Adrian Anderson over engineering bureaucracy

[joffaboy]

Fair enough.

I know I wont change the rule.
But worth the discussion

Cheers

Go Saints

[longtimesaint]

Re the interchange error -did anyone see the occasion when Chris Judd came off in the third quarter with his bleeding nose, his replacement ran onto the ground before Judd had come off.
I was sitting in bay 13 and this happened directly below us.
A few people near me saw it but nothing happened re this .
Did anyone here see this?

[plugger66]

Re the interchange error -did anyone see the occasion when Chris Judd came off in the third quarter with his bleeding nose, his replacement ran onto the ground before Judd had come off.
I was sitting in bay 13 and this happened directly below us.
A few people near me saw it but nothing happened re this .
Did anyone here see this?

I saw it and what is your point. I fail to understand what anyone did wrong.

[Moccha]

It's a stupid rule, but how hard is it to follow?

We all know how ridiculous it is, but really we should be pointing the finger at Ball.

[longtimesaint]

What did he do wrong?
I thought you couldn't have a replacement go on before the player comes off. -Play was still continuing so why wasn't there a 50metre penalty.?

[older saint]

Blood rule players can come on straight away but play cannot start until the blood player is off. Where it gets confussing is at these times teams often do a number of changes as no play on. These others must wait until the unsual interchange rules.

[Dis Believer]

We are going around in circles because you dont agree with the rule and I do

because a guy may be 1 metre on the ground and have no bearing on the result of the game.

So you agree with a rule that penalises a team for an action that by your own admission has no bearing on the game. That rule was supposedly introduced to prevent the biggest cheating imaginable - extra players on the ground.

I've suggested the sensible alternative, modify the old rule so that an officiating umpire can call for a headcount instead of the opposing captain (the opposing captain may have been viable in 1909 but clearly not in 2009). However you have chosen to ignore debating this and focussed on distractions to avoid the OP point that the AFL with its current executive and their legal backgrounds have no feel for the game they are responsible for and usually use a sledgehammer to crack an egg. Why is it so impossible for you to admit that the Politbureau may be fallible.

[saintsRrising]

Rule is quite simple.

Ball has breeched it twice.

Given the huge numbers of interchanges made every game by every club and the relatively few instances of the rule being breeched it would indicate to me that Ball needs to lift his game.

It ain't rocket science.

[plugger66]

We are going around in circles because you dont agree with the rule and I do

because a guy may be 1 metre on the ground and have no bearing on the result of the game.

So you agree with a rule that penalises a team for an action that by your own admission has no bearing on the game. That rule was supposedly introduced to prevent the biggest cheating imaginable - extra players on the ground.

I've suggested the sensible alternative, modify the old rule so that an officiating umpire can call for a headcount instead of the opposing captain (the opposing captain may have been viable in 1909 but clearly not in 2009). However you have chosen to ignore debating this and focussed on distractions to avoid the OP point that the AFL with its current executive and their legal backgrounds have no feel for the game they are responsible for and usually use a sledgehammer to crack an egg. Why is it so impossible for you to admit that the Politbureau may be fallible.

When does he call for a head count. I didnt ignore you at all. Does he call for it when a player is one metre on the ground or when he feels like it.

[Life Long Saint]

There are two separate rules in play here.

If a team has more than 18 players on the ground (except for blood rule and stretchers - where this is allowed), a free kick and 50 should apply...Let's call this the Sydney amendment. This has an immediate effect on the scoreboard and supercedes the head count rule.

This is the same even if the team has 18 or less on the ground.

What should happen is this...
If a player crosses outside the interchange gates (like Luke Ball) and the team still has 18 players or less on the ground then no on-field penalty should apply unless that player is involved in the play as he crosses the line (e.g. Luke Ball crosses the line in the forward pocket and marks the ball for a shot at the goals).

The league really is left with two options...
1. Not allow the player to return to the game as the interchange never took place officially.
2. Financially penalise the club (or player, or both) with increasing amounts as the infringements increase.

I think that the common sense view here is that Ball should not have crossed where he did but it had NO bearing on the play and St Kilda (at all times) had the correct number of players or less on the ground at any one time. Never in our game should this result in a gift shot at the goals. Imagine the uproar if a Grand Final was decided by this!

[Darrel Baldock]

As many have said, Luke Ball is intelligent enough to run between two lines. The line are wide enough. It's a simple rule. Stop bringing in peripheral issues and just accept it, with the understanding that we still won. It would have been worse had we lost because of it, because the 50m penalty would still have been justified for a simple and reckless infraction of a perfectly understandable rule that should be easy to comply with. As another poster said, kids do it every time they play competitive football. What makes Bally so special?

[SENsei]

What was the original rule for an interchange infraction...ie, you didn't go out through the interchange gates?

Aren't you out for the rest of that quarter as you exited the ground incorrectly....like if they take a stretcher case straight off the ground or into the rooms.

Admittedly Ball's infraction was with 17secs to go, but imagine if it had've been 17secs into the last quarter under the old rule. At least he can still keep playing under this ruling.

I prefer this rule and I would prefer the simple matter of the player taking responsibility to know the rule and go between the lines. It's really not that hard.

[barks4eva]

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.

Excellent post, an absolute over reaction from the gestapo to introduce this rule in the first place.

Demetriou is too busy giving himself pay rises to be bothered looking into how much of a fiasco this stupid rule is.

As for the cheeky grin from the official and the pat on the back, FAIR DINKUM


What an absolute farce and this idiotic knee jerk response from the AFL to Sydney's transgression could cost another club a game of football and even a premiership.

Sydney should have had the two points taken from them, end of story!

[stinger]

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.

no offence taken mate...the bloke is a dip stick.....

[SENsei]

The rule itself was already in place.

It was the penalty that changed.



Having said that, I noticed earlier in the game Carrazzo run to the interchange, get chested and pushed and shoved, slowed down a bit...then got to the line but the replacement ran onto the ground before Carrazzo had made the yellow box.

Should've been picked up also.

[bergsone]

Hate to see it happen GF day and decide the game.We would be the laughing stock of world sport.IMO a fine not a game winning penality would be better

Can somebody tell me who and how many keep track of all these interchanges,seems a big job

[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.

no offence taken mate...the bloke is a dip stick.....

Thanks Stinger - good lawyer is worth is weight in affadavits but htis guy has just over complicated, over analysed, "over ruled" almost everything he touches. Tribunal being a perfect example. Interchange rule another example.

I agree with the rule - but there has to be some intent and some impact. Let me get to the point - Adrian Anderson just s***s me.