The AFL has this fixation of introducing new rules and making the life of every commentator, fan, footballer and umpire confused, angry and disillusioned. So without failing to disappoint the AFL has introduced four new rules for the NAB season and lets hope that they WILL NOT introduce it to the regular season like their failed Interchanged Rule fiacso last year.
AFL general manager of football operations Adrian Anderson announces changes to the Rules of the Game for the NAB Pre Season competition.
New NAB Rule One) Rushed Behinds Equals Free Kicks
This rule has come due to two games last year (The 2008 Grand Final and Round 16) were the players used the law by rushing behinds to waste time and releave pressure of themselves.
So now the rule is: A free kick will be awarded on the spot where a behind is rushed.
This rule was suggested by Adelaide’s Coach Neil Craig and now he will be remembered as the idiot who made every defender’s job even harder.
New NAB Rule Two) No Touching After Disposed of the Ball
The second new rule is an automatic free kick and 50m penalty if a player tackles, holds or makes high contact to an opponent after they dispose of the ball.
I think this rule is fair enough but a 50m penalty? I can understand a down the ground free kick but a 50m penalty just takes out all forms of physical contact from a physical game called football, football is not soccer.
New NAB Rule Three) Behind the Umpire is a No Go Zone
The third trial will be the umpire’s ‘no-go’ zone which aims to protect umpires from player contact at centre bounces.
Hey just remember the game is about the players and not the umpires…
New NAB Rule Four) Substitute Players
Two of the eight interchange players are to be designated as substitutes and can be brought onto the field at any time. The player a substitute replaces can take no further part in the game.
I am against any substitute rule, if you bring in a player who has a niggle and he re-injures it, you only have yourself to blame and if you get a player with a new injury, tough luck. I do like how they have got rid of the restricted number of interchanges though.
Other Different NAB Rules
Hear are the other rules that are different to the regular season for the NAB Pre Season competitions:
- Interchange system: Remove the restriction on the number of interchanges permitted that was used in the 2008 NAB Cup and introduce a system of two substitute players in addition to six standard interchange players;
- Remove the rule allowing play on when the ball hits the goal or behind post;
- No marks for backward kicks in the defensive half of the ground;
- Ball to be thrown up around the ground; and
- Distance for a kick to be awarded a mark at 20m instead of 15m.
Your Opinion of these New Rules
Its obvious that given any excuse these rules will be carried onto the regular season with comments like this:
Anderson was confident all four changes could be effectively instituted before the start of the home-and-away season if they were deemed beneficial to the game.
Do you like any of these rules? And if so which one would you like to see in the regular season. I myself am against any rule that brings change, just for the sake of it and that brings gray areas into the game. It will be interesting however to see how the umpires and players manage these changes.
Loading ...
February 4th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Rule one: Jermayn, the Bowden Manoeuvre was a deliberate wasting of time. All other time-wasting , as adjudicated by the field umpires, is penalised with a 50-metre penalty, or so much of a 50-metre penalty as to put the defender on the goal line. It does not make the defender’s job more difficult. A defender punching a contested ball which then crosses the goal line should not be penalised. Of course there’s the problem of Gieschen’s interpretation yet to be seen! Do yourself a favour and get hold of the Rules DVD from the AFL.
Rule two: There’s plenty of physical contact remaining! It’s called THE CONTEST. If a bloke is being held or taken to ground or tackled after disposing of the ball, penalise the bloke who’s done it. Once you’ve disposed of the ball you should be free to continue to assist your team. Once again, Gieschen’s interpretation will be key.
Rule three: Behind the umpire has been no-go for a couple of years, in season and out. I don’t understand what’s new here.
Based on past experience, the umpires’ initial interpretation will be maniacally pedantic (Steve McBirney should enjoy all of these, the little pedant!). There’ll be an outcry and a few weeks later the interpretation will be relaxed.
There should be a new rule #2009: Incidental contact in a marking contest WILL NOT be penalised as “chopping”.
Release the Giesch!!!
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Swan dive?
February 5th, 2009 at 10:25 am
First of all AussieRulesBlog, how do I get a DVD? That is an awesome suggestion
Time Wasting: Why does the game need to speed up even more? It is an art form to waste some time where possible, especially if your only a few points up. Yes its ugly to watch but as a supporter you would rather the win ugly than loose pretty.
But is it? I remember countless NAB games where umpires spend too much time deciding whether its intentional or not. If you are going to have this rule, it should be that all rushed behinds are worth a free kick – no gray areas for the umpires to screw up.
Umpires No Go Zone: I agree that umpires should be protected but I would like to see them back out Boundary side. I see them too much back out on the ‘fat zone’ which of course is where most of the traffic is.
Thanks for your opinion and comments AussieRulesBlog
February 5th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
1. AFL DVD. Last year’s was released Feb 29, so I’d expect similar timing this year. I just emailed or rang the AFL and asked for a copy of the DVD about umpiring interpretations sent to clubs before the season. See this article
Don’t expect what you see on the DVD to make watching the game any easier to bear. If anything, you’ll become even more exasperated (especially by Ray Chamberlain and Steve McBirney)
2. Just because a time-wasting action is technically within the rules, it is not automatically either desirable or good for the game. For me, the ‘health’ of the game is paramount, above even the survival of my club (easy to say for me, I know). Frankly, I’d rather lose than ‘win ugly’.
3. The decision that will be made by the umpires when the ball is rushed will be about intent and whether there is a genuine contest. I can’t remember any occasions where there has been a delay while umpires decided intent.
4. ALL rushed behinds penalised by a free kick? How quickly will forwards take advantage of that? The rule, as it is explained by Anderson, seems to hit the right note. The issue will be how the whistle-blowers read it and apply it on the field. Stand by for controversy!
5. There are many issues about umpires’ positioning, but they’re more of a problem when the umpires make assumptions when they can’t clearly see. I suspect, Jermayn, that you also have concerns about the ‘blind’ side of the pack not being adjuducated, but the solution to this is to have 36 umpires and four players. I don’t think any of us really wants to see this.
Release the Giesch!!!
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Forget the recession, world returning to normal!
February 5th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Sorry about Kick2Kick having a spass, it did not like the afl.com.au link you supplied, fixed it so it still shows the article link and also your detailed comment…
In regards to winning ugly or loosing pretty, I think it depends on how your club is doing. Eagles my team are struggling so I would rather see them win a game than loose it pretty, same as Richmond against Adelaide three odd years ago.
Umpires Decisions: I guess my biggest problem is that umpires are human and they make stupid decisions like the rest of us and the more ‘gray areas’ they have to decide on the worst the standard of umpiring gets imo.
You look how annoying it is when the umpire currently makes a decision on whether the ball was forced over the boundary line deliberet or not. This will just become even more annoying and frustrating because it is close to goal.
The rule, as it is explained by Anderson may seem right in theory but what about in the middle of the game? I do not like it…
February 5th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I thought I was losing all capacity to manage simple internet tasks! Thanks for sorting it out Jermayn.
Umpires are human? Pull the other one!!
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Forget the recession, world returning to normal!
February 6th, 2009 at 6:06 am
The Second rule, what I am calling the Clarko rule, is set to stop teams (Hawthorn were the main one I believe) using a tactic that involves blocking/tackling a player after they have disposed of the ball, normally by hand, to stop them running on and getting involved in the player in a later phase. Simply giving a free kick doesn’t help as the team already has the ball and the free kick 95 times out of 100 will not be taken advantage of because the team has more advantage by not taking the free kick.
In fact if just the free kick was enforced, it would be a disadvantage as the play would stop and the team would have time to re-group. So if the rule doesn’t come into the full season, watch out for the Hawks tactics for players that dispose of the ball by hand in a 1-2 situation. They will often illegally bump or tackle them. One of the reasons why Hawthorn have such a high free kick count.
JMTC
Molly
Phillip Molly Malones last blog post..Happy New Year – New AFL Season
February 6th, 2009 at 7:55 am
@AussieRulesBlog – Its ok man, what im hear for
So do you think the Hawks will continue their tactics to bottle up play then by free kicks? I think they are called the ‘Professional Free Kick’…
February 6th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I personally have no issue with it because my team does it best! I think however that if all teams where to copy (as they will) it will make the game a little ugly.
Phillip Molly Malones last blog post..Happy New Year – New AFL Season
February 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I probably do not watch as many Hawthorn games as you but I have not noticed that is takes away too much from the game. What do you think Phillip from a total non-Hawthorn pure AFL pov???
February 9th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
In the only semi-serious hitout for ‘09 so far, I didn’t think the new rules had any significant impact. There were a few occasions that defenders would, last year, have rushed a behind to gain some space and time, but in ‘09 were forced to find another way. For the most part, they seemed to do so without enormous problem, I thought. (I’ll admit I gave up at 3/4 time)
The umpiring interpretations of all rules appeared to be almost reasonable, which was something of a shock. Normally the Giesch has the boys fired up to go ballistic on one or two rules in round one. It’s early days, but could common sense be returning as a tool for use by the game’s adjudicators?
Release the Giesch!!
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Forget the recession, world returning to normal!
February 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I would have to agree with you AussieRulesBlog and I even went as far as saying im now a convert in my wrap up of the Nab Game between West Coast & Collingwood.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Was the defenders reaction any different to that of the 3 points for a rushed behind? I hadn’t fully heard the rules on it, but like that it might be brought in for just the 100% obvious rushed behinds and not for the contested touched or semi-deliberate.
Didn’t think that the other retarding a player after he got rid of it did much. I don’t think its a catch-22 situation with the option for advantage to be called (which I didn’t know about). You either have to call it all the time or never. Perhaps the free and 50 should be from where the ball is when the event occurs.
Phillip Molly Malones last blog post..Happy New Year – New AFL Season
February 10th, 2009 at 7:54 am
From the ONE game I watched, I would say yes. 3 points is not as much of a penalty of a free shot at goal (unless he misses). A free shot at goals is kinder heart breaking especially as a defender when its your player who get a free goal, one he did not earn….
Jermayns last blog post..Disgrunted Potters House Members about My Survival Guide
February 10th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Is this what you saw or what you think? I think you’ll find that if you look at last years games, the defenders did the same thing as they did this year.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Nah it would be what I saw.
There were several times that the ball was 10m out of the Magpies goals and the Eagles were like seagulls over a chip trying to get the ball out and you can tell the last thing they were thinking of was giving away a rushed behind.
I remember several games were the defenders did rush a 3 point rushed behind in previous years.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
We finally saw the first decision of a free kick for a rushed behind on Thursday’s night game between Collingwood and Richmond. However it was a farce of a decision were McMahan accidentally handballed to through as it missed a player on the goal line…