AFL Rule Changes for 2017

[Ziplock]

I think it'd be kind of pointless having only 4 bounces a game... either get rid of it or don't, if you still have it a couple of times a game then it's still a skill that needs to be perfected, just almost never used.

[Jukes]

From an umpire's perspective, bouncing is difficult to do good (and consistently) and requires a lot of practice - which is why it should be at least partially removed (4 per game). Wouldn't we all prefer umpires who are the best at making decisions, or ones who can bounce it good but make average decisions? shower decisions are the difference in at least a few matches every year- the 'appeal' of bouncing it rather than throwing it up doesn't mean much at all. Keep them at the start of quarters for that dramatic effect and to keep bounce lovers happy

[Purple 77]

A pet peeve of mine is that (especially at the start of a quarter), when the bounce is recalled, the time counts down and doesn't reset. I really think it should be brought back up to the time of the first attempt.

But anyway, a minor thing.

[Bill Manspeaker]

A pet peeve of mine is that (especially at the start of a quarter), when the bounce is recalled, the time counts down and doesn't reset. I really think it should be brought back up to the time of the first attempt.

But anyway, a minor thing.

agree 1000000%

[Hawka]

A pet peeve of mine is that (especially at the start of a quarter), when the bounce is recalled, the time counts down and doesn't reset. I really think it should be brought back up to the time of the first attempt.

But anyway, a minor thing.

agree 1000000%

Cost the hawks a game a couple of years ago -.-

[LF]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-06/afl-writes-to-clubs-over-third-man-up-anomalies

Definitely needs to be fixed,giving a team a free kick because the ball hit someone unintentionally is bloody ridiculous

[Ringo]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-06/afl-writes-to-clubs-over-third-man-up-anomalies

Definitely needs to be fixed,giving a team a free kick because the ball hit someone unintentionally is bloody ridiculous

Yep that was ridiculous - shows what can happen though if a throw in falls short as no one can touch it until a ruckman has.

[shaker]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-06/afl-writes-to-clubs-over-third-man-up-anomalies

Definitely needs to be fixed,giving a team a free kick because the ball hit someone unintentionally is bloody ridiculous

The only thing that needs fixing with this is some common sense by the umpire

[Hawka]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-06/afl-writes-to-clubs-over-third-man-up-anomalies

Definitely needs to be fixed,giving a team a free kick because the ball hit someone unintentionally is bloody ridiculous

No doubt if they dont change the rule , it will cost a team a goal and maybe even a match.
Just dont like this 3rd man up rule at all  ::)

[Ringo]

The next challenge would be how to define a passive player - Obviously a player hit in the head was passive, but can see occasions where the midfielders are awaiting the tap and the ball accidentally touches one and umpire does not consider them passive.
As shaker says all it needs is common sense to decide if it was an attempt to play the ball before Ruckman touched it.

[PowerBug]

Yet another rule which turn from clear cut into umpires interpretation! (See: Shot Clock Rule) Have to do one of two things, either the two ruckmen are the only two that touch the ball until it bounces, if it hits anyone else then bad luck, free kick against. Or teams are allowed to go third man up (legitimate tactic which I see no reason for outlawing in the first place)

But things like umpires "using common sense to decide" is not going to work and only create confusion, like every other interpretation rule does in every sport in existence.

[Rusty00]

Surely this one is simple to interpret?

If a player not nominated as the contesting ruckman tries to tap the ball, free kick. If it's a bad bounce/throw in that the ruckmen can't get to, it should be probably recalled anyway.

Surely it will be easy to tell if a player is "trying" to get a hitout and shouldn't be ???

[PowerBug]

Surely this one is simple to interpret?

If a player not nominated as the contesting ruckman tries to tap the ball, free kick. If it's a bad bounce/throw in that the ruckmen can't get to, it should be probably recalled anyway.

Surely it will be easy to tell if a player is "trying" to get a hitout and shouldn't be ???

I'm sure the same was said for the Shot Clock ;) Something will pop up haha