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

[SJ]

Firstly, I do not approve of every move the AFL makes. I actually used to be in their corner exclusively but they have lost me over the past 12-24 months.

But on the interchange cap, there is no reason to not have it. Far superior system to the subs.

For those who are saying it is changing the game - yes, it is changing the game back to where it should had been had the AFL not changed it in the 1990s. That's all it is.

There is nothing worse than losing a couple of players to injury and the other team making 160 rotations to 90 and running out the last ten minutes because of this.

 

[Roylion]

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.

How were the Bears failing?

- Merger of Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy - 2 failing clubs merged to save them and to save face for the AFL.

How was Fitzroy 'saved' as a club by the merger?

 

[MrFujiMoto]

How were the Bears failing?



How was Fitzroy 'saved' as a club by the merger?

I understand the feeling of long time Roys supporters but without the merger the Lions would no longer exist in any form and that is what I was referring to with the Failing teams saved bit.

Bears were starting to be competative onfield but they were still in heavy financial trouble off field. I think they put their hand up to merge with the Roys and I don't assume they would have done that if they were standing strong, off the field. I think it was pretty commong knowledge at the time that they were floundering financially with low memberships and low support both inside and outside Brisbane.

 

[Roylion]

I understand the feeling of long time Roys supporters but without the merger the Lions would no longer exist in any form and that is what I was referring to with the Failing teams saved bit.

As I have said many times, Fitzroy does still exist in its own right. All Brisbane gained from the merger was the right to use Fitzroy's AFL identity. The Brisbane Bears did not go out of existance. All that happened is the re-branded themselves as the Brisbane Lions in the same way the Hawthorn Mayblooms rebranded themselves as the Hawks.

Bears were starting to be competative onfield but they were still in heavy financial trouble off field.

Their merger monies granted to them by the AFL amounted to about $1.8 million. That was a short term gain at most.

I think they put their hand up to merge with the Roys and I don't assume they would have done that if they were standing strong, off the field. I think it was pretty commong knowledge at the time that they were floundering financially with low memberships and low support both inside and outside Brisbane.

Lots of clubs put their hand up to merge with Fitzroy in 1996. Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond, St Kilda, Adelaide, North Melbourne and Brisbane all made merger offers to Fitzroy in 1996.

In 1996, the Brisbane Bears had 10,267 members and the Fitzroy Lions had 7,628, for a total of 17,895. In 1997, the Brisbane Lions had 16,679. members. Of those 16,679 in 1997, 3,200 were Victorian members.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

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?

No I don't like the flood but the flood was only here for a few years and everyone panicked. It was a typical knee jerk reaction from the AFL and not one supporter before they changed this ever complained about having to wait for the flags to be waived.
Football changes yearly, it evolves naturally without having to change rules. It did so for a 100 years with very few changes to the rules.
In the last 10 years we have had over 50 or more rule changes or interpretation changes.

Do you believe the game has become quicker because of this change? The AFL believe it is to quick now and think by capping interchange it will slow it down. It won't. Going back to waiving the flags will slow it down.
Do you not like contested football? Or are you a fan of the 45 possession player who has 80% of them uncontested?

I like contested football, todays game is basically uncontested. End to end ball movement in our game should be near on impossible but it is a regular occurence now because players do not have time to man up anymore.

 

[SJ]

No I don't like the flood but the flood was only here for a few years and everyone panicked. It was a typical knee jerk reaction from the AFL and not one supporter before they changed this ever complained about having to wait for the flags to be waived.
Football changes yearly, it evolves naturally without having to change rules. It did so for a 100 years with very few changes to the rules.
In the last 10 years we have had over 50 or more rule changes or interpretation changes.

Do you believe the game has become quicker because of this change? The AFL believe it is to quick now and think by capping interchange it will slow it down. It won't. Going back to waiving the flags will slow it down.
Do you not like contested football? Or are you a fan of the 45 possession player who has 80% of them uncontested?

I like contested football, todays game is basically uncontested. End to end ball movement in our game should be near on impossible but it is a regular occurence now because players do not have time to man up anymore.

Wrong.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Wrong.

Name 10 rule changes from 1900 to 1980 or even 1990

Only ones I know of

diamond changed to square
How many players allowed in square
Out of bounds on the full
deliberate out of bounds

There will be more but like I said very few, we have more yearly now than we used to have in 3 decades.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Firstly, I do not approve of every move the AFL makes. I actually used to be in their corner exclusively but they have lost me over the past 12-24 months.

But on the interchange cap, there is no reason to not have it. Far superior system to the subs.

For those who are saying it is changing the game - yes, it is changing the game back to where it should had been had the AFL not changed it in the 1990s. That's all it is.

There is nothing worse than losing a couple of players to injury and the other team making 160 rotations to 90 and running out the last ten minutes because of this.

Hey SJ, I am interested in your thoughts on the new sliding rule and the way it is being adjudicated?

Bringing this up as it is exactly what worries me about the AFL changing rules on the fly. No thought, rushed decisions and not a lot of risk analysis by the look of it. Changing the fabric of the game, and for what?????
TV deals? Big obsession with congestion and they are throwing the baby out with the bath water to fix it.

I love footy, but when the player desperate to win the ball is penalised for trying to win the ball, the way players have been applauded for for over 100 years (Thats right AD you egotistical maniac, over 100 years), then it has become a different game to what I have known in my lifetime. Go the Box Hill Hawks and Redlegs for me now I think.

Hopefully common sense prevails and they review it. I doubt, it as the injury concern to players due to sliding is only a minuscule part of why they introduced this rule. It was their scapegoat to allow them to Netballize the game a little more.

Actually if anyone has watched netball lately, it is probably more physical than our once great game has become. shame.

 

[SJ]

I'm undecided on the sliding rule, I understand the purpose but I reckon it'll just create a large grey area.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

hopefully they just alter it to be only for players that slide in feet and knees first. That is the dangerous aspect of the rule.

 

[McCrann]

Hey SJ, I am interested in your thoughts on the new sliding rule and the way it is being adjudicated?

Bringing this up as it is exactly what worries me about the AFL changing rules on the fly. No thought, rushed decisions and not a lot of risk analysis by the look of it. Changing the fabric of the game, and for what?????
TV deals? Big obsession with congestion and they are throwing the baby out with the bath water to fix it.

I love footy, but when the player desperate to win the ball is penalised for trying to win the ball, the way players have been applauded for for over 100 years (Thats right AD you egotistical maniac, over 100 years), then it has become a different game to what I have known in my lifetime. Go the Box Hill Hawks and Redlegs for me now I think.

Hopefully common sense prevails and they review it. I doubt, it as the injury concern to players due to sliding is only a minuscule part of why they introduced this rule. It was their scapegoat to allow them to Netballize the game a little more.

Actually if anyone has watched netball lately, it is probably more physical than our once great game has become. shame.

I'm interested. Did you think Alwyn Davey should have got a free kick when Brent Reilly rolled in and took out his legs?

Davey could very easily ended up with a broken leg there........

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Can't remember the incident off the top of my head, It would depend on how Reilly went in. I think there should always be a free if a player recklessly endangers another player.

If Davey was seagulling and waiting for Reilly to take the ball before laying a tackle, then Reilly should not be penalised unless he was reckless.