AFL 2025

[wenchbarwer]

The rule is excellent, removes the ridiculous "intent" crap we currently deal with. I'd go whole ground but the AFL do love being a point of difference...

[dedja]

I know I’m an outlier here, but that rule gives me the irrits … never liked it.

… but, if you’re going to have it, I’d prefer between the arcs than the whole ground. To have a shot for goal that misses the behind post by a bee’s dick given as a free kick to the opposition is ridiculous IMO.

[MW]

I'm sure insufficient intent can still be paid inside the arcs so I dont mind it, takes away legit skill errors that can cost a goal

[whufc]

When are they are going to have reviews to check the exact foot location of where the kick was from when it comes to close calls, on the arc or out the arc!!! oh the controversary!!!!

Is it from where the planted foot kicks the ball from? is it from where the kicking foot makes contact with the ball??

[Jim05]

When are they are going to have reviews to check the exact foot location of where the kick was from when it comes to close calls, on the arc or out the arc!!! oh the controversary!!!!

Is it from where the planted foot kicks the ball from? is it from where the kicking foot makes contact with the ball??

Wouldn’t it just be where the ball crosses the line?

[whufc]

When are they are going to have reviews to check the exact foot location of where the kick was from when it comes to close calls, on the arc or out the arc!!! oh the controversary!!!!

Is it from where the planted foot kicks the ball from? is it from where the kicking foot makes contact with the ball??

Wouldn’t it just be where the ball crosses the line?

Oh yep that makes sense....

Big consequence for a ball that goes out by a few cm's inside the 50m arc. From an attacking side throw in to the opposition getting a possession is huge for something that may have a less than a metre in it.

[Lightning McQueen]

I know I’m an outlier here, but that rule gives me the irrits … never liked it.

… but, if you’re going to have it, I’d prefer between the arcs than the whole ground. To have a shot for goal that misses the behind post by a bee’s dick given as a free kick to the opposition is ridiculous IMO.

It's the same deal as a behind in the example you've given, the opposition still get a kick, besides, if you've missed the goals by that much you probably deserve to have a free kick against you.

[Lightning McQueen]

Oh yep that makes sense....

Big consequence for a ball that goes out by a few cm's inside the 50m arc. From an attacking side throw in to the opposition getting a possession is huge for something that may have a less than a metre in it.

Don't aim at hugging the boundary line with your disposal and you won't have any worries, the rule is designed to keep the ball moving and in play instead of using the boundary line to waste time or re-load.

[whufc]

Oh yep that makes sense....

Big consequence for a ball that goes out by a few cm's inside the 50m arc. From an attacking side throw in to the opposition getting a possession is huge for something that may have a less than a metre in it.

Don't aim at hugging the boundary line with your disposal and you won't have any worries, the rule is designed to keep the ball moving and in play instead of using the boundary line to waste time or re-load.

Yeah.....i get it.

I really like the last disposal rule just not keen on the arc to arc stuff.

Kind of feel though, having it between the arcs is going to be another 'controversial' element we add to the game that at some point will take the shine of a result somewhere in the season.

Will umpires be able to review if needed????

How many times do we see a boundary umpire who can't tell whether a player has the ball in or out of the line???

If you take a shot at goal and cant get it within the 20m??? distance between point post to point post then the opposition probably do deserve to get a kick You already get a point for missing anyway.

[tigerpie]

Between the arcs is just AFL stupidity
Pay it over the whole ground you imbeciles

We'll have arc vision to cope with close ones slowing the game down.It's a joke!
Whole ground or nothing.

[RB]

I know I’m an outlier here, but that rule gives me the irrits … never liked it.

… but, if you’re going to have it, I’d prefer between the arcs than the whole ground. To have a shot for goal that misses the behind post by a bee’s dick given as a free kick to the opposition is ridiculous IMO.

It's the same deal as a behind in the example you've given, the opposition still get a kick, besides, if you've missed the goals by that much you probably deserve to have a free kick against you.

I just hate the idea of a team getting a free kick for scenarios like dedja's. Or where a kick into the forward line beats the pack and goes out of bounds. Why do the opposition get a kick? They had a chance to pick the ball up before it went out of bounds. The potential spectacle of footballers letting it cross the line in order to get a FK doesn't sit well with me either. I don't accept that it's the same as scoring a behind - you get a point for that.

I'm old school, but I just feel that kicks should be earned.

[amber_fluid]

If the ball is touched or bounces before going out of bounds, throw it in!
Piss the deliberate rule off!

It’s worked for over 100 years prior

Stiff shit if it slows the game down.

[dedja]

If the ball is touched or bounces before going out of bounds, throw it in!
Piss the deliberate rule off!

It’s worked for over 100 years prior

Stiff shit if it slows the game down.

… but, having a DRS system which is based on 1920’s camera technology in which just about every goal umpire uses as a cop out for decisions that they should be making virtually with their eyes closed? Yep, let’s hold up the game so that everyone has a chance to enjoy the farce!

[Trader]

100 years ago you could kick it out on the full and it was just a throw in. But clubs complained when one team in particular had a dominant ruck/rover combo and they would work their way around the ground. Ruck taps it to rover who kicks it out 30m up the ground, everyone moves forward and repeat. So out on the full came in. Then deliberate. Then insufficient intent, now last touch.

The game has evolved for years, this is just the next step.

[amber_fluid]

100 years ago you could kick it out on the full and it was just a throw in. But clubs complained when one team in particular had a dominant ruck/rover combo and they would work their way around the ground. Ruck taps it to rover who kicks it out 30m up the ground, everyone moves forward and repeat. So out on the full came in. Then deliberate. Then insufficient intent, now last touch.

The game has evolved for years, this is just the next step.

Why do we need a next step?

Maybe if they slow it down players might actually handball again as opposed to throwing it

The game is too fast as it is

[wenchbarwer]

100 years ago you could kick it out on the full and it was just a throw in. But clubs complained when one team in particular had a dominant ruck/rover combo and they would work their way around the ground. Ruck taps it to rover who kicks it out 30m up the ground, everyone moves forward and repeat. So out on the full came in. Then deliberate. Then insufficient intent, now last touch.

The game has evolved for years, this is just the next step.

Why do we need a next step?

Maybe if they slow it down players might actually handball again as opposed to throwing it

The game is too fast as it is

Blame the coaches, it's their job to work around the current rules. Not one coach would want the game slowed down, given current fitness levels of AFL players. It would be more like union than Aussie Rules.

[mighty_tiger_79]

Oh yep that makes sense....

Big consequence for a ball that goes out by a few cm's inside the 50m arc. From an attacking side throw in to the opposition getting a possession is huge for something that may have a less than a metre in it.

Don't aim at hugging the boundary line with your disposal and you won't have any worries, the rule is designed to keep the ball moving and in play instead of using the boundary line to waste time or re-load.

Yeah.....i get it.

I really like the last disposal rule just not keen on the arc to arc stuff.

Kind of feel though, having it between the arcs is going to be another 'controversial' element we add to the game that at some point will take the shine of a result somewhere in the season.

Will umpires be able to review if needed????

How many times do we see a boundary umpire who can't tell whether a player has the ball in or out of the line???

If you take a shot at goal and cant get it within the 20m??? distance between point post to point post then the opposition probably do deserve to get a kick You already get a point for missing anyway.

bring in a rule where there must be 4 players in each zone at all times

[dedja]

Shut up birthday boy …

[mighty_tiger_79]

Shut up birthday boy …

its just an extension of the 6-6-6 rule

you know it makes sense

[FlyingHigh]

If the ball is touched or bounces before going out of bounds, throw it in!
Piss the deliberate rule off!

It’s worked for over 100 years prior

Stiff shit if it slows the game down.

… but, having a DRS system which is based on 1920’s camera technology in which just about every goal umpire uses as a cop out for decisions that they should be making virtually with their eyes closed? Yep, let’s hold up the game so that everyone has a chance to enjoy the farce!

Don't know why we need the review system.
With the amount of times the out of area field umpire thinks he has to stick his bib in, surely he can make a decision on these too.