The "state of the game"

[Fat Side]

A red card will just lead to more controversy. The game has managed without it for 120 years. No need to get radical.

[farmer joe]

A red card will just lead to more controversy. The game has managed without it for 120 years. No need to get radical.

Agreed. Make the umpires do their jobs, pay free kicks for off the ball incidents, suspend blokes for jumper punches, take the niggle out of the game and the odds on a red card type incident will drop dramatically.

[Mr Q]

If a red card system was to be brought in, I'd like it to be a slight modification on the traditional system (at this level anyway).

An incident occurs, and the umpire decides that it's worthy of a send off. They pull a card (let's call it a yellow card in this case). This then goes up to a review panel who have two minutes to decide. Play then continues.

If the incident is indeed worthy of a send off, the umpires are notified, and the player is sent off with a red card at the next stop in play. If not, they are notified they are OK to continue with a green card.

Yes, the umpires can handle holding three cards.

The drama would be .... fun? ....

[Peter_Melesso_Fanclub]

I think it should be based completely on the video umpire. Some of the worst acts are those away from the play, and field umpires can't be expected to be looking at those to refer them to the reviewers.

In theory I think a red card system is a good idea. At least have the ability to red card someone if there's video of it and it is clearly a "bad" enough offence. I agree that it's unfair for a team to be down a player if it's a result of an intentional act.
In practise though I reckon it would turn into a mess, in terms of the arguing (fans, media, etc.) about what constitutes bad enough and what doesn't.
Sure the Gaff one was obvious, but even the Cameron one has the element of being "part of the play" that some people could consider doubt.
Doesn't matter where you set the bar, there's always going to be a grey area around it.
Overall I think I'm still in favour of the idea though.

[WCE Booka 89]

Another incident that will add fuel to the fire of the red card debate. Browns hit on Saad.

Honestly, had Saad had the ball it would have been a pretty fair hit, but considering how long between disposal and contact, hard to argue that it was completely unnecessary.

Part of me also wants to say players need to also realise it is a physical game and be ready for contact, he did just ball watch after disposing of the ball.

Not sure if it would be worthy of a send off, but the pure lateness of the hit probably deserves some time on the sidelines, or in this case, the worst possible penalty, forced to sign an extension with the Saints (think I might need to jump on over to that overrated thread shortly)

[Peter_Melesso_Fanclub]

I don't think any player would be expecting contact that late after disposing of the ball.

[WCE Booka 89]

I don't think any player would be expecting contact that late after disposing of the ball.

Not as heavy as the bump that was laid, but considering he was still moving in the same direction of the recipient of his handball, its not hard to argue he could have been on for a 1-2 type pass. At the very least he should have been on the lookout to try and protect his teammate with a shepherd. Not defending the bump by Brown, but there is just no awareness these days by players, its a physical game they should have their head on a swivel ready for a bump or tackle.

[Fat Side]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-08-28/t ... ttendances

Can someone tell me why we are tinkering with the rules of the game? The numbers here must be significantly influenced by the opening of Optus Stadium.

[Mr Q]

The numbers here must be significantly influenced by the opening of Optus Stadium.

I would estimate that our new stadium has added about 400,000 to the overall attendance for this year (based on the crowds being up about 18,000 per game). The Eagles attendances are up over 20,000, but I don't know about Freo's.

[Fat Side]

I know the media have become intoxicated with the Dustin Martin 'Don't Argue' fend off, but the umpires have put the whistle away.

I am regularly seeing players (Martin included) fend other players off by either pushing them in the face, neck or throat area. That has always been a free kick for high contact. It seems that the hype and excitement surrounding Dusty's don't argue has it now interpreted as legal even if it means a push in the face, neck or throat.

I read an article recently regarding the time wasting teams are engaging in by soaking up the 'shot' clock. Where a player who nominates to have a shot at goal, soaks up the 30 seconds allowed, then either passes it or lobs the ball into the hotspot in front of the goal square. Where a mark is taken, the marking player signals a shot at goal and gets to soak up another 30 seconds. I think this needs to stop.

Some commentators suggest that a mark shouldn't be paid where it is received from a player that has already used the 30 second 'shot' clock. I don't agree with that as there are occasions where players butcher the ball, but I think that, where a player soaks up the clock then passes the ball or it gets marked at the top of the square (a deliberate kick to the hotspot), the subsequent player (same team) that marks the ball does not get the benefit of another 30 second shot clock. The time given to dispose of the ball should be the same as a mark taken anywhere else on the ground.

[WCE Booka 89]

I know the media have become intoxicated with the Dustin Martin 'Don't Argue' fend off, but the umpires have put the whistle away.

I am regularly seeing players (Martin included) fend other players off by either pushing them in the face, neck or throat area. That has always been a free kick for high contact. It seems that the hype and excitement surrounding Dusty's don't argue has it now interpreted as legal even if it means a push in the face, neck or throat.

I read an article recently regarding the time wasting teams are engaging in by soaking up the 'shot' clock. Where a player who nominates to have a shot at goal, soaks up the 30 seconds allowed, then either passes it or lobs the ball into the hotspot in front of the goal square. Where a mark is taken, the marking player signals a shot at goal and gets to soak up another 30 seconds. I think this needs to stop.

Some commentators suggest that a mark shouldn't be paid where it is received from a player that has already used the 30 second 'shot' clock. I don't agree with that as there are occasions where players butcher the ball, but I think that, where a player soaks up the clock then passes the ball or it gets marked at the top of the square (a deliberate kick to the hotspot), the subsequent player (same team) that marks the ball does not get the benefit of another 30 second shot clock. The time given to dispose of the ball should be the same as a mark taken anywhere else on the ground.

How often does this realistically happen though?

Also, if you are within goal kicking distance and you can spot someone up with a kick more than 15m and they still be within goal kicking distance, then sorry that isn't an issue with the rules of the game, that's an issue with the opposition not applying enough pressure.

I'm personally a big fan of the NFL and love that a team with a lead can effectively kill the game by simply maintaining possession. You have established a lead, rules should favour the ones in front, not the ones behind. And because of this I get extremely frustrated when I see 2 minutes to go and a small lead and teams aren't able to maintain that lead simply by possessing the ball.

[MrWoollie]

Another thing that seems to have come into vogue is the team with the mark or free kick has someone block the guy on the mark to prevent him doing his job. Sydney have been doing it all year and to a lesser extent other teams. Daniel Rich did it a number of times against us on the weekend. Can allow the guy with ball a free extra ten metres from playing on, knowing the man on the mark is out of the play.

I note that the umpire warned Sydney off a couple of times (and called the ball back to retake the kick) saying something like 'you can't block the guy on the mark'. Don't bring it back, take it off them. Give a kick to the other side and this crap will stop pretty damn quick.

[WCE Booka 89]

Another thing that seems to have come into vogue is the team with the mark or free kick has someone block the guy on the mark to prevent him doing his job. Sydney have been doing it all year and to a lesser extent other teams. Daniel Rich did it a number of times against us on the weekend. Can allow the guy with ball a free extra ten metres from playing on, knowing the man on the mark is out of the play.

I note that the umpire warned Sydney off a couple of times (and called the ball back to retake the kick) saying something like 'you can't block the guy on the mark'. Don't bring it back, take it off them. Give a kick to the other side and this crap will stop pretty damn quick.

I remember that is how we secured one win against Sydney in the golden era, Stenglein got blocked on the mark and got the free kick (I am pretty sure that's how it happened anyways)

Calling the free kick will work to a degree, Players won't block on the mark anymore, they'll block 2 metres away from the mark, or they will "screen" (stand 2m away, not engage a block but not get out of the man on the marks path)

I'd honestly rather we just stop altering the rules, the biggest frustration is inconsistencies. Changing the rules and interpretations leads to inconsistencies. Let the league go without any changes for a year or 2, then make a decision about the umpires actually officiating. If they have a year or 2 of consistent rules and they are still making a mess of it, then the issue with the game is the people officiating it (which tbh I think is quite likely, there are way too many umpires who have become well known. A good umpire should not be well known, they don't need celebrity status or nicknames from the commentary teams)

[Streaker]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-11/rules

THE CHANGES
Traditional playing positions at centre bounces

Clubs must have six players inside both 50m arcs, with one player inside the goalsquare.
Four midfield players must start inside the centre square with the two wingmen stationed along the wing.

Kick-ins

At kick-ins, a player will no longer need to kick to himself to play on from the goalsquare.
Following a behind, the man on the mark will be brought out to 10m from the top of the goalsquare, rather than the existing five metres.

Marks and free kicks in defence

When defenders mark or receive a free kick within nine metres of their own goal, the man on the mark will be brought in line with the top of the goalsquare.

Runners and water carriers

Team runners may only enter the playing surface after a goal has been kicked and must exit before play restarts.
Water carriers are not permitted to enter the playing surface during live play.

Umpire contact

Players will be prohibited from setting up behind the umpire at centre bounces.

50m penalties

The player with the ball:
Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game.
Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out.

Kicking for goal after the siren

A player who has been awarded a mark or free kick once play has ended:
Will now be able to kick across their body using a snap or check-side kick
BUT must kick the ball directly in line with the man on the mark and the goal.

Marking contests

The 'hands in the back’ rule interpretation has been repealed so a player can now:
Place his hands on the back of his opponent to protect his position in a marking contest
PROVIDED he does not push his opponent in the back.

Ruck contests: prior opportunity

A ruckman who takes direct possession of the ball from a bounce, throw-up or boundary throw-in will no longer be regarded as having had prior opportunity.
Where there is uncertainty over who is the designated ruckman, the ruckman for each team will still be required to nominate to the field umpire.

[penrith eagle]

Ummm

Basically no square for the kick in......going to suit the fast pace teams

Think we might have to change the way we play a bit