18 minute quarters

[NoobPie]

Has a sporting body on the planet fiddled with the laws of a game more than the AFL? Ever?

The most ridiculous platitude in bigfooty land

Rugby league in a century has gone from rugby union to what it is today. They were still contesting scrums and rucks decades ago

The NFL aggressively changes its rules every year

 

[Bollox]

Shortening the quarters
Is the product worse ? Hell yes. It has been horrible.

AFL's answer...we should keep it.

Fan's answer...cya later

 

[Ricky112]

The most ridiculous platitude in bigfooty land

Rugby league in a century has gone from rugby union to what it is today. They were still contesting scrums and rucks decades ago

The NFL aggressively changes its rules every year

Does the NFL regularly change quarter length, limits on subbing players, introducing 6-6-6 zoning, third man up, centre circle, convoluted tribunal process that changes annually, eliminate goalsquare after kicking a behind, protected zones...

 

[samFFC]

Does the NFL regularly change quarter length, limits on subbing players, introducing 6-6-6 zoning, third man up, centre circle, convoluted tribunal process that changes annually, eliminate goalsquare after kicking a behind, protected zones...

Not quite but there is definitely lots of changes year to year, sometimes about major things like reviewing plays and catch rules.

 

[Ricky112]

Not quite but there is definitely lots of changes year to year, sometimes about major things like reviewing plays and catch rules.

These are changes to clarify existing rules.

The AFL makes wholesale changes to the game.

 

[mr bagcroft]

the AFL can nibble on my salty balls , from behind, as they sway in the wind walking away from the gane never to return.
There is no end, and the changes have gone too far, and will continue too.
Fortunately, there is FAR morer to life and many other things to do.

 

[NoobPie]

Type in "neoliberal" AND "shock therapy" into Google Scholar. I stopped looking after 10 pages, but can confirm the first 100 entries are all academic journal articles that rely upon the concept (out of 6880 results). I also searched for "neoliberal" AND "shock therapy" through the University of Sydney library and turned up 1648 articles/chapters/books. But keeping telling yourself it's just a single book, or a couple of journal articles. I know it's unimaginable for a concept to be in wide use and for you to not have heard of it, since you are the sole font of wisdom on anything related to economics and political economy lol. Let me guess. You've done an MBA and think you know it all.

An MBA! You are satire personified.

I said I was almost certain you had neither economics or "political economy" expertise. I was right. The fact that I said I was almost certain of that fact in direct response to you directing me to read up on the Dunning Kruger effect should have been enough for you to check yourself.

Your offer now is a google scholar search. I just googled scholared it and sampled the papers on the first two pages and about three of them were in economic journals or which one was a "political economy" journal.

Multiple are critiques of Jeffrey Sachs and neoliberalism from sociological frameworks inlcuding the second one from "A radical journal of geography". If there is any consistent "theme" to the use of the term it is to radical neoliberal type reforms. It has no bearing to NK's "the shock doctrine" that you are trying to relate to 18 minute quarters.

That's not what "formalised" means. "Formalised" in no way implies or necessarily entails broad acceptance. A concept is formalised if scholars in an academic field can deploy it and count on others in the field to know what it means. "Shock therapy" is formalised in political economy but probably not in mainstream economics, to the extent that it has been straighforwardly deployed in 100s, perhaps 1000s, of articles, and no longer requires the publication of purely theoretical expositions of the concept.

When I said "what I mean by formalised" I am clearly providing a subjective definition that I am self-consciously presenting as such. In your response, you've once again demonstrated your ridiculous pseudo-intellectualism.

You lack the basic foundational skills of logic to participate.

Wow, what a surprise. You read the wiki for the book after writing two long posts dismissing the associated ideas.

No, I wrote two long posts dismissing your ideas

It is largely beside the point which name we attach to the decision-making and associated logic in question. The point is how we understand and evaluate the associated decision-making.

Think of the response below as teacher correcting your work. I'm done with you now.

My points are these:
-Gil brought in significant changes during this covid-affected season - of most interest in this context are: shortened 1/4s, extension of mid-week games, night GF.

These are temporary measures within a crisis not permanent changes that would support your "shock doctrine" nonsense

-These changes clearly are not solely dictated by the exigencies of the covid crisis.

No argument or evidence

-Gil has already flagged that, for at least some of these changes, we will not revert to the pre-covid state of affairs once the crisis is past.

Wouldn't be "shocked" if that happens but there is no evidence of that. Note that 2021 is still "within crisis"

-The logic of these changes is oriented to maximising revenue, largely by seeking to maximise TV ratings and advertising.

Baseless assertion. There is publicly available logic of the decision makers for each you listed above that refutes that.

-These changes seem to be at odds with what the majority of fans want, and think is in the best interests of the game (of course this has not actually been demonstrated empirically yet, but let's accept the premise for now).

The majority of people want to lock people up asylum seekers on pacific islands and not have a price on carbon

-What matters is that the decision-making is more than just taking "financial considerations" into account. It is more than just trying to "increase revenue".

Strawman. Nobody has suggested otherwise

-The decision-making in question aims at increasing revenue even where the means by which this is done detrimentally changes the substantive core of the activity (I won't say 'product') that the revenue is supposed to support.

Unsubstantiated

-It matters little whether we call this an example of 'neoliberalism', or (on a tiny scale) 'shock therapy' (although these concepts can help us better understand what is happening in the AFL).

It does matter precisely because these concepts largely do not help understand what is happening in the AFL, at least in the nonsense you have provided.

-The assumption standing behind this decision-making is that increasing revenue is a superordinate priority to matters relating to the substance of the game, such as its length.

Again, you have not gone close to objectively demonstrating this. It is all assertion in its entirety

-It is not "subtle of mind" or "logically skilled" to mindlessly accept this assumption, and justify it on the basis that increased revenue can be pumped into game development, grassroots etc.

It is not "subtle of mind" or "logically skilled" to mindlessly presume things without any basis or to confuse a cartoon like caricature you've dreamed up and mixed together with a book you read by a journalist

If you were more logically skilled you would have followed that all I was doing was inverting your simplistic nonsense

-It is far more subtle of mind to always critically question how the twin priorities of the long term financial viability of the game, and the maintenance of its essence, can best be balanced.

It is also far more subtle of mind to work from the basis that that is what the AFL Commission is trying to do, whether or not you think they are doing it well.

Anyway, I wish you well in your journey. Hopefully one day you can direct someone to read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect without coming across as absurd.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bungeye]

The Afl the last 15 years have made many rule changes to keep up with how the game has evolved in a short space of time.
I don't know why we still need 18 players on the field, when we play a compressed style with little to none set positional play.

I don't think there's ever been a sport unrecogniseable in a 15 year period.

 

[THE EQUALIZER]

I can live with 18 minute quarters, but an adjustment is required for taking 30 seconds for set shots.

The kick must be completed and crossed the goal/boundary line inside the 30 seconds allocated instead of what we have now.

Countdown clock shouldn't restart until the set shot kicker commences their approach.

 

[Barham to Kink]

Why are some people prepared to accept 18 minute quarters? Footy is a universal good just like gold, annual leave, beer, dirty weekends, fake breasts and the Rolling Stones. How on God’s sweet earth is reducing the time played a good result for us as fans? What Gill is doing at the minute is taking the fans’ temperature on whether they’ll eat 18 minute quarters. He knows we are not happy with 16 minutes but hasn’t given up on 18 minutes. Now is the time to push back. Voting buttons on this thread including a keep the status quo and GAGFG would help.

For non-Pies fans, if you need some further motivation, just think of the extra flags Collingwood would have won with shorter quarters in grand finals since 1958. Abomination!

 

[HTT]

Fair point, but how much football can one person watch in a row?

It's not really about that, people will watch the same amount of footy, whether its one game or the entire round, but Foxtel doesn't need as many people covering it because there's only one game at a time. Same income, lower costs. That's why (particularly early in the season) almost all shows on Fox Footy were calling for 16min quarters to be a permanent feature, despite everyone else hating it.

 

[Furn2]

Shorter games means more congestion.

 

[Vintage]

Shorter games means more congestion.

Maybe not if interchanges are cut right back

 

[Johnny Bananas]

It's not really about that, people will watch the same amount of footy, whether its one game or the entire round, but Foxtel doesn't need as many people covering it because there's only one game at a time. Same income, lower costs. That's why (particularly early in the season) almost all shows on Fox Footy were calling for 16min quarters to be a permanent feature, despite everyone else hating it.

Makes sense, thank you.

 

[shintemaster]

Hopefully the end of this year sees the end of this idea.

 

[NoobPie]

Does the NFL regularly change quarter length, limits on subbing players, introducing 6-6-6 zoning, third man up, centre circle, convoluted tribunal process that changes annually, eliminate goalsquare after kicking a behind, protected zones...

So let's never hear the "no other professional sport changes their rules like the AFL" nonsense again

NRL to trial drastic rule changes in final round of 2020 season

The NRL will limit the use of scrums and minimise stoppages for bunker referrals and penalties under a set of rules to be trialled in this weekend’s dead rubbers

www.theguardian.com

 

[Florida Footy Fan]

Would anyone else really hate it only because the stats wouldn’t be consistent? Very annoying.

There was a similar issue many years ago in Major League Baseball when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's home run record. Many argued Maris' record of 61 should have had an asterisk on it because he hit his record-breaker of 61 (Ruth's record was 60) in the 161st game of the season, while Ruth's record was set when MLB only played 154 games.

As time went on and generations grew up only knowing Maris as the home run king, fewer people cared, though similar arguments are made whenever it's debated about cutting the season back down to 154 games.

My guess is something similar would happen in AFL. People would be up in arms debating every record that gets broken or every record that seems unbreakable until a few generations pass, and the younger kids no longer care.

 

[Walshawk]

I can live with 18 minute quarters, but an adjustment is required for taking 30 seconds for set shots.

The kick must be completed and crossed the goal/boundary line inside the 30 seconds allocated instead of what we have now.

Countdown clock shouldn't restart until the set shot kicker commences their approach.

Better to keep 18 min quarters but stop the clock if a player indicates he is having a shot at goal. Will prevent time wasting. Start the clock when his boot hits the ball.

 

[HTT]

18min quarters/time on for set shots is just a low quality fix for players abusing the 30sec late in games. I don’t mind it but there’s clearly better fixes - specifically ones that don’t kill the shot after the siren.

The aim of shortened quarters isn’t that. It’s to reduce how long a game takes - it’s pointless to shorten quarters for that and then lengthen the game some other way.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Wouldn’t complain if back to 20 mins....no other major pro sports decreased game time.

Last season a lot of quarters were going >30mins. I think a little too long, this season too short so 18 seems reasonable

I’d actually prefer 24 games @ 18mins than 22 @ 20 mins

 

[jefffff34]

So let's never hear the "no other professional sport changes their rules like the AFL" nonsense again

NRL to trial drastic rule changes in final round of 2020 season

The NRL will limit the use of scrums and minimise stoppages for bunker referrals and penalties under a set of rules to be trialled in this weekend’s dead rubbers

www.theguardian.com

Yes but there is a massive difference to trialing it in games that don't matter, as opposed to doing it without any sort of thought and sense at all STRAIGHT AWAY!

 

[NoobPie]

Yes but there is a massive difference to trialing it in games that don't matter, as opposed to doing it without any sort of thought and sense at all STRAIGHT AWAY!

What are you talking about?

The NRL introducing the 6 again rule?

But seriously, given you are clearly referring to the AFL, what is your example so infuriating you have no choice but to hit capslock?

 

[Freshwater]

Why are some people prepared to accept 18 minute quarters? Footy is a universal good just like gold, annual leave, beer, dirty weekends, fake breasts and the Rolling Stones. How on God’s sweet earth is reducing the time played a good result for us as fans? What Gill is doing at the minute is taking the fans’ temperature on whether they’ll eat 18 minute quarters. He knows we are not happy with 16 minutes but hasn’t given up on 18 minutes. Now is the time to push back. Voting buttons on this thread including a keep the status quo and GAGFG would help.

For non-Pies fans, if you need some further motivation, just think of the extra flags Collingwood would have won with shorter quarters in grand finals since 1958. Abomination!

Great except the fake breasts? Nothing beat natural, they just have the best curves and shape. Fake is so silly, plastic, round and unsexy when comparing like for like.

 

[Brickwall]

18 min quarters are fine , but 30 sec clock should only count when you take a mark inside 50 (problem solved)

 

[queensberryrules]

I am genuinely enjoying the economics discussion. Learning a lot.

If only footy these days was this good.

Alas.