AFL weighing up more rule changes as Gill McLachlan speaks on plans for 2021 season

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

powerrrrrrrrrrrr

Club Legend
Feb 17, 2010
1,918
3,288
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I love this quote from the above article which just shows the distance between where the AFL execs are and footy fans.

“I think the challenge is always managing a progression to where the wider audience wants the game to be, while respecting heritage and tradition,” McLachlan told Fox Footy at the launch of the AFL finals series.

Here they are simply assuming they know what the wider footy fans and audiences want and that the game has to progress forward to be better. Where most footy fans I know, will argue the opposite of progression. We don’t need to progress with new rules to change the game, we need to go backwards and remove a lot of the recent rules and interpretations instead.

The key part to that statement is wider audience. To me, wider audience does not mean Gil and Hocking single handedly deciding on the rules of the game and continuing to make broad range changes without input from the fans or members.

At the very least, everyone who has signed on as a member should be involved in some capacity to vote on potential rule changes.

You want to please the wider audience but you don’t value their input or provide them with opportunity to have their input. Instead, it is a small group who are given the power to make changes/rules. We have seen in recent years that this doesn’t work and causes new issues as they approach new rules with a 1 track mind of hopefully fixing one issue but causing multiple flow on issues.
 

Doashuey

Club Legend
Sep 13, 2017
2,686
5,461
AFL Club
West Coast
I love this quote from the above article which just shows the distance between where the AFL execs are and footy fans.

“I think the challenge is always managing a progression to where the wider audience wants the game to be, while respecting heritage and tradition,” McLachlan told Fox Footy at the launch of the AFL finals series.

Here they are simply assuming they know what the wider footy fans and audiences want and that the game has to progress forward to be better. Where most footy fans I know, will argue the opposite of progression. We don’t need to progress with new rules to change the game, we need to go backwards and remove a lot of the recent rules and interpretations instead.

The key part to that statement is wider audience. To me, wider audience does not mean Gil and Hocking single handedly deciding on the rules of the game and continuing to make broad range changes without input from the fans or members.

At the very least, everyone who has signed on as a member should be involved in some capacity to vote on potential rule changes.

You want to please the wider audience but you don’t value their input or provide them with opportunity to have their input. Instead, it is a small group who are given the power to make changes/rules. We have seen in recent years that this doesn’t work and causes new issues as they approach new rules with a 1 track mind of hopefully fixing one issue but causing multiple flow on issues.
When Gill says "wider audience' he means anybody that doesnt follow footy eg, China, USA, most of QLD and NSW .
The only reason they are serving up this tripe is to expand into areas that dont give a flying fkuc about the game in order to make more money and any real fans can suck it up or fkuc off.
 

Strahany

Premiership Player
Jan 23, 2011
4,613
6,667
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
16 a side would work.

Limit interchanges to 40 a game.
Sure, let’s raise the importance of having endurance athletes over footballers even further.

Doesn’t matter if a player can’t kick so long as they can keep running whilst the opposition look like they’re running in mud after 3QT. They can just burn their opponents on offence and easily chase down said opposition when they turn it over.
 

go_the_dockers

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 11, 2008
9,971
6,496
Adelaide
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Man Utd
Sure, let’s raise the importance of having endurance athletes over footballers even further.

Doesn’t matter if a player can’t kick so long as they can keep running whilst the opposition look like they’re running in mud after 3QT. They can just burn their opponents on offence and easily chase down said opposition when they turn it over.
It opens up the game more. Creates more 1v1 chances. Football players Will be more valued I think.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

afl genius

Club Legend
May 3, 2006
2,080
774
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Indiana Pacers
Make Interchange lower numbers. 50?
scrap the nominating
Throw it up/back in straight away
Bring back dropping the ball

Thats really all they need and then make it a rule that they can't change rules for 5 years
 

flyinghi64

Club Legend
Dec 7, 2006
2,936
2,233
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Make Interchange lower numbers. 50?
scrap the nominating
Throw it up/back in straight away

Bring back dropping the ball

Thats really all they need and then make it a rule that they can't change rules for 5 years
Yes this. Just throw it up/in and only 1 player from each team can compete, if a third goes up then free to opposition. DONE.
None of this "hey Max you going up?" "Carlton who's up for you?" meanwhile another half dozen players have made it into the zone to cause more congestion.
Absolutely Farcical at the moment.
 

Outback Footy

All Australian
Mar 5, 2015
962
1,107
West of Woop Woop
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Marconi, Arsenal, GreenEdge
Stop tinkering and go for one big change. Change it to 15 a side instead of 18. It will work better than 100 minor rule changes and will future proof the game.
And play on a rectangle, with off sides, stop the farcical ball up and roll the ball between 2 "packs" of players to fight it out, get rid of the point posts at the same time, only reward goals, and maybe tries too.....wait.....thats Rugby Union. Damn.
 

Outback Footy

All Australian
Mar 5, 2015
962
1,107
West of Woop Woop
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Marconi, Arsenal, GreenEdge
Make Interchange lower numbers. 50?
scrap the nominating
Throw it up/back in straight away
Bring back dropping the ball

Thats really all they need and then make it a rule that they can't change rules for 5 years
And bring back holding the man. never gets paid except in marking contests and happens all the time around the ground and every stoppage, drives me spare
 

L_W_P

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 23, 2009
10,406
16,213
SE Suburbs
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints, Boston Celtics
I like 15 or 16 a side but I would then go with unlimited interchange again.

The supposed 'dour' teams of St Kilda and Collingwood were still putting up regular 100 point games and belting teams by 5-10 goals through the season.

Agree on the ruck nomination being changed but need to somehow make it clear to teams who is competing. You are penalized for blocking the ruckman from competing so if there is no nomination how do you determine if someone has been illegally blocked?

It's easy if say Max Gawn and Nic Nat are running in but what happens when there is a ball up in the Saints forward 50? Can I block Marshall or is he trying to compete in the ruck? Has Ryder drifted forward or was a swap made? Not to mention the nightmare of illegal blocking when the Dogs/Tigers are using midfielders to compete...

Maybe we copy basketball and the ball up is contested by the 2 players involved in the stoppage? Bont tackles Selwood. Ball up between them?

It's a tough one...
 

banzai

Premiership Player
Oct 14, 2003
3,133
1,826
AFL Club
Richmond
Yes this. Just throw it up/in and only 1 player from each team can compete, if a third goes up then free to opposition. DONE.
None of this "hey Max you going up?" "Carlton who's up for you?" meanwhile another half dozen players have made it into the zone to cause more congestion.
Absolutely Farcical at the moment.
Can a smaller player block the ruckmen while still only sending one player up to win the hit out? If you are throwing it up straight away the ruckmen would be coming from further back. As it is you can still block players within 5 meters of the ball, just not a nominated ruckmen. So without the nomination what stops a mid say blocking Natanui while he running towards the ruck contest, while still having their own ruck go up uncontested? You wouldn't be breaking any rules.
 

Remove this Banner Ad