Oppo Camp Regular Non Eagles Discussion

[Bender_]

Don't get me wrong, I definitely agree with the premise of both of your posts and do sort of hope the tinkering stops for a while. The yearly obsession with rule changes is annoying and I don't think it's achieving what the AFL wants - more attractive and attacking football.

I initially imagined the "rules committee" meeting to look something like this:



But it's more likely like this:

 

[Ochre]

Basketballs a massive global sport with many leagues, makes rule changes harder.

NFL is the better comparison and changes rules all the time.

 

[The Dodger]

Yeah I think sports where head injuries are common are going to be tinkering for some time yet. I know we joke about AFLX being where they want to take the sport but gradually they are going to try and get there.
They are on a hiding to nothing re claims after careers are over and head knocks take their toll. Also you will probably find KPI for people in charge of the game relating to head injury stuff... number of concussions etc.

 

[Coasters7]

The three point line? Goal-tending? Shot clock? Rules around getting out of the back court/keyway etc? These are all rules within the last 50 years of the sport or so.

Rules change in every sport (even the simple ones like soccer have the backpass and offside rules as relatively recent introductions compared to the age of the game) but the AFL does seem more intent on tinkering and fine-tuning. It's not necessarily a bad thing as the fundamentals are still very much there. Things like zones being drawn on the field would be a fundamental change.

Those rule changes in the other sports are all pretty black and white though and are to stop blatant shithousery, mostly time wasting in a lot of cases. But very rarely anything major that affects the entire way the game is played or to get players to play a specific “style” (3 point line probably the only one from that list).

Our rule changes are rule changes that are, more often than not, extremely vague, likely trying to fix up a previous f*ck up with the rules (rather than admitting they were wrong), and forcing a specific gamestyle (open and high scoring for more “attraction” and ads it seems) rather than just letting it flow.

I mean.. “minimal lateral movement” what the f*ck defines “minimal” in this situation. A step? A metre? Compare that to goal tending “if the ball is on its way down”. Offside “if you’re goal side of the last defender”. Theyre all able to be quantifiable and measurable relative to something and its obvious when a call is correct or wrong, half our rules are genuine 50/50s in a lot of situations due to the way they’re worded.

If they really want to fix the game, have a clear holding the ball rule. I guarantee that will go a long way to changing things instantly. There should only be 3 outcomes from a tackle.

Illegal tackle (Holding the man/high tackle/in the back etc).. free kick against.

Tackled instantly with no clear opportunity to handball or kick.. ball up (this one is contentious and subjective occasionally but it can’t be that hard, if he takes a step, holding the ball)

Possession is lost without a handball or kick.. holding the ball, regardless of if it was jarred out in the tackle or not.

There needs to be things we can measure the rules against rather than just relying on the judgment of one of the 3 umpires. With three of them out there the rule is going to be different for each one purely based on their interpretation of the rule. How can a professional and elite sport have that kind of subjectivity, honestly.

 

[campaigner___]

The three point line? Goal-tending? Shot clock? Rules around getting out of the back court/keyway etc? These are all rules within the last 50 years of the sport or so.

Rules change in every sport (even the simple ones like soccer have the backpass and offside rules as relatively recent introductions compared to the age of the game) but the AFL does seem more intent on tinkering and fine-tuning. It's not necessarily a bad thing as the fundamentals are still very much there. Things like zones being drawn on the field would be a fundamental change.

We're talking about 4 or 5 rule changes in 50 years vs. 4 or 5 rule changes every season which are insanely trivial and make the already weird intricacies of AFL even weirder.

 

[shooshka]

Those rule changes in the other sports are all pretty black and white though and are to stop blatant shithousery, mostly time wasting in a lot of cases. But very rarely anything major that affects the entire way the game is played or to get players to play a specific “style” (3 point line probably the only one from that list).

Our rule changes are rule changes that are, more often than not, extremely vague, likely trying to fix up a previous f*ck up with the rules (rather than admitting they were wrong), and forcing a specific gamestyle (open and high scoring for more “attraction” and ads it seems) rather than just letting it flow.

I mean.. “minimal lateral movement” what the f*ck defines “minimal” in this situation. A step? A metre? Compare that to goal tending “if the ball is on its way down”. Offside “if you’re goal side of the last defender”. Theyre all able to be quantifiable and measurable relative to something and its obvious when a call is correct or wrong, half our rules are genuine 50/50s in a lot of situations due to the way they’re worded.

If they really want to fix the game, have a clear holding the ball rule. I guarantee that will go a long way to changing things instantly. There should only be 3 outcomes from a tackle.

Illegal tackle (Holding the man/high tackle/in the back etc).. free kick against.

Tackled instantly with no clear opportunity to handball or kick.. ball up (this one is contentious and subjective occasionally but it can’t be that hard, if he takes a step, holding the ball)

Possession is lost without a handball or kick.. holding the ball, regardless of if it was jarred out in the tackle or not.

There needs to be things we can measure the rules against rather than just relying on the judgment of one of the 3 umpires. With three of them out there the rule is going to be different for each one purely based on their interpretation of the rule. How can a professional and elite sport have that kind of subjectivity, honestly.

Couldn't agree more. Holding the ball (or lack thereof) is the biggest blight on our game. And a great example of additional rules put in place to cover previous errors.

Initially it was allowing the ball to be 'jarred free' in a tackle - to get the game moving more often
Then it was a player rewarded (i.e. no free kick against if there is limited prior opportunity) for trying to correctly dispose of the ball (but just dropping the ball)
Now it is mandated that a player must 'try' (but not succeed - just make a song and dance that they are really trying to handball)

So players just tap it on, drop it with the guise of 'trying' to handball and more and more players crowd the contest.

If the issue were just stoppages (i.e. lots of stoppages because of lots of 'no prior opportunity' calls) then possibly things like zones might be palatable. But they aren't fixing the issue (crowding around the ball when it is basically a rugby scrum) - which is an issue they created with rule changes.

 

[Biggie]

 

[Chris_6678]

Wasnt this last years trade?

 

[Chris_6678]

Wait so it is happening.

Since when can they start swapping picks?>>

 

[squashface]

Narkle has just signed an extension with Geelong. We weren't really ever linked with him but there was a bit of speculation going around on BF.

 

[Chris_6678]

Narkle was never that good to begin with...

 

[southcoast]

speculation going around on BF.

Nah, don’t believe it.




Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com

 

[KERRPOW]

Whats with tall crabs just lingering in the AFL.

McKernan,
Fort

 

[Dylan82]

No.

Other sports (like NBA which I follow pretty religiously) have rule changes around salaries, list sizes, coaching structure but nothing that affects game play. It's essentially been the same since it was born.

Excluding the obvious revolutions that came from the implementation of the shot-clock and 3 point line in 1955 and 1979 respectively of course.

The competition also made a host of changes around the size of the lane during the 1950s and 1960s due to the dominance of G.Mikan and then W.Chamberlain in the paint.


In recent history, the NBA made a series of changes in two areas during the mid-1990s to early 2000s that have fundamentally changed the competition:

Starting in 1994-95, hand-checking by defenders was progressively scaled back until it was removed entirely in 2004-05 [As a result of the defensive Pistons defeating an attacking Lakers team that featured Shaq, Bryant, Malone and Payton]. With hand-checking removed, there is little a defender can do to prevent the ball-hander from back stepping into a jump shot, or going inside-out on the dribble to open up the other side of the court. It overwhelmingly empowered attacking facilitators of play and weaponised shooters.

The 2001-02 changes to allow zone defences (which were already permitted in the rest of the world) - had the impact of suffocating the effectiveness of isolations and post-ups [think of the classic Jordan pick to drive against an opponent one-on-one as no-one can zone off to help], forcing teams to emphasize ball movement/player movement to get easy baskets.

This resulted in what was previously a post-dominant competition to one that is dependent on the perimeter for scoring [To the extent now that Houston attempted more 3 point shots than 2 point shots in the 2018-19 season and the power forward position now attempts a higher percentage of 3 point shots than point guards]. Teams are currently averaging more points per game than at any point since the early 1980s.


The difference is the NBA knew where it wanted its competition to go (faster, more freedom of movement, more scoring) and knew what changes were necessary in order to facilitate that - there have been no subsequent "corrections" to any of these rules since their implementation.


The problem with AFL that draws ire is that it does not appear to have a realistic idea of a desired state for the competition (other than some revisionist 1980s VFL idealism that existed in another era before professionalism of player fitness and coaching tactics), lest any handle on what changes actually need to be conducted to bring the competition to that state.
This has resulted in the current absurdity whereby every season new rules are added or changed in an ad hoc manner in the hope that one will result in a positive outcome, whilst existing rules get burdened with added complexity that make it harder for umpires to officiate due to them becoming increasingly subjective in their interpretations.

Unfortunately the AFL acts as its own governing body and has either the licenses or finances of a majority of the clubs in its pocket, so it can do whatever it likes to the rules every year without ever being held to account.

 

[ghostbat12]

New rules are ridiculous.

Have 1 player less on field and move to 2 less if need be. People say coaches will find a way, but they themselves have said this is a way to improve scoring. At end of day, the ground is big and will be more space per player. Coaches can’t do anything about that. Aflx, which was extreme version of less players, showed with more space per player, scoring gets higher.

In meantime, we will make the game look plainly stupid and change everything about it when answer is staring them in face. Personally I don’t count amount of people on ground when I go to footy and go “gee, I am glad there are 18 players instead of 17 or 16”. Who does that? Maybe Caro.

 

[ChampRevesby]

I remember when defenders could use the boundary as a legit strategy and football was still awesome.

 

[Dylan82]

New rules are ridiculous.

Have 1 player less on field and move to 2 less if need be. People say coaches will find a way, but they themselves have said this is a way to improve scoring. At end of day, the ground is big and will be more space per player. Coaches can’t do anything about that. Aflx, which was extreme version of less players, showed with more space per player, scoring gets higher.

In meantime, we will make the game look plainly stupid and change everything about it when answer is staring them in face. Personally I don’t count amount of people on ground when I go to footy and go “gee, I am glad there are 18 players instead of 17 or 16”. Who does that? Maybe Caro.

I agree it would have an instant impact - however my reservation with player reduction is that it would also likely drive the competition towards players covering more metres per minute and subsequently see the sport prioritise aerobic athletes over technical footballers as a defensive means of preventing that space from opening up.

It could mean that 5-10 years down the line you end up with similar congestive issues occurring, but in a far less skilful competition.

 

[Biggie]

This just keeps on getting messier and messier

 

[Biggie]

 

[squashface]

Lol who were the posters who frothed Banfield when we passed over him?

 

[kane249]

Lol who were the posters who frothed Banfield when we passed over him?

There was a bit of moaning how we passed on both Banfield and Blakely

 

[Chris_6678]

This just keeps on getting messier and messier

LOL.

Everyone's pumping up the Bulldogs for next year but i can see their midfield being out of whack with so many of the same player eyeing off a spot. They will have massive salary cap issues in the next year or so.

 

[FKASC]

Lol who were the posters who frothed Banfield when we passed over him?

Would have liked Banfield , but alas not to be.
Fremantle have a ripper there great get and whilst I hate that he has gone to the stench, I am thrilled for Banners.

A massive fu** you to Fremantle and our recruiters can eat a bag of festering dicks

Should have used our last pick on Banfield and now he's a ******* purple

fu** fu** fu** fu**ity fu**

Couple of very senior posters

also this

Banfield is a Kane Mitchell level footballer. Very low ceiling.
Ainsworth has massive potential for growth and development.

 

[campaigner___]

Lol who were the posters who frothed Banfield when we passed over him?

He started his career well. Tapered off quickly though...

 

[the harry]

Couple of very senior posters

also this

That last one is very, very good