Laws of the Game committee proposals

[RollsRoyce]

Yes, but MT the game doesn't "evolve naturally". People have been saying for years that the game will evolve past all the flooding, but it's been stuffed like this ever since the days of Rocket Eade in Sydney, and Terry Wallace's "basketball crap" to counter Essendon in 2000. That's a helluva long time. And if anything, it's getting worse.
Now we have Collingwood sending a full-team "press" down when the opposition kicks in to lock the ball in their forward line, and Merry Mick making 150-160 interchanges per game to ensure everybody's rested up sufficiently to keep doing it.
When will it end? Why should we just leave it alone to work itself out?? It hasn't improved in 10 years. Its' gotten worse. Somebody needs to remind these win-at-all-costs-coaches that they are in the ENTERTAINMENT industry. And the last time I checked, there was nothing in the least bit entertaining about footy constipation.

[mightytiges]

Yes, but MT the game doesn't "evolve naturally". People have been saying for years that the game will evolve past all the flooding, but it's been stuffed like this ever since the days of Rocket Eade in Sydney, and Terry Wallace's "basketball crap" to counter Essendon in 2000. That's a helluva long time. And if anything, it's getting worse.
Now we have Collingwood sending a full-team "press" down when the opposition kicks in to lock the ball in their forward line, and Merry Mick making 150-160 interchanges per game to ensure everybody's rested up sufficiently to keep doing it.
When will it end? Why should we just leave it alone to work itself out?? It hasn't improved in 10 years. Its' gotten worse. Somebody needs to remind these win-at-all-costs-coaches that they are in the ENTERTAINMENT industry. And the last time I checked, there was nothing in the least bit entertaining about footy constipation.

Coaches will work to use and bend to the max. whatever rules exist though RR. Cap the interchange and some new tactic will come into play to exploit the new rule. Sadly for those who grew up with old school footy, the days of positional play and two opponents playing on each other for the whole 4 quarters has joined suburban grounds and the drop kick in the ancient history books. No amount of rule changes will turn back the clock.

The game hasn't evolved 100% naturally over the past decade because that moron Anderson changes the rules every 5 minutes to fix the problems created by previous rules he's introduced . In any case the game has evolved in spite of Anderson's compulsive problems. The flood of Sydney under Eade where everyone was behind the ball bar two players no longer exists. We've gone from the defensive flood (Sydney) to a midfield flood (Hawthorn) to a forward press/flood (Collingwood). That change has got nothing to do with rotations. It's all tactical. Nothing stops other clubs rotating even more than Collingwood does. They just have the personnel to be able to forward press so effectively. It's up to other clubs/coaches to counter it. Who knows Geelong may destroy it in finals or on Grand Final day when the pressure goes up. Seeing Geelong tonight they are back to their best and they don't rely on any fancy pressing. The fact is apart from 2005 and 2008 the premiers over the past decade played on their merits rather than special tactics.

The reason IMO a number of games are dull affairs is because at least 2/3rds of the teams in the AFL are crap and/or too young. The standard across the comp. has fallen and there's a massive chasm between the top sides and the rest. That won't change for a couple of years yet when the mature sides start losing their best players via retirements and the up and comers start hitting their peak.

[RollsRoyce]

But this is my point MT. When left to its' own devices, the only "evolution" that the game has undergone is from a defensive flood, to a midfield flood, to a forward line flood. Wowee. It's all still flooding.
If an interchange cap wont work, then FFS, let's try something more radical, and like Leigh Matthews suggests, enforce having an 8 player per team in one end of the ground rule. All you need is a linesman on each boundary line.
Sheesh, if we can borrow all the crappy things from soccer that make it so dull, surely we can borrow an off-side type rule to make footy exciting again.
I'm dead-set so disillusioned with the modern game that I feel like giving it away many times. It's only my ongoing emotional investment in the Tigers that keeps me coming back 

[mightytiges]

But this is my point MT. When left to its' own devices, the only "evolution" that the game has undergone is from a defensive flood, to a midfield flood, to a forward line flood. Wowee. It's all still flooding.
If an interchange cap wont work, then FFS, let's try something more radical, and like Leigh Matthews suggests, enforce having an 8 player per team in one end of the ground rule. All you need is a linesman on each boundary line.
Sheesh, if we can borrow all the crappy things from soccer that make it so dull, surely we can borrow an off-side type rule to make footy exciting again.
I'm dead-set so disillusioned with the modern game that I feel like giving it away many times. It's only my ongoing emotional investment in the Tigers that keeps me coming back 

Ah I typed up a semi-lengthy reply and it crashed 

True RR it's all flooding although the forward press is better than the old defensive flood as at least you see 1-on-1 contests up forward if you can break through the press. There's probably a 4th type of flood now which is flood the stoppages. Akin to little league where you have 30 guys around the ball and if you can get the ball out of there you can score fairly easily as there's a massive amount of space outside the stoppage flood and your forwards are 1-on-1 with their direct opponent. In any case all these negating tactics still occurred even though we've supposedly had all these rule changes of the past 5 years designed to open the game up. Why should further rule changes make any difference when Anderson's previous rule changes have failed their intended purpose?! Coaches have exploited the rules no matter what Anderson and the AFL have come up with.

This is just my opinion but if offside rules and netball zones came in then we might as well all pack it in. The one thing I've treasured most about Aussies Rules is the free-form nature of it. You can run anywhere. Everywhere is legal. It represents Aussie culture which is fairly carefree. I know flooding goes against that and I don't like it either but I'd rather see a Geelong with it's quick moving free game overcome these negating tactics such as St Kilda's than dramatically and fundamentally alter Football. Hang in there RR. Footy will be a hell of a lot better to watch when the Tiges are finally successful on the park  .

[RollsRoyce]

Most of Adrian Anderson's rule tinkering has been done to speed up the game, with instant kick-ins etc, but I don't think they've done anything to free up the game as yet.
The proposal to pay a goal for hitting the post is stupid, and a complete waste of time. The possible cap on rotations is a step in the right direction, but in itself I reckon will be nowhere near enough to "de-congest" the game. A reduction of the number of players on the bench would be more effective. But I still wish the media would keep driving Leigh Matthews proposal until it gains public momentum, rather than being a one-off article that will be tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper.
Just one last point on our recent Melbourne game. What frustrated me so much about that match was, we spent the first 10 minutes of the match with the ball in our forward line, but couldn't buy a goal with the massive press they had on. Jack had three on him at all times, every bit of space was clogged up, and the pill was just bouncing around like a pinball. Then inevitably we lost posession,its' swept upfield in the blink of an eye, and bang,they get a goal from their first entry because the other end of the field's as open as a prairie. This more or less happened all day. Then to rub salt into the wound, Bailey and the media carp on endlessly about what a great job Frawley had done on Jack, as if he'd played a lone hand.
This to me is modern footy in a nutshell, and guess what. IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!       

[one-eyed]

Fans' call: three plus sub is way to go
By Adam McNicol
Mon 16 August, 2010

ALMOST 12,000 people have so far responded to the AFL rules survey, with many supporting the introduction of a substitute as a way to reduce the number of rotations in games.

At present, 51.7 percent of respondents believe the league should reduce the number of interchange players to three and complement them with one substitute.

The option to cap the number of interchanges to 80 per game has also proved popular, with almost 39 percent of voters favouring that idea.

But less than 10 percent of votes have supported a system involving two interchange players and two substitutes.

Footy fans have until Wednesday to complete the survey.

“A lot of the comments provided by people demonstrate that they’ve thought about it carefully and have been genuine with their feedback, and we’re very grateful for that,” AFL operations manager Adrian Anderson said on Monday.

“When it comes to the interchange situation, there are some mixed responses.

“We will continue explaining why we think it is an important issue for the laws committee to look at, and fairness is a key aspect of that.

“Melbourne was no doubt disadvantaged by having Aaron Davey out of the game early and not being able to rotate as much as Hawthorn.

“You always get examples when a team can still win with injuries, but our research shows the increasing rotations are making it harder to win when you go a player down than it was in the past.”

There have been clear-cut responses to a number of other potential rule changes put up for discussion, while the idea to change the scoring system has also garnered little support.

Almost 80 percent of respondents believe a ball that hits the goal post should always be registered as a behind.

Around 75 percent believe a ball that hits the behind post should always be treated as having gone out of bounds on the full.

“We’ll certainly factor that into our analysis,” Anderson added.

“One in five voters actually supported a change, but you’d have to say the clear majority want the scoring system to stay the way it is, even if that produces more errors.”

Almost 73 percent of voters are in favour of the player, not the umpire, deciding when to implement the advantage rule after a free kick.

Nearly 60 percent of respondents favour a free kick being paid against a player who drags the ball under an opponent.

And around 60 percent support the boundary umpires awarding free kicks for holding and high contact at stoppages.

“What we usually see in surveys of this nature is that there’s a big tendency to vote for not changing anything,” Anderson said.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/100483/default.aspx

[mightytiges]

Just one last point on our recent Melbourne game. What frustrated me so much about that match was, we spent the first 10 minutes of the match with the ball in our forward line, but couldn't buy a goal with the massive press they had on. Jack had three on him at all times, every bit of space was clogged up, and the pill was just bouncing around like a pinball. Then inevitably we lost posession,its' swept upfield in the blink of an eye, and bang,they get a goal from their first entry because the other end of the field's as open as a prairie. This more or less happened all day. Then to rub salt into the wound, Bailey and the media carp on endlessly about what a great job Frawley had done on Jack, as if he'd played a lone hand.
This to me is modern footy in a nutshell, and guess what. IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!       

Sorry RR missed this post. As frustrating as it was and as often we copped the sucker punch on the rebound, we can only blame ourselves for being too Jack-centric that day and not being smarter and more patient moving the ball around waiting and lowering our eyes for a leading marking option even 40-45m out. In fairness Dimma has kept our attacking forays very basic this year (old school long balls inside 50 to the forward(s)) as he's been mainly concentrating on the defensive side of our gameplan. Gary March a week or so ago mentioned that Dimma has two phases to the gameplan he is teaching. We've only had phase one so far which reading between the lines is that defensive side. Phase two will be introduced over summer. We're probably already learning this second phase in the last few weeks going by what Morton said on the radio where he said we're trying new things recently which takes time to learn.

[the_boy_jake]

Simple change should be to get rid of % and go to points differential to split teams on the same points.

A game with a 90-40 score line is worse than 150-100 because at least in the latter one both sides had a red hot go. This year Saints have scored 600 odd less points than the Cats, but the % doesn't reflect that.

[mightytiges]

Simple change should be to get rid of % and go to points differential to split teams on the same points.

A game with a 90-40 score line is worse than 150-100 because at least in the latter one both sides had a red hot go. This year Saints have scored 600 odd less points than the Cats, but the % doesn't reflect that.

The reason points differential isn't used is it favours teams who plays regularly on the dry grounds compared to the wet.

The SANFL to be different to Victoria does for/(for + against) as their %.