Looking at the new NAB Cup rules

I was doing my usual morning search of the sports websites and came across the AFL’s survey regarding the rules they are thinking about trialing in the NAB Cup.

It was an interesting exercise and required some decent thought about interpretation and taking into consideration, how the fans want to see the game evolve, and so on.

I was always a fairly tall young bloke, compared to most kids my age, so I usually played in the ruck, or sometimes as a key forward.

No world beater, mind you.

A couple of the survey questions revolved around ruckwork, and to me, it also has an overlap on the contested mark inside the forward 50.

The question suggested that the ruckmen couldn’t engage in wrestling if they weren’t allowed to move until the ball was in the air.

I found that to be a rather strange idea – watching two really tall blokes stand like statues until the little fella in green, yellow, red or pink, tosses the footy in the air.

We’ll come back to this question.

Another question was regarding the tackler dragging the ball back under an opponent – we’ve all seen it done – and how the bloke dragging it in should be penalised because he isn’t allowing the game to flow by knocking the ball on.

OK, fair enough.

But I also reckon the guy making the tackle should also be rewarded if he nails a bloke and he can’t get rid of the ball. This idea of “prior opportunity”, or “the ball was held to him”, doesn’t matter in my book.

If you’re good enough to tackle a bloke so that he can’t get rid of the pill, then a reward for a good tackle should be available.

It would also then promote the tackle, over the bump. Not that I’m against a solid hip and shoulder.

Another question related to the boundary and goal umpires being able to pay free kicks for holding and high contact.

Another question I’ll come back to.

And the last one that got me thinking was the deliberate out-of-bounds penalty. We all remember Leigh Montagna’s kick down field last year and the howler of a decision by the umpire that it was deliberate, despite gaining his team a good 60 metres.

Let’s wrap this all up in a neat little nut shell.

We have three field umpires who perhaps pay (at most, usually) 30 free kicks in a standard game of footy. That’s ten decisions per game, or about 2.5 each per quarter, which is sometimes 30 mins in duration.

That means they get paid to make some sort of adjudication less than once every ten minutes on average. So we should be able to expect a reasonable performance based on those sorts of numbers.

The whole idea of bringing the third field umpire into the game was to stamp out holding and high contact in the forward line.

Why do we have to complicate things and have goal and boundary umpires getting involved? It’s hard enough to get the three field umpires to be consistent without bringing more opinions into it.

Ruck contests need to be adjudicated exactly the same as a marking contest.

If the umpires blew their whistles a few times early on in a game, they would establish the rules for the ruckmen and the players would alter their attack on the ball accordingly.

No need for any additional rules for the umpires to keep an eye on.

The umpires also need to pay free kicks where they occur all over the field. I get tired of watching the likes of Nick Riewoldt and Jonathon Brown getting belted around the head all night, arms chopped, held on to, and no free kick.

and as soon as they bump a midfielder, they get pinged.

The umpires seem to go out of their way to make sure that an umpiring decision doesn’t result in a scoreboard opportunity. This is a green light for defenders to punch, scrag, bite and scratch and look totally shocked if they actually give away a kick.

I want to see the game’s best forwards playing exhilarating footy, not charging down the straight carrying a crippling handicap that doesn’t permit them to achieve what their capabilities would allow them to.

With the holding the ball decision, think about the process the umpire has to go through.

First, is the tackle legal, in so much as is it not too high or too low, does the player being tackled have the ball, did he try and get rid off it, or for that matter, did he actually dispose of it correctly if he managed to get it away.

And then finally, did the player in possession have a legitimate opportunity prior to being tackled?

Wow, if that isn’t enough, the umpire then has to work out if the ball spills loose, illegally, should he allow an advantage to continue or develop?

Let’s simplify it a little for the men in green, or yellow, or whatever.

Good tackle, no release, reward the tackler. Bad tackle, protect the player making the ball his object of desire – ie. he’s making the play, he deserves the benefit of the doubt!

Finally, the deliberate out of bounds.

This is a no brainer, commonsense. We don’t need to trial rules that aren’t in the true spirit of the game.

If a player gains territory for his team because he has no other reasonable option, then that’s fine with me and should be recognised as good play.

If a team is up by a few points (which is usually when the whole kicking for touch starts to happen, along with the chipping of the ball around the backline) and kicks the ball sideways, or backwards, out of bounds, by all means award a free kick.

If not, then why penalise them for being the better team for most of the night.