NAB Cup rules. Like or dislike?

[Ryanstein]

Apologies if this has already been discussed.

What rules do you like or dislike?

Which rules should be included in the AFL season? Discuss.

Here are some of the rules which I can remember:

New interchange rules. Not really sure on the details here. Couldn't really care about this one

Play on if the ball hits the posts and rebounds back into play. Can work for or against your team. Probably won't see this in the AFL for a while


Super goal, outside the 50m. 9 points. Great when your team kicks a supergoal but frustrating when it happens against your team. Don't see this coming to the AFL anytime soon


Only bouncing the ball for centre bounces, otherwise throwing it up. I'm still a for bouncing the ball


Boundary throw-ins taken 10 metres in from the boundary line. Can't see too may problems for this. Stops the ball being punched straight back out again.

Play on if ball is kicked backwards and minimum 20m kicks. Maybe play-on when kicking backwards in own 50m and 15m is enough.

Three points for a deliberate rushed behind. Don't like it, open to umpire interpretation.

[Saints94]

Dislike.

[riccardo]

Most of them are awful. The supergoal is exciting, but I'd never want it in the reguilar season. The ball of the post still in play is crap, as is the new reduced interchanhe (are they trying to make us soccer?)

The only ones i like are boundary throw ins 10 metres in (reduces it going strait back out) and the kicking backwards in own half play on (speads up the game).

[Ryanstein]

Dislike.

heh fair enough

one rule that is now in the AFL is not waiting for the umpire to wave the flags.

forgot about that one!

[savatage]

The new rules are absolute s**t & I can't remember the whistle being blown at virtually every one on one contest before. Let the play flow umpires!!! Let it go, let contests transpire. That is footy! If players whinge for free kicks then tell them to HARDEN UP!

[saintsRrising]

Boundary throw-ins taken 10 metres in from the boundary line. Can't see too may problems for this. Stops the ball being punched straight back out again.

Play on if ball is kicked backwards and minimum 20m kicks. Maybe play-on when kicking backwards in own 50m and 15m is enough.

These two rules should be brought in.

The play on rule for kicking backwards helps to stop winding of the clock down as they cannot mark and waste another 30 seconds...but have to play on.

Only exception should be within the forward 50m arc 9as you need to set up goals and not being able to do so would be unfair)...that way it is nice and clean.

It also rewards the opposition for blocking holes and players up field.

[stinger]

they are all crap rules....ditch the lot of them ffs....

[Ryanstein]

they are all crap rules....ditch the lot of them ffs....

don't be hating stinger

[riccardo]

Not hearing alot of reasons as to why not......................

Its easy to criticise, how about constructive advice?

[meher baba]

Watching the game live on Saturday, I thought the play on when ball kicked backwards had a significant effect on player decision-making throughout the game: all positive.

This is a good rule, and I agree with sRr that it could be applied to all kicks outside the forward 50.

The other rules are stupid, especially the supergoal: if it is meant to reward spectacular long kicks, then it shouldn't apply to goals scored from 50 metre penalties, nor from balls that bounce end on end umpteen times before they go through the sticks.

Even if the supergoal was restricted to kicks taken from outside the 50 that pass through the sticks on the full, I still can't see the justice: to me, the most exciting thing in football is a full forward taking a contested mark inside the 50. If we want to give extra points for anything in football, it should be for this, rather than for speculative kicks on the run.

The 3 point behind rule is wrongly framed. If they want to have it, it should be made universal: that is, if the defensive side is the last team to touch the ball before it goes through, then it's three points. Anything else is too ambiguous and asks the umpires to read players' minds.

[SaintBot]

I like the play on post rule, its very exciting to see the ball bounce back into play - keeps it unpredictable.

The nine pointer is ok, but only for a preseason.

the umpire ten meters in from the boundary rule is good as it opens up the play.

The kicking backwards rule is fantastic, not sure if the game is ready for it in the real season yet though.

[stinger]

Not hearing alot of reasons as to why not......................

Its easy to criticise, how about constructive advice?

well...mainly as i don't like to see so called experts from a single generation flowering around with a game that is getting close to 150 years old......must admit that the original rule makers didn't envisage f-wit coaches training their footballers to kick the ball backwards...so i accept that you and mb have a valid point there......

[Gabba]

they are all crap rules....ditch the lot of them ffs....

[vacuous space]

The other rules are stupid, especially the supergoal: if it is meant to reward spectacular long kicks, then it shouldn't apply to goals scored from 50 metre penalties, nor from balls that bounce end on end umpteen times before they go through the sticks.

I agree on both accounts. In effect, they've made it worse for a player to give away a 50 from outside fifty than inside fifty. It should be the other way around. Players who are infringed on inside fifty should get nine point shots.

[savatage]

The other rules are stupid, especially the supergoal: if it is meant to reward spectacular long kicks, then it shouldn't apply to goals scored from 50 metre penalties, nor from balls that bounce end on end umpteen times before they go through the sticks.

I agree on both accounts. In effect, they've made it worse for a player to give away a 50 from outside fifty than inside fifty. It should be the other way around. Players who are infringed on inside fifty should get nine point shots.

Yeah exactly & what a load of bollocks when a 50/50 ruck contest can result in a 9 point result for the lucky team in question. We were on the receiving end when Rix received a soft free kick from a ruck contest, the Cats probably mouthed off & the ump paid a 50. Of course Rix missed the shot, but regardless on which side of the fence you sit - that is a load of tripe that it can potentially be, a 9 point play.

[plugger66]

Boundary throw-ins taken 10 metres in from the boundary line. Can't see too may problems for this. Stops the ball being punched straight back out again.

Play on if ball is kicked backwards and minimum 20m kicks. Maybe play-on when kicking backwards in own 50m and 15m is enough.

These two rules should be brought in.

The play on rule for kicking backwards helps to stop winding of the clock down as they cannot mark and waste another 30 seconds...but have to play on.

Only exception should be within the forward 50m arc 9as you need to set up goals and not being able to do so would be unfair)...that way it is nice and clean.

It also rewards the opposition for blocking holes and players up field.

I like the play on from a backwards kick but only till half way otherwise teams can flood right back as they know it will not be a mark until inside the 50.

[OneEyedSainter77]

At the end of the day, I don't care too much about the rules - they are simple trial rules that will NEVER and need NEVER be incoporated into the season proper. (And if they ever do I will go on a goat slaughtering spree)

Anyway, I hate the rule that "The team with the most goals hosts the final." I hate it for two reasons.

Some grounds have better chances of klicking a goal - its more free flowing at telstra dome or aami stadium or subiaco than manuka f****** oval or aurora bloody stadium. that s***s me that they drew us to play there in the first place. How can we possibly host the final if Adelaide make it - they've played a comfy three games in a row at AAMI. That brings me to my next point.

The other reason I hate it is because the interstate clubs get right of way over who hosts what.

Adelaide play Port in round one, then the winner hosts such and such at AAMi and so on. Adelaide should they win will host ALL FOUR of their pre-season games. I know its just the nab cup but that is CRAP!

So apart from this joke of a rule and fixturing/scheduling (but I hate that in the regular season anyway), the rules don't bother me.

[plugger66]

At the end of the day, I don't care too much about the rules - they are simple trial rules that will NEVER and need NEVER be incoporated into the season proper. (And if they ever do I will go on a goat slaughtering spree)

Anyway, I hate the rule that "The team with the most goals hosts the final." I hate it for two reasons.

Some grounds have better chances of klicking a goal - its more free flowing at telstra dome or aami stadium or subiaco than manuka f****** oval or aurora bloody stadium. that s***s me that they drew us to play there in the first place. How can we possibly host the final if Adelaide make it - they've played a comfy three games in a row at AAMI. That brings me to my next point.

The other reason I hate it is because the interstate clubs get right of way over who hosts what.

Adelaide play Port in round one, then the winner hosts such and such at AAMi and so on. Adelaide should they win will host ALL FOUR of their pre-season games. I know its just the nab cup but that is CRAP!

So apart from this joke of a rule and fixturing/scheduling (but I hate that in the regular season anyway), the rules don't bother me.

We will have 2 games at an indoor ground and one at a venue where the weather was perfect. If we kick enough goals we will host the game. It could rain in all 3 games at Aami so I think we have got a pretty good deal if we are good enough.

[vacuous space]

Adelaide play Port in round one, then the winner hosts such and such at AAMi and so on. Adelaide should they win will host ALL FOUR of their pre-season games. I know its just the nab cup but that is CRAP!

Adelaide played their first game against Cllingwood in Dubai. Port lost to Carlton at Football Park.

[Life Long Saint]

Yeah exactly & what a load of bollocks when a 50/50 ruck contest can result in a 9 point result for the lucky team in question. We were on the receiving end when Rix received a soft free kick from a ruck contest, the Cats probably mouthed off & the ump paid a 50. Of course Rix missed the shot, but regardless on which side of the fence you sit - that is a load of tripe that it can potentially be, a 9 point play.

The 50 was paid for not returning the ball. The Cats player just dropped the ball on the ground.

But the point is well made. That should never cost a goal-and-a-half.

Kicking a ball on the run from 51m is dead easy for the modern footballer. Snapping a goal from the boundary on the wrong foot is hard.

Personally, I don't want to see any of the NAB rules come into the premiership season.

The boundary throw-in slows the game down as it takes too long to set-up.
The play-on from the post is interesting but should be expanded to make the posts irrelevant. That is, if the ball hits the post and goes through for a goal, then it's a goal.

Forcing the player to play-on from a ball kicked backwards in defence will only promote flooding. If a team is allowed to kick the ball under no pressure in the backline, then the way to counteract that is to go man-on-man. Teams will play more players behind the ball because they will need fewer forwards to force the contest from a play on situation.

Three points for a rushed behind is silly. This is only a major problem since the AFL allowed the player to kick the ball in immediately. Go back to the flag waving scenario and all will be good.

[Armoooo]

I like the throw in rule, I also like the kicing backwards rule but it should ONLY be in your defensive 50, all the others I believe should stay out of the game.

Supergoal: this is the obvious one that should stay out of the game, because it is such a fundamental change to the scoring system and would probably lead to lower accuracy and less goals being scored IMO...

Rushed Behinds: Too open for interpretation, I get frustraated when players walk it in to relieve pressure but I don't mind a rushed behind when there are no alternatives and don't think that should be punished, the game is already hard enough for defenders...

As for the bounce/throw up I'm still undecided, I think I would vote to keep the bounce...

[Otiman]

New interchange rules. Dislike, anything that stops our older players playing, and lowers the total spectacle of the game is a bad thing.

Play on if the ball hits the posts and rebounds back into play. Nope, don't like it. Don't fiddle with one of the fundamental parts of AFL/VFL.


Super goal, outside the 50m. 9 points. The worst NAB cup rule that could possibly make it into the real season, creates a false sense of excitement and spectacle, but its place in the preseason comp may see a different style of play emerge to kick long goals and not have to worry about forwards too much.


Only bouncing the ball for centre bounces, otherwise throwing it up. I like this one. Hate getting dudded on the bounce of the ball.


Boundary throw-ins taken 10 metres in from the boundary line. I don't like this one, get some umps who can throw a bit further.

Play on if ball is kicked backwards and minimum 20m kicks. Nope, neither are good. Perhaps backwards AND 20m kicks should be made ineligible, but not either/or.

Three points for a deliberate rushed behind. Creates confusion, i'd much rather a ball up at the top of the goalsquare over 3 points (opposition ruckman given the chance to knock it through for an extra point)

Exclusion zone for umpires Can't see anything wrong with this, might mess with our centre ball up strategies but nothing that can't be worked around.

[OneEyedSainter77]

hmm, now that I think of it, the most goals hosts rule isn't so bad - I can't think of a fairer/better way of doing it so I'll just shut up and of course Adelaide didn't get fourhome games at AAMI staidum - i forgot about that.

[iwantmeseats]

IMO opinion they ALL suxk, dont like any of em.

3 points rushed behind ...

Well for a start I am DEAD against anything that changes the scoring system, outright. While the theory behind this one is sound in a way, like most rules , the interpretation is crazy. The 3 points should be for when the ball is just wlaked through , as we see from time to time. I saw one given 3 pts on the weekend when someone basically fell over the line while under extreme checking pressure from the oppostion. 3 pts for that? Get outta here.

Super goal...

Just utter stupidity and totally ridiculous, embarassing really. Again as someone mentioned, its beyond belief you can get a 50 and taken to the goal line and its still 9 pts cause the 50 come from outside the 50 mtr line? Again, lunacy.

Overall, watchingt all the weekend games, but especially the saints one, the umpiring is just totally insane WAY WAY WAY over umpired, to the extreme. Just picking out way too many free's. I pray this settles down as the year goes on. More than any rule in particular, blatant over umpiring as seens on the weekend is the most likely thing that will knacker the game good and proper. SOOOOO frustrating, SOOOOO unecessary.