Proposed changes to the game poll

[Rosy]

I'm interested to know how people think about the proposed rule changes that are being considered. Link

I'm voting no to both. The AFL have sped the game up by changing the rules and now they want to slow it down by making new rules.

If the speed of the game reduced by 7% with capped interchanges I wonder how much it would change if players still had to wait for umpires to wave the flags after a behind.

I'm not in favour of shortening the quarters either. It already takes far longer for us to get to a game and home again than what the game actually goes for. Would hardly be worth the effort if it was reduced.

 

[Brodders17]

I think there is a difference between slowing down the game by reducing interchanges and slowing down the game by waiting for the flags at kick outs. The claim is the players are running faster and longer because they are getting frequent rests off the ground. In theory allowing players to kick in straight away actually slows players down because they dont get a chance to rest. I think the theory goes the more the ball is in actual play the slower the game because players get less time to rest. Make sense?

Having said that I'm not in favour of shortening quarters. capping interchanges I'm unsure of.

 

[Rosy]

I'm not sure about capped interchange either but I'd hate to get to the closing stages of a very close game and not having any interchange options available if players got injured.

On a slightly related note that might be of interest to some in regard to the rules changing as the game evolves, I have a "Laws of the Australian National Game of Football" book issued by the VFL in 1955.

There was no interchange then. It says

The 19th and 20th man shall be reserves, available for use at the discretion of the captain as substitute players at any time during the match, but no player shall return to the field after having once been replaced.

 

[Barnzy]

I'd rather they just stop having knee-jerk reactions to everything and stop tinkering with the rules.

 

[Scribblar]

In reality, if we 'cap interchanges' we will still create a problem with players who get a lot of the ball.
On match day surely you would give more interchange breaks to your major ball getters.
The likes of Ablett, Judd, Swan etc, would certainly come off a lot more in comparison to players like Lake, Prestigicomo, and Scarlett. Which still means the speed at which the major ball getters hit packs and the way play moves will still be at a high rate. And major ball getters and those involved in play and traffic will still be prone to workload stress injuries.

A possible solution would be to limit ALL PLAYERS in ALL GAMES to a SMALL PREDETERMINED AMOUNT of INTERCHANGES.
Some might say that is too limiting on any individual player. But in the old days once you came off, that was it, you stayed off.
Interchange was an injury substitution then, not a 'catch your breath and re-energize' break.
If we are to slow the game overall we need to slow ALL players, otherwise if a 'team cap' was introduced some 'star' players would get a lot more breaks than other players during a game, and we would truly create an unbalanced game.

And we don't need to shorten the game or quarters...the game is short enough with enough breaks.
Other sports have 1 major break. We already have 3.

Every player should only be allowed to come off X amount of times a game. Nothing more.
We need a 'Player Cap' on Interchanges not a 'Team Cap'.

 

[TOT70]

Instead of introducing new rules, they should just police correctly the ones they already have.

Why are taggers allowed to "hold" opponents at stoppages? I thought you were only allowed to tackle a player who has the ball in his possession.

Why are players allowed to block for other players when they are leading? I thought you were only allowed to shepherd when the ball was within 5 metres.

Why are players who are tackled to the ground allowed to put the ball on the ground and let it roll betwen their legs and out of the pack? I thought you had to dispose of the ball legally by either hand or foot.

Why can you not put "hands in the back" in a marking contest but forearms are OK and pushing in the back when the ball in on the ground, even with your hands, is OK? I thought a push in the pack was a push in the back.

Why can you hand-pass the ball with a slick action that looks suspiciously like a throw when you are under pressure? I thought one hand had to be stationary in order that a hand-pass be legal?

Why can a player who has taken a mark switch play to the other side of the ground by kicking sideways? I thought if you took a mark, you had to either kick over your mark or step off the line and play on. Turning sideways and kicking from a standing start is not allowed under the rules.

Yes, I know, I am naive.

 

[tommystigers]

I'm not sure about capped interchange either but I'd hate to get to the closing stages of a very close game and not having any interchange options available if players got injured.

On a slightly related note that might be of interest to some in regard to the rules changing as the game evolves, I have a "Laws of the Australian National Game of Football" book issued by the VFL in 1955.

There was no interchange then. It says

The 19th and 20th man shall be reserves, available for use at the discretion of the captain as substitute players at any time during the match, but no player shall return to the field after having once been replaced.

Get rid of the interchange system and back to reserves. Instead of the 2 reserves have 4 as at present. It will do away with flooding and zoning to a lesser degree. It will definitely slow the game down.

 

[GoodOne]

Not sure how shortening quarters woud help, it would just make the situation even worse as players push even harder for short bursts. I support capping interchanges. Yes there may be a situation where an injured player comes off and there are no replacements, then so be it. As a club its your responsibility to manage the interchanges and ensure there are enough at the end of a game or quarter to cover this scenario.

 

[mb64]

the no of interchanges per game is ridiculous,something needs to be done.

 

[btoz_01]

Im against changing the quarters .
I think that the amount of interchages should be limited as it appears the games becoming too fast and resulting in injuries.

 

[mb64]

Im against changing the quarters .
I think that the amount of interchages should be limited as it appears the games becoming too fast and resulting in injuries.

Spot on

 

[Hungry]

The current interchange allowances ruin the game from a spectator's point of view for reasons I won't go into right now.

But most importantly, they take away all of the drama and romanticism of substituting players. Think about it.

A good game is a game with some drama, some intrigue. It's part of the reason soccer is the world game - you have the drama of only three substitutes per match, which makes substituting a big deal, a major tactical move (you also have the drama of the carding system, but that's a radical departure from Aussie rules).

In the good ole days, when a lot of us fell in love with footy, we had substitutions too - only two of them. These substitutions could swing a match. In soccer, they still do.

It's spectator friendly and footy-drama gold.

Somewhere along the line we let the coaches have it their way and the game is poorer for it.

 

[Danog]

A cap of 80 interchanges seems fair.

 

[Tiger29]

The easiest way to shorten the quarters is to stop stopping the clock every time the ball stops.

Quarters used to be 25 minutes plus time on with the clock stopping after a goal or behind was scored, or the game was being held up due to circumstances which stopped the game longer than deemed reasonable. Such as injuries, the ball being some distance from a player receiving a free kick or the umpire lining a player up for a shot at goal. They then decided to change it to 20 minutes plus time on with the clock stopping every time the game stopped. The result is that quarters now generally go longer than they used to.

You have to also remember that back then there were only 2 boundary umpires, the players could take as long as they liked after a free kick or mark and they had to wait until the goal umpire waved the flags after a behind. With all this now out of the game plus 4 boundary umpires, if they went back to the old "time on" criteria the game would still be fast enough plus the quarters would be a bit shorter.

 

[sashback]

Yep, interchanges definitely need to be capped. It gives me the sh!ts seeing blokes take themselves off all the time to ....."rotate".
What a load of crap!!
The NRL had no interchange a few years back, just substitutes, but now they have 12 interchanges a game. Works well.
I reckon 12 interchanges a quarter would be great, that's plenty as far as I'm concerned, that's about 1 interchange every 2 minutes.

But I also like scribbler's idea of a player interchange cap.
Let a player come off 4 times a game maximum, and only once each quarter.

And NO WAY should the quarters be shortened. They've already done that, it used to be 25 minute quarters with time on added, now it's 20 minutes with time on added!

AFL administration and the team coaches are slowly but surely ruining this great game of ours.

They are bastardizing the game, American style!

 

[GoodOne]

Was just reading the Sun today, and apparently in 2005 the average number of interchanges per game was 36. This year it is well over 100. That is a massive change in tactics in just a 5 year period. There is no doubt it is causing more soft tissue injuries due to the pace.

 

[Rosy]

There is no doubt it is causing more soft tissue injuries due to the pace.

Interestingly Dan Jackson doesn't think capping interchanges will fix that.

"The game is very, very quick now. But my opinion on capping interchanges is that you're going to have more fatigued players doing more fatigue injuries which is hamstring-related, calf-related, any of the soft-tissue stuff.

 

[In the Blood]

Leave the quarters the way they are but the interchange needs to be fixed.

I prefer something like 4 interchanges per 1/4 and whoever comes off does not come back on for the rest of the 1/4.

 

[gold1]

Instead of introducing new rules, they should just police correctly the ones they already have.

Why are taggers allowed to "hold" opponents at stoppages? I thought you were only allowed to tackle a player who has the ball in his possession.

Why are players allowed to block for other players when they are leading? I thought you were only allowed to shepherd when the ball was within 5 metres.

Why are players who are tackled to the ground allowed to put the ball on the ground and let it roll betwen their legs and out of the pack? I thought you had to dispose of the ball legally by either hand or foot.

Why can you not put "hands in the back" in a marking contest but forearms are OK and pushing in the back when the ball in on the ground, even with your hands, is OK? I thought a push in the pack was a push in the back.

Why can you hand-pass the ball with a slick action that looks suspiciously like a throw when you are under pressure? I thought one hand had to be stationary in order that a hand-pass be legal?

Why can a player who has taken a mark switch play to the other side of the ground by kicking sideways? I thought if you took a mark, you had to either kick over your mark or step off the line and play on. Turning sideways and kicking from a standing start is not allowed under the rules.

Yes, I know, I am naive.

Now we wouldn't want to reintroduce a good brand of footy would we? ;D

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Leave the quarters the way they are but the interchange needs to be fixed.

I prefer something like 4 interchanges per 1/4 and whoever comes off does not come back on for the rest of the 1/4.

Agree with this. Hopefully it would lead to more kicking to contests.