Dropping team numbers will ruin the fabric of the game. I would find it very hard to follow if done. Our game is built on tough contested football with great skills. Even if it is a low scoring game so long as it has these components it is really absorbing to watch. If you take a total of 4 players out of the game it becomes a game of keepings off, not combative and with very few contests. Scoring may increase but i would be bored shi$less watching it. Less big marks will be taken as packs wont form as often, for players to fly for the ball. Big no no from me for reduction to 16 players a side.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
It's official, Hocking and the AFL are dumb-arsed, half-baked clowns who are trying to stuff the game
- Thread starter jb03
- Start date
Footy games in each era had shizen games and good games.
The game has evolved. Who are they trying to manufacture a style to appease? Most likely the vast block of disenfranchised fans from traditional Victorian clubs who haven't won flags or made finals for decades.
Had us long suffering Richmond supporters cried out for rule changes in our 37 year preparations for our present-day party they would have told us to Ghan.
the only rule changes interstate sides want is interstate GF's.
The game has evolved. Who are they trying to manufacture a style to appease? Most likely the vast block of disenfranchised fans from traditional Victorian clubs who haven't won flags or made finals for decades.
Had us long suffering Richmond supporters cried out for rule changes in our 37 year preparations for our present-day party they would have told us to Ghan.
the only rule changes interstate sides want is interstate GF's.
As we have seen over the last few years, it depends. It depends on what the umpire dreams up at the time and no-one, not even Allah, can predict what they will decide in any given situation.
DS
The old VFA had 16-a-side, and that was very combative and contested
Last edited:
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this in regard to the trial rules yet, but I can see there might be more opportunities for ad breaks at kick-ins and when the ball goes out of bounds. Our game could then emulate the NFL for the length of time slots the channels allocate to each game.
Better still, they could then allow each captain a call of a maximum two time-outs per quarter.
Better still, they could then allow each captain a call of a maximum two time-outs per quarter.
The powers that be keep saying they want the game to flow and they want quick footy.
But just about every rule change they throw up (literally) is a rule restricting player movement.
They really are as stupid as they look.
DS
But just about every rule change they throw up (literally) is a rule restricting player movement.
They really are as stupid as they look.
DS
The eras that the ‘change the rules’ brigade keep hearkening back to evolved over many years and there weren’t many rule changes over those years. Certainly not like now when it seems there’s a raft of them every season, and all they ever seem to do is make the game harder to adjudicate and more confusing to watch.
I may be biased due to us winning 3 cups in 4 years, but really, what is "wrong with the game"? Serious question.
So many commentators have praised Richmond's game style and talk about how good to watch we are.
I understand that few teams play like us (a couple have or are trying), but really, what is wrong with the game?
Is the game too slow? (Not from my perspective)
Are there more stoppages than ever?
Is scoring worse than ever or trending down?
Are higher scores the goal?
What are they trying to achieve?
The game has changed, but I think this is a more than fair question.
We can go a long way back too.
In the 1930s they had a last touch out of bounds rule for a while and there were complaints that the scoring was too high.
For a few decades the throw was allowed in the VFA, along with their 16 a side.
Watch the 1972 Grand Final (yeah, it does hurt) but 50 goals in a game does become a bit ridiculous.
I was watching the 2020 Grand Final the other day and was wondering what the fuss is about, the game flowed. Probably more stoppages than years ago, although it is hard to tell as the stoppages many years ago were dealt with very quickly so you barely notice it.
I have one question for all the idiots who keep insisting on changing the rules: what do you want the game to look like? There seems to be no answer to this - and without an answer as to what they hope to achieve, they end up flailing around making lots of changes which lead nowhere.
DS
I'm not one for rule changes, but Sheedy's 12 proposed changes make a hell of a lot more sense than that garbage Hocking keeps spewing up year after year...
Rampant high scoring games like in the seventies, eighties or nineties where absolute floggings of crap teams was de rigueur. Without the elbows or smacks to the head of the good old days of course.
Pretty sure Sydaknee scored over 200 points a game for three games in a row way back when they were still known as Souf Smelbourne / Sydaknee to fans n played as the Broadcast game every Sunday.
There was stuff all in the way of defensive tactics n when a side brought the can opener out during games things got ugly and boring in a big hurry. At least with a defensive game crap sides can often still be within three or four goals for most of a game n a lucky bounce or streaky kick will keep the game on an edge right till the end.
Rule changes are a necessary evil.
The over reliance on defensive game plans has stifled the game. Remember our game against the Swans this year - an appalling spectacle. And how many of us complained about the Swans tactics that day?
Teams that have little chance of winning clog up the game and turn it into a mobile wrestling rugby type of football.
The sad part of these new rules is I have doubts as to how they will alleviate this game clogging tactic.
The only way IMO is to bring back the requirement of true stamina. A stamina to last the distance of a traditional 25 minute plus time on quarter. The player fatigue in the last 7 to 10 minutes of each quarter would open up the game as the scraggers and field clogging tactics would come unstuck as defensive players dropped off their opponents.
But to bring back the longer traditional quarters of 25 minutes plus time on would require two events to happen -
1. Those TV Stations that televise our game would have to allocate 150 minutes per game in their Scheduling - highly unlikely (add another 30 minutes for advertisements and you got 3 hours taken out of their schedule)
2. The AFL HQ executives would have to admit they were wrong when they reduced the quarters from 25 minutes to 20 minutes (plus time on)
Which means it will never happen.....
The over reliance on defensive game plans has stifled the game. Remember our game against the Swans this year - an appalling spectacle. And how many of us complained about the Swans tactics that day?
Teams that have little chance of winning clog up the game and turn it into a mobile wrestling rugby type of football.
The sad part of these new rules is I have doubts as to how they will alleviate this game clogging tactic.
The only way IMO is to bring back the requirement of true stamina. A stamina to last the distance of a traditional 25 minute plus time on quarter. The player fatigue in the last 7 to 10 minutes of each quarter would open up the game as the scraggers and field clogging tactics would come unstuck as defensive players dropped off their opponents.
But to bring back the longer traditional quarters of 25 minutes plus time on would require two events to happen -
1. Those TV Stations that televise our game would have to allocate 150 minutes per game in their Scheduling - highly unlikely (add another 30 minutes for advertisements and you got 3 hours taken out of their schedule)
2. The AFL HQ executives would have to admit they were wrong when they reduced the quarters from 25 minutes to 20 minutes (plus time on)
Which means it will never happen.....
Not a complete idiot all the time the old Sheeds.I'm not one for rule changes, but Sheedy's 12 proposed changes make a hell of a lot more sense than that garbage Hocking keeps spewing up year after year...
Probably don't need that many rule changes all at once, reckon the maggots, players and coaches would all be confused. Fans would just keep yelling BAAAAALLLLLLLL as we're the only ones who really know what's going on.
Maybe SHocking should go sit in the corners with the old dunce's cap on until he clears out the brain farts.
The AFL game of today is obviously not the game you played - and not the game most people will have played.
Its not even the same game as was played in the AFL - be it 5 or 10 or 20 years ago.
Now that ain’t a problem for those preferring to watch a close congested defensive and low scoring style of footy.
Winning a few flags and lots of games can gloss over the “look” of the footy being played.
Like many I‘ve been going to games for decades and won’t stop now - but the reality for me is that the actual game itself is not the spectacle it was.
Happy to take flags over style any day but wouldn’t mind both.
<
Leppitsch
|
Smaller list sizes
>
