The problem is that you have complicated the rule and with this new rule, you are complicating the number of rules and what can happen with a huge number of players in a tight amount of space. Adding rules only makes the game/ situation more complicated which leads to confusion and anger of the players, coaches and the fans….

Sorry to be pedantic (again!), but it’s an interpretation you’re talking about rather than a rule, I think. The problem we have is that coaches and their assistants are pretty adept at identifying opportunities in the laws of the game, as they’re interpreted from time to time, which can be exploited to their teams’ advantage. If we were to return to a 1980s or 1990s interpretation of Holding the Ball, which is what you’re suggesting I think, there’d be a return to stodgy, defensive football.
.-= aussierulesblog´s last blog ..Tinkering with laws of the game a mixed blessing =-.

btw just for the record AussieRulesBlog, I like our arguments/ discussions

Would it not just be easier to get rid of the ‘touchy’ free kicks for holding the ball?

OK, I’ll bite. How are we going to do that?
.-= aussierulesblog´s last blog ..The rush to report =-.

In regards to the third rule where players are penalised for tucking the ball under another player. Would it not just be easier to get rid of the ‘touchy’ free kicks for holding the ball? Why bring in another rule to match the initial silly rule. Two wrongs don’t make a right!

Regarding boundary umpires paying free kicks, Anderson’s announcement doesn’t make any mention of boundary throw-ins — it mentions ‘stoppages’. So your concern at the boundary umpires having their backs to the play isn’t relevent for many of the occasions when this rule may come into effect.

I’m not sure that we’re not going to get even more tiggy-touchwood frees paid where the crowd at the game won’t have a bleeding clue what’s going on. Not totally happy with this.

The advantage rule is pretty simple. If the player goes, it’s Advantage. Once they go, they’re fair game. The issue will be players who are already running forward — how much leeway will defenders have to stop them? Will one step toward goal constitute “going”? I guess we’ll find out on Friday when the Bombers kick some Weagle arse!

I like the third one. About time this was tried. Every week we see players free kicked for holding the ball where the ball has been held in by an opponent. The umpires’ explanation that the player “didn’t make an effort to get rid of it” has always been nonsense.

I agree with your comments on the fourth, fifth and sixth.
.-= aussierulesblog´s last blog ..The rush to report =-.