The game has got uglier (apparently) since interchanges caps were introduced. And this latest batch of rules has done squat
6-6-6 - winners and losers
- Thread starter Gavin Excell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The game has got uglier (apparently) since interchanges caps were introduced. And this latest batch of rules has done squat
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Because 90 is still an incredibly high number of interchanges per game.
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
Couldn't agree more. If you know as a forward you won't get to come off an rest you won't be sprinting up an down the ground all the game.
It's the only way IMO. Plus with only 10 per quarter then no big deal if you get an injury
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
Yep that's how scientists put forward papers on subjects. Single isolated examples
It clearly does have an effect, just for relatively short periods of time. When players get a clean clearance from a centre 50 after a goal there is clearly far far more space for them and the forwards to work into
- Thread starter
- #306
Its going to be cold today. So much for global warming
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
I havent taken a s**t today, so im giving away all my toilet paper
The next evolution will be to have 2 or 3 players in the forward 50 for the entire game. This is just the first step to get clubs and more importantly the public used to set positioning.
666 is having an impact but for a very small part of the game.
I personally think the runner rule is having a bigger impact. Last night highlighted hiw Geelong with strong leadership organized their rotations and tactics well late in the game. Collingwood were a shambles. Possibly cost them in an close game.
I personally like the onus being on the leadership group and players to organize themselves and work with the bench.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
666 is having an impact but for a very small part of the game.
I personally think the runner rule is having a bigger impact. Last night highlighted hiw Geelong with strong leadership organized their rotations and tactics well late in the game. Collingwood were a shambles. Possibly cost them in an close game.
I personally like the onus being on the leadership group and players to organize themselves and work with the bench.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
The suggestion was reducing by 10 every year. That’s basically what happened
Bullshit rule changes fail. The answer is more bullshit rule changes? When do we ask if we are fundamentally approaching it wrong?
Last edited:
- Nov 16, 2015
- 5,482
- 8,996
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
You saw exactly that last night. In the past, with fwds starting high up or at the wing, the fwd line was more open and it was easier to score.
With the new rules the fwd 50 has 12 players in there when the ball enters from the ball up. I lost count the amount of times 4+ players went for the same mark only for it to spill and then spend the next 30sec pinballing its way out of the 50 or through for a shitty point.
There’s occasions that quick goals are kicked from the centre bounce but last night it took until the start of the last quarter for it to happen and the commentators creamed themselves over it stating how good the rule changers are.
Too many *******s in head office changing the game we love when it should be left to evolve as it has for the last 150 yrs
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
Wtf are you talking sbout.
Last year still had 12 ******* players in the 50s it was just 7 defenders 5 forwards which made it even harder to score.
Congestion is still congestion you idiot and forcing more players to be in the forward line doesn't help ease it.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
I said in another thread that it would be an extremely risky career move for a fringe 22 player to pretend he doesn't realise it's his turn to go off and deny the coach a chance to bring on a star player late in the last quarter during a cliffhanger. That's seemingly what happened with Treloar last night - I can't imagine it was Beams, Pendles or Sidebottom whom Bucks would've wanted off with the game on the line.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
It's a start but with some way to go.
Not sure what else they can do to reduce the congestion without vastly changing the nature of the play, i.e. permanent zones which would be a terrible look for the game.
Reduce on field numbers. The traditionalist hate it but the alternative they are using is death by a thousand cuts
Btw I don’t agree the game is bad. We just had the 2 worst games of the round presented as prime product
The grand final was excellent
I laughed. Send that one to the right wing fools on the Society, Religion and Politics board.
Knee jerk reactions from AFL House and fans are synonymous with footy these days.
I agree. Just take four spuds off the ground and there are four fewer players to hang around a pack.
Reduce it to 16 per team on the ground, move those players to the bench but continue to lower the cap on rotations as well. Zones in general play on such a large playing surface is unworkable anyway and yes would look horrid.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Have seen it proposed a fair bit and I wouldn't be opposed to this. But it's quite a change. Much bigger than changing the interchange system.
Agreed, the game is not bad.
But I haven't found the last decade aesthetically pleasing as the late 90's and early 2000's when it had a great balance of athleticism, skills and physicality. Still, it's a great sport to watch but has become a bit more of a grinding affair since the mid 2000's as the fitness levels of players has exploded and tactics evolved with that.
And since the closure of Waverley, you can’t increase the size of the field
The interchange reduction proponents say the game will be better as players tire. At the end of quarters and end of the game.
Reducing the numbers would have that effect for the entire game.
Having said that, I’d suggest implementing it in a different way. Having a huge committee of ‘names’ is a poor substitute for trialling something properly.
I’d suggest the comittee we got last year was simply a mechanism to silence any dissent to the regime
- Nov 16, 2015
- 5,482
- 8,996
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Settle down Football Noob. Why do you think they brought the rules in ? It wasn’t to stop more players inside fwd 50 lol. It was to stop fwds playing outside the 50 causing more numbers around the ball between the 50 arcs.
The percentage of inside 50’s previously would’ve had 5 fwds, 6 Def max and that was of the oppo coach was playing a loose.
No decent coach wants more players inside fwd 50 because guess what... it makes it harder to score.
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
An yet teams would win clearances an kick it long to a 5 on 3 contest inside their 50 which was near impossible to score from.
Now you've got equal opportunity to score and you can't dump all your numbers behind the footy when you do score meaning your priority at the centre bounce has to be to go forward
Already there’s evidence a winger goes back and a forward runs back to the wing. Meaning running players are more in vogue 3 wingers and one on the bench (smith, scully, Henderson, Morrison, Nash for us
If I’m playing Etihad with no wind, I’m putting a smith or sucking type in the center who can nail goals or points from inside the square. Just sail ove the 12 players in the arc.
If it’s a point, aim to lock it in. The defenders get the big rooster to take the kick
If I’m playing Etihad with no wind, I’m putting a smith or sucking type in the center who can nail goals or points from inside the square. Just sail ove the 12 players in the arc.
If it’s a point, aim to lock it in. The defenders get the big rooster to take the kick
