Controversial rules/laws that have made the headlines in recent times...am I...

[?BigKev 2?]

...just being too picky? The hands on back rule.(used to be... push in the back rule)
The no throwing the ball rule. ( these days, more and more players are throwing the ball rather than handpass)
The rush behind rule.
The out of bounds rule.
The interchange rule.
The subsitute rule.
The hitting of arms rule.
The free kick against a player when he goes up for a mark and does not mark it because its considered go up to early.( but its called a mark, when the player marks it)

and so on........there are so many rules that are questionable and debatable. Rules that have been changed or implemented for the sake of doing it. Or in the eyes of the AFL..changes that will make the game better and safer.
Edit... @ chrisarrow...if you read this question, you may be thinking that I am looking for anything that the AFL is doing wrong, but its what I'm trying to point out and many, many other followers feel too. Just click on a few footy sites and just read the anger the fans have about these pathetic rules/laws.
Yes its enjoyable to watch, but clearly the players are very unhappy with whats going on. Now the players are told not to tweet the anger on any social networks...wheres the freedom of speech? so to speak.Why, because the AFL knows that the players are unhappy and does not want the image of this soft brand of footy to have so much media coverage.

 

[chrisarrow222]

I am reading it...wait.

Hands in back....yep, seems pretty innocuos, but players use a light nudge to push an off balance player out of position, Dustin Fletcher 2 wks ago (Im a Dons supporter) took a good defensive mark, but replay showed he had both hands lightly on the other players back,,,free kick...good rule, but as usual open too interpretation,

Throwing...ok, you hear me screaming about this one every week..the players hands are pinned but he has to get rid of the ball...he makes illegal disposal...ok, either holding the ball or throwing...or he makes a short disposal to put the ball in teamates hands...sure umps miss this one, but they are also told to keep the game flowing. The best umps let niggly stuff go..

Rush behind..sure, your side needs a goal, but defender conveniently fumbles the ball over the line and is rarely penalised..except ump pulls one out of the hat sometimes. I see a problem here..so do we go back to the old way? But I don't like this one...since inception...2 yrs ago?

OOB..intentional? Well there was an incident where the kick rolled on and on till it went out....this is a judgement call, I'm not nit picking this one..

Interchange and subs,,,I think this one needs revue, it's not yet had the desired affect...I think changes coming. Agree Kev, on this one.

Hitting of arms...honestly, not familiar with it or the interpretation.

The premature leap..yeah the guy who flies early but hangs or climbs the back, gets the mark. Well the player who doesn't get the mark, but flies early, is causing interference, in the back...everything, because the other player is stopped from even attempting to mark.But the spectacular mark is a major feature of the game, so no way to take that away. The guy who marks has committed in the back or worse, but gets the mark, But it's always been like that. Now there's a penalty for interference. Anyway, is there any dispute on this one?

Tweeting..no idea, I never read such stuff.

Kev, I'm old school, and probably out of touch..and as you might have noticed I don't live in Australia and for another shocking revelation I'm actually a dual citizen, US and Oz..born Aussie. I'm very direct in answering questions and don't expect me to agree with everything you put up, Tell me if I'm wrong also.

 

[Matt]

You're spot on, change for the sake of change. There's absolutely no need to sit down at the end of every season and change rules for a game that's 150 years old, but they do it anyway. I have a couple that are really starting to annoy me, but you don't see them all that often.

If a ball is kicked out of bounds in the pocket, a player can't run the ball back to the line between the posts or it's a behind. Seriously? WHO CARES? If the balls getting back to the position it needs to be kicked from, why on earth does it matter if it went between two posts?

This new interchange rule they've got going on that's basically costing a team a goal due to a player taking one step on the ground before another is fully over the I/C line, again.. WHO CARES? I believe for many many years an opposing team could call a head count and if it was found that a team had too many players on the ground their score would revert to zero. But now we change the rule because one step is just going to affect the game in ways unimaginable to the average human mind.

If a kick in after a behind rolls over the boundary line without being touched, it's a free to the opposition. Umm, why?

If a ruckman punches a ball over the boundary line on the full from a throw in, it's a free kick to the opposition..........

This one here you've said "The free kick against a player when he goes up for a mark and does not mark it because its considered go up to early.( but its called a mark, when the player marks it)" I believe that only counts as a free kick if the jumping player doesn't touch the ball at all, if it's a dropped mark then it's play on.

Hands in the back are inevitable in a marking contest, bring back the push!

But you're right it's a joke, they need to quit tampering with the game for a few seasons, maybe then umpires could keep up with the rules and master them and reduce the amount of obvious mistakes made.

 

[Shifty]

I just posted a Q about last Friday nights controversial play about that rule decision,on Scotty Pendlebury. he played on kicked the goal. then the umpire called the ball back. the goal was disallowed. this was in the dying seconds of the game.

The cats won the game because of that very poor decision. for which now the AFL has now came out & apologised for.

My analysis of the whole situation Big Kev is this. that poor decision & many others that have happened this season is a result of the constant rule changes. that the umpires have to adjust too.

Its bad enough that there are slightly modified rules in the NAB cup. but the AFL continue to fiddle fart around with rule changes every season. & the umpires are having trouble adjusting. i honestly feel that this is the main reason why the umpiring standard has been well below par this season. what do you reckon?

Edit} sorry mate. i didn't read the last part there about players tweeting their disapproval over the Trengove decision. this is how i read that decision. the players made a big song & dance before the start of the season. about how they wanted better protection,when on the playing field. the AFL brought forward the new concussion rule. clearly Patrick Dangerfield was concussed after Jack Trengove laid that legal tackle. the consequence of that tackle is. that he received a 3 week ban because of the harm received by Dangerfield. & not for any other reason.

The Melbourne players should not have tweeted in disgust over that decision. they should have taken it up with the AFLPA. because they are the ones who have lobbied for better player protection.

Its not about it becoming a mummy's game. the AFL acted with accordance to what the players wanted. so they delivered. in other words. the AFL told the players,by handing down that 3 week ban. that you cant have your cake & eat it too. so i say. good on the AFL for sticking it right up the players.
cheers.