AFL constantly changing rules

[frednirk]

I hate the afl and everything about it.

But I like my club.

The constant rule changes are farcical.

 

[Father Jack]

I must congratulate the AFL on making what should've been a simple rule adjustment into an over complicated mess.

Instead of yellow boxes and gates in silliness here's a simple way of madating interchanges... the interchanging player cannot enter the field of play until the player he is replacing and completely left the field of play.

In short, one player off, one player on.

Yeah, give the interchange players bloody hi-vis vests or something that they hand over. I don't know, but anything to stop this toenail brushing the wrong blade of grass rubbish we have now.

 

[TownleyTime]

Heard AA on 3AW on the way home, he along with Gerald & KB are responsible for this mess. The AFL love making a dick of themselves, 1 caller asked why had they introduced rules that have made the game faster. AA's response was that the game wasn't quicker but it was more continous.

It was then pointed out to him that a more continous game is a faster game, went all quiet after that.

 

[Father Jack]

Heard AA on 3AW on the way home, he along with Gerald & KB are responsible for this mess. The AFL love making a dick of themselves, 1 caller asked why had they introduced rules that have made the game faster. AA's response was that the game wasn't quicker but it was more continous.

It was then pointed out to him that a more continous game is a faster game, went all quiet after that.

Probably because he was sick of trying to explain simple concepts to simpletons.

 

[TownleyTime]

Probably because he was sick of trying to explain simple concepts to simpletons.

I don't disagree with AA that the game & it's rule changes have made the game more continous. However a direct result of this continous play has made the game quicker.

If you introduced such continous rule aims you would be a simpleton if the result of such changes isn't a quicker game.

 

[Father Jack]

it hasn't been a result of the rule changes, it's been a result of the increased rotations. Players gaining a breather at every stoppage helped them retain their intensity, now they get their breather on the bench. The less continuous the game the harder you can run. Hence 'quicker'.

 

[Geddy Lee]

From 4 years ago.

"THE AFL Laws of the Game Committee believes it is winning the battle against ugly football, but it will still consider a restriction on interchange rotations in the near future."

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/league-keeps-eye-on-rotations/story-e6frf33l-1111114990159

The AFL has given the game a chance to sort itself out and rotations have gone up and up. This isn't a knee jerk rule change its been on the cards for 4-5 years now. Just like the above rules.

You just don't like because your premiership gameplan is based on high rotations and change means less chance on maintaning the status quo.

Why else is there 10 pies fans in every sub rule thread saying its rubbish and not one for it ?

Excellent post. Will go far above the heads of many on here.

 

[TownleyTime]

it hasn't been a result of the rule changes, it's been a result of the increased rotations..

Collingwood really developed the increased rotations in the 2nd half of the 07' season. They were averaging close to 120 rotations by the time they played Sydney in the EF.

As 1 who attended every game of that year, Collingwood's "play" didn't quicken as a result of increased rotations (this was at a time when rule changes were introduced). The rest of the AFL didn't really cotton onto rotations of 120 plus until the latter part of the 09' season & there wasn't a dramatic change in the speed of the game from that season till the last. Again, filmsy rebuttal.

 

[Furn]

I don't disagree with AA that the game & it's rule changes have made the game more continous. However a direct result of this continous play has made the game quicker.

If you introduced such continous rule aims you would be a simpleton if the result of such changes isn't a quicker game.

Thats like saying Steve Smith is a faster bowler than Brett Lee because he can bowl an over in 90 seconds and Lee takes 5 minutes.

It's 2 completely different things.

 

[cammo78]

Anderson is well out of his depth and it continues to become more obvious. He is of the belief that there are 7 concussions per team per season - or 112 per season.

This apparently means that more often than not a player is concussed in matches and this is why another new rule is being introduced.

The man is a moron. He might be a qualified lawyer but he has no business in our game.

 

[Father Jack]

Collingwood really developed the increased rotations in the 2nd half of the 07' season. They were averaging close to 120 rotations by the time they played Sydney in the EF.

As 1 who attended every game of that year, Collingwood's "play" didn't quicken as a result of increased rotations (this was at a time when rule changes were introduced). The rest of the AFL didn't really cotton onto rotations of 120 plus until the latter part of the 09' season & there wasn't a dramatic change in the speed of the game from that season till the last. Again, filmsy rebuttal.

look, you can make things up, oversimplify matters and pretend that the universe begins and ends with Collingwood all you like to counter my 'flimsy' arguments, but the simple point i am making is that the AFL has stated that they tried to make the game more continuous so that players wouldn't have time to have a rest if and thus make it more difficult for them to run as hard, but this was negated by the increase in rotations that has been happening for the latter half of the last decade. Also, these things don't happen immediately.

Is that such a hard concept to understand?

 

[vjknight]

furn - clearly you are unable to consider anyone elses responses as you believe everybody sees the game thru one eye.

lets see if you are as good as the AFL themselves.
what will the repercussions be of the new rules introduced recently ?
what rules will then be introduced to overcome this ?

/thread.

 

[buzzbuzz]

Why does the AFL want the players to be tired?

 

[TownleyTime]

look, you can make things up

Can you please tell me exactly what I'm making up. Specifics please. Are you disputing that the explosion of rotations didn't occur on the back of Collingwood in the 2nd half of 2007?

but the simple point i am making is that the AFL has stated that they tried to make the game more continuous so that players wouldn't have time to have a rest if and thus make it more difficult for them to run as hard

So the AFL has come out & said they wanted to fatigue the players more? Interesting theory, I'm sure the AFLPA would be interested.

but this was negated by the increase in rotations that has been happening for the latter half of the last decade.

The last half? Rotations were an issue in 2005?

Just maybe, the sports scientists involved at each club have used their years of study & perfect PE scores to deduce that the fatigue caused by an increase of continous play can best be combatted by carefully montiored rotations & rests. Maybe the clubs that are rotating more are looking after their players welfare more than a tactical adv. by a coach? Until you can tell me with some concrete evidence, I'm not a believer.

 

[Pie eyed]

Why does the AFL want the players to be tired?

So they go to bed early and don't get in trouble with girls an stuff.

 

[Saint4Life]

Yea, sick of the AFL changing the rules.

Get rid of the sub rule, have a 4 man bench, cap interchange to 20 or 25 per quarter to fix the high rotations, and be done with it.

Every year they think they need to change rules, gets annoying fast.

 

[Father Jack]

Can you please tell me exactly what I'm making up. Specifics please. Are you disputing that the explosion of rotations didn't occur on the back of Collingwood in the 2nd half of 2007?

Saying you went to all the games and things never changed isn't evidence, its you making things up to support your argument. I can just as easily say i watched three games a week on telly and did notice things speed up. However, that aint how it works with gradual processes. You carry on as if one day everything just explodes, whereas it doesn't. If you watch a game every week you are even more unlikely to notice a gradual process.

also, from 2007:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/league-keeps-eye-on-rotations/story-e6frf33l-1111114990159

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said the Laws of the Game Committee continued to be concerned about interchange rotations, which have exploded in recent seasons.

From a benchmark of 17 rotations per team per game in 2000, there has been a 241 per cent rise to an average of 58 per game in 2007.

The laws committee considered trialling a new rule next year but decided to implement a season-long research program to establish whether the faster pace of the game leads to higher injury rates.

"Some people say interchange rotations will level off, but we believe, on the basis of the research, the use of interchange will increase," Anderson said.

"What became clear was we needed a dedicated research project to look at this question of correlation between interchange use and injury.

"The speed of ball movement has gone up by about 10 per cent. But with increased use of the interchange bench, GPS research we have done shows the average speed of the players has also increased by 10 per cent."

The last half? Rotations were an issue in 2005?

Rotations were not an issue in 2005, and i didn't say that they were, I said that the increase took place over the last half of the decade. Learn to read.

So the AFL has come out & said they wanted to fatigue the players more? Interesting theory, I'm sure the AFLPA would be interested.

They have, and why on earth would the AFLPA be overly interested in that? Please tell me, I look forward to your answer.

Just maybe, the sports scientists involved at each club have used their years of study & perfect PE scores to deduce that the fatigue caused by an increase of continous play can best be combatted by carefully montiored rotations & rests. Maybe the clubs that are rotating more are looking after their players welfare more than a tactical adv. by a coach? Until you can tell me with some concrete evidence, I'm not a believer.

Anyone with perfect PE scores and a think brain would deduce that in any sport players will push themselves to the limit. All the rotations do is push that limit out. Changing the bench will bring that limit in. It is merely the difference between more endurance running and shorter, harder running.

More players will be forced to do their short-term recovery on the field. That will mean not continuing to run hard up and down the field as they have been able to previously, as their recovery isn't on the bench and they won't be replaced by someone who can run hard. I wouldn't be surprised to see one less interchange and one more sub in coming seasons.

Yea, sick of the AFL changing the rules.

Get rid of the sub rule, have a 4 man bench, cap interchange to 20 or 25 per quarter to fix the high rotations, and be done with it.

Every year they think they need to change rules, gets annoying fast.

You don't want rule changes, and then you advocate a rule change?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Much simpler for them to return to waiving the flags before the ball can be kicked back into play after a point.

But they would then have to admit they ****ed up which they won't do.

It is not the rule changes so much it is the interpretation, holding the ball in 1980 is different in 2011. Why?

Personally i think they could play with a round ball and they would still get the crowds because people think their clubs are bigger than the game itself. And a huge number of people who follow the AFL are under 30 years of age and have never actually seen real Aussie rules football played, christ if they had they would probably all be in counselling.

Bottom line is the majority of AFL supporters could not give a **** about the actual sport, whatever their side are playing they will turn up to watch.

AFL house know this and can continue to change the game knowing their puppets will continue to show up, buy memberships and support it because they have no choice.
This is the closest thing that resembles Aussie Rules football. It is all we have left.

 

[centrelink1]

The rule changes are there to attract interest from fledgling fans, or those who don't support the game.

 

[PieNSauce]

Probably because he was sick of trying to explain simple concepts to simpletons.

I don't know, he seems to have explained it to himself!

Personally I have no problem with the concept of limiting rotations in order to try and reduce the likelihood of high impact collision injuries. If it can be shown that the process has that result then that is well and good but the fact is the AFL continually find loosely related mechanisms to bring about a result. If the goal is to reduce rotations then mandate for reduced rotations rather than fiddling with a mechanism which only has a loose connection to the issue. Instead, the AFL always seem to take the easy way whereby they have less work to do in policing while overcomplicating other issues.

In addition, you have to wonder who decided that AA's view of the world is the best one. From what I understand the AFL uses the collisions argument to bolster its case for reducing rotations but at any given moment they may also revert to their supposed secondary agenda which seems to be to make the game more attractive. Of course that's a very noble cause but who says that what AA or Vlad think is attractive is correct? Why shouldn't the public be able to decide what is attractive football? Vlad and his cronies don't own the game, they are its custodians and at the present rate they are changing it beyond recognition in very short order and without popular mandate.

Yes there have been some positive changes to the rules of the game and they should be lauded for those but it seems to me there are way too many hidden agendas and way too many loosely coupled mechanisms being toyed with in order to achieve unpopular change in a dictatorial manner.

 

[Slattery_20]

Rabble rabble rabble I'm sick of all these rule changes they need to change the rules. Rabble rabble rabble.

 

[Hoops]

I'm not against rule changes per se, but the interchange infingement rule is a just a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Slattery_20]

I'm not against rule changes per se, but the interchange infingement rule is a just a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist.

IIRC the official old rule was the other captain had to call for a head-count & if there were 19 on the field; that side forfeited all scores - archaic.
Definitely needing updating.

There have been a few problems/mistakes with it and I'm not sure if the line markings are a total success, but most of the changes were warranted.

That seems to be the consistent thing, IMHO. They'll correctly identify some rule needs looking at, but either go too far with the changes or make it even tougher to police.
That doesn't mean the changes weren't warranted.

 

[QuietB]

The worst rule change ever was allowing 4 on the bench in the first place. The lesson to be learnt from this mistake is if you let the coaches run the game they will %^$# it up.

Cannot wait until next year when it will be 2 on the bench and 2 substitutes.

THIS CHANGE IS RIGHT AND OVERDUE.

 

[jackster83]

The most confusing thing about the rule changes is that they don't seem to get implemented in leagues below AFL level. I remember seeing a Crows player in the SANFL (Phil Davis IIRC) too scared to rush a behind when it was perfectly legal for him to do so.