NAB Cup Rules - Stay or Go?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5360
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 56 times
- Been thanked: 448 times
- Contact:
NAB Cup Rules - Stay or Go?
I've been giving some thought to the trialled rules for the NAB cup and which ones should stay and which should go.
Let's start with the 9-point goal. Seriously, what is the point of this? It will NEVER be introduced into the main season. The skill involved in taking a shot on the run from 51m out directly in front is not as much as slotting a set shot hard on the boundary 20m out. Yet the rule says that effort is worth 50% more. Not right, is it? There is now no point of continuing with this rule.
Kicking backwards in defence. This has categorically shown that it does not prevent flooding. Players are happy to zone off and allow the possession and have one player force the kick. This will not work in the real game. The only way to truly beat the flood is to go man on man to ensure a contest when you're behind.
20m requirement for a legal kick. This is neither here nor there. 15m or 20m makes little difference in the game.
No go zone for centre bounce. This is OK but requires the umpire to watch something else other than the play. I was not aware that players crashing into umpires at the centre bounce was a big problem in the game. I'd rather the umpires looked for blocking or holding off the ball then where a player is running.
Recall a bad bounce. At last common sense has prevailed.
Rushed Behind. Once again, I didn't realise that this was such a blight on the game. The players have adapted well but we have now brought a major outcome on an umpires interpretation. If the umpire gets this wrong, the result can change a game. I'd hate for a Grand Final to be decided by an incorrect rushed behind rule. I'm sure Ray Chamberlain would love it.
Free & 50m for late contact. This is good rule and is long overdue. The down-field decision often did not punish sides enough in this hand-ball loving stage of the game. A 50m penalty is enough to dissuade sides from putting a bloke to the deck after getting the possession away.
Rules that I'd love to see trialled...
Play on from a 50m penalty. Like the old 15m penalty rule. If you've been infringed and it's all clear ahead, why not play on? What a way to reduce the opposition's ability to get numbers back. The bloke with the ball has a 50m advantage to run and carry the ball and deliver into an open forward line.
The player infringed does not have to take the free. Like soccer, why not let the team decide which player can take the free. As long as the time limit is not exceeded what does it matter?
Let's start with the 9-point goal. Seriously, what is the point of this? It will NEVER be introduced into the main season. The skill involved in taking a shot on the run from 51m out directly in front is not as much as slotting a set shot hard on the boundary 20m out. Yet the rule says that effort is worth 50% more. Not right, is it? There is now no point of continuing with this rule.
Kicking backwards in defence. This has categorically shown that it does not prevent flooding. Players are happy to zone off and allow the possession and have one player force the kick. This will not work in the real game. The only way to truly beat the flood is to go man on man to ensure a contest when you're behind.
20m requirement for a legal kick. This is neither here nor there. 15m or 20m makes little difference in the game.
No go zone for centre bounce. This is OK but requires the umpire to watch something else other than the play. I was not aware that players crashing into umpires at the centre bounce was a big problem in the game. I'd rather the umpires looked for blocking or holding off the ball then where a player is running.
Recall a bad bounce. At last common sense has prevailed.
Rushed Behind. Once again, I didn't realise that this was such a blight on the game. The players have adapted well but we have now brought a major outcome on an umpires interpretation. If the umpire gets this wrong, the result can change a game. I'd hate for a Grand Final to be decided by an incorrect rushed behind rule. I'm sure Ray Chamberlain would love it.
Free & 50m for late contact. This is good rule and is long overdue. The down-field decision often did not punish sides enough in this hand-ball loving stage of the game. A 50m penalty is enough to dissuade sides from putting a bloke to the deck after getting the possession away.
Rules that I'd love to see trialled...
Play on from a 50m penalty. Like the old 15m penalty rule. If you've been infringed and it's all clear ahead, why not play on? What a way to reduce the opposition's ability to get numbers back. The bloke with the ball has a 50m advantage to run and carry the ball and deliver into an open forward line.
The player infringed does not have to take the free. Like soccer, why not let the team decide which player can take the free. As long as the time limit is not exceeded what does it matter?
- Armoooo
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7281
- Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2006 2:28pm
- Location: The Great South East
- Contact:
I agree with everything you have stated except the last rule about anybody being able to take the free kick.
ROBERT HARVEY A.K.A The Great Man, Banger, Harves, Ol' Man River...
384 games, 4 B&F's, 3 EJ Whitten Medals, St.Kilda Captain, 2 Time Brownlow Medalist, 8 Time All Australian, 2nd Highest Brownlow votes poller.... The greatest of ALL TIME!!
384 games, 4 B&F's, 3 EJ Whitten Medals, St.Kilda Captain, 2 Time Brownlow Medalist, 8 Time All Australian, 2nd Highest Brownlow votes poller.... The greatest of ALL TIME!!
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2493
- Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
- Location: Abiding
- Has thanked: 168 times
- Been thanked: 357 times
The rule that I would love to see come in is the "out of bounds on the full" when you have done nothing wrong.
I am talking about the ball rebounding off the player or accidentlly hitting the player and going out.
I despair at a game been decided because a player has the ball bounce off his foot.
In other words a player should not be penalised for something that they could not control.
To give someone a shot at goal or even possession because of an accident is wrong.
I am talking about the ball rebounding off the player or accidentlly hitting the player and going out.
I despair at a game been decided because a player has the ball bounce off his foot.
In other words a player should not be penalised for something that they could not control.
To give someone a shot at goal or even possession because of an accident is wrong.
- Otiman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8200
- Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005 11:09pm
- Location: Elsewhere
- Has thanked: 151 times
- Been thanked: 537 times
Pretty much spot on.
The rushed behind issue is one that has come from years ago.
It started with the zone/huddle teams employed from kickouts, the AFL wanted to get rid of this, so they let teams kick in immediately after a behind, and even offered a bag of balls behind each goal to facilitate swift moving of the ball.
This had a knock on effect that losing ground (and 1 point) was far more beneficial to the defensive side if they were under pressure.
Now, the third modification to the ruling penalises defensive teams more.
Sure, it's chasing our tails to get rid of that initial zone/huddle/flood setup, but it has worked without changing too many fundamental rules of the game.
The rushed behind issue is one that has come from years ago.
It started with the zone/huddle teams employed from kickouts, the AFL wanted to get rid of this, so they let teams kick in immediately after a behind, and even offered a bag of balls behind each goal to facilitate swift moving of the ball.
This had a knock on effect that losing ground (and 1 point) was far more beneficial to the defensive side if they were under pressure.
Now, the third modification to the ruling penalises defensive teams more.
Sure, it's chasing our tails to get rid of that initial zone/huddle/flood setup, but it has worked without changing too many fundamental rules of the game.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Again I protest...don't change anything! NAB Cup rule changes are a waste of time, ESPECIALLY the rushed behind.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
By the way, nice to see the AFL and the umpires bending over backwards to apologies to the Weagles...unlike us.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
By the way, nice to see the AFL and the umpires bending over backwards to apologies to the Weagles...unlike us.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4655
- Joined: Sun 18 Jun 2006 2:04pm
- Location: Melb
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 23 times
This seems to be the united opinion with 90% of the commoners on the street, but do you think the administration will listen??fonz_#15 wrote:The game as i grew up with it has changed into a game for metro panzies.
Bring back the Biff!
the afl have ruined the world's best game with so many rule changes
Sure attendances are up,but so are populations,and the game is better promoted now,and people live it up now more than ever. People have a deep imbedded passion for there team,but most will agree the game has gone backwards in the past 5 years
Bring back the Lockett era
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Tue 30 May 2006 7:34pm
- Location: the new home of the saints :)
yep and my love for this club will never change.jonesy wrote:This seems to be the united opinion with 90% of the commoners on the street, but do you think the administration will listen??fonz_#15 wrote:The game as i grew up with it has changed into a game for metro panzies.
Bring back the Biff!
the afl have ruined the world's best game with so many rule changes
Sure attendances are up,but so are populations,and the game is better promoted now,and people live it up now more than ever. People have a deep imbedded passion for there team,but most will agree the game has gone backwards in the past 5 years
I am only 20 years old yet from a very young age i have followed football and everything about it but i havebecome dejected with the direction by which it is moving.
I now find myself attched to other sports and follow my soccer and NBA teams just as closely as i do the saints.
Sad really, i wish i could maintain the emotional attachment to the sport that i once had.
Robert Harvey- Simply the best
- matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
i played soccer from when i was 4 to when i was 12 in the uk
i came here and followed soccer for about 2 years and then the lure of AFL got me.
i wouldnt even know who is who in the premiership league anymore.
its too slow....i cant watch slow sport.
i dont like the play on kick backwards crap, i dont like this 20 meter kick, i dont like the three point deliberate rushed behind.
i think u should be able to play on at ALL times no matter the situation.
and i also think that if u want to play on as the advantage u should be able to.....if the ump calls play on and then u get caught, say, 5 steps after, then its tough s***...u as the player made the call to play on, wear the choice if its a bad one.
just my opinion.
i came here and followed soccer for about 2 years and then the lure of AFL got me.
i wouldnt even know who is who in the premiership league anymore.
its too slow....i cant watch slow sport.
i dont like the play on kick backwards crap, i dont like this 20 meter kick, i dont like the three point deliberate rushed behind.
i think u should be able to play on at ALL times no matter the situation.
and i also think that if u want to play on as the advantage u should be able to.....if the ump calls play on and then u get caught, say, 5 steps after, then its tough s***...u as the player made the call to play on, wear the choice if its a bad one.
just my opinion.