AFL 2011 survey

[W.C. Fry]

Just filled it out. Doesn't seem to ask as many questions about new rule changes this year, more aimed at getting feedback on the new ones this year.

A countdown clock at the games is the main thing it looks like they want to bring in. I hope they get a terrible response to that idea.

Also looking at the number of runners and support staff on the field. To be honest I dont notice them at games at all.

The 3 things i like most -

Big marks.
Big bumps.
Amazing goals.

The 3 things i dislike most -

Soft umpiring - umpire like its the Grand Final.
Players getting suspended for things they cant avoid - are they meant to suddenly disappear to avoid high contact?
Interchange infringements - 50m is way to harsh a penalty and you stop the game for what really is a non event of a player crossing the wrong side of the line or such. Only pay it if they actually have 19 players playing.

What are your thoughts on the survey?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Started doing it, got to page 2 and...

Stats for the year indicate congestion has reduced and skill levels and scoring in the second halves of matches has improved.

There have been several examples where a team has lost a player early due to injury, and not been disadvantaged because they have been rotating 3 v 3 rather than 3 v 4 as it would have been in the past.

Has the new interchange rule helped reduce congestion around the ball?
Yes

No

Are we seeing a better style of football late in matches when the game opens up?

Yes

No

Has the new interchange rule made the game fairer by removing the disadvantage of losing a player through injury when the opposition has not lost any players?

Yes

No

I support the rule, but if this isn't leading a horse to Kool-Aid...

 

[ManWithNoName]

To be fair

Has the new interchange rule made the game fairer by removing the disadvantage of losing a player through injury when the opposition has not lost any players?

The answer to that is most definitely yes.

 

[Ron The Bear]

To be fair

The answer to that is most definitely yes.

Sure. But the introductory statements are clearly leading the respondent to a particular conclusion so that the AFL can release a press blurb along the lines of "95% of fans responded favourably to the new interchange rule", paving the way for further changes.

Are there any questions about our reaction to the proposed shortening of quarters? If not, I won't be completing the survey.

 

[MightyHawks]

What a silly survey.

We are asked about 3 rules: advantage, substitution and deliberate.

We are actually asked our opinion on the advantage rule, but on the deliberate and substitute rule we are given ridiculous leading questions that Adrian will use to justify his silly rules and interpretations.

How about 3 interchange and 2 subs, or 4 interchange and 1 sub?

How about asking whether we think the deliberate rule is interpreted well, or about inconsistency between the interpretation of "deliberate out of bounds" or a "deliberate rushed behind"

This survey is designed to justify particular decisions, not finding out our opinions.

 

[vjknight]

This survey is designed to justify particular decisions, not finding out our opinions.

 

[Spector]

Agree 100%, what a joke.

I made sure that my responses to those questions were as negative as possible because he has tried to skew them towards justifying his position.

I think that AFL is actually getting worse and worse to watch and it is the changes in rules / interpretation / over umpiring that is killing it.

 

[deluge99]

3 likes - physical contests, man on man play
- contested marking
- hip and shoulders

3 dislikes - umpires making a call on every contest, soft free kicks
- 50m penalties for insignificant infringements
- MRP inconsistency.

Hopefully everyone gets the chance to send a message to the AFL that the current involvement from the umpiring dept is over the top.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Link??

 

[dagriggstar]

Biased like a North Korean election

Top 3 likes
Close games
Teams having different styles of play/strategy
Moments of brilliance

Top 3 dislikes
Soft Umpiring/free kicks breaking up the game
Teams getting thrashed (eg anything recent with Port Adelaide)
Players playing for free kicks

 

[The Punter]

Look up "push poll" in a dictionary...

The only thing missing was questions like:

"On a scale from great to awesome, how do you rate the AFL's innovative new substitute rule?"

 

[Blueboys11]

Was thinking the same thing.

Such leading questions, that you have to say 'yes' to.

Classic case was the deliberate out of bounds questions.

Do you agree with the principle of penalising deliberate out of bounds??

Of Course!!

Do you think the stricter interpretation this year has encouraged players to keep the ball in play?

No sh!t sherlock

If I asked Do you think the stricter interpretation this year and penalty of 1 goal has encouraged players to keep the ball in play?

What else would you say but yes, doesnt mean its right

Such leading questions...

But seriously, where is the question. Do you believe 'deliberate' should only be payed for the most obvious occurences ( or something to that effect)?


So now the AFL can write that 90% of fans agree with the new strict interpretation of deliberate out of bounds as it has encouraged players to keep the ball in play.

Paying deliberate for 50 meter kicks along the boundary line, or contested handballs while being tackled etc is ridiculous.

 

[Carrara Koala]

How about asking whether we think the deliberate rule is interpreted well, or about inconsistency between the interpretation of "deliberate out of bounds" or a "deliberate rushed behind"

This survey is designed to justify particular decisions, not finding out our opinions.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[coleman10]

I just took the survey.

What a crock of sh**.

Designed to manipulate the answers in the best interests of the AFL.

Notice how they had a section for comments regarding the 3 things you like and dislike, but no room to elaborate on deliberate OOB, runners on the field and those things that need some clarification?

Where were the questions about OUR feelings towards the evening out of the draw (MOST important topic in football), player remuneration, the TV deal, Jeff Geischen etc?????

Complete waste of time IMO.

 

[Bradesmaen]

To be fair



The answer to that is most definitely yes.

It hasn't made it any fairer really. If you have to introduce your sub early, you don't have that fresh legs. In reality it has done nothing. Injuries are a part of the game and because Malthouse couldn't deal with it, the AFL decided to bring in the sub.

 

[Starburns_]

As pathetic as those questions are, they don't go close to the one last year asking how should the interchange be structured this year, yet not providing an option to leave it as it was.

 

[lecca]

survey on afl website

Hey all,

just been on www.afl.com.au and they have a survey up about fans opinions on the game like rule changes etc.

just thought id encourage people to do the survey so the AFL can get an idea what is annoying us fans(and in my opinion only)how a lot of these rule changes are ruining the game.

Maybe Anderson,Demetriou and co. will realise that a majority of people dont like the way the game is headed.

 

[WCEforeverman]

Re: survey on afl website

I will not be surprised if one of the questions will be:

"Which rule change the AFL has implemented has improved your AFL viewing experience the most..."

 

[Scootyb]

Re: survey on afl website

The questions are loaded, there's no "Do you like the new advantage rule" or anything of that nature as usual... In the sections where you can type out an answer i gave a detailed answer outlining my feelings, but i bet it wont come up in the results.

 

[JD-Roo]

Sounds like this... except at least Sir Humphrey asked both sides....

Humphrey: You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: " Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard: Oh...well, I suppose I might be.
Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told her you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.
Bernard: Is that really what they do?
Humphrey: Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.
Bernard: How?
Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.

 

[Underdog]

Ha! If this was a Federal referendum, it would be shot down in seconds...

 

[MightyHawks]

Sounds like this... except at least Sir Humphrey asked both sides....

Humphrey: You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: " Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard: Oh...well, I suppose I might be.
Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told her you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.
Bernard: Is that really what they do?
Humphrey: Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.
Bernard: How?
Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.

Spot on...

 

[Evelyn208]

You can tell what answer they are fishing for by how "leading" it is. Then you pick the opposite.