bloody rule changes. they are killing the game.

[craig]

Also agree with that. Have said it for a few years now that for me personally, the early to mid 90's was great footy with just the right balance of flow, physicality, speed, skill etc.

Here here my Dear Redders , the game we grew up with and loved that instilled tribalism, with local grounds, atmosphere and the game itself is sadly no more and does not garner my interest as it used to.

 

[23.21.159]

Personally I think a balance should be struck with the old system.
IMO 20 players are chosen for a game. 2 are interchangeable(unlimited) and two players are emergency replacements on the bench who are only be used in case of serious injury.

I have been advokating exactly this for a very long time and I am sure there are posts from me on PRE to confirm it. Simply, the rule should state that if the 21st or 22nd man are put on, then whoever they replaced can not come back on the field. As far as I'm concerned they could even leave the decision of who is 19 and 20 and who is 21 and 22 to the point where they actually bring them on during the game.

Coaches use the argument of being able to replace injured players as reason for a bigger bench but the real reason is just so they can rotate players more. This rule will shut them up.

 

[blx]

I reckon Union's more exciting to watch because the game flows on, but one rule they should change is to stop lifting players in line-outs.

why whats wrong with it? its reverted back to lifting, thank god cuase when it was banned, lineouts became so boring and predictable.

 

[YinnarTiger]

why whats wrong with it? its reverted back to lifting, thank god cuase when it was banned, lineouts became so boring and predictable.

Several years back I remember Sheedy advocating to allow lifting by team mates to assist a mark (or hitout) in AFL.

 

[nwonash]

Everyone loves the game. If its not broken, why try to fix it?

We've seen Aussie Rules played over 150 years. Why all of a sudden (in recent years) change the rules?

They've changed the rules to allow pussies play the game. I used to enjoy the physical side of the game. Well, I guess any nerd can now play the game.

Next they'll introduce players wearing dresses, cos thats how the game is going.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Everyone loves the game. If its not broken, why try to fix it?

We've seen Aussie Rules played over 150 years. Why all of a sudden (in recent years) change the rules?

Because it looks much prettier on t.v. when everyone can run around really fast, execute all their fantastic skills and kick lots of high scores when there is no nasty scragging or pushing and shoving. Just think how ugly and scary it would be for all the mums to see their little boys bumped over by somebody else's little johnny and there be a nosebleed occur.
No rough tough nasty physical stuff for our national game. We've evolved from being hairy troglodytes to a smooth sexy metro and civilised football society.

 

[hutstar]

Everyone loves the game. If its not broken, why try to fix it?

We've seen Aussie Rules played over 150 years. Why all of a sudden (in recent years) change the rules?

They've changed the rules to allow pussies play the game. I used to enjoy the physical side of the game. Well, I guess any nerd can now play the game.

Next they'll introduce players wearing dresses, cos thats how the game is going.

I get your point but i don't think there is too many pussies playing the game - the speed if anything increases the dangers, not reduces them. I agree though that there are not too many places left in the game for tough, hard buggers, unless they can run. I can't see another Greg Williams or even a plugger coming along in a hurry.

 

[Baloo]

If Hodge keeps going the way he is I reckon he might have a comparable career to Williams.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I have been advokating exactly this for a very long time and I am sure there are posts from me on PRE to confirm it. Simply, the rule should state that if the 21st or 22nd man are put on, then whoever they replaced can not come back on the field. As far as I'm concerned they could even leave the decision of who is 19 and 20 and who is 21 and 22 to the point where they actually bring them on during the game.

Coaches use the argument of being able to replace injured players as reason for a bigger bench but the real reason is just so they can rotate players more. This rule will shut them up.

Agreed 159. Unfortunately it will never happen.
The AFL rules committee seem a lot more content to introduce new rules than revoking those that have damaged the sport.

 

[Phar Ace]

If Hodge keeps going the way he is I reckon he might have a comparable career to Williams.

Agree, Hodge is hardness and skill personified. Has few peers in this dept.

Several years back I remember Sheedy advocating to allow lifting by team mates to assist a mark (or hitout) in AFL.

Think history may show it was Parkin that led the charge on this only to be rebuked by the AFL. He had secret training sessions to hone these skills for both CHF and CHB. I even heard that Parks had "bringing the game into disrepute" threats made to him.

Can anyone else confirm?

Personally I think a balance should be struck with the old system.
IMO 20 players are chosen for a game. 2 are interchangeable(unlimited) and two players are emergency replacements on the bench who are only be used in case of serious injury.

Whilst I don't doubt that 30.21.159 had been advocating this, I recall there was a lot of media onto this last season and the season before when the "flood" was seen as some sort of "hanging offence". It was around the time of our surprise win over Adelaide I think. Terry even entered into the discussion as I recall. A few other coaches were cooly interested.
So it certainly isn't a new idea. But it is one that should be tried before tinkering with the other fundamentals that have served the game for nearly century.