Are rule changes damaging our game???

[DNine]

I believe we just don't know where we are at the moment in the AFL. Players are confused, Umpires are confused, game changing left right and centre, and the changes are getting more and more ridiculous. Latest being 16 men on the field, and the fourth interchange player rules. Seems that every rule change, Fixture or poor MRP decision, attracts HEAPS of supporter backlash, but the AFL don't take ANYTHING the clubs, or supporters say on the matter. They know best!! And they will bring these changes in like it or not.

I always thought that this way of doing things, suggests that they are dictators, doing it there way, and not taking into consideration anyone elses point of view. So is all these changes damaging our game, can it cause a reduction in kids taking up the game? As a remedy to all of this, I reckon Demetriou, Anderson and Fitzpatrick should all be replaced, to get this game back to a steady ship. I won't put that in this poll, just simply the problem, which is, is the rule changes damaging our game.

Thank you for voting.

 

[lards]

no its fine buddy, as did most people who posted in your thread on the main board. stop having such a big sook and move on.

 

[The OBSTacle]

Somewhat, but coaching tactics have been far more damaging.

I am FOR rule changes that attempt to maintain the true personality of the game.

I get the impression that this poll is set up as another Collingwood whine about rotation capping, and I think that rule is a good idea.

Malthouses tactics take far more away from the game, than some rule change designed to maintain the games true personality.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Pretty much agree with the OP and am not in favour of about 90% of rule changes. Probably the only positive one I can think of in recent history is the deliberate rushed behind rule.

The rest are poor and hurt the sport.

 

[Schulzenfest]

The sub rule sucks balls.

 

[Heater39]

Somewhat, but coaching tactics have been far more damaging.

I am FOR rule changes that attempt to maintain the true personality of the game.

I get the impression that this poll is set up as another Collingwood whiney about rotation capping, and I think that rule is a good idea.

Malthouses tactics take far more away from the game, than some rule change designed to maintain the games true personality.

How so? and what is the games 'true personality' anyway?

 

[donbooger]

How so? and what is the games 'true personality' anyway?

Malthouse tactics are designed to elminate ball movement by hand from the back line and long runs.

I personally want football to favour this type of play over defensive kick it long to contest type football, rule changes are the only tool to mould the game.

Its a tug of war between coaches who want defensive football and the rules comittee who are trying to open up the game. We must have new rules, though what they should be is more up for debate.

 

[The OBSTacle]

How so? and what is the games 'true personality' anyway?

High possession/playing down the flanks/rotating robotic players.

As for personality, Dane Swan is a classic example of an athlete and not a footballer.

 

[Histrionics]

As for personality, Dane Swan is a classic example of an athlete and not a footballer.

lolwut