Concerned about the Standard of play

[WALDENPOND]

Non of my friends agree but I do actually think the game would be better if it was shorter.

 

[johnno77]

Non of my friends agree but I do actually think the game would be better if it was shorter.

How does that improve the game?

 

[Dags21]

Must agree with most comments here.. It's not th rules its the way they're being called. The main problem seems to be th reluctance to pay free kicks, move th ball on any how u can is making for very ugly game play... Throw th ball out from congestion; no free, feel th tackle and drop th ball at a team mates feet; no free, the only thing u can't do is have th ball held to u when on th bottom of a pack, and god forbid u try to win th ball whilst on th ground!!!

 

[WALDENPOND]

How does that improve the game?

Do you see more urgency in players when the game is ending and the game is close?

 

[johnno77]

Do you see more urgency in players when the game is ending and the game is close?

Going by that reasoning, we might as well just play the last 5 minutes of a game and be done with it. Urgency isn't an issue in Aussie rules. The length of quarters is fine if you ask me. It's the quality of what's happening during those quarters that has become a problem for many people. Shortening quarters wont fix anything.

 

[WALDENPOND]

Going by that reasoning, we might as well just play the last 5 minutes of a game and be done with it. Urgency isn't an issue in Aussie rules. The length of quarters is fine if you ask me. It's the quality of what's happening during those quarters that has become a problem for many people. Shortening quarters wont fix anything.

It means you won't have to watch an hour and a half of a nothing game when a decent team has just knocked up a 5-6 goal lead at quarter time.

I agree with you mostly and I don't want to use stupid things like "would other sports make games so unwatchable only a quarter of the way in?" But just personally I'm finding it tedious. Quality not quantity.

 

[Spluff]

The only suggestion that has been thrown about that would actually work is reducing the number of players on the ground, but the AFL would never do it.

 

[johnno77]

It means you won't have to watch an hour and a half of a nothing game when a decent team has just knocked up a 5-6 goal lead at quarter time.

I agree with you mostly and I don't want to use stupid things like "would other sports make games so unwatchable only a quarter of the way in?" But just personally I'm finding it tedious. Quality not quantity.

But the really good quality games I could watch for hours. Plenty of teams have overcome a 5-6 goal lead at quarter time and the overall match has finished in a epic contest. If you've watched Richmond enough over the years, you would know all too well that whoever the Tigers play are still a chance despite going down by 30-40 points. Regardless of the length of games, there will always be blowouts. The NAB Cup with shortened quarters proves that. I remember going down to Tassie to watch us against the Hawks in 2009 and we were 100 points down at 3/4 time.

 

[johnno77]

The only suggestion that has been thrown about that would actually work is reducing the number of players on the ground, but the AFL would never do it.

They used to do it in the VFA I'm pretty sure. I think it's worth a crack too. I'm also interested to see how the trial goes in the TAC Cup with forcing 3 players from each team into F50 and D50 whenever there's a stoppage to try and reduce congestion around the ball. It will be a massive change from the way the game is currently played but I think it's worth a go.

I want to see more one on one contests. Pure and simple.

 

[Parquet Court]

shorter lengths of games will allow for more upsets and not be completely reliant on this "optimal age" of players.

players can make impacts earlier in their careers.

and besides, most games you can just not really worry about the 1st half or so. i can watch from the middle of the 3rd quarter and not feel like i have missed much

 

[WALDENPOND]

But the really good quality games I could watch for hours. Plenty of teams have overcome a 5-6 goal lead at quarter time and the overall match has finished in a epic contest. If you've watched Richmond enough over the years, you would know all too well that whoever the Tigers play are still a chance despite going down by 30-40 points. Regardless of the length of games, there will always be blowouts. The NAB Cup with shortened quarters proves that. I remember going down to Tassie to watch us against the Hawks in 2009 and we were 100 points down at 3/4 time.

I was selfish. I was more thinking about games that I didn't support a team.

I admit a cannot argue with arguments I agree with.

 

[johnno77]

I was selfish. I was more thinking about games that I didn't support a team.

I admit a cannot argue with arguments I agree with.

It doesn't happen very often but I'm glad someone has come around to my way of thinking. Kudos to you WALDENPOND!

Now for the rest of you......

 

[RunningBounce]

True. I find there are too many games about which I have no interest. I suppose that can happen with 18 teams.

Good call. This is a part of it, I think.

There's an obvious dilution of talent. Simply piling bodies around the ball means the weaker players cough it up. Turnover in the forward half of the ground = easy goals. Most of the defensive strategies that seem to be upsetting people (but not me so much) aim to achieve this.

Games used to be won and lost on contests more, and mistakes less.

 

[RunningBounce]

I'm still in the "let it evolve" camp.

It happens again and again. Some evil bastard coach comes up with a very effective defensive strategy (eg Roos and Lyon). Other coaches come up with an exciting, new way of attacking that cuts through.

The game plans that some teams are putting together to cut through the defensive swarms are fantastic to watch. The Hawks kicking. The Cats running, link up with handball. The Port game of leaving the wings vacant and leading into space relentlessly then kicking long to marking forwards. I'm happy watching these teams play in 2014.

It's going to evolve, whether you mess with the rules or not. No-one can really know what effect the tinkering has because the game is constantly changing anyway. Why not try just keeping it as constant as possible for a season or two? We haven't tried that in a while.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

I usually only watch our games but the main gripe I have with the game today is the seemingly inconsistent administering of the rules by umpires during the game. Nothing more frustrating that seeing a free kick given to the opposition for something borderline at best only for the same thing to happen to one of our players and nothing being given.

Also, scrap the sub rule!

 

[aislegi]

shorten the game

its way too long. 10 mins with time on or 15 mins with time on at the most

Agree. And the 100-point rule is long overdue. The first team to 100 points is almost always the winner.

 

[Blinger]

The only suggestion that has been thrown about that would actually work is reducing the number of players on the ground, but the AFL would never do it.

I think that might resolve some of the congestion & they could then have 6 on the bench. 4 for rotations & 2 subs. As you say the AFL would never go for it.

 

[TerraTiger]

I think this is more serious issue than some realise (not that I"m thinking posting my opinion on a forum will be a watershed moment for the AFL). Coaches are taking such a defensive approach it is ruining the spectical of so many games. Huge numbers around the ball, men back, low scoring, congestion. I'm finding myself quickly losing interest in anything but Richmond games unless that particular game is an all to rare, gem (Hawks v Geelong of last week).

Why is this so serious? So much defense and tidium will/has effect crowds and TV audiences/excitement. Makes me wonder if there is a real tipping point where the drop off might be, instead of a gradual decline, dramatic. I'd think/hope this is on the AFL's agenda atm.

The most sensible thing i heard was something from KB (I think) talking about the basic tenants of AFL. The things that define AFL and make it unique. Any rules to change the game should have the intention of addressing these principles. Congestion and uber defense i think needs addressing. My thoughts:

some sort of limit on numbers in defense - I think this should be looked at. I hate the idea however of this week where need to be in position at stoppages. Slow the game down too much. A more managable idea i think is limiting defensive numbers at all times.

take out the wing players - i think this should be looked at. Someone said AFL would never do it. Not sure why? Unless 18 players on a field are one of the principles of the game (but why? I'd rather marking and scoring and longer kicking).

remove sub rule - i hated this when it first came in however have grown to like it now. We all hear players don't like it. Too bad. I'm not sure it contributes at all to the aspects making some games boring, in fact, I'd say an a ability to sub in a 30 year plus player who has had a great career but now can only play 1/2 game at full intensity, or allow a 1st game player to play knowing they may be swapped or used as the sub, adds to the game, its interest and coaching strategy.

rotations/interchange - coaches will adapt to rules as will players. I'd like to see this greatly reduced so players don't have the energy to get to as many stoppages. Might be crazy I'd like to see a trial (NAB cup) of 3 interchanges a quarter. The 3 essentially so it can be policed (3 players start on bench each quarter) each can come on the ground at the expense of an on field player each quarter. At quarter time this resets.

Sorry guys this rant got longer than i thought. I really worry for the identity of our game and think we need address some critical issues else we'll lose market share to soccer and rugby. 1st step is acknowledging there is a real problem. 2nd step, trialing solutions. 3rd step rolling out the intended solutions.

 

[Reservoir tiger]

The game is fine... Such an over reaction. We just now have too many teams. There is a lot of players getting a game of afl that shouldn't be.

There has been ripper games this year. Brilliant to watch. Exciting games. Cats v hawks, pies v bombers, eagles v power, hawks v bombers, us v dogs, us v carlton, blues v eagles are off the top of my head some fantastic contests I've watched this year. Riveting.

Then you get your demons v saints, gws v crows etc

It's pretty normal good teams against each other is better than s**t teams against each other. Leave the game alone, it evolves. It's the best sport in the world by the length of the flemington straight.

 

[Googstar]

Outside of the Tigers, I couldn't be bothered either watching or going to an AFL game now. Footy has never been so boring. Freo, Sydney and Melb are about as much fun as dental fillings. I will not in any way support the AFL whores (ie. GC & GWS), so no interest there. We have a supposedly elite football competition, except most players cannot even kick or handball properly.

As for fixes, I am still mainly in the let it evolve club. I am not big on rule changes. I see the logic in reverting back to no interchange just subs but would like to try other alternatives first. The one rule I think will definitely help is ironically an old one they scrapped. They use to pay a free against the third man in the tackle. This would stop the stacks on tackling approach which locks the ball in.

 

[RunningBounce]

You may or may not agree with what it says, but I find this article a good counter-argument to KB's.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...reasons-behind-congestion-20140423-zqy99.html