Moved Thread Why is the AFL trying to change the game?

[ThePuppetMaster]

This has been bugging me for a long time; the sub-rule, the new ruck rules, the new interchange cap, etc.

Now the message coming from AFL HQ is that they are trying to eliminate 'congestion' in the game....

I ask, what gives them the right to determine how the game should look? Who are they to say that the natural progression of the game is incorrect? What if congestion produces further tactical evolution that leads to the most entertaining version of the game we've ever seen?

Why are they doing this? They're basically attempting to halt the evolution of the game.

Is it a power trip? Do we have the wrong people (with the wrong ideas) in charge? Have they determined that congestion is responsible for concussion and therefore are protecting themselves with these rules?

Funnily enough, none of the AFL fans I talk to regularly even bring up 'congestion' as impacting on the 'spectacle' of the game - yet Demetriou has this arrogant attitude of inevitability.

 

[SunshineBoy]

This has been bugging me for a long time; the sub-rule, the new ruck rules, the new interchange cap, etc.

Now the message coming from AFL HQ is that they are trying to eliminate 'congestion' in the game....

I ask, what gives them the right to determine how the game should look? Who are they to say that the natural progression of the game is incorrect? What if congestion produces further tactical evolution that leads to the most entertaining version of the game we've ever seen?

Why are they doing this? They're basically attempting to halt the evolution of the game.

Is it a power trip? Do we have the wrong people (with the wrong ideas) in charge? Have they determined that congestion is responsible for concussion and therefore are protecting themselves with these rules?

Funnily enough, none of the AFL fans I talk to regularly even bring up 'congestion' as impacting on the 'spectacle' of the game - yet Demetriou has this arrogant attitude of inevitability.

Nice rant Mickey....

 

[ziad]

they sell entertainment that all. Appearances are everything.

If it was only a sporting contest melbourne would be without draft picks for two years

 

[Omega Blue]

two words "WORK SAFE", if manufacturing had the same incident rate as afl does they would be shut down indefinately.
like it or not "the footy oval" is a workplace and is covered by worksafe.
The afl needs to be showing that they are taking active measures to protect players so that WHEN something serious happens they can demonstrate that they have been proactive in risk management.

 

[iDon]

Money man. All about the $$$$$$$

 

[Sttew]

Funnily enough, none of the AFL fans I talk to regularly even bring up 'congestion' as impacting on the 'spectacle' of the game - yet Demetriou has this arrogant attitude of inevitability.

We obviously don't know each other! For me congestion at stoppages was turning AFL into rugby league, and I know plenty of people who share this view...

 

[Franc de Borges]

Because clearly it's a shit sport that needs to be reshaped every year to keep people interested.

 

[RuFiO]

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

We obviously don't know each other! For me congestion at stoppages was turning AFL into rugby league, and I know plenty of people who share this view...

Really? Literally not one person I know has brought this up with me... maybe different generations (forgive the presumption)?

Either way, I think that the way the game is constantly evolving - the uncontested possession is hugely important for successful teams and I see that most teams will be working harder then ever to create space outside of the contest - will ease congestion quickly.

 

[madmug]

This has been bugging me for a long time; the sub-rule, the new ruck rules, the new interchange cap, etc.

Now the message coming from AFL HQ is that they are trying to eliminate 'congestion' in the game....

I ask, what gives them the right to determine how the game should look? Who are they to say that the natural progression of the game is incorrect? .

The AFL bought the game & bully any dissenting voices. Once upon a time each state had representation. Not any more.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I'm actually going to defend the AFL on this (yes, I do feel dirty just writing that!)

I grew up watching footy in the 80's, and its was a very different game to what I see today, and its not because of the AFL.

Its because of coaches.

We have moved from playing in positions and kicking to a contest. Now we have a game where possession is king, and players are trained to play the percentages and retain possession at all cost - making kicking to a contest a draggable offense. Pushing numbers back to congest the forward line, rolling zones, and so on have removed positional play, and created a rolling ruck that has up to 30 players in it and follows the ball all day.

The AFL is reacting to this and trying to tweek with the rules to return it to the type of AFL contest most people want. They are trying to increase the risks of retaining possession, which makes the attractiveness of kicking to a contest improve. All the interchange talk is aimed solely at breaking down the size and sustainability of the rolling ruck, so that players are rested back/forward, and we have some return to positional play

 

[Blackas87]

We obviously don't know each other! For me congestion at stoppages was turning AFL into rugby league, and I know plenty of people who share this view...

I've heard people say this too, but really, Aussie rules doesn't look anything like rugby. I don't see what you're saying.

 

[loki04]

Nice rant Mickey....

He is correct in what he typed, more people hate the fact the game is changing from year to year more than any tactic that comes in for a few seasons by a few clubs.

Teams will develop a way to counter other teams tactics, the game should be left alone and if need be review every 5 years not every year.

 

[jhong]

The rules committee should be about simplifying the rules , not complicating them .

 

[CF]

Some rule changes come about to make the game safer for the players from incidental or intentional contact - head high, in the back, taking the legs out (sliding in), sling tackles, etc

Some rules have been brought in to try and stop congestion around the ball and keep the game flowing like the interchange sub rule (it didn't work), the 50m penalty, the new ruck rule, throw up the ball at stoppages, and now trialling the cap rule.

The problem with trying to change the rules in order to control the look of the game is that who has defined what that should entail? The AFL want a fast and free flowing game yet want to stop the aspects like high rotations that enable the game to be that way.

There is a disconnect between what the AFL claim they want, and what the rules committee is doing. Who wears the pants in that relationship? It should be the AFL but it seems to be Kevin Bartlett and Co.

In the end the AFL is trying to protect the brand of the sport and so how it appears is important to them. That's what makes them money after all. I think the idea of establishing a charter about what are the core values that make footy what it is happens to be a very good idea. This might end the disconnect we see between what the AFL say and what the rules committee give us. Take the decisions away from Bartlett and Matthews as to what the game should be.

 

[port_adelaide_1870]

Blame the coaches, there the ones who keep manipulating the game and make it a boring and annoying game to watch

 

[Barkly St End]

Open your eyes people, the congestion has got worse over the past decade to the point where some games are completely unwatchable.

That's not consistent across all games, but happens often enough for it to be noticeable.

We don't want 32 bodies in and around the ball for most of the game - that's NOT Australian Football.

I'm not offering a solution, or saying that major changes are necessary, but the trend towards increased congestion is observable, it's there, it's silly to say otherwise.

 

[Sttew]

Really? Literally not one person I know has brought this up with me... maybe different generations (forgive the presumption)?

Either way, I think that the way the game is constantly evolving - the uncontested possession is hugely important for successful teams and I see that most teams will be working harder then ever to create space outside of the contest - will ease congestion quickly.

I can see from other posts that I am not alone in my thoughts. Perhaps you've been watching too many MFC games. I dare say there is little congestion in these games because MFC is nowhere near the ball

 

[John Hart Jnr]

The AFL is trying to change the game because it is becoming to congested and there are too many ball ups.

This is a result of massive rotations, creating greater midfield endurance and an increase in the ability of the players to get to the ball. The game only ever really opens up late in the quarters when players get tired.

I don't see capping rotations as the best method to reduce congestion. I would like to see two interchange and two subs. This would mean that there would be only about 240 minutes of bench time for players meaning that interchanges would be naturally capped at about 120 with the average player getting a two minute rest when on the bench. Any less and its not worth coming off.

The clubs don't like change as they have had long term plans based on the current rules and recruited their players accordingly.

A change to two interchange and two subs would mean the end of two specialist ruckmen, making forwards/rucks such as Tippett and Petrie more valuable along with ruckmen with endurance.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I can see from other posts that I am not alone in my thoughts. Perhaps you've been watching too many MFC games. I dare say there is little congestion in these games because MFC is nowhere near the ball

I can see from other posts that you appear to be in the minority

 

[RobertRichter]

Blame Kevin Bartlett.

Every time Richmond lose an un-losable game, smile a little and think of the football god that is making Bartlett pay for sins with trying to ruin the game.

 

[SJ]

The rules of Australian Football (not AFL) have been fluid for 150 years.

You'll find articles debating the need for new rules in newspapers going back as far as you can research.

Funnily enough yesterday's hotly-debated rule change becomes today's accepted 'great sport'.

 

[King Elvis]

We obviously don't know each other! For me congestion at stoppages was turning AFL into rugby league, and I know plenty of people who share this view...

All that need to do is enforce the rules around Holding the Ball and dropping the footy, and this issue would disappear in a matter of weeks.

They've caused the problem by refusing to enforce their own rules, and are now looking for other bullshit ways to come up with to address it.

 

[Sprout]

I don't disagree with your overall premise of the AFL being overly interfering, and recently they have been nothing short of inept. But to be honest I've heard plenty of people commenting on the ugliness of the game with congestion around the ball. So many in fact that you might find you're in the minority if you think the rolling ruck style of footy we see these days is just fine and dandy.

The "evolution" you speak of has been engineered, partly as a result of extreme rotations that result in the increasing prominence of athletes over traditional footballers. Therefore I have no problem at all with capping rotations in the aim of opening up the game and hopefully returning to the traditional one on one contests that bring people through the gates. I do think 80 is too drastic a drop initially, with 100-120 being a better number to trial and review. The concept however is sound, and coaches, players and fans will adjust as they always have.

 

[BC9_]

Shit was really starting to get out of hand (in terms of rule changes) when the AFL made the goal posts higher.