Prediction AFL is lost.

[Red mist]

Don’t know what to do with bumps, Don’t know what to do with accidentally colliding. The AFL is constantly refreshing its rules and code of conduct to reflect future litigation. This game is done. Every aspect of a game from say 2010 to now has changed from constant interference from the ruling body.
There is no future for this game.

 

[Engimal v3]

Don’t know what to do with bumps, Don’t know what to do with accidentally colliding. The AFL is constantly refreshing its rules and code of conduct to reflect future litigation. This game is done. Every aspect of a game from say 2010 to now has changed from constant interference from the ruling body.
There is no future for this game.

I'm sure this thread exists from 2010 about footy in the year 2000.

 

[Free Agent]

If I had a dollar for the amount of times I've heard AFL is stuffed over the years I'd be a millionaire by now.

Yet still 100000 people was at the Carlton game

And the week before at the Collingwood game.

People still love it and the record number of attendance and viewers from TV broadcast speak for itself.

 

[deck]

The bump will go as will tackling as we know it now. The changes are being drip fed to advert major backlash. But they will get there eventually.

 

[Gavin Excell]

If I had a dollar for the amount of times I've heard AFL is stuffed over the years I'd be a millionaire by now.

Yet still 100000 people was at the Carlton game

And the week before at the Collingwood game.

People still love it and the record number of attendance and viewers from TV broadcast speak for itself.

It's actually first time the finals in first 2 weeks have sold out
Amazing

 

[greatwhiteshark]

If I had a dollar for the amount of times I've heard AFL is stuffed over the years I'd be a millionaire by now.

Yet still 100000 people was at the Carlton game

And the week before at the Collingwood game.

People still love it and the record number of attendance and viewers from TV broadcast speak for itself.

The people love their clubs, they don’t give a crap about the sport. Hence why the AFL have been able to change rule after rule.
The fans would never of allowed these rule changes in the 70’s abd 80’s.

 

[lenny&carl]

Well it's always in the last place you look.

 

[Shane Heard]

Other games are just as frustrating. The NFL is a stupendous minefield of ridiculous 50/50 calls of holding/not holding..blocking without tripping ..pushing vs hold your ground and many many more decisions that push fans to the point of madness.

But their fans turn up the next week to go through it all again ..just like us.

 

[Macca180]

it does seem a bit lost.

Although I would suggest the game is at an all time high in terms of popularity. The strongest it has ever been.

so...

 

[Cosmic Energy]

The people love their clubs, they don’t give a crap about the sport. Hence why the AFL have been able to change rule after rule.
The fans would never of allowed these rule changes in the 70’s abd 80’s.

Are you aware of the history of rule changes?

 

[Plugger35]

The AFL isn't a sport anymore, it's sports entertainment designed to make money.

Why do you think the AFL keep appointing people from within their own organisation like Gillon or Dillon rather than going outside of it?

Heaven forbid they appoint some people that actually cared about the game of football more than caring about money, they can't have that.

ABBA were on to it back in the 70s, the AFL should get them to play at the GF this year rather than KISS, they would be more appropriate.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Have thoroughly enjoyed this finals series and I daresay so have the record crowds attending.

Weird thread.

 

[gbatman]

The viewing and attendances of the game begs to differ. Looks very popular to me.

The rules of the game have always been focused around protecting those playing it. If the rules aren't doing their job and players are exploiting that then that means things need to be changed.

I don't think I have ever gone to a game or watched a game hoping I would see a bump. I don't think it's ever been a thought of mine. I don't understand how people think they need to be seeing this to enjoy the game. It has always been a fringe aspect of the game. I thank most would be the same.

If you need to hurt a player to stop them, that's not really part of the game, it's a form of cheating isn't it?

I think the AFL have a point. Protect the people playing the game. I don't see how a heavy bump that causes a high head knock is a part of the game. We have never been allowed to hit the opposition in the head so why have we been allowed to disguise this in the form of a bump?

Tackling is never going to be banned. The unnecessary act of driving a player into the turf with the intent to hurt them has been banned. Again the rules are and always have been based around protecting those who play the game.

I want to be able to play footy on a Saturday and wake up Sunday or Monday and be able to go to work, not be injured because someone exploited a loophole in the rules and took me out. I want to watch my favorite players play, not be sidelined because someone exploited a loophole in the rules and injured them. It makes sense to remove things that aren't important or fundamental aspects of the game which are causing a problem.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The viewing and attendances of the game begs to differ. Looks very popular to me.

The rules of the game have always been focused around protecting those playing it. If the rules aren't doing their job and players are exploiting that then that means things need to be changed.

I don't think I have ever gone to a game or watched a game hoping I would see a bump. I don't think it's ever been a thought of mine. I don't understand how people think they need to be seeing this to enjoy the game. It has always been a fringe aspect of the game. I thank most would be the same.

If you need to hurt a player to stop them, that's not really part of the game, it's a form of cheating isn't it?

I think the AFL have a point. Protect the people playing the game. I don't see how a heavy bump that causes a high head knock is a part of the game. We have never been allowed to hit the opposition in the head so why have we been allowed to disguise this in the form of a bump?

Tackling is never going to be banned. The unnecessary act of driving a player into the turf with the intent to hurt them has been banned. Again the rules are and always have been based around protecting those who play the game.

I want to be able to play footy on a Saturday and wake up Sunday or Monday and be able to go to work, not be injured because someone exploited a loophole in the rules and took me out. I want to watch my favorite players play, not be sidelined because someone exploited a loophole in the rules and injured them. It makes sense to remove things that aren't important or fundamental aspects of the game which are causing a problem.

Agree with all of that, I think most do.
So why did we need to nominate who goes for the ruck knock? Why do we need to let the player run in 30 odd meters to kick the ball in after a behind, why are we penalising players for kicking the ball 30-40 meters their way if the ball rolls out of bounds, why are we blaming the player with the ball for head high tackles, why are we penalising players for not interfering simply because the AFL said you must be 10m away.

It is these and truck loads more rule changes that were never ever needed or required. The fans were not asking for them, the players were nit asking for them.
Just suits changing rules for no reason.

 

[gbatman]

Agree with all of that, I think most do.
So why did we need to nominate who goes for the ruck knock? Why do we need to let the player run in 30 odd meters to kick the ball in after a behind, why are we penalising players for kicking the ball 30-40 meters their way if the ball rolls out of bounds, why are we blaming the player with the ball for head high tackles, why are we penalising players for not interfering simply because the AFL said you must be 10m away.

It is these and truck loads more rule changes that were never ever needed or required. The fans were not asking for them, the players were nit asking for them.
Just suits changing rules for no reason.

The ruck. Yeah kind of agree here. It was to preserve the role of the ruck. I don't know what was wrong with the third player going up in the ruck.

The kick in rule was about congestion. It's opened the game up. The game is professional and played by athletes now so you have a full ground press. You change this then the press goes outside the 50 and around the midfield, teams can go around it, go over it etc and just play footy. Kicking into huge packs and tackling and ball ups, it wasn't really footy. It was also very crash and bash and I think this was taking a toll on players. Will be interesting to see whether players start to play a little longer or not as the game is more open now.

The deliberate rule should have come in years ago becuase we all know that the players are putting it out of bounds deliberately. We're not stupid. The idea of the game is to kick the ball through the goals and get it there by either kicking it in that direction or to a team mate. When a player does not kick the ball towards the goals or to a team mate and kicks it towards the boundary line then their intention is obvious. Their intention is to put the ball out of bounds. And the rule for a long time has been that it is a free kick if you put the ball out of bounds deliberately. Many many years of playing dumb has meant players could put the ball out of bounds and "disguise it". The only change is that the umpires don't play dumb anymore. There is no reason to kick it towards the boundary line over kicking it up field or towards a team mate.

Many years ago you could kick it out on the full, so they changed the rule because it was s**t and no one wants to see teams putting the ball out of bounds deliberately, it's boring and unnecessary. Then they brought in a deliberate out of bounds rule and it was officiated terribly. Not it is officiated properly and people don't like it because it's different. Rule has not changed, interpretation has and it's for the better. Just keep the ball in play.

Easy to blame the players with the ball for head high tackles. Because players are exploiting the existing rule by dropping to their knees, raising their arms to slide the tackle up or going at blokes with their head down. Can't encourage that, it's dangerous.

The stand rule is about opening the game up. The congested game was s**t. It's not that anymore. These rules have worked. How does it work? To open the game up you need to go around the team's press or over it. If you can run with the footy, then you come into range where you can go over the team's press with a long kick. If you can get the ball into the middle of the ground, you can go around the team's press. It's about helping players get past the opposition's defensive press. Stand and the kickout rule allow players to kick to angles more and to run and carry more.

The game has always been about the balance between defence and attack and maintaining that balance. Players becoming better endurance athletes and full ground presses have upset that balance. The new rules help balance that up again and they have.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The ruck. Yeah kind of agree here. It was to preserve the role of the ruck. I don't know what was wrong with the third player going up in the ruck.

The kick in rule was about congestion. It's opened the game up. The game is professional and played by athletes now so you have a full ground press. You change this then the press goes outside the 50 and around the midfield, teams can go around it, go over it etc and just play footy. Kicking into huge packs and tackling and ball ups, it wasn't really footy. It was also very crash and bash and I think this was taking a toll on players. Will be interesting to see whether players start to play a little longer or not as the game is more open now.

The deliberate rule should have come in years ago becuase we all know that the players are putting it out of bounds deliberately. We're not stupid. The idea of the game is to kick the ball through the goals and get it there by either kicking it in that direction or to a team mate. When a player does not kick the ball towards the goals or to a team mate and kicks it towards the boundary line then their intention is obvious. Their intention is to put the ball out of bounds. And the rule for a long time has been that it is a free kick if you put the ball out of bounds deliberately. Many many years of playing dumb has meant players could put the ball out of bounds and "disguise it". The only change is that the umpires don't play dumb anymore. There is no reason to kick it towards the boundary line over kicking it up field or towards a team mate.

Many years ago you could kick it out on the full, so they changed the rule because it was s**t and no one wants to see teams putting the ball out of bounds deliberately, it's boring and unnecessary. Then they brought in a deliberate out of bounds rule and it was officiated terribly. Not it is officiated properly and people don't like it because it's different. Rule has not changed, interpretation has and it's for the better. Just keep the ball in play.

Easy to blame the players with the ball for head high tackles. Because players are exploiting the existing rule by dropping to their knees, raising their arms to slide the tackle up or going at blokes with their head down. Can't encourage that, it's dangerous.

The stand rule is about opening the game up. The congested game was s**t. It's not that anymore. These rules have worked. How does it work? To open the game up you need to go around the team's press or over it. If you can run with the footy, then you come into range where you can go over the team's press with a long kick. If you can get the ball into the middle of the ground, you can go around the team's press. It's about helping players get past the opposition's defensive press. Stand and the kickout rule allow players to kick to angles more and to run and carry more.

The game has always been about the balance between defence and attack and maintaining that balance. Players becoming better endurance athletes and full ground presses have upset that balance. The new rules help balance that up again and they have.

The rule changes were not required. The crowds never stopped going to the games.
It is change for change sake. Most of the rules were changed thinking they wanted scoring improvements.
Hadn’t worked of course.
No other sport changes its rules so often.
It is of course what it is, still there is good games and bad games like there always has been.
Who demanded these changes? It wasn’t the fans so who was it?

 

[owen87]

The rule changes were not required. The crowds never stopped going to the games.
It is change for change sake. Most of the rules were changed thinking they wanted scoring improvements.
Hadn’t worked of course.
No other sport changes its rules so often.
It is of course what it is, still there is good games and bad games like there always has been.
Who demanded these changes? It wasn’t the fans so who was it?

Fans complain all the time about how the game looks and how it was better ‘back in the day’.

You can’t make players semi professional and have them unlearn what they’ve learnt about zone defences, so you need to change rules to try to artificially limit certain things from happening.

The NBA fiddles with rules all the time to try to increase scoring, for example. The F1 has major rule changes every couple of years about what car manufacturers can and can’t do.

 

[tugga]

The people love their clubs, they don’t give a crap about the sport. Hence why the AFL have been able to change rule after rule.
The fans would never of allowed these rule changes in the 70’s abd 80’s.

Spot on.
fans love the club they support.
but the disillusionment with the sport and the organisation is at an all-time low.

 

[WilloTree]

It's actually first time the finals in first 2 weeks have sold out
Amazing

That doesn't sound right to me. I watched the Saints/Giants game and it looked like there were a lot of empty seats.


Doesn't the G hold 100,000?

 

[Gavin Excell]

That doesn't sound right to me. I watched the Saints/Giants game and it looked like there were a lot of empty seats.

View attachment 1805980
Doesn't the G hold 100,000?

Yes noted
Of the 6 finals played, I think 5 sold out

 

[sherb]

Don’t know what to do with bumps, Don’t know what to do with accidentally colliding. The AFL is constantly refreshing its rules and code of conduct to reflect future litigation. This game is done. Every aspect of a game from say 2010 to now has changed from constant interference from the ruling body.
There is no future for this game.

Bumps is an easy one. Don't bump high and you don't have a problem. The problem is that players don't seem to know how to deliver a well executed hip and shoulder any more.

 

[kickazz]

Spot on.
fans love the club they support.
but the disillusionment with the sport and the organisation is at an all-time low.

Organisation, yes.

But watching games as a neutral has improved in the last few years.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Bumps is an easy one. Don't bump high and you don't have a problem. The problem is that players don't seem to know how to deliver a well executed hip and shoulder any more.

I think they do but when the opponent falls over he hits his head in the ground and it’s still a suspension so the players for the most part do t do it anymore.

 

[tugga]

Organisation, yes.

But watching games as a neutral has improved in the last few years.

Not for this neutral.
I can barely watch more than 20 minutes these days.

 

[gbatman]

The rule changes were not required. The crowds never stopped going to the games.
It is change for change sake. Most of the rules were changed thinking they wanted scoring improvements.
Hadn’t worked of course.
No other sport changes its rules so often.
It is of course what it is, still there is good games and bad games like there always has been.
Who demanded these changes? It wasn’t the fans so who was it?

The rules have been changing since the game was created though.

I have to admit at the time I was sceptical.

If we still had the same rules the game had 100 years ago it wouldn't be anywhere near as good.

I can say from a local footy perspective that the rule changes are good.

I've been playing since the 90s. Started footy when it was very positional and then played it when it was more about zoning. The game at lower levels did become more crash and bash. I'm not a professional footballer, I love the game and it's good for me to play it but I can't afford to get hurt. I am in the same boat as most people who play, particularly as you get older and commitments grow.

Rules I have seen in my time.

The inner circle. Great rule. Ruck used to be a s**t position and people would get hurt a lot. Badly corked thighs that would put people out for weeks. Now I see hardly any injuries, corkies are mostly minor. At AFL level it was PCL injuries that drove this. Great rule.

Sliding in rule. There is no reason to ever go to ground and slide into a ground ball. Good players keep their feet, those who have crap skills are usually the ones diving ontop of the ball and taking out other players legs. Had a whole season ruined because I kept my feet and some idiot slid in, no doubt with intent to injure me in the process of winning or halving the contest. Great rule. Same reason at AFL level.

The game doesn't need a bump with intent to hurt or injure people. The bump is a pointless part of the game brought about through thuggery. If you can't beat a player injure them. It's a form of cheating. I've seen so many collar bones broken and concussions because of the bump at the level I have played in. It's a s**t thing for amateurs who have to get up the next day and work another job let alone AFL player. It's not a part of the game, it was allowed to become a part of the game though dirty tactics that were allowed to sneak into footy. Head high contact has also always been banned, the bump has been used for too long as a way of smashing a bloke in the head and taking them out without of the game. It's a loophole the AFL has finally closed up. I don't need some useless prick running through me and breaking my collarbone or knocking me out, I have work the next day or monday and have to make a living.

Fans and media were complaining about "rolling mauls" for years. Those rolling mauls have stopped. Rules have worked. Scoring hasn't gone up a huge amount but we have big forwards kicking more goals then they were and the better teams are kicking bigger scores. The game looks better, it's more aesthetic, unless you like rolling maul footy.

Hands in the back rule. Was created to encourage players to jump at the ball and it kind of worked. Was gotten rid of because of zone footy as it became common to kick the ball to the player behind and to players running with the flight.

Kick out rule. Is brilliant at local level. It's eliminated the congestion which has reduced injuries. It allows struggling teams getting belted the opportunity to get the ball further down the field and create more scoring opportunities.

The stand rule I have hardly noticed at local level. But at AFL level I can see how it opens up the field of view and allows the kicker to hit more targets with low kicks which has allowed teams to chip the ball in and get it inside and open the game up. Yes I have used it a few times to play on and get around an opponent so I guess I have noticed it but it hasn't been massive.

I don't really notice the ruck nomination anymore. It was about protecting umpires so they didn't get hit by players when they back out and it has worked. Umpires are hard as hell to find at local level. We don't need to lose any of them.

666 I don't notice it much playing. It just makes it more old school but I don't notice.

Sling tackling rule. We should not want players to be hurt or injured, I don't get the gripe here. Local players need to be able to go to work after they play, AFL players, we want them out on the field. There is no reason to try and injure people, just beat them on merit.

The rules are doing their job. Players and coaches find ways to exploit the rules, if that causes players or umpires to be hurt or it ruins the look of the game then the rules have to be changed. Most of the rules are about players and coaches finding loopholes to do the wrong thing or to make the game ugly and on their terms so rules must be changes.

Rules are always changing and have been changed ever since the game was begun:

History of Rule Changes - AFL.com.au

Every Rule Change dating back to 1858.

www.afl.com.au

A lot of the rule changes are about minimising injury and player and umpire safety which has been the case since the game first begun.

Some of the rule changes are about the look of the game. The game of Australian Rules Football is about having the balance right between defense and attack.

70s and 80s rules would not work in the modern game because the modern coach and player have found loopholes and ways to exploit them.

70s-90s footy was very attacking and the balance was tilted in favor of offence. Big forwards kicking 100s each year, teams flogging teams by heaps, teams kicking huge scores. This cause teams to flood and drop numbers back in the early 2000s. Then in the 2000s teams took it to the next level, recruited endurance athletes, trained players for endurance and flooded to stop the power forward lines. Then the flood changed to a press. The zone sat in front of the ball where ever it was so rules has to come in to help players deal with the congestion. Teams were defending by working the mark, stopping players coming inside and keeping them on the boundary line, kicking to congestion. Teams defended and applied pressure by having huge numbers around the ball. Kick out, 666 and Stand rules have helped a long way with this. Players have been using loopholes in the rules to injure their opponent. Can't knee players but it's accepted in the ruck, fixed. Can't hit players in the head but it's accepted in the bump, fixed. Can't tackle below the knees but sliding in at the ball and collecting the players legs and busting their ankle, knees or breaking their legs is ok because they are going for the ball, fixed. Umpires getting cleaned up because of huge numbers around the ball and they are unsure who is going for the ball after they throw it up, fixed.

Rules haven't changed the look of the game. Players getting fitter, faster, covering more ground and focusing on pressure has. Players having better skills has resulted in the focus on pressure. Pressure must match skill level. So congestion is created. The game has changed because of the tactics and how the modern player has evolved. Not because of rule changes. The rule changes are what has been implemented to keep the game balanced and not looking like rugby.

The people love their clubs, they don’t give a crap about the sport. Hence why the AFL have been able to change rule after rule.
The fans would never of allowed these rule changes in the 70’s abd 80’s.

Here's the list of rule changes which occurred during the 70's and 80s.

Introduction of the free against player kicking ball out of bounds on the full.

Umpires required to toss coin for captains for the first time.

Centre diamond (sides 45 metres long) introduced. Four players only from each team permitted in the area at centre bounces.

Centre diamond amended to become centre square.
Video-tapes of incidents became admissible evidence at VFL tribunal hearings.

Introduction of the two field umpire system.

Interchange player system introduced.
Goal umpires required to touch goal post if the ball had hit post. Also two flags were positioned at one post and one flag at the other to save time when signalling scores.

Introduction of line across centre circle to avoid physical interference at centre bounces. Ruckmen had to stand on the defensive side of the line.
Fifteen-metre penalty extended to include kick-in after behind scoring situations.
Field umpires required to carry notebooks to record details of reportable incidents.

Fifteen metres instead of 10 metres allowed for running with ball without it making contact with the ground.

Fifty-metre arcs in goal areas introduced.
Video investigations for on-field misconduct introduced.

Player awarded free obliged to kick the ball.
Replacement of 15-metre penalty with 50-metre penalty.
Player kicking in from goal-square obliged to clear ball at least two metres from the goalsquare before regaining possession.
Emergency umpires were empowered to report players.