Rule Changes - AFL Have Your Say

[Maggie5]

http://www.afl.com.au/aflrulesyoursay/tabid/16504/default.aspx

Don't know about anyone else but I am sick of the AFL and their rule changes. Check out the AFL site and complete questionnaire. In part C of question re interchanges, I didn't tick any but made a comment instead.

The introduce changes to make the game faster, then want to make other changes to slow it down. I for one go every week (excluding interstate) and don't even notice the changes.

 

[TradeDraft]

How do Anderson and Demitrou Keep There Jobs with there Stuffing around with the Game

The Cap on Interchange is Anti-Collingwood and trying to stop us Dominating the comp

 

[Spoony]

Did the same thing already, feed up with the AFL and its rule changes, the fact that on section 1 they didn't even have an option of no restriction on interchanges shows the disregard they show to the opinions of the supporters. I may be being cynical here but to me that suggests that they know people don't want a cap and fully intend to ignore us and go ahead with one.
According to a poll on the Age website 71% are against a restriction on interchanges.

 

[absy]

I may have clicked yes on the hitting the post and going through one.... just thinking of last week haha

 

[Old Spice]

Did the same thing already, feed up with the AFL and its rule changes, the fact that on section 1 they didn't even have an option of no restriction on interchanges shows the disregard they show to the opinions of the supporters. I may be being cynical here but to me that suggests that they know people don't want a cap and fully intend to ignore us and go ahead with one.
According to a poll on the Age website 71% are against a restriction on interchanges.

Never a truer word spoken. I didn't vote for any of those options and put in the comments box "no cap, but thanks for giving us the option."

Equivalent to asking, "How would you approach a t*rd if offered you"

a/. give it a lick
b/. take a small bite
c/. gobble it all up

 

[Kirby]

This move to cap the interchange is really doing my head in. I cannot for the life of me see any reason to bring a cap in.

This is not even a Collingwood thing. Our midfield in now mature and full of class so i don't believe we will be affected badly, in fact, it may widen the gulf between us and lesser teams. However, i do think it leaves all teams more vulnerable to injury from fatigue.

More than anything, I just wish they would stop stuffing around with the rules. The game has just about reached its maximum in interchange numbers now anyway.

God this shits me!

 

[TradeDraft]

I guess Josh Thomas has to work on his Endurance More and How will this Effect how we use Dane Swan

 

[Swooop]

Never a truer word spoken. I didn't vote for any of those options and put in the comments box "no cap, but thanks for giving us the option."

Equivalent to asking, "How would you approach a t*rd if offered you"

a/. give it a lick
b/. take a small bite
c/. gobble it all up

Well thank you Old Spice, just about choked eating my icecream...

 

[Old Spice]

Just disband the Rules Committee, self-justifying waste of space. We'll assemble a body if anythings desperately needed thanks Fartlett.

 

[mattys123]

I really can't understand why the changes to the interchanges are being made.

The AFL's excuse, through that poor excuse for an employee with the initials AA, has said they have been told to "act now" before something happens.

One acronym comes to mind;

WMD.

The AFL is now the equivalent of the Georg Bush US Government, in that they are simply making reasons and data up to support their own needs and wants.

Something has to be done, and fast.

Imagine in 5 years time, this is how an AFL game will happen;

* 2 halves, 35 minutes plus time on, with timeouts called by coaches (let's say 2 each)
* 16 players on the ground, with no more then 10 players from a team in any 50 metre zone at once
* No score if the ball hits any post, basically make the posts "live", as in we may as well replace them with lasers.
* 60 interchanges allowed a game, with 2 substitutes and only 2 proper interchange players
* A final 10, with a qualifying round before the finals to determine the final 8

Now some of that may seem ludicrous, but make no doubts about it, at least 2 of the above changes will occur unless AA, Vlad and the "lawyer" crew at AFL house are shoved out on their arses rather quickly.

IT'S A DISGRACE THE WAY THEY ARE RUINING OUR GAME.

 

[Snag Breac]

Just disband the Rules Committee, self-justifying waste of space. We'll assemble a body if anythings desperately needed thanks Fartlett.

I endorse this proposal. I haven't marched in anger for a very long time, but I'd be prepared to storm AFL HQ if they don't stop fooking with the game. I didn't fill out the interchange amendment option either, but added a strong comment expressing my disapproval. How dare they tamper willy-nilly with the people's game.

 

[Lockyer24]

Having a cap on interchages is ridiculous, just further over officiating.

What happens if you breach 80 or whatever?

Whats the difference between 80-100 anyway? Do they think supporters will even notice 5 less interchanges a quarter?

Our interchange system has seen less soft tissue injuries and injuries altogether.

Anderson and the rules committee are genuine **** heads, its a disgrace they get to have this kind of influence on a game that belongs to the people.

 

[daics_35]

Typical AFL we find a way within the rules to help us out and they ban it. Well they are considiring it but if they change it to 3 man bench and 1 emeregency on the bench then that shouldnt be that bad. I dont understand why thos ****heads feel the need to chance the rules every year. I cant believe teh are considering paying a goal if it hits the post and goes in. WHAT A JOKE.

 

[Bay Pie]

AFL doesn't like the fact the interchange bench has become a tactic.

3 interchanges and 1 substitute is the best of the poor options. Do we really want to see more stupid free kicks for an interchange breach (number wise) that cost a team a game ala Hawthorn v St.Kilda? Ridiculous. What will the penalty for breaching the interchange numbers be, if they set a limit????

 

[Axl the great]

God, and we think the umpires are attention seeking parasites!!!! they got nothing on these wannabee overlords.
This is the peoples game!!!!! we pay to watch it, we pay to keep the clubs going!!! we pay your F*****G salary Demetriou!

Demetriou, Anderson, Bartlett and the others involved should answer to US the fans and the players, the people who have passion for this game and the ones whos trade it is.

One is a never been, one is a wannabee and one is a has been, stop trying to justify your decisions and rule changes because you think you know best when the players, fans, coaches and everyone else wants you to just LEAVE OUR FRIGGIN GAME ALONE!!!!!!!

 

[Number 10]

Ok, I think action needs to be taken to hear the real opinions of the supporters. I don't know who looks after this on BigFooty but I think an email needs to be sent on behalf of all members. Instead of being asked to answer multiple choice questions that don't even compute our actual opinions (and lets face it they won't read any of the comments), why not send them compulsory BF poll and comments within?

Anyway heres my two cents.
I'll use Swan as an example because everyone can relate to him, but players like Ryan Griffen, Ben Cousins etc. have structured their games around being able to come off whenever they like.
This is simply taking advantage of a facet of the game, just like Joel Selwood and his brother, who take advantage of the high tackle rule. Just like players take advantage of the holding the man rule by blatantly dropping the ball and drawing a lengthy hold.

Back to Swan, he uses the interchange as a way to control his game. Who here cringes when they see Bryce Gibbs running around in the backline? Lets imagine Dane Swan running around in the backline for 30% of the game just because he can't get his breath on the bench. Players will begin lingering away in the backline, especially in the last quarters when elite players like Swan are needed to lift their team and provide their best.

Nobody wants to see players like this slow down!

 

[Piece of Pie]

I think there’s a lot of confusion over these changes and these proposals just make all the more baffling. I honestly still don’t understand why it has to be changed. Nothing they (AFL) say really adds up. It feels a lot like censorship laws being passed down, telling us what’s best because a minority might have been effect by it, maybe (so the rest of us have to suffer due an overreaction to these few). Emphasis on the might haves and the maybe’s because that’s all they’re going on to implement such a big change. Strange!

This is what I wrote on the AFL’s survey (first) page:

I don't think these changes are necessary. The game really isn't being affected by the interchanges despite your (the AFL and the Laws Committee) claims. As it stands, teams are not forced to play in any way they don't want to. If a team is feeling disadvantaged in any other area of the game the rules would NEVER change to serve them. So why now? Players are not complaining and mostly support the interchange the way it is. So please, keep it the way it is.

 

[pinky951]

Well said Piece of Pie. I wrote that it was a loaded question and they should be ashamed, then said that I did not want any interchange changes. I would suggest that instead of selecting one of their options everybody just write in the comments field if you don't think any change should be made. You can just see in 3 months time them coming out with "In an afl.com.au survey 60% of fans said they would like 3 interchange and 1 substitute, 25% said 2 interchange and 2 substitutes and 15% said to cap the interchange to 80 a game. Never mind the 95% of people who didn't choose one of these and wrote in the comments field what %&(@'s they are!!

Re: the hit the post rules, has anyone else noticed that Luke Darcy keeps banging on about this being changed in the press all the time?? He is apparently on the rules committee, I swear it is just a bunch of blokes sitting in a room and if one person suggests it and another seconds it then they propose it to the clubs. How hard is it to even get on that committee? Luke Darcy is a tosser

 

[Spoony]

What doesn't make any sense to me is the way the AFL claim that increased interchanges are increasing injuries, when it is disputed clubs such as Collingwood and Carlton (also I think). I find it impossible to believe that the clubs would be increasing interchanges if they believed it was detrimental to their players health and safety, it’s in the interest of the club to ensure that their players are protected, it’s always their number one concern. If the AFL's 'evidence' truly stacked up I doubt the clubs would still be increasing their rotations.

 

[Piece of Pie]

Re: the hit the post rules, has anyone else noticed that Luke Darcy keeps banging on about this being changed in the press all the time?? He is apparently on the rules committee, I swear it is just a bunch of blokes sitting in a room and if one person suggests it and another seconds it then they propose it to the clubs. How hard is it to even get on that committee? Luke Darcy is a tosser

Yeah when that question came up I did, for a split second, think the post/goal change idea could work for some cases. But then I just slapped myself in the face and laughed it off. I think they (AFL) will too. I don't know what Darcy is smoking!

But it worked you know - I mean I stopped thinking about the interchanges for a moment there. Maybe that's all this was, something thrown into the mix (of changes) to throw us off the real topic. Get us angry over something else so this other rule change can slip through. A red herring? Let's face it - a poster will always be a point and that will NEVER ever change. Not an icebergs chance in hell.

 

[Pie eyed]

Darcy being on the Rules Committee explains a lot.

Really starting to dislike the bloke.

 

[pinky951]

I am trying to find somewhere which lists the number of interchanges for each team, can anyone help? I think I remember us, the doggies and the Hawks?? Well between us that's the 3 lowest injury lists (carlton and saints equal third)

Got to love this quote from Adrian Anderson

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/eade-slams-afl-over-interchange-20100811-11zp1.html#poll

League football operations boss Adrian Anderson said yesterday that the link between spiralling interchange numbers and rising injury rates was now undeniable, with studies by medical experts showing increases in collision injuries, shoulder injuries and soft tissue injuries could be attributed to an increasingly fast game caused by greater numbers of interchanges.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/eade-slams-afl-over-interchange-20100811-11zp1.html#poll

That is a complete contradiction all in the one sentence, well done Mr. Anderson, this is not often achieved.

Also note that it is blamed on the high speed of the game which is something the AFL has been pushing for for a number of years now with rules brought in so that you don't have to wait for the flags before bringing the ball back in, no rush behinds, tougher policing of holding the ball rule.

I will concede that his second quote from that article makes a fair point, but they are really marketing that wrong, they should just add a substitute and say it is for the reason below.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/eade-slams-afl-over-interchange-20100811-11zp1.html#poll

''We are also concerned about fairness - more games are being decided by the fact that a team with an injury can't rotate as much as its opposition.''

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/eade-slams-afl-over-interchange-20100811-11zp1.html#poll

 

[Gambit78]

First off, I am like most on here and can't understand why the interchange rules need to be changed. But on reflection, I don't mind the 3 +1 option. I don't think that would change much and regardless of what is decided in the end, I think we definitely have to bring in a substitute onto the bench.

The question that really, really annoyed me, was the one about shortening the quarters. One, they want to shorten the breaks between quarters - to add more fatigue into the game? Then there was the option of shortening quarters, or only adding time on in the last 5 minutes. Are you kidding me? I mean, come on, seriously? If the AFL want their quarters to fall back into the 29-30 minutes bracket then tell channel 7, 9, 10 and Foxtel or whoever it is that has the broadcast rights, to get back from the commercials and replays quicker. How often do you see the umpire in the centre, ball in hand, waiting for that dicky little light in the stands to go off? Sort that bullshit out and you won't have a problem with over-long quarters...!





...sorry, rant over.

 

[Dawson]

This move to cap the interchange is really doing my head in. I cannot for the life of me see any reason to bring a cap in.

You and me both brother.

I really tried to look at this as logically as I could and I cannot see what the point of the rule change is

 

[Dawson]

Just disband the Rules Committee, self-justifying waste of space. We'll assemble a body if anythings desperately needed thanks Fartlett.

Yep, this is the Mike Sheehan theory.

He says: If a group of people known as the Rules Committee get together, the logical outcome of the group is to justify their existence - hence dream up rule changes