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

[MrFujiMoto]

I'm actually going to change the AFL on this (yes, I do feel mighty and important just writing that!)

I grew up hogging the footy in the 60's, 70's and early 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, those stinking dirty coaches making revolutionary changes within the current laws. Well I will have none of that.

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 I 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

Minor edits but EFA, KB

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Minor edits but EFA, KB

Nice attempt at humour, but the KB paranoia some have is crazy. If he was a loose cannon, he'd have been booted from the committee years ago. He's keeping his gig because he is obviously adding value, and delivering outcomes the AFL want.

Don't be sucked in by his SEN persona. I've heard him talk at club functions, and he starts doing his usual panto act until someone asks a serious footy question. Then he does a complete 180o turn, and you get a very serious review and analysis of the game from him. Surprised me the first time I heard him, because in recent years all I had heard was the SEN version. He does know his stuff though, and actually talked a very hostile crowd around (remember RFC fans are as pissed as you guys are about these changes, and many are still pissed at him for his exile period from the club)

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Nice attempt at humour, but the KB paranoia some have is crazy. If he was a loose cannon, he'd have been booted from the committee years ago. He's keeping his gig because he is obviously adding value, and delivering outcomes the AFL want.

Don't be sucked in by his SEN persona. I've heard him talk at club functions, and he starts doing his usual panto act until someone asks a serious footy question. Then he does a complete 180o turn, and you get a very serious review and analysis of the game from him. Surprised me the first time I heard him, because in recent years all I had heard was the SEN version. He does know his stuff though, and actually talked a very hostile crowd around (remember RFC fans are as pissed as you guys are about these changes, and many are still pissed at him for his exile period from the club)

KB won't be booted, He is exactly what Vlad wants in that position and is really no more than a pawn in the bigger picture. A mouthpiece for Vlad with regard to the rules. There is never any co-incidence with who holds any sway within the AFL, not with AD at the helm.

If the rules committee were there to serve the best interest of the game there would be more representation from current players, recently retired players, current coaches and current umpires. They are the people that are most involved with the "footy" side of the game at the moment. Unfortunately these guys are not here to serve "footy" as such, but the brand that is the AFL. The TV networks (Vlad) and KB share an alligned goal to get footy to be more aesthetically pleasing. They should just be open and say the TV coverage looks better with less rotations, no big injuries, plenty of open play and no congestion so the networks have demanded that is what we achieve.

KB is happy because it is footy that is the same as it was in "the good old days". Personally, I think the tactics of todays game make it a more interesting game to watch over a season, but sometimes to counter opposition strengths coaches will implement plans that lock down the play and make it "un attractive" for the TV audience.

on a side note, I find it interesting that the AFL want to limit injuries to players but they are happy to fatigue players, by limiting their time on the interchange, and increase the likleyhood of injury. All for the look of the game on TV.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

KB won't be booted, He is exactly what Vlad wants in that position and is really no more than a pawn in the bigger picture. A mouthpiece for Vlad with regard to the rules. There is never any co-incidence with who holds any sway within the AFL, not with AD at the helm.

If the rules committee were there to serve the best interest of the game there would be more representation from current players, recently retired players, current coaches and current umpires. They are the people that are most involved with the "footy" side of the game at the moment. Unfortunately these guys are not here to serve "footy" as such, but the brand that is the AFL. The TV networks (Vlad) and KB share an alligned goal to get footy to be more aesthetically pleasing. They should just be open and say the TV coverage looks better with less rotations, no big injuries, plenty of open play and no congestion so the networks have demanded that is what we achieve.

KB is happy because it is footy that is the same as it was in "the good old days". Personally, I think the tactics of todays game make it a more interesting game to watch over a season, but sometimes to counter opposition strengths coaches will implement plans that lock down the play and make it "un attractive" for the TV audience.

on a side note, I find it interesting that the AFL want to limit injuries to players but they are happy to fatigue players, by limiting their time on the interchange, and increase the likleyhood of injury. All for the look of the game on TV.

Dont disagree with getting more diversity on the committee, but listening to some of the ex coaches who have walked away from it, it is a time commitment that few are willing to do in retirement. Also disagree on current coaches (as they will always push an agenda to benefit their side). Just be grateful Gilligan Rompingwins isnt chairing it any more!!

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Dont disagree with getting more diversity on the committee, but listening to some of the ex coaches who have walked away from it, it is a time commitment that few are willing to do in retirement. Also disagree on current coaches (as they will always push an agenda to benefit their side). Just be grateful Gilligan Rompingwins isnt chairing it any more!!

Grateful that no talent arsehat has nothing to do with the AFL anymore. Current coaches could be an issue. Umpiring fraternity should be included though

 

[SJ]

on a side note, I find it interesting that the AFL want to limit injuries to players but they are happy to fatigue players, by limiting their time on the interchange, and increase the likleyhood of injury. All for the look of the game on TV.

I missed the part where elite sportsmen under fatigue was a bad thing.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Grateful that no talent arsehat has nothing to do with the AFL anymore. Current coaches could be an issue. Umpiring fraternity should be included though

you mean.......

I'm getting the mods to boot you're arse for even suggesting this

*Jokes aside, an ex-ump who isn't a complete douche would be excellent

 

[MrFujiMoto]

I missed the part where elite sportsmen under fatigue was a bad thing.

I never said it was bad but they are making noise about reducing injury on one hand and going out of their way to increase the chances of injury on the other. That was more my point.

 

[SJ]

I never said it was bad but they are making noise about reducing injury on one hand and going out of their way to increase the chances of injury on the other. That was more my point.

Please cite evidence where more fatigue leads to more injury.

The AFL studies actually indicate otherwise.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

you mean.......

I'm getting the mods to boot you're arse for even suggesting this

*Jokes aside, an ex-ump who isn't a complete douche would be excellent

Yeah good point, I will boot my own arse for that one. Where is his polo shirt? Thats the most professionally dressed I have ever seen him.

Edit: I can here him now "we reviewed the rule change that only allowed for players to kick for goal after they had performed 3 backflips in a row and whilst the scoring is no longer a highlight of our game we feel that decision was the right one to make. I would not change that decision"

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Please cite evidence where more fatigue leads to more injury.

The AFL studies actually indicate otherwise.

Many of the studies do? Not sure, but it is irrelevant as an interchange rest would be having an impact on the results of those studies. Maybe I should have worded my point a little more clearly.

Currently they fatigue and come off for a rest. Under an interchange cap of, who knows what, they will fatigue but may not be able to rest. It will be one of the "who knows" side effects of the rule change I think.

All speculation but I have done a knee and fatigue in the muscles and sloppy footwork from being fatigued were a major factor in my knee and upper and lower leg all seperating from each other . According to my doc at the time anyway. Now that was completely different sport so again "who knows". I am no doc and want to make that clear and I am also all for the game being left as it is.

 

[SJ]

Many of the studies do? Not sure, but it is irrelevant as an interchange rest would be having an impact on the results of those studies. Maybe I should have worded my point a little more clearly.

Currently they fatigue and come off for a rest. Under an interchange cap of, who knows what, they will fatigue but may not be able to rest. It will be one of the "who knows" side effects of the rule change I think.

All speculation but I have done a knee and fatigue in the muscles and sloppy footwork from being fatigued were a major factor in my knee and upper and lower leg all seperating from each other . According to my doc at the time anyway. Now that was completely different sport so again "who knows". I am no doc and want to make that clear and I am also all for the game being left as it is.

You do know that in 2007 the league average was about 55 interchanges per game.

In 2010 it was about 130.

In 2014 the plan is to have it at 80.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

You do know that in 2007 the league average was about 55 interchanges per game.

In 2010 it was about 130.

In 2014 the plan is to have it at 80.

Yep know that, the game was also different, even in 07. Tell me, since you are obviously pro the change. Why change the game by enforcing restrictions? Why not allow the game to continue to evolve as it has I the past?

 

[SJ]

Yep know that, the game was also different, even in 07. Tell me, since you are obviously pro the change. Why change the game by enforcing restrictions? Why not allow the game to continue to evolve as it has I the past?

The game was never designed to have complete 'line changes' as we see now.

The bench originally did not exist. Then it it existed with one substitute, no interchange.

This stepped up to four interchange in the mid-1990s, but even in the mid-2000s the average was still in the 30s per game. Very low. Certainly not being used for 'refreshment'.

The current situation contributes to:
- Rolling maul games, particularly in the first half before players fatigue and the game often breaks open in the second
- Higher injury rates due to higher speeds and more forceful collision
- More blowouts due to one side facing multiple injuries as their opposition significantly 'out-rotates' them
- Ugly spectacle of excessive player rotation

You say you want the game left "as is" - but you would have also said this in 2007. Yet the 2013 situation is vastly different to 2007. How can you have it both ways?

 

[MrFujiMoto]

The game was never designed to have complete 'line changes' as we see now.

The bench originally did not exist. Then it it existed with one substitute, no interchange.

This stepped up to four interchange in the mid-1990s, but even in the mid-2000s the average was still in the 30s per game. Very low. Certainly not being used for 'refreshment'.

The current situation contributes to:
- Rolling maul games, particularly in the first half before players fatigue and the game often breaks open in the second
- Higher injury rates due to higher speeds and more forceful collision
- More blowouts due to one side facing multiple injuries as their opposition significantly 'out-rotates' them
- Ugly spectacle of excessive player rotation

You say you want the game left "as is" - but you would have also said this in 2007. Yet the 2013 situation is vastly different to 2007. How can you have it both ways?

This is partially my point, the game will look after itself and change over the years as a matter of course. Don't need a bunch of nostalgic out of date people deciding how the game should and should not change. The game will evolve without the need for rules governing the necessity for change. Knee jerk reaction to current trends. I am a regular at games of footy and watch as much as I can on tv and I don't know why so many people whinge about the interchange rotation numbers. Seriously, it is barely noticeable at the ground and not noticeable on tv at all. An interchange system of any kind will always be biased if a player is injured and as for rolling mauls, if the umpires correctly paid frees for in the back, holding the ball etc that issue would be heavily negated. Anyway you want governed change and I want an organic change in the game.

 

[McCrann]

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.

Great post.

I can't understand the people who don't understand that it is coaches who drive the way the game is played - not the rules committee. The rules committee is there to defend the game against the worst instincts of coaches to win at all costs.

It is not the other way around. And just because the coach of your team has a whinge (don't fall for it and back him in). Really - has the game ever been better? No, and this is because the rules committee have done their utmost to get rid of things like the flood. The rules changes are working folks.

 

[McCrann]

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 screwed 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.

So, I take it from your post - you are a supporter of the flood? You know, this rule was introduced as part of a response to teams like Sydney flooding and clogging up the play while the opposition brought it back in.

So clarify - do you support the flood?

 

[McCrann]

KB won't be booted, He is exactly what Vlad wants in that position and is really no more than a pawn in the bigger picture. A mouthpiece for Vlad with regard to the rules. There is never any co-incidence with who holds any sway within the AFL, not with AD at the helm.

If the rules committee were there to serve the best interest of the game there would be more representation from current players, recently retired players, current coaches and current umpires. They are the people that are most involved with the "footy" side of the game at the moment. Unfortunately these guys are not here to serve "footy" as such, but the brand that is the AFL. The TV networks (Vlad) and KB share an alligned goal to get footy to be more aesthetically pleasing. They should just be open and say the TV coverage looks better with less rotations, no big injuries, plenty of open play and no congestion so the networks have demanded that is what we achieve.

KB is happy because it is footy that is the same as it was in "the good old days". Personally, I think the tactics of todays game make it a more interesting game to watch over a season, but sometimes to counter opposition strengths coaches will implement plans that lock down the play and make it "un attractive" for the TV audience.

on a side note, I find it interesting that the AFL want to limit injuries to players but they are happy to fatigue players, by limiting their time on the interchange, and increase the likleyhood of injury. All for the look of the game on TV.

Seriously - why would you want a current coach on the rules committee? You know they are employed by their club to win games. You know they will play the game that best suits the list they have. You know if the list they have is not that talented, they will drag the game down to their level to give their team the best chance of winning - and keeping their job.

How can you trust such a person to have the best interests of the game at heart? Answer. You can't.

As Paul Keating said - and he was right, so very right - "In the game of life, always back self-interest. At least you know it's trying."

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Seriously - why would you want a current coach on the rules committee? You know they are employed by their club to win games. You know they will play the game that best suits the list they have. You know if the list they have is not that talented, they will drag the game down to their level to give their team the best chance of winning - and keeping their job.

How can you trust such a person to have the best interests of the game at heart? Answer. You can't.

As Paul Keating said - and he was right, so very right - "In the game of life, always back self-interest. At least you know it's trying."

Not A current coach. Representation from current coaches

 

[SJ]

This is partially my point, the game will look after itself and change over the years as a matter of course. Don't need a bunch of nostalgic out of date people deciding how the game should and should not change. The game will evolve without the need for rules governing the necessity for change. Knee jerk reaction to current trends. I am a regular at games of footy and watch as much as I can on tv and I don't know why so many people whinge about the interchange rotation numbers. Seriously, it is barely noticeable at the ground and not noticeable on tv at all. An interchange system of any kind will always be biased if a player is injured and as for rolling mauls, if the umpires correctly paid frees for in the back, holding the ball etc that issue would be heavily negated. Anyway you want governed change and I want an organic change in the game.

If this had always been the policy, there would be no 'behinds', no 'on the full' and no interchange.

The rules of Australian Football have been fluid for over 150 years, in order to maintain the appeal to players and spectators. But apparently we should "LEAVE THE GAME ALONE!!!!" now?!

 

[MrFujiMoto]

If this had always been the policy, there would be no 'behinds', no 'on the full' and no interchange.

The rules of Australian Football have been fluid for over 150 years, in order to maintain the appeal to players and spectators. But apparently we should "LEAVE THE GAME ALONE!!!!" now?!

Lets agree to disagree, this is change for TV sake at the moment for mine. The game has changed over a period of 150 years and evolved to the game we have today.

The last 5 years have seen a larger amount of changes than any other time I can remember and there is a reason for that being the case that has never existed before... TV rights dictating or being the main driver of changes to fundamental aspects of our game. Not the game changing for the best of the game.

GWS
GC
Rushed Behinds (This one was also better for the game)
Sub rule reinstigated
Interchange cap / extra sub rule coming in
Interpretation changes of rules or slight changes to rules to suit who??


Anyway

 

[SJ]

Lets agree to disagree, this is change for TV sake at the moment for mine. The game has changed over a period of 150 years and evolved to the game we have today.

The last 5 years have seen a larger amount of changes than any other time I can remember and there is a reason for that being the case that has never existed before... TV rights dictating or being the main driver of changes to fundamental aspects of our game. Not the game changing for the best of the game.

GWS
GC
Rushed Behinds (This one was also better for the game)
Sub rule reinstigated
Interchange cap / extra sub rule coming in
Interpretation changes of rules or slight changes to rules to suit who??


Anyway

Late 1980s-late 1990s:
- Introduction of Brisbane Bears, West Coast, Adelaide, Fremantle, Port Adelaide
- Merger of Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy
- 15 metre penalty becomes 50 metre penalty
- Almost all suburban grounds removed
- Interchange expanded from two to three to four
- Introduction of 'trial by video' at the tribunal

Far more dynamic changes two decades ago than we see now.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Late 1980s-late 1990s:
- Introduction of Brisbane Bears, West Coast, Adelaide, Fremantle, Port Adelaide
- Merger of Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy
- 15 metre penalty becomes 50 metre penalty
- Almost all suburban grounds removed
- Interchange expanded from two to three to four
- Introduction of 'trial by video' at the tribunal

Far more dynamic changes two decades ago than we see now.

I don't disagree but they were for differing reasons and for the most part for the game of footy, not an outside entity (for the most part, probably Brisbane aside) -

Introduction of Brisbane Bears, West Coast, Adelaide, Fremantle, Port Adelaide - Genuine expansion into football areas besides Brisbane, which failed as the bears. Would have thought the AFL would have learnt a lesson.
- Merger of Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy - 2 failing clubs merged to save them and to save face for the AFL.
- 15 metre penalty becomes 50 metre penalty - Was there to stop players who were breaking the rules but not being penalised for it. When players continued to break the rules because the penalty was not enough, they upped it.
- Almost all suburban grounds removed - Capacity to take the game to the level it needed to be as a national competition, not a state based competition. Also to put it a level above tand differentiate it from the VFA.
- Interchange expanded from two to three to four - Got to admit, unsure on the reasoning behind this.
- Introduction of 'trial by video' at the tribunal - Technological advancements being used to catch the behind play snipering that was a genuine issue at the time.

This was all at a time when the VFL was transforming into the AFL. There were always going to be a mass lot of changes that had to be made and they were fairly fundamental I agree, but they were to progress the game due to a decision to be a national comp. I feel, and it is my opinion, that this lot of changes are being made to sanitise the game into a commercial product rather than a sporting code. The changes at the moment and the differing interpretations of the rules seem to reek of trial and error on the AFL's part. Especially the rules interpretation.

The business of making footy a business is taking over at the moment and that is having an effect on the game we see, the ladder and the viability of some clubs. I am worried we will be watching foxseven rules footy soon and I don't think it will be much like anyone wants footy to be.

You raise some good points but I think we just have a different view on what is going on at the moment.

Cheers

 

[SJ]

I don't disagree but they were for differing reasons and for the most part for the game of footy, not an outside entity (for the most part, probably Brisbane aside) -

Introduction of Brisbane Bears, West Coast, Adelaide, Fremantle, Port Adelaide - Genuine expansion into football areas besides Brisbane, which failed as the bears. Would have thought the AFL would have learnt a lesson.
- Merger of Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy - 2 failing clubs merged to save them and to save face for the AFL.
- 15 metre penalty becomes 50 metre penalty - Was there to stop players who were breaking the rules but not being penalised for it. When players continued to break the rules because the penalty was not enough, they upped it.
- Almost all suburban grounds removed - Capacity to take the game to the level it needed to be as a national competition, not a state based competition. Also to put it a level above tand differentiate it from the VFA.
- Interchange expanded from two to three to four - Got to admit, unsure on the reasoning behind this.
- Introduction of 'trial by video' at the tribunal - Technological advancements being used to catch the behind play snipering that was a genuine issue at the time.

This was all at a time when the VFL was transforming into the AFL. There were always going to be a mass lot of changes that had to be made and they were fairly fundamental I agree, but they were to progress the game due to a decision to be a national comp. I feel, and it is my opinion, that this lot of changes are being made to sanitise the game into a commercial product rather than a sporting code. The changes at the moment and the differing interpretations of the rules seem to reek of trial and error on the AFL's part. Especially the rules interpretation.

The business of making footy a business is taking over at the moment and that is having an effect on the game we see, the ladder and the viability of some clubs. I am worried we will be watching foxseven rules footy soon and I don't think it will be much like anyone wants footy to be.

You raise some good points but I think we just have a different view on what is going on at the moment.

Cheers

Out of interest, how old are you?

You can look back in newspapers 150 years to find discussions about the pros and cons of changing the rules. This is not a new thing!

The only way to keep what you have today, is to change things.

Look at the once great game of rugby union. It is now an eyesore for most.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Out of interest, how old are you?

You can look back in newspapers 150 years to find discussions about the pros and cons of changing the rules. This is not a new thing!

The only way to keep what you have today, is to change things.

Look at the once great game of rugby union. It is now an eyesore for most.

Mid 30's and agree with change but for the right reasons. I question the direction of the game when the administration has sold out a large part of that direction to an outside party. Sold it out lucratively but at what cost.