Adrian Anderson over engineering bureaucracy
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
Adrian Anderson over engineering bureaucracy
The purpose of the interchange rules was to prevent teams from playing 19 players.
eg Sydney v North last year when they "accidentally" had 19 men on the ground for a minute or so in the dying stages of a close game. The nineteenth man was involved in receiving and giving a handball that led to a kick forward that resulted in the winning goal.
Normally any side found guilty of such an offence would have their score annulled.
But this was Shytney - the AFL's bastard love child for which they make up their own rules - different salary cap, different tribunal rules etc.
But to stop it happening again they first had the post-it notes policy on the run fiasco.
Now the current rules.
But it has turned into mindless bureaucracy rather than the original intention of preventing a team gaining an unfair advantage.
Last year against North with the ball out of bounds in our forward pocket Luke Bull ran out fractionally early.
Despite this having no impact on the play the mindless literal enforcement of a stupid rule led to North gaining possession of the ball with a 150m penalty gifting them a goal from nothing.
Now Ball (again) runs out a few centimetres wide of some arbitary line which has no impact on the play and we lose possession and a 50 metre penalty (or was that some extra penalty?).
Yes Ball should be more careful.
But this rule is just crazy.
Get rid of it.
The whole thing could be simply fixed by just enforcing the old rule.
If Sydney had had their score set back to zero no-one woul ever do this again.
eg Sydney v North last year when they "accidentally" had 19 men on the ground for a minute or so in the dying stages of a close game. The nineteenth man was involved in receiving and giving a handball that led to a kick forward that resulted in the winning goal.
Normally any side found guilty of such an offence would have their score annulled.
But this was Shytney - the AFL's bastard love child for which they make up their own rules - different salary cap, different tribunal rules etc.
But to stop it happening again they first had the post-it notes policy on the run fiasco.
Now the current rules.
But it has turned into mindless bureaucracy rather than the original intention of preventing a team gaining an unfair advantage.
Last year against North with the ball out of bounds in our forward pocket Luke Bull ran out fractionally early.
Despite this having no impact on the play the mindless literal enforcement of a stupid rule led to North gaining possession of the ball with a 150m penalty gifting them a goal from nothing.
Now Ball (again) runs out a few centimetres wide of some arbitary line which has no impact on the play and we lose possession and a 50 metre penalty (or was that some extra penalty?).
Yes Ball should be more careful.
But this rule is just crazy.
Get rid of it.
The whole thing could be simply fixed by just enforcing the old rule.
If Sydney had had their score set back to zero no-one woul ever do this again.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
- SteveStevens66
- Club Player
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Wed 10 Aug 2005 4:55pm
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: Adrian Anderson over engineering bureaucracy
It's up to the opposing captain to be made aware of an extra man on the ground and then ask the umpire for a head count.Enrico_Misso wrote: If Sydney had had their score set back to zero no-one woul ever do this again.
It can't be done after the game has finished......
Besides all that agree with what you say regarding the Love Child of the AFL
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10774
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 827 times
Adrian Anderson is a waste of over a million dollars a year.
The AFL could employ over 10 competent administators for his salary.
But then they may not be Dimwit's mates.
The AFL could employ over 10 competent administators for his salary.
But then they may not be Dimwit's mates.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
- howlinwolf
- Club Player
- Posts: 1359
- Joined: Tue 27 May 2008 8:51pm
- Location: Sittin' On Top Of the World
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 29 times
Fair enough keep the rule for 19 players on the ground but the penalty does not fit the crime in this case.
That penalty should be if you had an extra player on the ground not for crossing 100mm the wrong side of the yellow line.
This should be simply a financial penalty as there were still 18 players on
the ground
That penalty should be if you had an extra player on the ground not for crossing 100mm the wrong side of the yellow line.
This should be simply a financial penalty as there were still 18 players on
the ground
So you want 2 rules. I thought one was bad enough.howlinwolf wrote:Fair enough keep the rule for 19 players on the ground but the penalty does not fit the crime in this case.
That penalty should be if you had an extra player on the ground not for crossing 100mm the wrong side of the yellow line.
This should be simply a financial penalty as there were still 18 players on
the ground
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2007 5:30pm
- Has thanked: 172 times
- Been thanked: 519 times
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004 7:43pm
- Location: Gippsland
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
How hard is it to enter the playing arena through the correct channel? Bally must have done it hundreds of times by now. I reckon you could teach 10 year old kids to do it correctly ...
The rule itself is an OTT knee-jerk reaction to an extremely rare occurrence (the 19 man Sydney error) but even so if you come on and off the area correctly you'll never be penalised by it. I'm with RL on this one; Bally, get your act together fast.
The rule itself is an OTT knee-jerk reaction to an extremely rare occurrence (the 19 man Sydney error) but even so if you come on and off the area correctly you'll never be penalised by it. I'm with RL on this one; Bally, get your act together fast.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 553
- Joined: Mon 04 Aug 2008 7:46pm
- Been thanked: 7 times
My 5 years old nephew who plays midgets can run between the interchange lines, how hard can it be for Luke Ball to run between a couple of lines painted on the grass? Imagine if this was a final or even a grand final and it cost us a goal?
You can accept it once but twice??? I mean come on what is going on there?
I was so p!ssed off at three quarter time on friday after that, if we lost to the scum because of something like that I would feel like smashing someone...please guys just wait for the player to come off the ground before running on and when you do run on run between the yellow lines...surely it isn't that hard to get right!!!!!
You can accept it once but twice??? I mean come on what is going on there?
I was so p!ssed off at three quarter time on friday after that, if we lost to the scum because of something like that I would feel like smashing someone...please guys just wait for the player to come off the ground before running on and when you do run on run between the yellow lines...surely it isn't that hard to get right!!!!!
When Harvey played his first game in 1988, I was a 12yo wearing short pants and struggling with my readin', writin' and 'rithmetic in grade eight. Now, I'm a father of three and a retired AFL player. And he's still going. Amazing! - Michael Voss
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5095
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 279 times
Surely the point that the usual AFL sycophants are missing is that we didn't breach the intent of either the original or current interchange rules - that is we didn't have 19 men on the ground !! Yet we were penalised because although a legitimate interchange occured the incoming player entered the ground from 12 inches on the wrong side of an arbritrary line.
I think the OP was highlighting the bureaucracy and its mindless excessive reactionary workings.
Since the unpunished Sydney infraction there have been a number of goals gifted against teams who have broken the letter of the new rules but whose actions in no way created an unfair advantage or created a situation of 19 men on the ground. I believe this supports the point of the OP.
On a different point, Plunger I am amazed at your volume of posts given your permanent position of kneeling in front of Andy Dimwit.
I think the OP was highlighting the bureaucracy and its mindless excessive reactionary workings.
Since the unpunished Sydney infraction there have been a number of goals gifted against teams who have broken the letter of the new rules but whose actions in no way created an unfair advantage or created a situation of 19 men on the ground. I believe this supports the point of the OP.
On a different point, Plunger I am amazed at your volume of posts given your permanent position of kneeling in front of Andy Dimwit.
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
Thanks for that but my hands are free the only problem i have is talking. You got any answers to what rule we should have then or just want to have no rule.True Believer wrote:Surely the point that the usual AFL sycophants are missing is that we didn't breach the intent of either the original or current interchange rules - that is we didn't have 19 men on the ground !! Yet we were penalised because although a legitimate interchange occured the incoming player entered the ground from 12 inches on the wrong side of an arbritrary line.
I think the OP was highlighting the bureaucracy and its mindless excessive reactionary workings.
Since the unpunished Sydney infraction there have been a number of goals gifted against teams who have broken the letter of the new rules but whose actions in no way created an unfair advantage or created a situation of 19 men on the ground. I believe this supports the point of the OP.
On a different point, Plunger I am amazed at your volume of posts given your permanent position of kneeling in front of Andy Dimwit.
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5095
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 279 times
Nothing wrong with a simple tweak to the old rule - any officiating umpire suspecting there are more than 36 players on the paddock calls for a headcount. Takes the onus off the opposing captain and sticks to the intent of the rule (which is about numbers of players, not yellow lines and pats on the back for wankers).
There is a wonderful true story of NASA spending six million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity for use in space by their astronauts.
The Russian astronauts used a pencil !!
I think the AFL consult NASA on the rules.................
There is a wonderful true story of NASA spending six million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity for use in space by their astronauts.
The Russian astronauts used a pencil !!
I think the AFL consult NASA on the rules.................
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
Well I would rather maybe having a goal kicked against you that lose all of your score because a guy may be 1 metre on the ground and have no bearing on the result of the game. Thats just me of course. Especially since it is such a simple thing to do.True Believer wrote:Nothing wrong with a simple tweak to the old rule - any officiating umpire suspecting there are more than 36 players on the paddock calls for a headcount. Takes the onus off the opposing captain and sticks to the intent of the rule (which is about numbers of players, not yellow lines and pats on the back for wankers).
There is a wonderful true story of NASA spending six million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity for use in space by their astronauts.
The Russian astronauts used a pencil !!
I think the AFL consult NASA on the rules.................
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10774
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 827 times
I'd be looking at the video of the incident.plugger66 wrote:So this rule is no good. What should be done then if you dont have this rule? Personally I dont have a problem with it. We have probably had 3000 interchanges since the rule came in and only one player stuffed up. I would be looking at the player not the rule.
What does the rule say with regard to the line.
Is it 100% of the body must be outside 100% of the fat interchange side line to be wrong.
Where did you say we can see the video footage of it.
Or wont your mates at Corruption HQ release the footage.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
Possibly so - but wasn't the precedent set by the AFL taking two points of the STKFC when they did nothing wrong (except play to the umpires whistle) in "Sirengate"?plugger66 wrote:Well I would rather maybe having a goal kicked against you that lose all of your score because a guy may be 1 metre on the ground and have no bearing on the result of the game. Thats just me of course. Especially since it is such a simple thing to do.True Believer wrote:Nothing wrong with a simple tweak to the old rule - any officiating umpire suspecting there are more than 36 players on the paddock calls for a headcount. Takes the onus off the opposing captain and sticks to the intent of the rule (which is about numbers of players, not yellow lines and pats on the back for wankers).
There is a wonderful true story of NASA spending six million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity for use in space by their astronauts.
The Russian astronauts used a pencil !!
I think the AFL consult NASA on the rules.................
Surely once they have set a precedent to penalise a team who did nothing wrong two competition points - the AFL then should have penalised the Sydney football club the two competition points for actually doing something wrong and using 19 men on the field to gain two points?
Wouldn't common sense and justice prevail?
What we got was a incredibly stupid and poorly planned knee jerk rule implemented MID SEASON.
Why was this done? Why wasn't the two points taken off Sydney and awarded to North Melbourne?
Why is there a perception that Sydney is treated differently to the other teams?
The rule is a farce and Anderson is a horses arse.
Oh and BTW there is no - absolutley no blame attached to the emergency umpire who did his job perfectly and well.
The problem is that a wonderful game could have been decided by some AFL manager who hasn't the balls to do the right thing and penalise the Sydney football club and not make compromises that penalises the rest of the competition and the football going public.
It is a crap rule - made for gutless reasons - by a squib at the AFL way out of his depth.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5095
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 279 times
And therein lies the point - it has no bearing on the game - so why should there be any penalty??plugger66 wrote: Well I would rather maybe having a goal kicked against you that lose all of your score because a guy may be 1 metre on the ground and have no bearing on the result of the game.
The AFL has elevated it to being pedantic over the mechanics of a player interchange rather than the original issue of the number of players on the ground. Surely even you can see that given your comment re lack of impact on the game.
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
What is actually wrong with the rule? So when do sides lose their points under the old rule. When you are a metre on the ground, when the captain calls for a count or when the extra player touches the ball. To many variables. Better to have the new rule as it is black and white and the most you can lose is a goal. you may not lose anything at all but a 50 metre penalty.joffaboy wrote:Possibly so - but wasn't the precedent set by the AFL taking two points of the STKFC when they did nothing wrong (except play to the umpires whistle) in "Sirengate"?plugger66 wrote:Well I would rather maybe having a goal kicked against you that lose all of your score because a guy may be 1 metre on the ground and have no bearing on the result of the game. Thats just me of course. Especially since it is such a simple thing to do.True Believer wrote:Nothing wrong with a simple tweak to the old rule - any officiating umpire suspecting there are more than 36 players on the paddock calls for a headcount. Takes the onus off the opposing captain and sticks to the intent of the rule (which is about numbers of players, not yellow lines and pats on the back for wankers).
There is a wonderful true story of NASA spending six million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity for use in space by their astronauts.
The Russian astronauts used a pencil !!
I think the AFL consult NASA on the rules.................
Surely once they have set a precedent to penalise a team who did nothing wrong two competition points - the AFL then should have penalised the Sydney football club the two competition points for actually doing something wrong and using 19 men on the field to gain two points?
Wouldn't common sense and justice prevail?
What we got was a incredibly stupid and poorly planned knee jerk rule implemented MID SEASON.
Why was this done? Why wasn't the two points taken off Sydney and awarded to North Melbourne?
Why is there a perception that Sydney is treated differently to the other teams?
The rule is a farce and Anderson is a horses arse.
Oh and BTW there is no - absolutley no blame attached to the emergency umpire who did his job perfectly and well.
The problem is that a wonderful game could have been decided by some AFL manager who hasn't the balls to do the right thing and penalise the Sydney football club and not make compromises that penalises the rest of the competition and the football going public.
It is a crap rule - made for gutless reasons - by a squib at the AFL way out of his depth.
Remember P66 these are only my opinions.plugger66 wrote: What is actually wrong with the rule?
What is wrong with the rule is that it can ruin the essence of a contest. We saw a wonderful contest on Friday night and because on a incredibly minor infraction a team is penalised a vital six points.
When has that made a difference? Before Sirengate whaen has a team had two competition point taken off it for no fault of their own and playing to the umpires whistle?plugger66 wrote:So when do sides lose their points under the old rule.
Why was that precedent set but then when a team actually cheat with 19 players oin the field that influences a game - nothing happens to that team and the innocent party North Melbourne - is penalised two points?
Nothing to do with that rule. The facts were that Sydney cheated to get the last score of the match. It was proven they had cheated - but instead of punishing Sydney for cheating (like they punished St.Kilda for NOT cheating because their own officials incompetence and mistakes) they didn't punish Sydney - let them keep their competition points and then again broke their announcements about not changing rules mid year and introduced a knee jerk rule.plugger66 wrote:When you are a metre on the ground, when the captain calls for a count or when the extra player touches the ball.
So in essence Sydney go unpunished but we then have a game with a tight contest when goals are hottly contested and fought for - suddenly turned on its head by a technical interpretation of a rule because of a minisule indiscretion.
Again I say no blame on the emergency umpire - he has to apply the rules no matter how asanine and ridiculous.
No not really. To me it is quite simple. A precedent was set. St.Kilda had two competition point deducted for something not their fault.plugger66 wrote: To many variables.
Why did Sydney not have this applied when they were found to have cheated to gain two competition points?
Why did the AFL break they long standing view of not introducing new rules mid season?
Can you see why some people percieve that there are rules for some clubs and more lienent rules and decisions for others?
the rule initself applies to all clubs. this is true. St.Kilda also know that the rule exists. Luke Ball should know better. The umpire cannot just ignore a rule infringement.
However thats not my issue. It was the way it was implemented - the preception that the AFL continues to favour Sydney and treat it differently to others - and the way the AFL tries to hide the fact that it DOES treat Sydney differently.
The point is that it is unjust and supporters feel aggrieved. The point is that the rule has nothing to do with the play on the field. The point is that the rule can destroy a contest that is being fairly fought out on the field because of an AFL introduced technicality.
A rule is a rule. But just becauae it is a rule doesn't mean
a) it is good for the game
b) it is fair
c) that supporters have to accept it
d) that Anderson is a doyen of football and understand the consequences of his knee jerk panicked decisions.
Wouldn't it be better to be consistant and treat all clubs equally. Not try to cover up the fact that you favour Sydney and then try to justify a technical non play rule that can kill a game because Anderson and the AFL didn't have the courage or will or integrity to treat Sydney as it had treated St.Kilda and award the two points to North as it had done so with Freo?plugger66 wrote: Better to have the new rule as it is black and white and the most you can lose is a goal. you may not lose anything at all but a 50 metre penalty.
the point is not the black and white rule - but the imposition - the way it was imposed - the reasons it was imposed - the incompetent way it was imposed - and the incompetent out of his depth fool who imposed it.
cheers.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
You still havent said what should happen now, just what should have happened to Sydney. That game is long gone. I want to know what should be done now and I think the new rule is very easy. If we dont have that rule what rule do you want and please dont mention the Sydney game. Yes I understand you think they should have lost their points but that doesnt help us now if the same thing happens.
plugger66 wrote:You still havent said what should happen now, just what should have happened to Sydney. That game is long gone. I want to know what should be done now and I think the new rule is very easy. If we dont have that rule what rule do you want and please dont mention the Sydney game. Yes I understand you think they should have lost their points but that doesnt help us now if the same thing happens.
The rule was to stop 19 men on the field like Sydney did (sorry had to mention it).
They had 19 0n the field for a couple of minutes which resulted in them gaining two competition points.
Balls infraction was miniscule and didn't even involved 19 men on the field but some arbitary interchange gat.
the punishment does not fit the crime.
The rule destroys the fair contest ON the field.
Oh and it is not up to me to think up solutions. Adrian Anderson gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with a solution.
the solution he has dreamed up is pathetic and hopeless.
And in saying this not all rule changes are bad. The rushed behind rule is EXCELLENT and contributes to the game. This farcicial interchange rule detracts from the spectical of the game.
Just a discussion P66. Luke Ball should respect the rule and this thread wouldn't exist. But while it does I think it is a worthy discussion to look at aspects of the rule and its reasons.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: Adrian Anderson over engineering bureaucracy
I'd imagine the club would have been pretty pissed to start from zero in the last quarter!Enrico_Misso wrote:The whole thing could be simply fixed by just enforcing the old rule.
If Sydney had had their score set back to zero no-one woul ever do this again.
We are going around in circles because you dont agree with the rule and I do so there isnt much point in debating it. One reason though you dont like it is because you may go over by inches and get penalised. Well if you go over the line in kick in and over the mark by inches you get penalised and we all know the importance of an extra couple of inches.joffaboy wrote:plugger66 wrote:You still havent said what should happen now, just what should have happened to Sydney. That game is long gone. I want to know what should be done now and I think the new rule is very easy. If we dont have that rule what rule do you want and please dont mention the Sydney game. Yes I understand you think they should have lost their points but that doesnt help us now if the same thing happens.
The rule was to stop 19 men on the field like Sydney did (sorry had to mention it).
They had 19 0n the field for a couple of minutes which resulted in them gaining two competition points.
Balls infraction was miniscule and didn't even involved 19 men on the field but some arbitary interchange gat.
the punishment does not fit the crime.
The rule destroys the fair contest ON the field.
Oh and it is not up to me to think up solutions. Adrian Anderson gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with a solution.
the solution he has dreamed up is pathetic and hopeless.
And in saying this not all rule changes are bad. The rushed behind rule is EXCELLENT and contributes to the game. This farcicial interchange rule detracts from the spectical of the game.
Just a discussion P66. Luke Ball should respect the rule and this thread wouldn't exist. But while it does I think it is a worthy discussion to look at aspects of the rule and its reasons.