TheGrandstand.net

* The player, not the umpire, will decide whether the advantage rule applies. If a free is paid and a player wants to play on, that will be his call and so his responsibility.

* If a player tries to drag the ball under an opponent to milk a holding the ball decision, he can now receive the penalty instead.

* The "no-go" zone immediately behind an umpire when he bounces or throws the ball up now applies around the ground. Previously, it was only for the centre bounce.

* Boundary Umpires may give a free kick for holding at stoppages.

I like # 1, 2 and 4 and depending on how they go in the NAB could really open up the game.

I like #4. The rest I'm unsure.

I like # 2

I reckon 4 boundary umpires that are also central umpires - that is - they call the game. Plenty to cover each other and they could also cover the points at either side to a degree.

each umpire can throw in a different coloured flag so that we know exactly which umpires saw something and then they have a conference to see if they saw the same infraction, in the meantime the broadcaster can go to a commercial break while they sort out if it is a defensive or offensive foul....

Will #1 lead to a lot of 50m penalties for players playing on thinking the free went their way?

Then maybe take the game to the US?

1. bound to cause lots of confusion. Was that free for me - I thought it was - oh shit, i've just given a 50 away; just how long will the player have to make up his mind? Will the ump declare you have taken the advantage as soon as you take a step?

2. I like the intent, as plenty of cynical players milk penalties here. It will likely end up as one of those very sporadic judgement calls, like the hands in the back debacle.

3. why not?

4. why not? although, we run the chance of conflicting penalty calls, but we have that anyway.

1. - I'm not sure how this will play out...I'll be interested in how the players respond....and I agree it could lead to mass confusion
2. - I like this one...still hard to adjudicate though
3. - I hate this one...too much attention on the umpires and in the past how many collisions are there with the umps????

4. - I like this one as well....yet again it will be interesting how it plays out in the NAB

The 5m protected area rule that goes along with the play on/advantage rule changes is rubbish IMO.

Watched a bit of the Richmond v Hawthorn match tonight and there have been some rather silly calls. Players giving away 50m penalties for passing through the area but not actually impinging on the play. One was a player running to the interchange bench that ran behind a player with a free kick; another was a player running nearby when a mark was taken - he was already on the edge the protected area and running at pace when the mark was taken and couldn't just stop so instead he just ran on past the player who marked the ball.

I think its a bit pedantic and inflexible.

Are they just for the NAB cup - hope so.

but the one rule that they have brought in over the years that I think should be introduced into the game proper has been done away with - if the ball hits the posts (goal or behind), it's just play on. This was a sensible rule, and if still in effect would've seen that controversy over the goal umpire's decision - and subsequent reversal by the field ump when he watched the big screen replay - a non-event, as the goal umpire would've got it right.

Another one that had some merit - no mark paid if the ball is kicked backwards - is also ignored this year.

Not a big fan of the ball still being in play if it hits the post.


The kick backwards - no mark rule.... well, I suggestted that many many years ago on here actually... maybe when on the ABC forum. Some did add to my suggestion that in the forward 50 metres it would be allowed, therefore allowing a player to kick to another to improve the angle.

Why's that Phelpsy?

I have long thought that the current set up to be the silliest rule in Aussie Rules. Just think of the time saved, not having to watch the goal ump theatrically slap the goal post. I thought that the "play on" rule made great sense and made for a more logical game with better flow.

I think it just adds an element to the game it doesn't need - the unpredicability of the post and where it bounces etc... in such a game of skill and precision - I just think a rebounding ball of a post makes no sense.

well the rule changes wouldn't have had much effect on the Hawks/Tigers or the Power/Crows games. Two 10 goal thumpings.

While not much can usually be taken from the results in the "no points up for grabs" preseason comp, is there any good news that Tigers supporters can garner from that result?

I like Slarts enjoy the play-on if the ball hits the post rule...I believe it to be in the spirit of the game keeping the flow going

Precision isn't the first word that springs to mind with Australian Rules. Tadgh Kenneally's quote about trying catch the bouncing ball being like trying to trap a rabbit summarize the game better. When you think of the centre bounce and pack marks, the combination of skill and luck come to mind. The poster seems more consistant to be a play on situation.

Yeah - i see your point - the oval ball has its unique ways sometimes - making it a difficult game to play sometimes - but a ball coming in off the posts just seems micky mouse to me - like all those silly hybrid sports- beach volley ball comes to mind - I just think it cheapens the game somewhat... why not put rubber walls around the boundary lines etc etc...

It happens in League, Union, Soccer, Gaelic football; they seem to survive the comparison with Disney.

That is a valid point - but just because others do it - why should we. Maybe that's what sets us apart. Our game is unique and the best game in thew world in my opinion - so why change it so drastically.