News Interchange Caps 2014

[Geoffa32]

I can't wait for the shot clock to come in .

We can all see that this rule is likely to make the game more defensive, but the AFL want high scores, despite wanting to slow the game down.

Enter the 60 second Shot Clock to counter this and get teams to score again...........

 

[Geoffa32]

Name one example where the rules have contradicted each other. Just one.

I'm betting what you come up with will be show your misunderstanding of the AFL's intent, rather than an actual contradiction. That's not having a go at you - it's more the fault of the AFL for failing to communicate their intentions properly.

For example.. The AFL have never tried to increase the speed of the game. Rules like throwing the ball up around the ground, rather than bouncing it, are designed to maximise the amount of time that the ball is in play (minimising stoppages).

The sub rule is the most misunderstood of all time. It's actually two unrelated rule changes, introduced simultaneously. First, they introduced a sub - the purpose of this was to minimise the disadvantage suffered by teams losing a player to injury. It worked. Secondly, they reduced the bench size from 4 to 3. The purpose of this was twofold - it forced the better players to spend more time on the field and it countered the ugly flooding & zoning defensive tactics by fatiguing the players so that games opened up more in the second half. It worked.

Limiting the interchange rule is an extension of the 3-man interchange rule, with much the same design & intent.

For the record, it was only about 4 or 5 years about 4 or 5 years ago that the first team exceeded 80 interchanges in a single game. It was only 3-4 years ago that 80+ interchanges became the norm. If coaches & teams didn't deem 80+ interchanges to be necessary 5 years ago, then I'm sure they'll manage to cope just fine in 2014 when 80 interchanges becomes a hard limit.

Shorter times to kick the ball at free kicks and kick ins. Contradicts the AFL's want to slow the game down via restricting rotations.

 

[Vader]

I can't wait for the shot clock to come in .

We can all see that this rule is likely to make the game more defensive, but the AFL want high scores, despite wanting to slow the game down.

Enter the 60 second Shot Clock to counter this and get teams to score again...........

That's directly counter to what the AFL is seeking. For all their fiddling with the game in recent years (some rules for better, others for worse), they've consistently demonstrated 2 particular aims:

• To open the game up more, countering the coaches' constant attempts at turning the AFL into a cross-country wrestling competition not dissimilar to that which can be seen on Saturday mornings at every U10 game around the nation.
• To decrease the time lost due to stoppages, thereby maximising the time which the ball is in play.

Want someone to blame for the current state of the game? Look at the coaches, who are constantly looking for new defensive techniques, almost all of which make the game uglier to watch and limit the beautiful elements of the game. All the AFL is doing is playing catch up, trying to undo the mess that the coaches keep creating.

 

[Geoffa32]

That's directly counter to what the AFL is seeking. For all their fiddling with the game in recent years (some rules for better, others for worse), they've consistently demonstrated 2 particular aims:

• To open the game up more, countering the coaches' constant attempts at turning the AFL into a cross-country wrestling competition not dissimilar to that which can be seen on Saturday mornings at every U10 game around the nation.
• To decrease the time lost due to stoppages, thereby maximising the time which the ball is in play.

Want someone to blame for the current state of the game? Look at the coaches, who are constantly looking for new defensive techniques, almost all of which make the game uglier to watch and limit the beautiful elements of the game. All the AFL is doing is playing catch up, trying to undo the mess that the coaches keep creating.

I don't consider "mauls" when the ball is in a pack and the umpire waits for it to fall out "in play". The AFL does.

 

[Vader]

Shorter times to kick the ball at free kicks and kick ins. Contradicts the AFL's want to slow the game down via restricting rotations.

How? Reducing kick in times decreases the amount of time that the ball is out of play, ie the stoppage time. This has been a consistent AFL aim for years.

The AFL doesn't want to "slow the game down", it wants to slow the players down - an important, but frequently overlooked difference.

Restricting rotations etc. has the effect of tiring the players out, thereby limiting the effectiveness of defensive tactics which are reliant upon constant gut running... and thus opening up the game. With the game opened up, the game actually speeds up, as the ball is no longer choked up under massive packs of players.

 

[Vader]

I don't consider "mauls" when the ball is in a pack and the umpire waits for it to fall out "in play". The AFL does.

Technically the ball is in play until the umpire blows "time off". Whether you agree with that definition is largely irrelevant.

In any case, I think you and the AFL are in violent agreement about the ugliness of these "mauls" - which is why the AFL is constantly tinkering with the "ball up" rules, looking for a way to minimise them.

 

[Geoffa32]

How? Reducing kick in times decreases the amount of time that the ball is out of play, ie the stoppage time. This has been a consistent AFL aim for years.

The AFL doesn't want to "slow the game down", it wants to slow the players down - an important, but frequently overlooked difference.

Restricting rotations etc. has the effect of tiring the players out, thereby limiting the effectiveness of defensive tactics which are reliant upon constant gut running... and thus opening up the game. With the game opened up, the game actually speeds up, as the ball is no longer choked up under massive packs of players.

Hmmmm I can see your theory.

What I mean by that rule speeding the game up is that it gets the ball into the game quicker. But yes that could be via quicker ball movement, and not necessarily player movement.



It is annoying changing rules all the time though, sometimes it is good to see where the natural evolution of the game will take us.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The AFL and the rules committee don't seem to have faith that the game has the ability to right itself.

After the 2005/06 ultra defensive Swans-Eagles grand finals and concerns about flooding and boring football things were turned on their head by the fast ball movement and flowing game style of Geelong.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And I put $10 on the game becoming ultra defensive to maintain energy to avoid high levels of fatigue.

In turn, turning the game into what the AFL wants to avoid.

Therefore after 1 season, it'll be dropped.

I agree, but it will be retained and something else blamed

 

[Geoffa32]

Technically the ball is in play until the umpire blows "time off". Whether you agree with that definition is largely irrelevant.

In any case, I think you and the AFL are in violent agreement about the ugliness of these "mauls" - which is why the AFL is constantly tinkering with the "ball up" rules, looking for a way to minimise them.

I would rather a "ball up" as soon as the ball is locked in, and certainly as soon as at least three players are on the ground contesting the ball.


This is probably the aspect of the game I hate the most. That and the holding the ball interpretations. Near impossible to explain this to people who are new to the game.

 

[OrdinaryJoel]

Name one example where the rules have contradicted each other. Just one.

I'm struggling to find one, so I'll presume you are correct to an extent...

 

[Vader]

Hmmmm I can see your theory.

What I mean by that rule speeding the game up is that it gets the ball into the game quicker. But yes that could be via quicker ball movement, and not necessarily player movement.

It is annoying changing rules all the time though, sometimes it is good to see where the natural evolution of the game will take us.

Agree with the bolded bit. Personally, I blame the coaches as much as the AFL. I don't understand how/why they escape blame, when they're the root cause of the problem.

 

[Vader]

I would rather a "ball up" as soon as the ball is locked in, and certainly as soon as at least three players are on the ground contesting the ball.


This is probably the aspect of the game I hate the most. That and the holding the ball interpretations. Near impossible to explain this to people who are new to the game.

Ahh.. I see you are proposing a rule change...

 

[Geoffa32]

Ahh.. I see you are proposing a rule change...

Nope, just go back to the way it was.

 

[Schulzycrow]

I'm waiting for a player who has had their career shortened by these new rules to sue the pants off Vlad and his cronies. Wouldn't be surprised to see the players Asc get involved in this.

 

[Vader]

Nope, just go back to the way it was.

What you're talking about here is a matter of umpire interpretation. The AFL hasn't actually changed any rules in this area in quite a while. They have, however, altered the way in which the umpires interpret the previously existing rules.

It's a fine distinction.. but technically they haven't changed any rules, or created any new rules.

 

[maxlilly]

I think the time has nearly come that the clubs are tired of all the changes and the way the game is being run & will start doing something about it.
Could be the straw that broke the camels back. I reckon clubs will now have an agenda to change the leadership at AFL HQ.
The fans, players & coaches want a break from all the rule changes.

 

[Vader]

I'm waiting for a player who has had their career shortened by these new rules to sue the pants off Vlad and his cronies. Wouldn't be surprised to see the players arse get involved in this.

Good luck proving that their careers had been shortened. If anything, we're seeing players' careers being extended, due to a number of factors. Just think how many players have reached the 300+ game milestone in the last decade, compared to the previous decades.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Want someone to blame for the current state of the game? Look at the coaches, who are constantly looking for new defensive techniques, almost all of which make the game uglier to watch and limit the beautiful elements of the game. All the AFL is doing is playing catch up, trying to undo the mess that the coaches keep creating.

I agree with you but the coaches only main focus is to win games of football. They will do this anyway possible. Sometimes it gets really bad (see flooding) and its up to the AFL to regulate the game in a way that prevents coaches from making the game ugly.

Bomber Thompson thinks we should make the game 16 vs 16. He swears it makes for much prettier football. I'd much prefer a change like this as opposed to a cap in rotations. The biggest problem with football these days is congestion around the ball but I'd prefer they didn't sacrifice intensity to rectify this.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The biggest change for clubs is the sprint/burst players being ousted for the long distance runners.

Football has moved towards burst players in recent years (effort, rest, effort, rest) and the explosion in interchanges has been a big part of this.

They have gone away from the guys who aren't overly quick but 'can run all day.' Drafting has reflected this. As has obviously the fitness programs that have been developed.

Now you will need more 'stayers' who can stay on the ground.

It's our captain's dream come true.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I don't agree with the 16 players thing. I agree that logic dictates that it will mean less congestion but I think what will actually happen is that there are just as many players around the ball at stoppages and also just as many players floodign back in defence.

The change will be that there are even fewer players in front of the ball.

Those annoying times when your team comes off half back then stops because there's no one to kick to will increase.

Four less players on the ground = four less players at stoppages is misguided IMO.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I don't agree with the 16 players thing. I agree that logic dictates that it will mean less congestion but I think what will actually happen is that there are just as many players around the ball at stoppages and also just as many players floodign back in defence.

The change will be that there are even fewer players in front of the ball.

Those annoying times when your team comes off half back then stops because there's no one to kick to will increase.

Four less players on the ground = four less players at stoppages is misguided IMO.

Fair point but there must be some way the AFL can limit the amount of players around a stoppage.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Fair point but there must be some way the AFL can limit the amount of players around a stoppage.

There isn't.

Which means I think eventually we will see more holding the ball decisions paid. In other words, you get tackled and you have the ball, it is holding the ball. Regardless of prior opportunity, regardless of you being the one 'making the play' and regardless of the ball being locked in.

So you take possession at your own risk. Knock the ball on if you have to.

Same as out of bounds. I reckon they will settle on a ball being kicked out (on the full or on the bounce) being a free kick. Possibly one handballed or carried out also being a free kick.

So there will just be fewer stoppages.

 

[Footypie32]

Is it me or has Demetriou developed an over-inflated sense of ownership over our game?

Just you.

 

[King Elvis]

The AFL and the rules committee don't seem to have faith that the game has the ability to right itself.

After the 2005/06 ultra defensive Swans-Eagles grand finals and concerns about flooding and boring football things were turned on their head by the fast ball movement and flowing game style of Geelong.

A massively under appreciated aspect of this all.

The game can no longer evolve and change naturally, because they interfere with it constantly. It removes the tactical and strategic nature of it all, and it's a damned shame. You're also being disingenuous; some of the rules you mention were clearly designed to open the game up and speed it up - you can be pedantic about the specific aims, but that was the goal.

This rule is completely ****ed - and the Coaches and Players should refuse to accept it.





And Vader - the changes to the high tackle rule; designed to protect the head, resulted in players leading with their heads.

KB is a campaigner.