Analysis How the state of the game has evolved, is the increased rate of injuries a result of of the evolution

Remove this Banner Ad

VicPark Bitter said:
this post by footyfan78 explains the problem and solution.
36 players within 50 metres of the ball, continuous congestion IS ugly football, if you don't think so then you have never watched aussie rules footy, you have only watched AFL.
2 on the bench, 4 interchanges a quarter, problem solvered.
Click to expand...

Have your whole list on the bench for all I care. Use them as reserves only. Once you are off you are off.
 
Funny campaigner David king on tonight's AFL360

" I'm only here because I thought it was an intervention for Robbo "

I like Mark Mclure also. Couldnt stand the campaigner when I first heard him speak. I thought he was An arrogant campaigner. Love him now though. Just An honest straight down the line man.
 
Reduced the stoppages, increase the movement of the game.

Back to the future

http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rule-changes-18582013

1. 1925
Free awarded against player who kicked or forced the ball out of bounds was introduced.

2. Umpires don't wait for players in ball ups and throw the ball up straight away.

For New ideas
1. Players can play on straight away from out of bounds

2. On centre ball ups, each teams must have six players in each 50m.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The main things i don't like about modern footy is the reduction of high marking (speccies!!!!) and two great players going head to head all day. Seeing Carey and Jakovich battling it out or two top midfielders, the modern game is ok but it's lost some of the key elements that made our game really unique. The game is more of a hybrid of union and basketball now
 
Last edited:
Barry_Badrinath said:
Not super high scoring, but currently the highest in the league. Averaging more points per game than the 92/94 Eagles, the 97/98 Crows and about the same as the 95 Blues, 12 Swans, 10 Pies, 03 Lions and 06 Eagles.
Click to expand...
But most of them come in the last quarter don't they?
After us having to watch 90 minutes of high pressure, clogged up rubbish.
 
Furn2 said:
They would be rubbish footballers though. To even get close to executing the current style game style every player on your team would have to be able to do a 16 beep minimum. That means Billy Hartung and Brad are your inside mids. Isaac Smith would be the best player in the comp and Rance, Dusty and Jack would all be too unfit to get a game.

IF you think thats going to work on any level you've lost it.
Click to expand...
Once you put these athletes in, they're going to be able to run and pressure just like current players are.
If a team of pure footballers plays positional football, they will be outnumbered 18-6 almost anywhere. Dusty can win outnumbered 2-1, sometimes. Not sure how many players you could get to win outnumbered 3-1 consistently.
When the footballers have the ball, they will be swamped with pressure. They might get by sometimes, but more often than not, they'll turn it over and there'll be no such struggle for the athletes. They'll win on surging forwards, outnumbering at all the contests. When they inevitably stuff up kicks, well, more often than not it'll end up in the hands of their teammates anyway, and if it ends up in the hands of the footballers, they'll just swamp them with pressure and get it back.
The ship for no interchange has sailed. We've seen how playing the numbers game is so effective.

I would bet that if the interchange had never been introduced, we would have eventually been introduced to this style. And we'd be lobbying for an interchange to 'keep the footballers fresh and able to keep going'.
Perhaps most damning of all for those who think removing the interchange will change this style of football - the interchange cap was reduced to 90, the current level, in 2016. In the two seasons since then, two sides who've been labelled these poor, ugly, boring sides have won the premiership.
 
To fix the modern game I'd propose three things:
  1. 12 month lead-in period for any proposed rule changes.
    Once a change is proposed it is flagged for 12 months prior to being introduced. This will give the media and public plenty of time to dissect it to death. In the interim the game may have moved on and made the change unnecessary.
  2. 12 month post rule confirmation.
    Once 12 months has passed each new rule is rigorously assessed by either an online news poll costing no more than 55c per vote, or a straw poll at the Tankerville on a Wednesday night. If the rule is rescinded, the person who put it forward is ceremonially flogged under the clocks at 5pm the following Friday.
  3. Reduce the competition by 2 teams.
 
The Goon said:
To fix the modern game I'd propose three things:
  1. 12 month lead-in period for any proposed rule changes.
    Once a change is proposed it is flagged for 12 months prior to being introduced. This will give the media and public plenty of time to dissect it to death. In the interim the game may have moved on and made the change unnecessary.
  2. 12 month post rule confirmation.
    Once 12 months has passed each new rule is rigorously assessed by either an online news poll costing no more than 55c per vote, or a straw poll at the Tankerville on a Wednesday night. If the rule is rescinded, the person who put it forward is ceremonially flogged under the clocks at 5pm the following Friday.
  3. Reduce the competition by 2 teams.
Click to expand...
3. who?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

joelsyt said:
That wasn’t my intention. I hated how we played in 2016. Most frustrating brand of football ever. Before 2012 (I enjoyed our brand from 2012 - 2015) I watched Richmond because they are my team, doesn’t mean I enjoyed it back then.
Click to expand...
We were good to watch 2012-13.
2014,15,16 was boring footy, apart from the streak to finals in 14 where we threw the game plan out the window.
2017-18 back to exciting footy.
 
harrythetiger said:
Once you put these athletes in, they're going to be able to run and pressure just like current players are.
If a team of pure footballers plays positional football, they will be outnumbered 18-6 almost anywhere. Dusty can win outnumbered 2-1, sometimes. Not sure how many players you could get to win outnumbered 3-1 consistently.
When the footballers have the ball, they will be swamped with pressure. They might get by sometimes, but more often than not, they'll turn it over and there'll be no such struggle for the athletes. They'll win on surging forwards, outnumbering at all the contests. When they inevitably stuff up kicks, well, more often than not it'll end up in the hands of their teammates anyway, and if it ends up in the hands of the footballers, they'll just swamp them with pressure and get it back.
The ship for no interchange has sailed. We've seen how playing the numbers game is so effective.

I would bet that if the interchange had never been introduced, we would have eventually been introduced to this style. And we'd be lobbying for an interchange to 'keep the footballers fresh and able to keep going'.
Perhaps most damning of all for those who think removing the interchange will change this style of football - the interchange cap was reduced to 90, the current level, in 2016. In the two seasons since then, two sides who've been labelled these poor, ugly, boring sides have won the premiership.
Click to expand...


Ok lets say that the AFL does get rid of interchange for next year and beyond.

Would you be in favour of delisting Dusty since he isn't and never will be fit enough to play the current gameplan without interchange ? because thats what you are saying would be the best course of action.

Or would you prefer adjusting the gameplan so he can stay on the list ?
 
Furn2 said:
Ok lets say that the AFL does get rid of interchange for next year and beyond.

Would you be in favour of delisting Dusty since he isn't and never will be fit enough to play the current gameplan without interchange ? because thats what you are saying would be the best course of action.

Or would you prefer adjusting the gameplan so he can stay on the list ?
Click to expand...
While your point may be valid, your example is just putrid. We already rest Dusty in the forward line to maximise his ground time.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
That's not much to be excited about.

It's also totally irrelevant to the debate.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I find it quite exciting. Get away to a good start. Manage the middle of the game and then finish like a tornado.

It's relevant to the debate because it's exciting to watch. Bet most people prefer watching the Tigers play to most other teams that aren't their own. Amidst all this crap footy people keep complaining about at least the Tigers keep it interesting.
 
mxett said:
ok, solution -----------> dissolve Richmond and the tigers
Click to expand...
Sure, if thats whats best for the game. Though I suspect amalgamations and / or relocations would better serve the competition.
 
The Goon said:
To fix the modern game I'd propose three things:
  1. 12 month lead-in period for any proposed rule changes.
    Once a change is proposed it is flagged for 12 months prior to being introduced. This will give the media and public plenty of time to dissect it to death. In the interim the game may have moved on and made the change unnecessary.
  2. 12 month post rule confirmation.
    Once 12 months has passed each new rule is rigorously assessed by either an online news poll costing no more than 55c per vote, or a straw poll at the Tankerville on a Wednesday night. If the rule is rescinded, the person who put it forward is ceremonially flogged under the clocks at 5pm the following Friday.
  3. Reduce the competition by 2 teams.
Click to expand...
got an easier option:
admit the interchange cap was a huge mistake and remove it and give teams the appropriate tools for playing modern footy.
 
JohnnyFontane90 said:
got an easier option:
admit the interchange cap was a huge mistake and remove it and give teams the appropriate tools for playing modern footy.
Click to expand...
Sure, as long as it abides by suggestions 1 and 2.

You are happy to be the official person who put forward the rule for suggestion #2 aren't you? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Are umpires informed of the free kick count during games?
2
Replies
26
Views
721
Cmarsh
Cmarsh
M
WSYD How are GWS going off the field?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
132
Views
5K
Colonial
Colonial
MadMundy
What are some of the biggest pieces of revisionist history in the AFL?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
1K
Magpie Since 1986
M
B
Order the Round 10 games as to how they interest you.
Replies
6
Views
283
MCG-Unit
MCG-Unit
Lingsface
All time State of Origin sides
2 3
Replies
70
Views
1K
Lingsface
Lingsface
Always Ballin
Who is the best mark of the ball ever?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Choogler
C
GC2015
If you were a 2024 State of Origin selector...
Replies
12
Views
227
Howard Littlejohn
Howard Littlejohn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top