HOW DANGEROUS??

[graystar1]

For once I am in agreement with Robbo. See today's HS and weep.

How dangerous to our game are these knobs at AFL House.

You know who, and his accolytes are "flirting" with the following.

Starting positions at all stoppages
Last touch out of bounds rule
Extended 18m goal square
Reduced tackling.
Cricket style challenge system for goal reviews.

See Games in Good Nick article by Michael Warner in today's HS.

Surely these proposed or flirted ideas are dangerous, especially the reduced tackling bit, whatever that means.

Every year SH wants to change the rules and the fabric of what was and is a great spectacle for all fans to enjoy.

Is he doing this to justify his position and to retain that job? I wonder.

 

[Tony Braxton-Hicks]

Sounds awful. Can you cut and past it please, Grey?

 

[Tigers of Old]

With Steve Hocking & Brad Scott looking after things..
What could go wrong?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Also appears that the push is on now for a night grand final.
The AFL using this virus as a mask to implement the changes that they want going forward is infuriating.

 

[mrposhman]

Sounds awful, last touch out of bounds reducing ruck contests (one of the most specific and iconic things about the game and a massive differentiator to all other sports), reduced tackling (yuck, who really wants just a game of kick to kick, don't they realise that AFLX was regarded as a gimmick and a joke by most AFL fans), starting positions (no thanks), review system (nope, surely they could just get the review system to work properly rather than this crap).

Steve Hocking sounds like someone who comes up with ridiculous ideas, chucks them at the dartboard and hopes something sticks.

 

[Tigerfan]

Also appears that the push is on now for a night grand final.
The AFL using this virus as a mask to implement the changes that they want going forward is infuriating.

Fireworks
They want a firework display
It’s the only reason for a night GF.

any other reasons??

FFS they already have fireworks after the players come on stage after the band

 

[TV Josh]

Sack Hocking. Top Drawer Flog with no common sense or purpose other than to spend all day coming up with dogs*** "ideas" to keep himself in a job.

 

[Tenacious]

Fireworks
They want a firework display
It’s the only reason for a night GF.

any other reasons??

FFS they already have fireworks after the players come on stage after the band

One genuine argument for a night GF in 2020 ONLY is that a normal Sat arvo Granny would clash with the Cox Plate on Oct 24 or Vic Derby on Oct 31

Leaving aside the “thin edge of the wedge” argument - it’s a fair question to ask whether in 2020 the GF should be run at the same time as the races - or in the evening following the races?

What do you reckon?

 

[graystar1]

Sounds awful. Can you cut and past it please, Grey?

Not sure I can do this Tony. Think it would breach copyright laws of the HS.

 

[graystar1]

Here is the article Tony. Hope this does not contavene copyright laws. If so

Not sure I can do this Tony. Think it would breach copyright laws of the HS.

Think this is it Tony. Please administrator, if in breach please delete.

 

[DavidSSS]

The game is the oldest codified football in the world. They need to leave it alone.

The current situation is unprecedented, and it precisely not the time to meddle with the game.

How did these people ever get to be in control, and how do we stop them?

DS

 

[Tony Braxton-Hicks]

Thanks @graystar1. We seem to be able to copy articles from many websites but a @Mr T. ruling on paywalled sites wouldn't go astray.

A few things to unpack:

• how long has it been since cocky was an egg?
• how long has it been since Tony Shaw made a reasonable argument?
• the deeds required to achieve the status of 'legend' have diminished since the days of Excalibur
• when has a game ever gone for 130 minutes?

On a practical level, how much can be saved by reducing playing lists to 35 or 40 (with the cheapest players being cut), compared with other initiatives:

• centralise membership processing (not each club's marketing and engagement) and other activities that are duplicated across the clubs
• centralise game development rather than having uncoordinated academies run by individual clubs
• reduce the moron footprint at AFL House: if playing lists need to be cut, why not the headcount of AFL managers too?
• if they reduce the salary cap of players and football departments, who put on the show, the salaries of the AFL's managers should be cut at least proportionately
• reduce the AFL's own media operations
• trim/cut other non-core programs
• contract out the expertise of Steve Hocking and Brad Scott to the NRL.

 

[TT33]

The game is the oldest codified football in the world. They need to leave it alone.

The current situation is unprecedented, and it precisely not the time to meddle with the game.

How did these people ever get to be in control, and how do we stop them?

DS

Unfortunately assassination is not allowed, however it's really the best solution

 

[AngryAnt]

I've been thinking a lot about this and the attitude that AFL house is full of people standing around a cauldron trying to come up with ways to destroy the game.

I've spent a couple of days building a bomb shelter before sharing any thoughts but after watching lots of old games on Fox Footy over the past few weeks I am struggling to find many misses on rule adjustments.

When I look at the differences over the past 20 years:

Distance fo a mark from 10m to 15m. Definite tick in reducing congestion.

Centre square increased from 45 to 50m. Makes sense with the increased speed of athletes, no real impact on game.

Second circle at centre bounce. Huge tick in PCL injury reduction.

Kick from straight in front when mark in goal square. Nice simple rule, makes sense.

Interchange violation free and 50m penalty. Certainly better than the ridiculous lose all scores.

Recall bad bounces. Obvious one, Tick

Stricter deliberate out of bounds. Keeps the game going Tick

Throw ball up around the ground. Saves recalling bounces, speeds things up, Tick

Rules to protect the head. Obvious one, Tick

Contact below the knees. Important rule for safety, often misunderstood. Tick.

No third man up in ruck. Maintains integrity of ruck as a position, tick.

Rotations cap. Makes sense from a sports science point of view. Tick

Can play on from kick-in. Touching it on the boot was a bit ridiculous. Tick

Man on mark further back on kick-ins and goal arc. Goal arc part makes sense, kick-in doesn't seem to have much impact. Too early to say.

Runners/Trainers reduced time on ground. Tick

Sub rule. Personally, I liked it and thought it made sense but dropped so a fail.

6-6-6. Doesn't really have an impact. Too early to tell but a fail at this stage.

So throughout the history of the game and certainly the past 20 years, I would argue that the vast majority of rule changes have been good for the game, or at the very least caused no harm. It doesn't really align for me with the attitude that the AFL are hell bent on destroying the game.

And with that, I'm heading for my bunker.

hehe, good luck Richo. Agree with many, here's where I don't.




Kick from straight in front when mark in goal square. Nice simple rule, makes sense.

I liked the angle, but ok

Recall bad bounces. Obvious one, Tick

Luck of the game, I've always liked random element of the lucky/unlucky bouncing ball

Stricter deliberate out of bounds. Keeps the game going Tick

No. Requires telepathic umpires who can read the minds/intentions of players. Inconsistently adjudicated, not surprisingly. Absolute rules (like OOTF) are much better.

Contact below the knees. Important rule for safety, often misunderstood. Tick.

How many players are really injured this way? I don't like this as it penalises the player who attacks the ball and puts themselves at risk.

No third man up in ruck. Maintains integrity of ruck as a position, tick.

Third man up in the ruck is great. What problem was this solving? Now we have the ridiculous spectacle of rucks nominating and one ruck up when a team fails to nominate. Just let people compete for the ball ffs.

On rule changes generally - a change often doesn't have the desired result, and even if it does has other unintended effects. It's the constant readjustment of rules that makes things sucky, and its the attitude of tinkering constantly that I dislike.

Hope you are well-stocked in the bunker Richo

 

[Baloo]

6-6-6 and the kick in from a point changes were specifically sold as changes that result in more scoring. The changes actually had the opposite effect. That's whats infuriating. The AFL themselves have no idea what the impact of these changes are before putting them in.

 

[Mr T.]

Thanks @graystar1. We seem to be able to copy articles from many websites but a @Mr T. ruling on paywalled sites wouldn't go astray.

A few things to unpack:

• how long has it been since cocky was an egg?
• how long has it been since Tony Shaw made a reasonable argument?
• the deeds required to achieve the status of 'legend' have diminished since the days of Excalibur
• when has a game ever gone for 130 minutes?

On a practical level, how much can be saved by reducing playing lists to 35 or 40 (with the cheapest players being cut), compared with other initiatives:

• centralise membership processing (not each club's marketing and engagement) and other activities that are duplicated across the clubs
• centralise game development rather than having uncoordinated academies run by individual clubs
• reduce the moron footprint at AFL House: if playing lists need to be cut, why not the headcount of AFL managers too?
• if they reduce the salary cap of players and football departments, who put on the show, the salaries of the AFL's managers should be cut at least proportionately
• reduce the AFL's own media operations
• trim/cut other non-core programs
• contract out the expertise of Steve Hocking and Brad Scott to the NRL.

I would only have a link to their site, not copy it into here to be safe... if you can delete please do so or let me know if you can't.

 

[Ossie]

I've been thinking a lot about this and the attitude that AFL house is full of people standing around a cauldron trying to come up with ways to destroy the game.

I've spent a couple of days building a bomb shelter before sharing any thoughts but after watching lots of old games on Fox Footy over the past few weeks I am struggling to find many misses on rule adjustments.

When I look at the differences over the past 20 years:

Distance fo a mark from 10m to 15m. Definite tick in reducing congestion.

Centre square increased from 45 to 50m. Makes sense with the increased speed of athletes, no real impact on game.

Second circle at centre bounce. Huge tick in PCL injury reduction.

Kick from straight in front when mark in goal square. Nice simple rule, makes sense.

Interchange violation free and 50m penalty. Certainly better than the ridiculous lose all scores.

Recall bad bounces. Obvious one, Tick

Stricter deliberate out of bounds. Keeps the game going Tick

Throw ball up around the ground. Saves recalling bounces, speeds things up, Tick

Rules to protect the head. Obvious one, Tick

Contact below the knees. Important rule for safety, often misunderstood. Tick.

No third man up in ruck. Maintains integrity of ruck as a position, tick.

Rotations cap. Makes sense from a sports science point of view. Tick

Can play on from kick-in. Touching it on the boot was a bit ridiculous. Tick

Man on mark further back on kick-ins and goal arc. Goal arc part makes sense, kick-in doesn't seem to have much impact. Too early to say.

Runners/Trainers reduced time on ground. Tick

Sub rule. Personally, I liked it and thought it made sense but dropped so a fail.

6-6-6. Doesn't really have an impact. Too early to tell but a fail at this stage.

So throughout the history of the game and certainly the past 20 years, I would argue that the vast majority of rule changes have been good for the game, or at the very least caused no harm. It doesn't really align for me with the attitude that the AFL are hell bent on destroying the game.

And with that, I'm heading for my bunker.

TBR, can you explain why teams need to nominate a ruck at around the ground bounces? If a team has two players compete, pay a free.

Also, why do players need to get a certain ball out of the bag behind the goals?

 

[Baloo]

TBR, can you explain why teams need to nominate a ruck at around the ground bounces? If a team has two players compete, pay a free.

If there is no nomination then blocking will occur. By nominating, the opposition can't block the person contesting the ruck.

 

[Ian4]

Also appears that the push is on now for a night grand final.
The AFL using this virus as a mask to implement the changes that they want going forward is infuriating.

I'd prefer a Twilight GF, but essentially I don't see a problem with it. Its inevitable. Gil just doesn’t have the ticker to make the call just yet, despite preparing us for the change for many years.

 

[graystar1]

I would only have a link to their site, not copy it into here to be safe... if you can delete please do so or let me know if you can't.

Would be good if you could delete for me please Mr T. Not sure I van do that.