The state of footy | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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

A lot of people calling in to KB's show declaring this. Sad. Who would've thought our own game would get to this level.

Watching the old The Winners with Drew Morphett on Fox Footy last night once again showed how forward our game was pre-2000s....with Terry Wallace even admitting that.

What was the whole point of making our game 'faster' as it's actually become slower??
 
The biggest loss to the game is the 1 on 1 battles that lasted the whole match. Knowing two guns would be going head to head, be it FB & FF, or wing, or where ever used to be one of the draw cards to our team game. You had team v team as well as man v man in the same game.
 
I didn't see this thread until after I wrote on the Brownlow one.

The comments at bottom of that thread sum up my feelings.

Far too many changes are being made to our once great & unique game. It is becoming more & more like an amalgam of basketball/rugby/soccer than "Aussie Rules" & I for one am slowly losing my love for the game itself.

There are too many changes being made to the game/rules etc. One rule change leads to another which leads to another rule Change which forces another rule change etc etc etc.

Please for goodness sake LEAVE THE GAME ALONE.

I know a lot of people who don't bother going to games now because they are disenchanted with the way the AFL has "Bastardised it"

Pause in Rant, to be continued at some stage later when I've taken my medication
TT33

Mind you I still love the Tigers.
 
I actually think the rule tinkering is one of the advantages of our game. It means the rules can stay one-up on the coaching tactics, and we don't end up with a game that's as frustrating to watch as soccer, which I think would benefit from rule changes that benefit attacking play.

The least damaging change to the traditional rules of the game would be just to drop the number of interchanges. Drop it right down... maybe 5 a quarter? With perhaps an injury exception, i.e. if player gets injured after 5 interchanges, can't get back on the field for the next quarter, which includes the following week's game?
 
I don't think the game itself is in that bad shape. I prefer our game now compared to its comparative Morphet spectacle. There's just too much media coverage that focuses on the bad rather than the good.
 
Here is an out there idea that I haven't heard before.
Drop the interchange down to something small like 5 or so a quarter, however if a place gets injured they can be subbed out with one of the emergences players that is with the group and the injured player must spend one week off
 
tonemaster said:
I actually think the rule tinkering is one of the advantages of our game. It means the rules can stay one-up on the coaching tactics, and we don't end up with a game that's as frustrating to watch as soccer, which I think would benefit from rule changes that benefit attacking play.
Click to expand...

Great, another who doesn't understand soccer. There's a reason its played and watched all over the world by untold billions and it's not because it's "frustrating" or "not attacking enough".

Anyhow, don't change the rules. Rule changes suck. They are done by committees, they are kneejerk, they are subject to umpires' interpretations which change week to week, and they have unintended consequences which coaches will exploit anyway.

Don't change the rules unless it's an urgent safety issue... But anyway , don't change them.
 
The AFL speed the game up, they changed the rules to make it faster and make it a better sceptical for the fans.
Problem was the coaches and players found it hard to control the game.
So now the coaches try to slow the game down.
 
antman said:
Great, another who doesn't understand soccer. There's a reason its played and watched all over the world by untold billions and it's not because it's "frustrating" or "not attacking enough".

Anyhow, don't change the rules. Rule changes suck. They are done by committees, they are kneejerk, they are subject to umpires' interpretations which change week to week, and they have unintended consequences which coaches will exploit anyway.

Don't change the rules unless it's an urgent safety issue... But anyway , don't change them.
Click to expand...

Yep, and it's a code that's had less rule changes and interpretations than any other football code around the world since inception. Simple and easy.

Maybe we should bring in 'off-side' for AFL to stop some rebound attacks...... :hihi
 
TigerForce said:
Yep, and it's a code that's had less rule changes and interpretations than any other football code around the world since inception. Simple and easy.

Maybe we should bring in 'off-side' for AFL to stop some rebound attacks...... :hihi
Click to expand...

Well, the offside rule is one reason you don't have rolling scrums of players moving up and down the ground. You sometimes/often get most players in one half but they are evenly spaced... No benefit and high risk for every player to go to the ball. You can defend from the box (parking the bus) but a good side still beats this and you have close to zero chance of winning.

Edit: the corollary of this is you get muppets saying "soccer is boring, get rid of the offside rule to make it more attacking!!!". Which of course would lead to more stacking, more congestion, more free kicks, etc etc etc... Fortunately there is a good understanding of this globally, so almost no rule changes. Yay!!!

Anyways don't change the rules :)
 
This wont happen cause of $$$, but i also think the game has progressed to a point where 22 games is way too many.
Everyone should just play each other once and that's it.
 
I'm slowly changing my mind on this one.

I hate to say it but I'm cooling on interchange caps.

Nathan Buckley in the Coach's Box on SEN was very persuasive with a counter view.

He got me thinking about no prior opportunity.

Clearly, way too much time is given to the ball winner ATM.

What if we did away with no prior opportunity altogether?

But wait, you say, the ball carrier should be rewarded.

Well ... not necessarily.

The FIRST to the ball should be rewarded, but why should he be rewarded for taking posession when he KNOWS there's heat nearby?

First to the ball should develop a lost art in the AFL - the knock forward.

If you did away with no prior opportunity, naturally the ball carrier won't want to hold on to it. Coaches will instruct their charges to knock the ball out of the pack to outriders in space.

This would create much, much more flow to play. The objective right now is to get tackled. Players LOVE getting tackled. It means a stoppage and a reset of structures.

Rinse and repeat.

What if players got pinged as soon as they were tackled with the ball? What if they were pinged if they were tackled and dropped the ball?

They sure as hell wouldn't be inviting tackles. Instead, they will shovel the ball forward, or strategically put outriders to advantage. THEY could take safe possession and go.

Colour me convinced.

No prior has got to go.
 
Yep..first I thought do this, then I thought hang on, lets do that. Perfect! This solves everything!!

Exactly why we are this mess.
 
Carter said:
I'm slowly changing my mind on this one.

I hate to say it but I'm cooling on interchange caps.

Nathan Buckley in the Coach's Box on SEN was very persuasive with a counter view.

He got me thinking about no prior opportunity.

Clearly, way too much time is given to the ball winner ATM.

What if we did away with no prior opportunity altogether?

But wait, you say, the ball carrier should be rewarded.

Well ... not necessarily.

The FIRST to the ball should be rewarded, but why should he be rewarded for taking posession when he KNOWS there's heat nearby?

First to the ball should develop a lost art in the AFL - the knock forward.

If you did away with no prior opportunity, naturally the ball carrier won't want to hold on to it. Coaches will instruct their charges to knock the ball out of the pack to outriders in space.

This would create much, much more flow to play. The objective right now is to get tackled. Players LOVE getting tackled. It means a stoppage and a reset of structures.

Rinse and repeat.

What if players got pinged as soon as they were tackled with the ball? What if they were pinged if they were tackled and dropped the ball?

They sure as hell wouldn't be inviting tackles. Instead, they will shovel the ball forward, or strategically put outriders to advantage. THEY could take safe possession and go.

Colour me convinced.

No prior has got to go.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.. I think I like it.
 
Carter said:
I'm slowly changing my mind on this one.

I hate to say it but I'm cooling on interchange caps.

Nathan Buckley in the Coach's Box on SEN was very persuasive with a counter view.

He got me thinking about no prior opportunity.

Clearly, way too much time is given to the ball winner ATM.

What if we did away with no prior opportunity altogether?

But wait, you say, the ball carrier should be rewarded.

Well ... not necessarily.

The FIRST to the ball should be rewarded, but why should he be rewarded for taking posession when he KNOWS there's heat nearby?

First to the ball should develop a lost art in the AFL - the knock forward.

If you did away with no prior opportunity, naturally the ball carrier won't want to hold on to it. Coaches will instruct their charges to knock the ball out of the pack to outriders in space.

This would create much, much more flow to play. The objective right now is to get tackled. Players LOVE getting tackled. It means a stoppage and a reset of structures.

Rinse and repeat.

What if players got pinged as soon as they were tackled with the ball? What if they were pinged if they were tackled and dropped the ball?

They sure as hell wouldn't be inviting tackles. Instead, they will shovel the ball forward, or strategically put outriders to advantage. THEY could take safe possession and go.

Colour me convinced.

No prior has got to go.
Click to expand...

but there is no space. players dont try to dispose of the ball cos they cant perfectly control it, they may be less likely to tap.
so end result =20 players standing around waiting for someone to pick it up so everyone can jump on them.

at the moment the interpretations favour tacklers holding the ball in. that could be easily changed.
 
change tackling to a 1 on 1 contest. 3rd player into a tackle gives away a free kick.
 
Baloo said:
change tackling to a 1 on 1 contest. 3rd player into a tackle gives away a free kick.
Click to expand...

Yep. Too many players running in to pile on top is one of the main reasons for congestion.
 
Baloo said:
change tackling to a 1 on 1 contest. 3rd player into a tackle gives away a free kick.
Click to expand...

Especially when it's the tackled player's teammates that come in to jump on the tackler or tacklee. Pet hate of mine
 
Like the one tackler idea, similar to hockey where a third person comes in there is a free paid. Would also like to see a rule whereby each team must have at least 1 player inside forward 50 all the time, this may bring back 100 goal full forwards as well as slightly reducing congestion around the ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Should suspended players remain eligible for the Brownlow Medal? | Destination 3121 >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom