RemoteTiger said:
And with 20 gameday players instead of 22, that would probably require a list of 40 instead of 44. That makes it 72 less players (almost enough to compensate for the addition of both new teams). I like it.
-
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.
The state of footy
- Thread starter Carter
- Start date
And with 20 gameday players instead of 22, that would probably require a list of 40 instead of 44. That makes it 72 less players (almost enough to compensate for the addition of both new teams). I like it.
Off topic, I know, but I reckon that the pre season competition could be played by teams of 16 or even 15 a side. It would be a really open spectacle, much like Rugby 7s. Modify the game to 15 a side, 2 reserves, maybe restrict two players to their team's forward 50, they could wear reverse jumpers for easy identification from the rest of the team, have super goals, 10 minute quarters, a Round robin format, all backwards kicks are automatic play-on.
It would be even more fun than 20-20 cricket.
It would be even more fun than 20-20 cricket.
Been saying the same for years. Time to stop all the insignificant *smile* tampering, fiddling n adjusting. Get in and have a total review of the entire game structure.RemoteTiger said:
Obviously with the hard n fast ground in use nowadays, blistering gut sprinting by players, extra maggots crawling all over the ground, extra interchange players and structured systems n controls employed by coaches. The game needs an obvious overhaul to reflect the influence of changes over the last twenty years.
The old VFA had the right idea for the wrong reasons at a time that wasn't suitable for the game.
Sixteen a side with four less bodies cluttering up the ground at stoppages and a full six interchange players without restrictions, would give players time and space to execute their skills without the rolling maul congestion plus allow for blistering run n gun passages of play, topped off by more open forward lines as it would be too difficult to constantly crowd up the game n roll back.
It would create the perfect opportunity to bring back the attacking high scoring one on one open style of footy from bygone eras. The players are now full time professionals, with far more skills then ever before yet often they can't execute because they're buried within a traffic jam or maul.
Reckon we'd get back the hundred goal forwards, the high mark n one on one marking contests, high speed overlap run without the need to stop halfway n wait for the forwards to get up out of the back line. We'd definitely get a hell of a lot less scrumby n play back keepings off in our game.
The biggest mistake the VFA made was 16 a side. It became non physical just like how a game is played at Subiaco Oval . The state of the game as a contest has deteriorated due to the coaches as they do not man up. Look at Dim Sim last week letting WCE McGovern & Hurn unmanned. Mitchell & Hodge trot around week after week & no one near them. The other aspect on todays game is it has been taken over by the Green lot with their rules eg the arm spoil, gotta look at the ball when marking, the block , the metre apart at around the ground ball ups & boundary throw ins , designated ruckmen , the deliberate kick out of bounds out of a pack , the video review for goals , the protected area etc etc.. They have three umpys out there but I do think three blind mice out there would be able to determine what is a hand ball , what is holding the ball, what is dropping the ball than the present umpys . A rule should not have been for the Sellwood Duck as good umpires would have called play on. It became so prevalent it became an embarrassment.
Tigaman said:
I played VFA back in the '70s and it was physical alright.......take your point about rule interpretations by umpires. But no different interpretation will cease the situation where all 36 players are in the same area of the ground. That is what is killing our game as a spectacle IMO.
I absolutely hate the idea of 16 a side. Might as well chuck out every statistic in the game including flags. Beyond tinkering, that changes the game too much.
That's why I believe the subtraction of two players per side on field will help to ease somewhat the mass congestion of thirty six players in one corner of the ground. Just makes it that bit harder to clog all the gaps and allows all players not just the supremely elite ones that extra half second or half pace to find an option n release the ball. Rather than the scrambled rolling maul that sometimes trickles the ball out into space.RemoteTiger said:
I agree Carts and others who say cap interchanges, but I worry that-
Coaches will obviously find a way around it
Will it ease the congestion?
May suit Dimmas style of kicking to the pockets
Coaches will direct kicks or plays to the boundary
Cause more ball ups to give players a few seconds breather
You may see kicking backwards and sideways. This may force the rules committee to bring a rule change
So as I've pointed when I think about it, will the game be better off aesthetically ?
Coaches will obviously find a way around it
Will it ease the congestion?
May suit Dimmas style of kicking to the pockets
Coaches will direct kicks or plays to the boundary
Cause more ball ups to give players a few seconds breather
You may see kicking backwards and sideways. This may force the rules committee to bring a rule change
So as I've pointed when I think about it, will the game be better off aesthetically ?
i dont know why everyone wants to stop sides kicking backwards and sideways. it can be frustrating when a team does it badly, but it extends the area that the opposition have to defend, effectively 'de-clogging' other parts of the field.
if sides are forced to kick long down the line, every player on the field will be a kick down the line.
if sides are forced to kick long down the line, every player on the field will be a kick down the line.
Brodders17 said:
At least the turf in the cetre would be right to go for cricket pretty much straight away.
Cap interchange (you can only come on once per quarter, so in theory you have 22 interchanges per quarter , but in effect it will be much less because many of the interchanges are on ballers) and tell umpires to ball it up quicker and not wait for everyone to arrive.
To cap interchange is disadvantaging teams when injured players (not including concussion ) need to come off to be assessed to see if they can return. Do think AFL should advise teams that for a player to come off after kicking a goal without being stressed out is just not on.
i'm all for the interchange cap to be dropped to 60, but I don't think the sub rule should be scrapped. I have an alternate idea... how about we have a sub for the first half (it can only be activated if there is an injury), but the sub is automatically activated for the second half (or last quarter) without the loss of a player?
Last time an interchange cap was floated the coaches in cahoots with the media manipulated the discussion and we ended up with a 120 interchange rotation.
If the AFL are serious about protecting our game then reduce the interchanges to 60 and maybe our game wont turn into Basketball
If the AFL are serious about protecting our game then reduce the interchanges to 60 and maybe our game wont turn into Basketball
skills much better today , but was better to watch when players didnt all follow the ball, then we got heaps contests all over the ground, been a good one on one player then, was huge, in fact many players would not have played vfl/afl if not a good one on one player.
I like the idea of dropping the number of interchanges and would be happy for then to do it in increments, 100 next year and if it appears to work down to 80 the following year and look at 60 the one after.
It gives the players and coaches time to adapt, the coaches part may not be a great idea!!
My only concern with reduced interchange is clubs look outside and start recruiting pure athletes rather than footballers.
It gives the players and coaches time to adapt, the coaches part may not be a great idea!!
My only concern with reduced interchange is clubs look outside and start recruiting pure athletes rather than footballers.
Tiger Ghost said:
agree. I think its too hard to drop it from 120 to 60 in 1 year. but I don't think you will see any real change until you get it closer to the 60 mark.
Tiger Ghost said:
what would you prefer? the idea of less 'rolling mauls' as they call it, or more athletes in footy? if I had a choice, I'd vote for the former.
toby64 said:
Agree, but the "state of the game" affects how much other footy we watch. A game of chess, between 2 coaches who want to make sure they have players who can run at 100% all the time to get an army to each contest, is not very pretty to watch if it doesn't involve your own team.
