Adrian Anderson over engineering bureaucracy

[Enrico_Misso]

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.

[SteveStevens66]

Excellent post!!

Sums up the core of what is wrong with the instructions given to umpires--the unforgiving enforcement of every rule to the letter of the law.

[Pwoit]

If Sydney had had their score set back to zero no-one woul ever do this again.

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.

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]

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.

[fingers]

You have summed this up perfectly. I have been banging on about this for years. No offence to any of our legal brethren but Anderson is everything people hate about the bad law and bad lawyers - over complicating things for their own farking enjoyment.

[plugger66]

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.

[howlinwolf]

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

[plugger66]

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

So you want 2 rules. I thought one was bad enough.

[older saint]

Rule exists play by it.
Penalty is harsh but that is the rule.

We are talking about a bloke who got in excess of 99 on VCE, how hard can it be to stay within a couple lines drawn in yellow on green grass?

[St DAC]

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.

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

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!!!!!

[Dis Believer]

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.

[plugger66]

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.

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.

[Dis Believer]

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.................

[plugger66]

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.................

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.

[ace]

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.

I'd be looking at the video of the incident.

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.

[joffaboy]

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.................

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.

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"?

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.

[Dis Believer]

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.

And therein lies the point - it has no bearing on the game - so why should there be any penalty??
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.

[plugger66]

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.................

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.

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"?

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.

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.

[oh when]

On a TV clip they showed the North interchange steward standing in the interchange area directing / holding the players to ensure no transgressions - I wonder what our steward was doing.

[joffaboy]

What is actually wrong with the rule?

Remember P66 these are only my opinions.

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.

So when do sides lose their points under the old rule.

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?

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?

When you are a metre on the ground, when the captain calls for a count or when the extra player touches the ball.

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.

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.

To many variables.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[plugger66]

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.

[joffaboy]

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.

[degruch]

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.

I'd imagine the club would have been pretty pissed to start from zero in the last quarter!

[plugger66]

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.

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.