Stopped playing SuperCoach years ago as I thought it ruined the spectacle. Now planning on playing next year because the spectacle is so dull.
-
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
One simple rule change would be brilliant n would back up your suggestion perfectly ants. Make it a rule that the umpires adjudicate to the rule book, that's what rules are for after all. If they did that instead of interpreting ( has anyone ever tried to follow the interpretations on a piece of equipment from asian to english? Not possible. )antman said:
If the rules were properly applied then half the so called problems with the game would disappear in an instant. Only trouble is, so would half the corporate flogs n committees that the AFL wastes millions of dollars on each year corporatising our game.
Then the fans wouldn't be engaging with our game enough because they wouldn't be bleating n moaning through the media to let all those corporates know what was wrong with the game.
I hate the idea of rule changes designed to affect the flow or style of play. Coaches will adapt in time to styles that either work or don't work. So will players. The Selwood/Grimes chicken wing will go out of the game as players learn to tackle in a way that takes the advantage away from them. But you have to give them time. Maybe have the rules committee meet several times a year but only allow changes every 4 years?
Unless it is for safety reasons but then you have make a really robust science-based-medicine case.
Unless it is for safety reasons but then you have make a really robust science-based-medicine case.
My take is this:
No interchange - 6 subs - that's it. Who knows what the proposed reduction to 80 interchanges will mean? Or 60 - they're all just random numbers. Why not 37? People are just guessing with the future of the game. 0 interchanges would mean that burst players will get completely stuffed and have to come off - to be replaced with more burst players ie you replace a Martin with a Rioli - love it!
They each go flat out for about a half. Pure footballers aren't necessarily meant to have big tanks - and in this system wouldn't need to. You'd get back the odd body shape - Diesel anyone? - and see skills prioritised over stamina. Well for at least 6 players.
No interchanges would mean that players get tired. What happens when they get tired - their legs go. Not their arms, not their necks - their legs. Things slow down. There'll be more tackling not less - after all you tackle mostly with the arms (and remember those things aren't tired) - but there'll be less players around the ball as the game opens up. So control the tackle environment:
Hence - no prior opportunity. As mentioned by some - paddling the ball will come back into vogue - a much under-rated skill (Youtube Robbie Flower anyone that doesn't understand). I once had a conversation with Jack Clarke (Ron's brother and a former captain of Essendon) who described how Sheedy would have two rings of players around a stoppage - an inner and an outer. The inner's job was to get the ball to the outer ring any way they could - mostly with a paddle - and away they went. That particular formation may not work today - but a greater emphasis would be on the spread and run ability of players - that's for sure.
Also - no third man into the tackle. We all know their job is to hold the ball in to ensure a stoppage. Ban it. Bin it. It's a corruption of the game. Give me the spectacle of a one vs one duel every time. If you stop the third man coming in - we may just see better handball skills evolve (a la our own ShEdwards), or the perfection of the don't-argue (could anyone's be better than Dusty's?), or the ball come loose and back into play more often than not.
What it really means is that with the exception of the marking contest - no two on one physical contact. Not in field play, not in ruck duels, not in screening. One vs one - that makes the best footy!
All of these things have been mentioned by others on this thread - put them all together and we'll have our game back in shape.
No interchange - 6 subs - that's it. Who knows what the proposed reduction to 80 interchanges will mean? Or 60 - they're all just random numbers. Why not 37? People are just guessing with the future of the game. 0 interchanges would mean that burst players will get completely stuffed and have to come off - to be replaced with more burst players ie you replace a Martin with a Rioli - love it!
They each go flat out for about a half. Pure footballers aren't necessarily meant to have big tanks - and in this system wouldn't need to. You'd get back the odd body shape - Diesel anyone? - and see skills prioritised over stamina. Well for at least 6 players.
No interchanges would mean that players get tired. What happens when they get tired - their legs go. Not their arms, not their necks - their legs. Things slow down. There'll be more tackling not less - after all you tackle mostly with the arms (and remember those things aren't tired) - but there'll be less players around the ball as the game opens up. So control the tackle environment:
Hence - no prior opportunity. As mentioned by some - paddling the ball will come back into vogue - a much under-rated skill (Youtube Robbie Flower anyone that doesn't understand). I once had a conversation with Jack Clarke (Ron's brother and a former captain of Essendon) who described how Sheedy would have two rings of players around a stoppage - an inner and an outer. The inner's job was to get the ball to the outer ring any way they could - mostly with a paddle - and away they went. That particular formation may not work today - but a greater emphasis would be on the spread and run ability of players - that's for sure.
Also - no third man into the tackle. We all know their job is to hold the ball in to ensure a stoppage. Ban it. Bin it. It's a corruption of the game. Give me the spectacle of a one vs one duel every time. If you stop the third man coming in - we may just see better handball skills evolve (a la our own ShEdwards), or the perfection of the don't-argue (could anyone's be better than Dusty's?), or the ball come loose and back into play more often than not.
What it really means is that with the exception of the marking contest - no two on one physical contact. Not in field play, not in ruck duels, not in screening. One vs one - that makes the best footy!
All of these things have been mentioned by others on this thread - put them all together and we'll have our game back in shape.
Get rid of high and low tackle rule too.
Does not matter where tackle occurs,like rugby.
Would make no difference,but stop nonsense frees all the time.
Does not matter where tackle occurs,like rugby.
Would make no difference,but stop nonsense frees all the time.
