The AFL must review the rule book

Richie- but it won't be paid in the back. . No point in hoping for an in the back, unless it is a different circumstance. Players and coaches will have to adjust and so will the fans. However we all know what constitutes a free in rounds 1 to say 5 somehow is not for the rest of the year. Personally i like all the new rules for 2019 except for the adjusted 50 meter penalty rule. I didn't even like the old 50 meter penalty rule at all. From memory it was introduced for wasting time and has evolved to cover other things.

or it should be a free kick to the player on the ground for someone falling over him

It’s so easy to see that all these rules are gonna ruin the game. If the AFL wants to expand the game, then this is the biggest thing standing in their way. It’s hard enough to explain the regular rules to a foreigner, let alone the new rules that even the players don’t understand. Learn from the past 20 years of Rugby Union, penalties do not equal exciting.

I have long been frustrated with how the AFL communicates new rules and interpretations of new and existing rules to the fans. They do put out videos on the main AFL site along with information and videos/diagrams etc. to all main stream media. I am not a user of Facebook/Twitter but i assume these platforms also get relevant information. However with the 24 hour media cycle lots of this information goes in one eye and out somewhere else. I am a Lions supporter and at the game against Port their were about 3 below the knee free kicks. Of course the crowd screamed blue murder on each one. But i believe each one was warranted under the interpretation of the rule. I can't believe all the media commentators/Danderfield/ and others complaining when they would have been given or had access to other videos which are sent to coaches each year. I also believe these videos should be forwarded onto all members of each club so that at least people attending games can't say they don't understand why frees are paid. I get about 6 e-mails from Lions each week so it can't be expensive to send. Having said that, umpires will still get things wrong. Hell most games 50% of the crowd believes they get every decision wrong. Hopefully the link below works for those interested in the three videos of Nat Edwards interviewing umpires on rules 2019. The link for some reason opens up on Scott Pendlebury 50 meter penalty. So scroll down, you should see the 3 Videos. For "below the knee contact" go to video "AFL Closing Down on Closed Fist Strikes". It is in this 5 minute video. Two examples are shown and it is the 2nd one that is causing fans to scratch their heads. For those that don't want to check the video/s (but all should). Mat Nicholls 334 game umpire states- "if player elects to go to ground other than keep on feet" they run the risk of a free against them. My first post, long time lurker ,sorry about the length. Hope the link works. https://www.afl.com.au/umpires/video

Snap.

You mean Gomer Pyle. I can’t stand him. I thought Darth Vader was bad enough. I’m not a Pies supporter but I think we should have Bucks as CEO. Or Riciutto. Somebody who calls it as it is. Ian Chappell is free, get him. —- I’d suggest Ian Healy but he doesn’t understand our great game.

Thanks.

The contact below the knees rule is fine and should stay; its the interpretation of said rule that needs to be updated. It was designed to stop players "cannonballing" into the knees of their opponent, and that I am fine with being outlawed. Where it is being applied wrongly, is a player can take possession of the ball, and opponent overrun the ball and get a free kick. In this instance, it should be play on.

The below the knees rule is an interesting one. If you look at the rule itself, it says a free kick is payable if the contact is made (or attempted to be made) "in a manner likely to cause injury". The umpires seem to have completely lost sight of this. There is nothing wrong with the rule in theory; it's only there to prevent unnecessarily dangerous contact. The problem is that most of these frees are paid for incidental stuff that isn't likely to cause injury.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I would also add that we need to remove deliberate out of bounds and deliberate rushed. While it hasn't been an issue so much lately, just get rid of them both. The other issue is inconsistency with giving 50m penalties or just warnings. Often you'll hear the umpires tell a player five, six times to move back or get out of the way. Other times, bang, they'll award a penalty without so much as a breath. Seems to be the big, popular, superstar players get better treatment of this.

The umps have never had a harder role than right now. Every year the AFL meddle and change the rules......EVERY YEAR! Yes they miss some clear frees that have always been free but thats the game. We look at a play from 5 angles in super slow mo HD 4K quality and the umps get to make a split second call at ground level taking in the entire play and often without clear veiw. How dare they make a subjective call or simply dont clearly see what occurred. Umpire bashing is a national sport in Australia. Now the rule changers. That is who you need to be writting too and attacking. As for the result yes the Eagles did deserve it and also both teams were subject to speculative decisions or non decisions. I feel for todays umpires. One of the hardest jobs in the country IMO.

Nice article.

It's ok, nothing to worry about! When you submit a comment it shows in a full block. When it actually is published, the line breaks are still there.

Bugger! My earlier comment was divided up into paragraphs for easier reading but has come out as one large block. Is there some magic trick to ensuring the divisional spaces remain between the paragraphs and sentences. Does not make sense otherwise.

I sort of do feel sorry for you Max, having to barrack for Collingwood but it does seem that far too many free kicks are for 'tiggy-touchwood' infractions. Not so much the wording of the rule but the umpires interpretation, especially when it does not seem fair and reasonable. Most 50m penalties have a greater influence on the game than the original infraction, so should only be awarded to 'real' double infractions. The most recent 50m penalty rule was introduced to 'speed up the game' but if a player refrains from kicking the ball he could hold up the game for 20-30 seconds before he was forced to kick. A player intent on delaying the free kick may hold up the ball movement by about five or ten seconds at most. Also the misinterpretation of the 'Holding the man' rule after a player has been tackled to the ground. You can not 'un-tackle' somebody instantly, and if it would not have impeded the tackled players ability to influence the outcome, because the play had moved on, there is no real infringement. Next - Blocking. Nice idea to have a rule which gives forwards a free run at the ball but is rarely used to the benefit of defenders. 'Sheparding' used to be a big part of the game and as long as it was not 'holding' then it should be viewed as part of the 'team effort' to afford the best use of all opportunities. A big problem with the blocking rule is that a 'nice block' is applauded by the commentators and a 'blatant block' is derided, and this seems to be the umpires attitude as well. Finally - Ruck Contests. Max Gawn was penalised for a straight-arm fend-off. So this, or blocking, or pushing, or accidental high contact happens in nearly every ruck contest, why is 1 in 23 pulled up. Ruck contests are supposed to be a contest, not a couple of tall blokes standing next to each other seeing who has the longer arms. If it is obviously dangerous award a penalty, if it is just part of the play, let it go. Apart from that I don't have an opinion!

I think everyone is ignoring the real issue here, and that is the desperate need for bigger goal squares!

The problem is clearly Steve Hocking. He, along with Gil, has to go.

Spot on. The exact same could be said about the Richmond vs Collingwood game in Round 2. Collingwood were the far better team and deserved to win, but the umpiring towards Richmond was terrible. Though the bizarre McIntosh - Edward's decision was in Richmond's favour.

Umpiring is in crisis. Influencing and deciding results.