Gil's Era is Ruining the Game?

[PetterdHoisted]

I would Suggest he is just working towards the mandate he was given.
I think you will find there are very few players or fans that played or watched in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s that like the modern hybrid version of Aussie Rules.
But give them a pay cheque and they will do whatever is required at any cost to the sport.
We had Leigh Matthew’s do a dinner talk about 4 years ago, after it we were just generally chatting to him and he said he was not a fan of the modern game and the AFL have changed so many rules and interpretations that they are totally lost now and trying to chase their tail.
I cringe now hearing Matthew’s in the media saying he likes the game simply because he is not allowed to tell the truth and because he is paid to tell us that.
The whole league has become a joke. And I hate anyone calling AFL Australian Rules Football because it isn’t even a poor cousin of our once great game.

we all know the mandate he was given, to open the game up and get more scoring.
He insituted rules that manifestly did the opposite. And is doubling down in the same direction this year.

So why does he still have a job? That is what we are asking.

The game is great and will always be loved when there are teams that play like Geelong 2007, or Richmond now: breathtaking, direct attacking intent.

What people always hated is Sydney 2005-style lack thereof, which has morphed into the chip-mark-chip-mark intent-not-to-turn-over-ball style we see so many teams play today. It kills momentum in the game, kills scoring, and is rubbish.

So why, oh why, would you make the man who takes a mark even more powerful and further encourage the chippety-chip rubbish that is destroying the game?

Scoring will drop further this year (normalized for game length). SHocking has to go.

 

[mr bagcroft]

Only going to get worse this year!
With the man on the mark not being able to move sideways at all.
Which means you'd not bother standing the mark at all would you?
You'd rather that player just make up numbers to the side or further down the ground.
Know what that sounds like?
To me, thats getting all the more closer to basketball, and is a garbage idea totally beyond my comprehension.
Well actually, I can imagine the reason, but it dosent in any way justify it in my mind.
What a cluster* joke of a sport this is becoming.
I care less these days than what I did, but its still sad to see.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Only going to get worse this year!
With the man on the mark not being able to move sideways at all.
Which means you'd not bother standing the mark at all would you?
You'd rather that player just make up numbers to the side or further down the ground.
Know what that sounds like?
To me, thats getting all the more closer to basketball, and is a garbage idea totally beyond my comprehension.
Well actually, I can imagine the reason, but it dosent in any way justify it in my mind.
What a clusterfu** joke of a sport this is becoming.
I care less these days than what I did, but its still sad to see.

Yep, the mark *is* the problem in our game.

It is not stoppages that is the problem, it is the mark. The mark is where we approach netball the closest in our game.

SHocking is encouraging more and more and more of them. Imagine how many times next year teams will chip out of defence, chip around the HBF, then chip around the centre...imagine the number of possessions before they actually attack.

Grown men doing 15 metre chip kicks to each other that a child could do. Auskick.
And the opposition pinned like a statue. Painful.

 

[Final Siren]

It's gotten so bad that we're getting rule changes designed to fix the previous rule changes all within the same off-season.

They can't even make it through Round 1 any more before needing to layer on more rules to deal with problems created by the last rules.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

we all know the mandate he was given, to open the game up and get more scoring.
He insituted rules that manifestly did the opposite. And is doubling down in the same direction this year.

So why does he still have a job? That is what we are asking.

The game is great and will always be loved when there are teams that play like Geelong 2007, or Richmond now: breathtaking, direct attacking intent.

What people always hated is Sydney 2005-style lack thereof, which has morphed into the chip-mark-chip-mark intent-not-to-turn-over-ball style we see so many teams play today. It kills momentum in the game, kills scoring, and is rubbish.

So why, oh why, would you make the man who takes a mark even more powerful and further encourage the chippety-chip rubbish that is destroying the game?

Scoring will drop further this year (normalized for game length). SHocking has to go.

I can’t think of another business or organisation that yearly mandates to achieve something and fails yearly yet continues the following year down the same pathway.
For 20 years the AFL have tried to increase scoring and make the game more watchable and have failed every single year. This was a game that was already very watchable and super popular with the masses, it was never broken and never needed fixing.
But we the fans continue to give them the mandate to change the sport at will because the majority of us don’t care about the sport itself. We just keep handing over our money by attending.
Its to late now we are stuck with this hybrid version of the game, Aussie Rules died many years ago.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Yep, the mark *is* the problem in our game.

It is not stoppages that is the problem, it is the mark. The mark is where we approach netball the closest in our game.

SHocking is encouraging more and more and more of them. Imagine how many times next year teams will chip out of defence, chip around the HBF, then chip around the centre...imagine the number of possessions before they actually attack.

Grown men doing 15 metre chip kicks to each other that a child could do. Auskick.
And the opposition pinned like a statue. Painful.

No one will man the mark this year, they will stand 10m back and once play on is called attack player with ball. Like every other rule change the last 20 years it will fail.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

I can’t think of another business or organisation that yearly mandates to achieve something and fails yearly yet continues the following year down the same pathway.
For 20 years the AFL have tried to increase scoring and make the game more watchable and have failed every single year. This was a game that was already very watchable and super popular with the masses, it was never broken and never needed fixing.
But we the fans continue to give them the mandate to change the sport at will because the majority of us don’t care about the sport itself. We just keep handing over our money by attending.
Its to late now we are stuck with this hybrid version of the game, Aussie Rules died many years ago.

all Hocking has to do is ask himself what terrifies a defensive coach the most.

It's uncertainty.

What is the only avenue to certainty in AFL? It is the 15 metre chip kick. Very hard to stop it happening, because it's a trivial act for two 90 kg power athletes, and it buys you immunity from the opposition for 10 seconds, then another 10 seconds, and another.

It is that certainty that destroys the spectacle of any sport.

The mark needs to stay in the game, but the things we love about it (pack marks/speccies) aren't coming from 15 metre chip kicks. They come from 40 metre kicks, and we love them becasue their outcome is uncertain, the opposition has time to man you up, they could get the ball off you, but at least you went forward 40 metres, and could go forward again.

Risk-reward, that is compelling, that is what fans love in any contest.

tldr: it's simple, lengthen the legal kick length, reduce that avenue to certainty and safety, everything the AFL and Ch7 wants will follow.

 

[Grin]

Hocking is a much bigger stain on the game than Gil. Never has someone so incompetent got so high up a company's corporate ladder.

Andrew Demetriou says hi.

 

[juss]

Revenue is increasing, so Gil will be ticked off as a success.

That is literally the only thing they care about.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

all Hocking has to do is ask himself what terrifies a defensive coach the most.

It's uncertainty.

What is the only avenue to certainty in AFL? It is the 15 metre chip kick. Very hard to stop it happening, because it's a trivial act for two 90 kg power athletes, and it buys you immunity from the opposition for 10 seconds, then another 10 seconds, and another.

It is that certainty that destroys the spectacle of any sport.

The mark needs to stay in the game, but the things we love about it (pack marks/speccies) aren't coming from 15 metre chip kicks. They come from 40 metre kicks, and we love them becasue their outcome is uncertain, the opposition has time to man you up, they could get the ball off you, but at least you went forward 40 metres, and could go forward again.

Risk-reward, that is compelling, that is what fans love in any contest.

tldr: it's simple, lengthen the legal kick length, reduce that avenue to certainty and safety, everything the AFL and Ch7 wants will follow.

Lengthen the kick to what though? 20m? 25m? Either way coaches will still concede that small kick.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Lengthen the kick to what though? 20m? 25m? Either way coaches will still concede that small kick.

yep start with 20 m, then 25m, then be guided by the evolution of the game.

A 25 metre kick is no sure thing with the closing speed of players today, the risk goes way up compared to 15m kicks so coaches will instruct the kicker to go forward, because if it is a turnover, at least it's up the ground.

whatever it needs to get players either playing on or handballing or kicking long to a contest most of the time (i.e. getting the ball in motion in genuinely contested situations)

 

[Klem]

Demetriou set it up and Gill has smacked it outa the park.

 

[Kwality]

Go back to the introduction of interchange (really any starting point) & list the changes cause & effect. Run it through to the latest (yesterday, this morning ..
See what it tells you.

Chopping and changing has produced what we have today.

 

[Obeanie1]

we all know the mandate he was given, to open the game up and get more scoring.
He insituted rules that manifestly did the opposite. And is doubling down in the same direction this year.

So why does he still have a job? That is what we are asking.

The game is great and will always be loved when there are teams that play like Geelong 2007, or Richmond now: breathtaking, direct attacking intent.

What people always hated is Sydney 2005-style lack thereof, which has morphed into the chip-mark-chip-mark intent-not-to-turn-over-ball style we see so many teams play today. It kills momentum in the game, kills scoring, and is rubbish.

So why, oh why, would you make the man who takes a mark even more powerful and further encourage the chippety-chip rubbish that is destroying the game?

Scoring will drop further this year (normalized for game length). SHocking has to go.

I wouldn't be putting the Richmond game style up as a great spectacle. Don't worry too much about center clearances, everyone flood back, cause a turnover in defense and then surge forward any way you can with chaos ball.

Pretty much grown men with size and skill playing u12's style football.

Not pretty but yes effective.

 

[Obeanie1]

yep start with 20 m, then 25m, then be guided by the evolution of the game.

A 25 metre kick is no sure thing with the closing speed of players today, the risk goes way up compared to 15m kicks so coaches will instruct the kicker to go forward, because if it is a turnover, at least it's up the ground.

whatever it needs to get players either playing on or handballing or kicking long to a contest most of the time (i.e. getting the ball in motion in genuinely contested situations)

Long kicks forward to teams flooding back is a fail every time. You beat the flood by lower your eyes and kicking short not long.

I can understand what they are trying to do with the new man the mark rule but can just see super soft 50m penalties paid by dumb umpires getting it thrown out.

Maybe a 25m penalty instead. 50m is just far to big a penalty for moving a cm or two off the mark. Especially with the quality of the umpiring we endure.

 

[Kwality]

Long kicks forward to teams flooding back is a fail every time. You beat the flood by lower your eyes and kicking short not long.

I can understand what they are trying to do with the new man the mark rule but can just see super soft 50m penalties paid by dumb umpires getting it thrown out.

Maybe a 25m penalty instead. 50m is just far to big a penalty for moving a cm or two off the mark. Especially with the quality of the umpiring we endure.

How much latitude does the controlling ump give the kicker? Consistently?

 

[WillHayward]

It's pretty damning that the protege of Andrew Demetriou was the one who replaced him.

I'd like to see a fresh broom through the Commission and Brendan Gale as CEO.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It's pretty damning that the protege of Andrew Demetriou was the one who replaced him.

I'd like to see a fresh broom through the Commission and Brendan Gale as CEO.

Gale would be no different. You can't get the job unless you follow the same pathway.

 

[Obeanie1]

It's pretty damning that the protege of Andrew Demetriou was the one who replaced him.

I'd like to see a fresh broom through the Commission and Brendan Gale as CEO.

Um that is called succession planning.

You don't have the top dog walk out the door without a replacement in place for some time.

The real question is who and how is the new person selected.

 

[Obeanie1]

How much latitude does the controlling ump give the kicker? Consistently?

You expect someone to know that and actually provide an answer?

What we do know is umpires struggle with all the rule changes and make mistakes.

A 50m penalty seem very harsh and how much a player can move before being pinged will be subjective and vary between umpires.

And that is where the frustration will occur.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

I wouldn't be putting the Richmond game style up as a great spectacle. Don't worry too much about center clearances, everyone flood back, cause a turnover in defense and then surge forward any way you can with chaos ball.

Pretty much grown men with size and skill playing u12's style football.

Not pretty but yes effective.

rubbish, Tigers gamestyle is absolutely scintillating, breathtaking, incredibly skillful but also plenty of risk taking, gives the defense a chance if they are good enough, volle-snelheid, kamikaze, swash-buckling, seemingly devil-may-care but the method is there, choose your own epithet.

IMO

one may prefer chess-like, cerebral picking your way through a zone with short chip kicks. Then going backwards, then across the ground, then maybe slowly encroach down the other wing, but no just hold up and assess the options, now where is that outnumber....no all manned up...lets try to switch again.

each to their own. Certainly the advertisers should hate the latter, that is why Shocking has his job, albeit he is useless at it and has everything upside down.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

rubbish, Tigers gamestyle is absolutely scintillating, breathtaking, incredibly skillful but also plenty of risk taking, gives the defense a chance if they are good enough, volle-snelheid, kamikaze, swash-buckling, seemingly devil-may-care but the method is there, choose your own epithet.

IMO

one may prefer chess-like, cerebral picking your way through a zone with short chip kicks. Then going backwards, then across the ground, then maybe slowly encroach down the other wing, but no just hold up and assess the options, now where is that outnumber....no all manned up...lets try to switch again.

each to their own. Certainly the advertisers should hate the latter, that is why Shocking has his job, albeit he is useless at it and has everything upside down.

Agree, the Tigers play an exciting game style and are good to watch. They clamp down on their opponents when needed to but when they are on they look great.
For my team the Eagles we play a very slow, methodical type of plan. Good sides have no real problem defending it. Don't think it will change either.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Long kicks forward to teams flooding back is a fail every time. You beat the flood by lower your eyes and kicking short not long.

I can understand what they are trying to do with the new man the mark rule but can just see super soft 50m penalties paid by dumb umpires getting it thrown out.

Maybe a 25m penalty instead. 50m is just far to big a penalty for moving a cm or two off the mark. Especially with the quality of the umpiring we endure.

yeah the flood is an issue for teams playing an overtly attacking gamestyle. What Sydney did last season against the Tigers was an extreme case, I have never seen such a large section of the oval conceded. We had the Brisbane Line in WWII, the Swans adopted an equivalent Sydney Line (pardon the pun), the Tigers could stroll around on half the oval uncontested, but couldn't breath inside F50.

The Tigers don't have a great answer for it, they look much better against teams that don't flood. It's a worry too from a spectacle point of view and something SHocking could address, but I'm not holding my breath for a stroke of genius from him.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Agree, the Tigers play an exciting game style and are good to watch. They clamp down on their opponents when needed to but when they are on they look great.
For my team the Eagles we play a very slow, methodical type of plan. Good sides have no real problem defending it. Don't think it will change either.

Clone Liam Ryan a few times and we can watch the greatest games of all time. He's pretty much the AFL paragon for me.

 

[beema limapep]

Bloody viccoes