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

[Bluelegs]

They take surveys with fans to find out what parts of the game they like, what parts they don't like then try to keep the game with what the fans want, fans apparently don't like congestion so they're trying to fix that. What I want to know is what evidence they have to say that their rule changes will fix the game and why 80 interchanges is the magic number.

 

[Gongswan]

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.

This puts us on the road to eliminating the tackle and the hanger from the game, won't be much of a spectacle or contest then. More like kick to kick

 

[Omega Blue]

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

so we can narrow it down to Ron Barassi planting the seed to ruining the game.

 

[Omega Blue]

This puts us on the road to eliminating the tackle and the hanger from the game, won't be much of a spectacle or contest then. More like kick to kick

i dont like it either but honestly how far are we away from the above statement, at least in junior footy.

 

[TheOz]

So coaches implementing new tactics and strategies is a bad thing? I trust the coaches to work within the framework of the rules to succeed in implementing and evolving their gameplans rather than letting the AFL and Kevin Bartlett change the framework itself.

 

[Gongswan]

i dont like it either but honestly how far are we away from the above statement, at least in junior footy.

A generation or 2 down the road the blokes will be playing Auskick rules

 

[SJ]

So coaches implementing new tactics and strategies is a bad thing? I trust the coaches to work within the framework of the rules to succeed in implementing and evolving their gameplans rather than letting the AFL and Kevin Bartlett change the framework itself.

So you would be still happy with no 'on the full' rule, or no centre square?

 

[Running Dog]

Why did Coke invent Diet Coke, and then Coke Zero etc? It's a product.

 

[TheOz]

So you would be still happy with no 'on the full' rule, or no centre square?

Considering I don't remember a time when "on the full" was not a rule then no. I'm talking about the rules that the AFL specifically implement in order to change the way that coaches implement their strategies. Currently the rotation policy and interchange cap is the big one, why? Have the AFL actually explained their reasoning behind this proposed change? The coaches utilise the current unlimited interchange scenario to their advantage, why should the smart coaches that can implement a successful rotation policy and build a team to utilise that policy be punished because the AFL don't like it for reasons they haven't described? Also, why not let a smart coach formulate a strategy by which he doesn't need to rotate in large numbers to gain an advantage in that manner without forcing the issue?

 

[TheOz]

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.

You just dickride the AFL at every opportunity, if they turned the game into water polo you would be praising them.

 

[SJ]

You just dickride the AFL at every opportunity, if they turned the game into water polo you would be praising them.

Isn't he saying just the opposite?

Sounds like you would be the one happy if the game turned into water polo... as long as no one touched the 'sacred' rules (have evolved ever since 1858).

 

[Scotland]

The AFL is like most organisations; full of KPI-driven, management-speaking bureaucrats seeking change for the sake of change.

Anyway, Rodney Eade summed it up the best when asked about the interchange cap when he simply responded with 'Why do they want to cap interchange rotations?'. Is it because the average is higher than some abitrary figure? The game is too congested? They don't like the look of players running on and off all the time?

I'm not against an interchange cap (although I like the idea of using the bench for tactical changes rather than just rotating midfielders on and off the ground) but I'd like to see a good justification for it before it's introduced. IMO if you're going to cap interchanges at 80 a game then you may as well not bother as that still means a player is being moved on or off the ground almost every minute of the game. I'd favour (with due notice!) capping interchanges at 5-10 per quarter or leaving it as is.

 

[JR78]

Because coaches have turned the game into a sport where you need to be an elite middle distance runner to play. It's a game of run your heart out for 5 minutes then come off for a rest. It's a game of keepings off or Ross Lyon's game of everyone has to be within 60 metres of the ball.
Cap the interchange at 80 and let's see who are our elite players when fatigued. Let's open the play up and see more scoring. I've also been involved in junior football for years and I'm watching our best juniors being overlooked for players who are our best runners. I commend Demetriou for once.

 

[telsor]

They're changing the rules to correct the unforseen consequences of previous rule changes which have gone too far.

You can argue they should have forseen them perhaps, bit I don't see a problem withem saying (in effect) "we messed up, and were doing this to correct that".

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The AFL is like most organisations; full of KPI-driven, management-speaking bureaucrats seeking change for the sake of change.

Anyway, Rodney Eade summed it up the best when asked about the interchange cap when he simply responded with 'Why do they want to cap interchange rotations?'. Is it because the average is higher than some abitrary figure? The game is too congested? They don't like the look of players running on and off all the time?

Bingo. They've actually indicated this many times don't know why some still play dumb. The only problem is I'm not confident it will achieve their aims and may actually exacerbate the problem.

 

[Scotland]

The only way to 'solve' congestion is to break the field into zones a la netball.

Capping rotations may swing the game back towards lines (F, HF, C etc.), but it may just lead to a slower brand of congested footy...

 

[Dan26]

It comes down to the fact that most of the important decision makers in the AFL are left-wing people, and the AFL, itself is becoming a very left-wing organisation, right down to wanting to control the content on its website, potentially stifling debate.

- Demetriou is a well known Labor sympathiser
- Bill Kelty has a trade Union background
- Mike Fitzpatrick worked for the Cain Labor government and is an "academic."

These types, particularly Demetriou, want to control the game, because, as "intellectual elites" they believe they know better about how the game should be run, than the most important people - you and me. The fans.

They don't know better of course. Their opinion is just one person's opinion, but the way these people think is that they want to impose their view on everyone else, centrally planning the league to suit their own beliefs.

That's why we have ridiculous bodies like the "rules committee" which by, its very existence, will change rules that don't need to be changed simply to justify the existence of that committee. Hence, the interchange cap, will be brought in, not because it needed to be, but instead to justify the existence of the rules commitee. It's a costly regulatory body that should be abolished. The AFL should only change rules via the commission on an "as needs basis." If you have the stupidity to introduce a "rules committee" you can't expect them to not change rules.

There is no reason why the game can't be just left to evolve. If the fans don't like it, they will stop turning up, and then the AFL will be forced to make changes to improve the game. Just like a busniess that starts losing money, the owners need to change the direction and do things differently.

But that hasn't happened! Fans still turn up, TV ratings are a high as ever and membership is at record highs. There is no logical reason why anything needs to be changed. Some central planners having an "opinion" about how the game looks as a spectacle is irrelevant, because you can't measure that. It's just an opinion. What you CAN measure are TV ratings, crowds, memberships etc and all these things indicate that no major changes need to be made to the rules.

If the game becomes so unattractive to watch, then crowds will drop, and ratings will drop. Then, the AFL will NEED to make changes, like any good business would.

But that hasn't happened!! The game is as popular as ever

The changes that are being made and being made, simply to suit the whim of a handful of left-wing inteellectual elites who want to impose their view of how the game should "look" upon the 20 million stakeholders (the fans) who watch it, and have decided, by voting with their feet, that no changes need to be made.

 

[underthestars]

Well I agree with a fair bit of what Dan above has written. But making the point that a lot of these rule changes are brought about only in reaction to an effect of an earlier change. And on and on it goes.
Just one rule change has seen the afl constantly bringing in new rules to counteract its negative effects - the interchange. Get rid of the interchange and go back to two subs (or four) and a lot of the problems brought about by the interchange (speed of the game resulting in rule changes for injury concerns, congestion due to players all being rested enough to follow the ball around the ground in packs, limiting ball ins as they lead to congestion, limiting time to kick in or on as the game has too many slow moments now due to all the congestion and ball ups, monitoring players running off and on, etc, etc) would be removed.

 

[shintemaster]

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

Part of me agrees with you... if only they weren't so keen on paying every free kick they can when we finally get one on one contests.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The only way to 'solve' congestion is to break the field into zones a la netball.

Capping rotations may swing the game back towards lines (F, HF, C etc.), but it may just lead to a slower brand of congested footy...

Not sure about that with capped rotations the coaches could be more likely to opt for soccer style set-ups playing defensive zones and trying to score on fast breaks. If their aim is to reduce congestion they will probably need to reduce the number of players on the ground to either 14 or 12 but more likely 16. Players these days can cover too much ground and with 18 men can zone up the entire area upfield within a players kicking distance. Remove a few players and the field is too big to cover, the zone will break down and become a semi-obsolete tactic. With less players on the field you then have the option of a bench with either 4 or 6 players with unlimited interchange or all subs. In theory this should also allow the talent to be spread more evenly across the comp as well as less "top tier" players will be required.

Or they could just leave the game how it is and see how it plays out. Congestion has become a problem there's no doubt but the last 5 years have produced cracking Grand Finals (and Preliminary Finals) so at the end of the day does it really matter if St. Kilda v Footscray or Adelaide in round 14 wasn't the greatest game ever seen?

 

[SJ]

It comes down to the fact that most of the important decision makers in the AFL are left-wing people, and the AFL, itself is becoming a very left-wing organisation, right down to wanting to control the content on its website, potentially stifling debate.

- Demetriou is a well known Labor sympathiser
- Bill Kelty has a trade Union background
- Mike Fitzpatrick worked for the Cain Labor government and is an "academic."

These types, particularly Demetriou, want to control the game, because, as "intellectual elites" they believe they know better about how the game should be run, than the most important people - you and me. The fans.

They don't know better of course. Their opinion is just one person's opinion, but the way these people think is that they want to impose their view on everyone else, centrally planning the league to suit their own beliefs.

That's why we have ridiculous bodies like the "rules committee" which by, its very existence, will change rules that don't need to be changed simply to justify the existence of that committee. Hence, the interchange cap, will be brought in, not because it needed to be, but instead to justify the existence of the rules commitee. It's a costly regulatory body that should be abolished. The AFL should only change rules via the commission on an "as needs basis." If you have the stupidity to introduce a "rules committee" you can't expect them to not change rules.

There is no reason why the game can't be just left to evolve. If the fans don't like it, they will stop turning up, and then the AFL will be forced to make changes to improve the game. Just like a busniess that starts losing money, the owners need to change the direction and do things differently.

But that hasn't happened! Fans still turn up, TV ratings are a high as ever and membership is at record highs. There is no logical reason why anything needs to be changed. Some central planners having an "opinion" about how the game looks as a spectacle is irrelevant, because you can't measure that. It's just an opinion. What you CAN measure are TV ratings, crowds, memberships etc and all these things indicate that no major changes need to be made to the rules.

If the game becomes so unattractive to watch, then crowds will drop, and ratings will drop. Then, the AFL will NEED to make changes, like any good business would.

But that hasn't happened!! The game is as popular as ever

The changes that are being made and being made, simply to suit the whim of a handful of left-wing inteellectual elites who want to impose their view of how the game should "look" upon the 20 million stakeholders (the fans) who watch it, and have decided, by voting with their feet, that no changes need to be made.

Generally businesses make changes to get even stronger again before they start to lose money.

 

[Black Dynamite]

My earliest memories are from the early 70's and have been watching Footy ever since.
The game we watch now is vastly different from that game 40 years ago, different but not necessarily worse.
Clubs,coaches ,administrators and players have been pushing the rules and game styles put before them in an attempt to gain advantage for as long as I can remember and will continue long after we are all gone.
Many tend to look back with fondness at past decades and with good reason but constant rule changes will never take us back to the good old days, we have moved on and so has footy.
Maybe we need to look past the ugly side of the current game and realise there is still great players who do great things on a weekly basis and just wait for the next phase of the game to develop naturally without a rules commitee who think it is their sacred duty to tell the rest of us how the game should be played.

 

[John Hart Jnr]

It comes down to the fact that most of the important decision makers in the AFL are left-wing people, and the AFL, itself is becoming a very left-wing organisation, right down to wanting to control the content on its website, potentially stifling debate.

- Demetriou is a well known Labor sympathiser
- Bill Kelty has a trade Union background
- Mike Fitzpatrick worked for the Cain Labor government and is an "academic."

These types, particularly Demetriou, want to control the game, because, as "intellectual elites" they believe they know better about how the game should be run, than the most important people - you and me. The fans.

They don't know better of course. Their opinion is just one person's opinion, but the way these people think is that they want to impose their view on everyone else, centrally planning the league to suit their own beliefs.

That's why we have ridiculous bodies like the "rules committee" which by, its very existence, will change rules that don't need to be changed simply to justify the existence of that committee. Hence, the interchange cap, will be brought in, not because it needed to be, but instead to justify the existence of the rules commitee. It's a costly regulatory body that should be abolished. The AFL should only change rules via the commission on an "as needs basis." If you have the stupidity to introduce a "rules committee" you can't expect them to not change rules.

There is no reason why the game can't be just left to evolve. If the fans don't like it, they will stop turning up, and then the AFL will be forced to make changes to improve the game. Just like a busniess that starts losing money, the owners need to change the direction and do things differently.

But that hasn't happened! Fans still turn up, TV ratings are a high as ever and membership is at record highs. There is no logical reason why anything needs to be changed. Some central planners having an "opinion" about how the game looks as a spectacle is irrelevant, because you can't measure that. It's just an opinion. What you CAN measure are TV ratings, crowds, memberships etc and all these things indicate that no major changes need to be made to the rules.

If the game becomes so unattractive to watch, then crowds will drop, and ratings will drop. Then, the AFL will NEED to make changes, like any good business would.

But that hasn't happened!! The game is as popular as ever

The changes that are being made and being made, simply to suit the whim of a handful of left-wing inteellectual elites who want to impose their view of how the game should "look" upon the 20 million stakeholders (the fans) who watch it, and have decided, by voting with their feet, that no changes need to be made.

You're funny

 

[giggler99]

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.

Blame the prior opitunity rule for this. Really what constitutes prior opitunity? Is it how long you have the ball? or an attempt to dish off the ball? which is the intent anyway. It's now alright to throw the ball when in congested play, why bother even tackling? It really is taking the skills out of the game, such as how to break out off a tackle, to handball under pressure, apparently now all you do is drop the ball when touched or tackled and its play on??

 

[coryne]

Because AD, much like his friend Kim-Jong-il, is a giants egotistical dictator who takes it upon himself to change the rules of their sport to suit their needs

North Korea re-writes basketball rules


Can anyone else see the similarities