Trial Rules-nab cup? !!

[Eastern]

I was interested to hear Adrian Anderson say on SEN last night that the AFL has produced a DVD on the trial rules and it was with the clubs and copies would be available to the media soon. I thought that the media would be the media and only pass on what they want to pass on so I sent an email to Adrian asking if/how I could get my hands on a copy. I will post any response.

I couldn't go abusing the umpires and not knowing the rules. People might think I'm the off-shore moderator !!

[saintspremiers]

Did you tell Aids to post the Vids on YouTube?

I'm sure that would go down well!

No doubt they will get posted online, on afl.com.au, and only available for viewing for those with BigPond $99 per month connections!

[Solar]

interesting that they told the media which coaches suggested which rules....

suposedly the adelaide coach thought of the free if the ball is deliberately forced through for a behind. Lyon suggested the "no one behind the umpire" rule....

[degruch]

suposedly the adelaide coach thought of the free if the ball is deliberately forced through for a behind.

Gawd, that'd be right...good ol' Craigy, made that one up himself, did he?

I'm sure I recall that rule being tried in the past (disguised as 3 points for deliberate) and it was a dismall failure, as it is sometimes impossible to tell whether it was deliberately knocked through. What's next, Tim Roth the third umpire monitoring their facial expressions to analise the players true intent? Who can see it backfiring against St Kilda in grand style???

[plugger66]

suposedly the adelaide coach thought of the free if the ball is deliberately forced through for a behind.

Gawd, that'd be right...good ol' Craigy, made that one up himself, did he?

I'm sure I recall that rule being tried in the past (disguised as 3 points for deliberate) and it was a dismall failure, as it is sometimes impossible to tell whether it was deliberately knocked through. What's next, Tim Roth the third umpire monitoring their facial expressions to analise the players true intent? Who can see it backfiring against St Kilda in grand style???

Probably need to read the rule. It is mainly for taking the ball over the line when under no pressure which to me makes it a pretty good rule. If the backman is under pressure he still has the option of putting it through for a point.

[degruch]

suposedly the adelaide coach thought of the free if the ball is deliberately forced through for a behind.

Gawd, that'd be right...good ol' Craigy, made that one up himself, did he?

I'm sure I recall that rule being tried in the past (disguised as 3 points for deliberate) and it was a dismall failure, as it is sometimes impossible to tell whether it was deliberately knocked through. What's next, Tim Roth the third umpire monitoring their facial expressions to analise the players true intent? Who can see it backfiring against St Kilda in grand style???

Probably need to read the rule. It is mainly for taking the ball over the line when under no pressure which to me makes it a pretty good rule. If the backman is under pressure he still has the option of putting it through for a point.

Sorry, I'm not privvy to such information. Sounds like a good refinement, but still open to interpretation, therefore a potential disaster. As per usual, if it ain't broke, don't fix it...why do we need a new bunch of rules every year? The game looked fine.

[saintspremiers]

suposedly the adelaide coach thought of the free if the ball is deliberately forced through for a behind.

Gawd, that'd be right...good ol' Craigy, made that one up himself, did he?

I'm sure I recall that rule being tried in the past (disguised as 3 points for deliberate) and it was a dismall failure, as it is sometimes impossible to tell whether it was deliberately knocked through. What's next, Tim Roth the third umpire monitoring their facial expressions to analise the players true intent? Who can see it backfiring against St Kilda in grand style???

Probably need to read the rule. It is mainly for taking the ball over the line when under no pressure which to me makes it a pretty good rule. If the backman is under pressure he still has the option of putting it through for a point.

Sorry, I'm not privvy to such information. Sounds like a good refinement, but still open to interpretation, therefore a potential disaster. As per usual, if it ain't broke, don't fix it...why do we need a new bunch of rules every year? The game looked fine.

Well we could go back to the 60's when there was no out of bounds on the full if you'd like.

Just to let you know, Hawthorn rushed 11 behinds in the granny last year - no doubt so they could use it as a tactic to reset their zones.

[degruch]

Well we could go back to the 60's when there was no out of bounds on the full if you'd like.

Just to let you know, Hawthorn rushed 11 behinds in the granny last year - no doubt so they could use it as a tactic to reset their zones.

Nah...but we could leave it as is.

I know, I watched the GF, but barely noticed the rushed behinds as Geelong were applying a reasonable degree of backline pressure...it was a good game. Of course, if you've got fast movement into the forward line and good small crumming forwards, you probably don't have to worry about it.

[plugger66]

Well we could go back to the 60's when there was no out of bounds on the full if you'd like.

Just to let you know, Hawthorn rushed 11 behinds in the granny last year - no doubt so they could use it as a tactic to reset their zones.

Nah...but we could leave it as is.

I know, I watched the GF, but barely noticed the rushed behinds as Geelong were applying a reasonable degree of backline pressure...it was a good game. Of course, if you've got fast movement into the forward line and good small crumming forwards, you probably don't have to worry about it.

Agree we shouldnt change rules for the sake of it but most of the rule changes in the last 10 years in the proper AFL and only enhanced the game.

[degruch]

Well we could go back to the 60's when there was no out of bounds on the full if you'd like.

Just to let you know, Hawthorn rushed 11 behinds in the granny last year - no doubt so they could use it as a tactic to reset their zones.

Nah...but we could leave it as is.

I know, I watched the GF, but barely noticed the rushed behinds as Geelong were applying a reasonable degree of backline pressure...it was a good game. Of course, if you've got fast movement into the forward line and good small crumming forwards, you probably don't have to worry about it.

Agree we shouldnt change rules for the sake of it but most of the rule changes in the last 10 years in the proper AFL and only enhanced the game.

Well, I guess that's why they trial them in the pre-season comp, so I shouldn't get so stressed. It's just that it was flavour of the month post 2008 GF, and not necessarily an issue at all during the year...a pretty shallow premis for introducing a new rule.

Still, when I was a kiddie I played down back (before I shot up to 6ft and they shoved me on the wing...didn't make me any less crap) and would have loved the game to have been faster out of the backline. But I can see it making every team like Geelong, with a Scarlett on each side...Fisher will never escape the backline if that's the case!

[Eastern]

I was interested to hear Adrian Anderson say on SEN last night that the AFL has produced a DVD on the trial rules and it was with the clubs and copies would be available to the media soon. I thought that the media would be the media and only pass on what they want to pass on so I sent an email to Adrian asking if/how I could get my hands on a copy. I will post any response.

I couldn't go abusing the umpires and not knowing the rules. People might think I'm the off-shore moderator !!

Received an e-mail from the afl today. The DVD is in the mail !!

[Moccha]

Instead of an oval ball, why don't the AFL trial a round ball for the NAB cup? If it's a success they could bring it into the season proper. They could also trial some nets behind the goals.

[plugger66]

Instead of an oval ball, why don't the AFL trial a round ball for the NAB cup? If it's a success they could bring it into the season proper. They could also trial some nets behind the goals.

If you are saying the game is getting soft sit on the fence during a game and hear how hard players hit each other these days due to the pace of the game. AFL footy is hardly soft.

[Eastern]

DVD arrived today. Will watch it tonight and report !!

[Moccha]

Instead of an oval ball, why don't the AFL trial a round ball for the NAB cup? If it's a success they could bring it into the season proper. They could also trial some nets behind the goals.

If you are saying the game is getting soft sit on the fence during a game and hear how hard players hit each other these days due to the pace of the game. AFL footy is hardly soft.

Pardon me. Are you jumping to conclusions?

I'm referring to the wads that keeping changing the bloody rules!

[plugger66]

Instead of an oval ball, why don't the AFL trial a round ball for the NAB cup? If it's a success they could bring it into the season proper. They could also trial some nets behind the goals.

If you are saying the game is getting soft sit on the fence during a game and hear how hard players hit each other these days due to the pace of the game. AFL footy is hardly soft.

Pardon me. Are you jumping to conclusions?

I'm referring to the wads that keeping changing the bloody rules!

Sorry about that but while we are on that what rules that have been changed in the last 10 years that have made the game worse.

[Moccha]

none, except that I hate the trial rules they use ie 9 pointer, the ball hitting the goalpost and rebounding into play etc. They should keep to the rules of the season proper

[sunsaint]

I reckon the ball hitting the post rule was one of the better changes.
We have an anomoly in the durrent rules that the ball must fully cross the line to be out of play, UNLESS it hits a post. Then it is deemed out of play
Loved the panic of backmen when it rebounded back in to play.