TOPIC:

Sliding rule: The only bloke who really makes a play for the ball and throws himself onto the ball/contest gets penalised while the player standing there waiting receives the free kick. Crap!

50 metre rule for encroaching the no-go zone: A player follows his opponent past the man about to take a kick from a free or a mark and gets penalised 50 metres for getting too close to the kicker. What's he meant to do, let his opponent run past for an easy receive? Crap!

Ruckmen a metre apart at throw-ins: A metre apart..why? Let ruckmen ruck. Crap!

Spot on. The game is being ruined by idiotic rule changes. Seems the clowns on the rules committee need to justify their existence by constantly fiddling with the game without a clue or care for the consequence.

Kevin Barlett should be shot on sight. That little b*stard has done more than any other person to destroy what was once a great and UNIQUE game. Now its just an amalgam of every other sport.

Hear Hear boys,

I have followed our great game every week for the last 33 years (virtually my whole life) but I now no longer know when the umpire's whistle blows who on earth the free kick is getting paid for or for what team???

I wish the WAFC had the balls to say stuff Bartlett & his VFL cronies & we went back to the proper rules of football which were on display in the 80's & just pay the bloody god damn obvious free kicks & no tiggy touchwood rubbish, let's have a 15m or 25m penalty rather than a straight 50m for small infringements, dont get me started on the pathetic sliding rule fair dinkum lets turn the game into the favour of those who are second to the ball FFS, the list goes on & on & on.......

I have to disagree on the sliding rule, as far as I am concerned that is one of the best rule changes that have been brought in. The easy thing to do is to slide in knees first or head first to deny the opposition player but at the high risk of causing serious injury to the player who has kept his feet. Players legs should be given protection just like the head area. If a bloke breaks his leg it can mean 18 months to 2 years out of the game or end his career, not to mention how it impacts every other part of his day to day life. It is a small price to pay to penalize players for sliding in, it doesn't disadvantage anyone, both players keep their feet and the better player will win the footy. The best players the game has seen always keep their feet, Ablett jnr, Judd, Goodes, Leigh Mathews, Cable etc......

Agree about 50m penalties and I think a 25m penalty should be considered though that adds extra thought process on the umpires to weigh up but some of the 50m penalties are just too severe for the crime. Umpires are too trigger happy and I think some of them "get off" on penalizing a team 50m. They just love waiving that arm around and running 50m closer the the other end of the ground.

LH the player prepared to go to the ball and make the play has been umpired out of the game.

The spirit of the holding the ball rule was originally to keep the ball in motion.

This prior opportunity is BS. The original law gave an opportunity to dispose of the ball once tackled and retarded not carried forward. All you need to do now is bury the ball carrier into the ground and jump on top of him so that he has no chance of disposal whilst the umpire circles the pack getting ready to put the stage show on.

The sliding rule again does not provide the incentive for desperation. The player diving for the ball is showing desire to go and get the pill, every now and then there may be some incidental high contact but common sense should prevail.

Oops sorry LH they don't have any they never played the game.

I agree let the rucks grapple as long as they are both doing it and not just hanging on.

Of all the rule changes in the past 10 years or so; most have had no positive role in improving the game.

How about these instead:

when a player is tackled without the ball - free kick to the player tackled;

when a player is tackled with the ball and he throws the ball, drops it or fails to kick it - free kick to the player tackling the player WITH the ball;

The exception to the second is if the ball is held to the player and has no way of disposing of the ball; bounce the ball;

umpires to be told not to preen themselves prior to bouncing the ball;

umpires to be told that they are not commentators and that their roles is to umpire fairly and consistently;

umpires to be told where a pack is formed (and a pack is not on where there are twenty players around the ball) they blow the whistle, they pick up the ball themselves and bounce the ball immediately;

umpires are told to exercise common sense (almost impossible I know) when it comes to players near the player with the ball after a mark or free and do not award a 50 metre penalty if there is no impact on the player with the ball;

SCRAP the prior opportunity nonsense;

with respect to ruck duels; award a free kick to the ruck who is infringed when the other ruckman grabs him wothout the ball;

finally umpires are instructed, contrary to what they are currently told, to position themselves in a spot whick will aloow them to contemoraneously look at the players aroudn the ball and players further up the field; rather than having to take their eyes off the play to see the players in the forward line.

A postscript - instruct the umpires that after looking once to see that there are no players further up the ground (between them and the goal umpire) that short of seeing a parachute come down there is no need to look thay way again unless they are going to give a free kick to the goal umpire.

contemoraneously

Brilliant word Swan. What does that mean?

Singha wrote: contemoraneously

Brilliant word Swan. What does that mean?

more interested in what the word 'aloow' means TBH......

.....42, no point using fancy words mate, if you can't spell the smaller simpler words correctly first!!

Not sure I am anywhere near right but.

Contemporaneously?

Jayme Graham...enough said