I agree with the the home final issue you raised though.

 

They wouldn't get the bye under this system either, only the teams that win the first qualifying final do.

The issue was teams 5 and 6 benefiting from the two teams below them upsetting their respective opponents (1 and 2) by getting the bye if they won. Yes, good on 5 and 6 for beating 4 and 3 respectively and they deserve to go to the next stage obviously, but surely finishing 5th and 6th isn't good enough to justify a weeks rest for beating what might only be a slightly stronger opponent. And they would get this benefit of a week off if the two teams below them won.

I don't like 3rd and 4th being in a position where they can be eliminated, either. While I can't imagine a team ever throwing a final, it leaves open the possibility where, if the top 2 teams believe the only realistic threats are from teams 3 and 4, they could always 'tank' that first final and turn 3vs6 and/or 4vs5 into a elimination final(s), knowing all the while they have a second chance next week.

 

<blockquote>Understandably, the game has sped up so decision making has to be quicker and there's less time to look around etc and a higher chance of dishing it off to the wrong person, but who cares? Learn to differentiate the two or be dragged </blockquote>

completely disagree with this. In a fast paced game with quick decisions, why wouldn't you remove every possible variable and chance for a mistake that you can.

clash jersey were inevitable, because they're money spinners. That's why the teams who have them change them all the time, and the same reason EPL clubs change there strips all the time.

traditions choke progress, as long as your 'home' strip stays the same, who cares?

 

I have no problem with clash jerseys. At the end of the day its the same team inside the jumper. I personally think it makes viewing the game a hell of a lot easier. Assuming that there is significant variance in the jerseys of the two teams. But if this is to be a rule then all teams should be made to comply...yes even my bombers..and the pies too. Essendon have made virtually no attempt at a proper clash jersey and Collingwood ..well.. lets see black and white vertical stipes or white and black vertical stripes.

I hate the hands in the back rule!! They never needed to change/reinterpret this rule. A player was never allowed to push another player in the back. Holding a player with your hands in his back (which also changed to include his side. never understood that) is/should be completely acceptable as it is a show of strength and good body positioning in a marking contest. Provided that the holding is just that. If the hold becomes a forceful push in the back which projects the opposing player forward then it is and should be a free kick. It was always this way.

What really annoys me is that the rules change so often and mostly they are knee jerk reactions to some isolated incident which doesn't seem so great at the particular time.

Then the powers that be run a focus on a particular rule and enforce it to the enth degree for 6 weeks and then change the interpretation again (essentially this is done by putting the "focus" onto something else.

What is flavour of the month/year now is something completely different for next year etc. Example that sticks out to me is the running into an umpire rule. What about the poor bulldogs bloke (cant recall his name ATM) who got suspended , fined, hung, drawn and quartered for accidently running into an umpire some years back. (and what player has never done that??) They focussed on that for a year or so suspended a few guys and then said oh well not so bad maybe just a small fine or well maybe it really was incidental so dont worry.

I could rant more...and dont get me started on 50 metre penalties for slightly touching a players jumper or having your pinky toe over the mark!!

Spectatators frustrated - dont understand the rules or their interpretations..

Umpires making mistakes - dont understand the rules or their interpretations..

Players confused - dont understand the rules or their interpretations..

mmm..i think theres a pattern


PEACE OUT !!

 

Can see your point Spud, but I just see that the it was a better for 1 to be rewarded with the easiest game, we'll agree to disagree.
It has got me thinking of a different system though. What if week one of the finals, 1 & 2 got the bye, 3 played 8, 4 played 7 & 5 played 6 & the two lowest losers were eliminated (ie. 7 & 8 if there were no upsets). This would mean team 3 can't be eliminated, but team 4 - 8 are all on the chopping board, depending on results.
Then in week 2, 1 plays 6, 2 plays 5 & 3 plays 4 & the two lowest losers are eliminated (ie. 5 & 6 barring any upsets). This would mean team 1 can't be eliminated, but teams 2-6 are all at risk depending on results.
Then week 3, 1 plays 4 & 2 & 3 play each other with the winners go to the granny.
Getting pretty bourbon happy, so will have to re-think this one tomorrow, but it seems OK to me ATM. If the favorites win it's OK, it's just when upsets occur that problems could arise (which is a 'flaw' in any system).

 

My mate has a great idea for a final 8 system. First week the minor premier gets to choose who they play. If a team has come storming into finals the first placed team can choose not to play them and instead choose to play a team that has limped into the finals or have been stung by injury. Second finisher then chooses and so on.
The first 4 still get a double chance and the finals continue as normal after the first week.

 

<blockquote>Quote from Chappy on March 10, 2011, 02:00
My mate has a great idea for a final 8 system. First week the minor premier gets to choose who they play. If a team has come storming into finals the first placed team can choose not to play them and instead choose to play a team that has limped into the finals or have been stung by injury. Second finisher then chooses and so on.
The first 4 still get a double chance and the finals continue as normal after the first week.</blockquote>

under this system, how can you give the first 4 a double chance. someone has to be eliminated. what do you do if the the top 4 all lose?

 

Sorry might not have explained correctly. Other that the top teams choosing the team they play it works the same way as the current system but would have to check with my mate.

 

I really believe that the current finals system is the fairest it can be. Gives 3 and 4 a chance of getting the bye, which they deserve for finishing so high. Minor premiers get a home final. Makes teams peak at finals time rather than being solid the entire year (ie Brisbane and Geelong did this).

What are the plans for finals system once GWS are in? Has the AFL chosen a system yet?

One rule which frustrates me is the advantage rule. Its completely misinterpreted at times and clear advantage scenarios are disallowed, which seems to be at the whim of the umpire.

I for one am glad of the deliberate rushed behind rule, after seeing Bowden (I think) continually rush point after point to run down the clock to win against us a few years back. However I must agree it hasn't been enforced all that well. Its good that its there though to stop actions such as Bowden's.