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

[dazbroncos]

keeps KB relevant in his eyes....

GO Catters

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

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

Yep, that was the beginning of the end. They lengthened the goal posts and the game has been hurtling towards an abyss ever since

I am still laughing at the OPs comment, "They're basically attempting to halt the evolution of the game". Champagne comedy. The game has been evolving at break neck speed for the past 20 years, and now because they want to throw the ball up a little quicker, it's football caveman style

 

[BC9_]

Yep, that was the beginning of the end. They lengthened the goal posts and the game has been hurtling towards an abyss ever since

I am still laughing at the OPs comment, "They're basically attempting to halt the evolution of the game". Champagne comedy. The game has been evolving at break neck speed for the past 20 years, and now because they want to throw the ball up a little quicker, it's football caveman style

I also put it down to the time when the Toyota logo started appearing on the ground.

 

[blackcat]

Abraham Maslow. law of instrument.

bureaucracy has how many employees? If the marketing department has two dozen employees, ofcourse they will have every round as a marketing round. Girlfriends round, stepmom's round, illegitimate children round, stolen generation round, homosexual round...

if all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.

gotta stay relevant dont they. next thing Vlad will be running for UN Secretary General, and the AFL requesting observer status.

 

[Purple Suit]

Yep, that was the beginning of the end. They lengthened the goal posts and the game has been hurtling towards an abyss ever since

I am still laughing at the OPs comment, "They're basically attempting to halt the evolution of the game". Champagne comedy. The game has been evolving at break neck speed for the past 20 years, and now because they want to throw the ball up a little quicker, it's football caveman style

Not throwing the ball up quicker has lead to congestion because the umpire has let it go and a maul almost appears. The issue I see is that the AFL decides what congestion is based on a ridged set of KPI's, Ball ups and throw ins. For some reason it thinks free kicks are a cure to congestion, hence the new interpretation of the tackling rule that will lead to much higher amounts of free given out each game.

I don't think they understand that bullshit free kicks are worse than congestion and fans are going to hate the game if every game is decided by a stupid decision.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

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

Trying to return to the halcyon days when the VFL was going broke?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Trying to return to the halcyon days when the VFL was going broke?

Not sure what onfield play and off field financial management have to do with each other. I said the afl is trying to break congestion, not that it is returning power to the clubs who will only manage the game in their own selfish interests.

 

[walhawk]

Mostly they are trying to remedy all the changes to the game that developed when they expanded the interchange from two to four.
Simply go back to 2 on bench, two subs.
This will fix most of the current 'problems'.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Ladies and gentlemen, your thoughts?

 

[mediumsizered]

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?

The out of bounds on the full rule was introduced to overcome the strategy of defenders deliberately kicking the ball out of bounds on the full to waste time, in the days when the time clock didn't stop on the sound of an umpire's whistle. The other aspect of this was the time wasted in getting the ball back from the crowd.

The centre square was introduced as a result of a certain coach deciding it would be a good idea to have several players around the centre bounce, an early forerunner to the current congestion we see in our game.

We also saw the introduction of a line across the centre circle after Tom Hafey instructed Peter Moore to wrestle with Gary Dempsey at every centre bounce to nullify Dempsey's significant advantage at the centre bounces.

These rule changes which came about in the '60s & '70s were all aimed at strategies implemented by coaches. As you can see, the old VFL was confronted with similar issues to the current AFL & used rule changes in an attempt to overcome these issues. Of course coaches have continued to explore ways of exploiting the existing rules, so the AFL continues to face the challenge of dealing with these aspects of the game which are destroying the spectacle & also endangering players.

 

[Barkly St End]

The out of bounds on the full rule was introduced to overcome the strategy of defenders deliberately kicking the ball out of bounds on the full to waste time, in the days when the time clock didn't stop on the sound of an umpire's whistle. The other aspect of this was the time wasted in getting the ball back from the crowd.

The centre square was introduced as a result of a certain coach deciding it would be a good idea to have several players around the centre bounce, an early forerunner to the current congestion we see in our game.

We also saw the introduction of a line across the centre circle after Tom Hafey instructed Peter Moore to wrestle with Gary Dempsey at every centre bounce to nullify Dempsey's significant advantage at the centre bounces.

These rule changes which came about in the '60s & '70s were all aimed at strategies implemented by coaches. As you can see, the old VFL was confronted with similar issues to the current AFL & used rule changes in an attempt to overcome these issues. Of course coaches have continued to explore ways of exploiting the existing rules, so the AFL continues to face the challenge of dealing with these aspects of the game which are destroying the spectacle & also endangering players.

Good post, a timely reminder that we have had some major changes in the rules, in living memory,which improved the game.

 

[Saint4Life]

I don't know why they insist on bringing in new rules every year, like they have to find something. Imagine if they did this in soccer....

I only think they should bring in rules when they are required for OH&S or if the entire community agrees with it.
IE - The ruck's not being able to run at the center contest was a good rule change to stop PCL injuries.

However I hate this sub rule and Kevin Bartlets crappy ideas about interchange. The blokes lost his marbles on some things.
I just wish they left it as 4 on the beach, and have one as a sub (only for concussion).

Getting injuries and playing a man down etc is part of the game/battle

Imo, all the sub rule does is not allow one more player (might be a fringe) a go. I liked seeing some new guys/kids get a crack, but giving them a quarter to have a go is really shit.

As for rotations/caps, I'd be open to 25 a quarter cap, but TBH, football hasn't been that bad. Someone finds a way to flood, someone finds a way to beat it, and the game will change again. Just let it evolve by itself. The 09 and 10 grand finals were one of the best GF's... and they were in their "prime" of the flood.

KB has got blinkers on only to get what he wants/what he thinks. It annoys me.

 

[mediumsizered]

Getting injuries and playing a man down etc is part of the game/battle

Once again, this is an aspect of the game which was first changed by the old VFL in introducing a 19th man, in response to injuries leading to teams keeping injured players on the field. The jury is still out on the value of the current sub rule, but it has been introduced to ensure coaches don't have to keep injured players on the field for fear of losing out on rotations.

 

[Woodson]

I don't know why they insist on bringing in new rules every year, like they have to find something. Imagine if they did this in soccer....

........
KB has got blinkers on only to get what he wants/what he thinks. It annoys me.

Don't worry, come WC time, soccer turns into a shambles circus that makes AFL look like respectable.

The AFL lost me years ago.. I couldn't be ffff*** going anymore as a patron but.... returned last season for a different reason altogether. When you leave games wondering why you even bother losing your nut over trivial umpiring decisions.. you know it's time to walk away coz that doesn't equate to enjoying the experience. KB is paid to be a j@ckarse and he does it well. SEN still employing him because he makes people listen to what the AFL head honchos are subtly saying. If you disagree and still turn up, you must be a dedicated tortured soul who the AFL are heavily counting on. Bottom line is annoyed minions like yourself are the lifeblood of the AFL.

 

[John Hart Jnr]

Not throwing the ball up quicker has lead to congestion because the umpire has let it go and a maul almost appears. The issue I see is that the AFL decides what congestion is based on a ridged set of KPI's, Ball ups and throw ins. For some reason it thinks free kicks are a cure to congestion, hence the new interpretation of the tackling rule that will lead to much higher amounts of free given out each game.

I don't think they understand that bullshit free kicks are worse than congestion and fans are going to hate the game if every game is decided by a stupid decision.

Correct. Quicker ball ups and throw ins would help.

 

[Barkly St End]

As an aside, I caught one of the Fox 30 minute thrillers last night, it was a draw between the Eagles and Bulldogs which I would place circa 2003 when we last collected the wooden spoon (Eagles finished 7th).

The draw was one of the few bright spots for the dogs that season. Anyway, I sat through the whole of that 30 minutes absolutely rivetted, it was such an entertaining last quarter.

These days, it's pretty hard to imagine any team coming last being able to play entertaining footy, if they have managed to stay close with a top 8 team, it's only because they have successfully turned the game into one gigantic rolling maul.

I couldn't believe how open the game was, only 10 years ago. That's how quickly things have changed.

 

[RogersResults]

There has always been some committee or other trying to match the rules to the evolution of the game or revert the game to a form supposedly more desirous as a spectacle.
Safety of players has always been a concern, tripping and hacking (kicking at an opponent's shins in order to dispossess them of the ball) were outlawed in 1860 (three years before it was banned in rugby in England). A relaxation of the 'push from behind rule' lasted for one week in 1897 after outcry from players and spectators alike.

Efforts to modify the rules to change the style of play have come and gone. In the late 1890s there was concern that the game had become too congested with a running scrum following the ball from one end of the ground to the other. The number of players were reduced from 20 to 18 in 1899 but it wasn't until Collingwood introduced a game of accurate foot passing around the boundary in 1902, that the game opened up.

By 1925 there was concern that the game had become too congested with too much play on the flanks, so boundary throw-ins were abolished with a free-kick given against the last player to touch the ball before it went out of bounds. By 1939 there were concerns that these measures had made the game too 'open', leading to scoring and margin 'blow-outs', so the boundary throw-ins were reintroduced and the out of bounds rule, dropped. (Incidentally, up until 1939, dropping the ball was a legitimate method of disposal.)

In the early 1960s there was a concern that the game could devolve into 'thow-ball' with the prevalence of the so-called 'flick-pass'. In 1966 the rule that the ball had to be struck with a clenched fist was first instituted.

Human history is predominantly conservative (with reactionary tendencies) punctuated with bursts of innovation . Australian Football was developed in a less conservative environment (Victoria in the 19th century led the world with some work-place, social and electoral reforms). If it had not been, then the NRL 'State of Origin' would most likely these days, be more than a two participant contest.

 

[fabulousphil]

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

Limiting I/C should bring us back to postional play, but how many times are rules changed to produce a certain outcome but achieve the opposite, so who knows.

At any rate 120 or whatever amount of I/C that occur are just plain ridiculous.

 

[fabulousphil]

There has always been some committee or other trying to match the rules to the evolution of the game or revert the game to a form supposedly more desirous as a spectacle.
Safety of players has always been a concern, tripping and hacking (kicking at an opponent's shins in order to dispossess them of the ball) were outlawed in 1860 (three years before it was banned in rugby in England). A relaxation of the 'push from behind rule' lasted for one week in 1897 after outcry from players and spectators alike.

Efforts to modify the rules to change the style of play have come and gone. In the late 1890s there was concern that the game had become too congested with a running scrum following the ball from one end of the ground to the other. The number of players were reduced from 20 to 18 in 1899 but it wasn't until Collingwood introduced a game of accurate foot passing around the boundary in 1902, that the game opened up.

By 1925 there was concern that the game had become too congested with too much play on the flanks, so boundary throw-ins were abolished with a free-kick given against the last player to touch the ball before it went out of bounds. By 1939 there were concerns that these measures had made the game too 'open', leading to scoring and margin 'blow-outs', so the boundary throw-ins were reintroduced and the out of bounds rule, dropped. (Incidentally, up until 1939, dropping the ball was a legitimate method of disposal.)

In the early 1960s there was a concern that the game could devolve into 'thow-ball' with the prevalence of the so-called 'flick-pass'. In 1966 the rule that the ball had to be struck with a clenched fist was first instituted.

Human history is predominantly conservative (with reactionary tendencies) punctuated with bursts of innovation . Australian Football was developed in a less conservative environment (Victoria in the 19th century led the world with some work-place, social and electoral reforms). If it had not been, then the NRL 'State of Origin' would most likely these days, be more than a two participant contest.

You are right of course, i guess the game has always been evolving, the first few years of the game would see a rolling rugby type maul, so nothing new here, i wonder if someone from that era who turned up at a modern day game would recognise the type of non-positional follow the ball game that we have now ?.

Would they like the flooding type of game that is played quite often now, or the open positional type game that was played much more 10 + years ago, in fact would thay recognise postional play at all.

Maybe the game has returned somewhat to its earliest roots, and chances are that it will again return to open positional football.

 

[schnoods]

At the rate they are changing rules for safety, wont be long before they have a kickoff instead of a ruck contest.

 

[John Hart Jnr]

At the rate they are changing rules for safety, wont be long before they have a kickoff instead of a ruck contest.

They used to have kick-offs to start games, at least in South Australia.

 

[RogersResults]

They used to have kick-offs to start games, at least in South Australia.

At least until the 1950s the press in S.A. and W.A. referred to fullbacks as "goalkeepers".

The centre bounce after a goal was scored instead of the opposing team kicking-off dates from 1891 - one of the many rule changes based on concepts (real and imagined) of "fairness" and the "spirit of the game". (One of the recent ones being the ruling on deliberate rushed behinds after Hawthorn's successful tactic in the 2008 Grand Final).

Meanwhile, this editorial appeared in the Melbourne Argus 27th April 1874 (p 5.)
(In 1874 there was no central controlling body, so the editor of the Argus addresses the players and the clubs.)


The football season has again come round, and soon, we suppose, we shall see all the clubs in full operation. We wish, then to draw the attention of tho players to a matter which they would do well to lay to heart.

Anyone who has watched the progress of the game from year to year will, we think, agree with us that each succeeding season has seen the play gradually degenerating into a mere scramble; and if it go much further in that same direction, it must become a rough-and-tumble fight, and then a pitched battle.

It is and always must be a rough pastime, and we disclaim any wish to see it otherwise, for we have no sympathy with those lads or youths who wish to saturate every amusement, and in fact everything, with milk and water. In this world, hard knocks, both mental and physical, are the order of the day, and nowhere does a youth better learn to bear the latter bravely and with patience than on the football ground. But at the same time football was never intended to be solely a trial of brute force, which unfortunately it is in danger of becoming in this colony.

Skill also should have some chance, and this is impossible unless rules are plainly defined and rigidly adhered to. It will be remembered that during the last season one fatal accident at least occurred through the violence of tho play, and, unless our memory is at fault, that was not the only death which resulted from a participation in the game. We should be very sorry to see football less popular than it is, on many accounts, but unless something be done to mitigate the fury of the combatants, it will assuredly be put down either by public opinion or law. The clubs should take immediate action in the matter before any more lives are sacrificed.

It wasn't until 1877 (the first season administered by the Victorian Football Association) that the umpire was given the option to stop play and throw the ball into the air to discourage scrimmages.

 

[Barkly St End]

We could get rid of the behind posts, shorten the goal posts, put a cross bar over it, nets behind, make it illegal to use hands or touch another player, make the ball round, reduce the length of the game, and the size of the field, and invite crime syndicates from Singapore to open up a book on games.

 

[RogersResults]

We could get rid of the behind posts, shorten the goal posts, put a cross bar over it, nets behind, make it illegal to use hands or touch another player, make the ball round, reduce the length of the game, and the size of the field, and invite crime syndicates from Singapore to open up a book on games.

Maybe not as satirical as you might think. See: Improving the Game: Proposed Alterations.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You are all forgetting the one rule which changed our game so much, being allowed to kick the ball in before the flag was waived after a point has made the game to quick and that rule above all else has made the game to fast.
Once a point was kicked players had a brief moment to get their breath back and get on their opponents. Now it is impossible and hence leads to the game being to fast, the need for more rotations and a more uncontested brand of the game.
This is the one rule that should never ever of been changed. It has had so many repercussions to parts of our game but will they change it back? of course not because they would have to admit that they royally ****ed up.
Forget interchange rotations and other crap, changing the kick in rule has changed the game more than any other rule ever.
It needs to be changed back.