Footy, Basketball or Soccer | 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.

Footy, Basketball or Soccer

TheUmpire said:
The irony of Sheedy's whinge about flooding is that it was the rule that he personally pushed for that indirectly caused the flood. That rule being that there are now 4 players on the interchange bench. Sheedy was a huge proponent for the expanded bench and it is the expanded bench that has allowed teams to flood. With only two on the bench a super, super fit team MAY be able to flood for three quarters, but they would be blown away in the last. To those that suggest the expanded bench is required to cover injuries, I say that a smaller bench would directly result in a slower pace of game and less "muscular" injuries. Obviously other injuries would still occur but the chances of three game ending injuries to one team would be very low. Another benefit of the smaller bench would be that the good players would stay on the field for longer (due to little or no rotation) and that should please everybody. Furthermore with the pace of the game dropping, and players not rotated off the ground but rather rested in the forward or backline I believe that there would be more "footballers" drafted at the expence of the "athlete".

Thankyou, Umpire.

The coaches keep pressing for a bigger bench. Back to three IMO and then two if need be.

the claw said:
boy every time we bring in a new rule we end up bringing in 5 more to combat the damage the original rule change does to our game.

You wouldn't let em anywhere near the rules, would ya? Idiots.

ToO's on the money. The Demetriou's regime is about the dough.

Exactly.
 
23.21.159 said:
...Despite the great finish I have to say that I thought last year's Grand Final, while not boring, was extremely FRUSTRATING to watch. I reckon if I was barracking for one of the sides I'd have thrown a brick through the telly on quite a few occasions. You only have to compare it to the previous really close GF (1989) to see what's happened to the game. It's getting much, much less appealing I think. I don't know the answers but something's got to be done.

1980 GF score is on the money. specially watching on tv where you can only see where the camera goes and not the whole picture.

dunno the answer. Once we adopted the idea of interchanges rather than replacements, the game has changed. Maybe like an older time when players were replaced and couldn't come back on?
 
Tigers of Old said:
Skills said:
Flooding & rule changes are just symptomatic excuses for not being good enough !
Interesting and thoughtful post Skills.
But it does beg the question...
If the best team prevails, why change the rules of our once great game at all?

There is only one real answer and it has to do with widening the viewing audience which leads to $$$$.
Understandable in a competitive market, but in the process the AFL has to be very careful it doesn't lose it core audience.
I would argue the way they are continually changing the game, it's going some way towards that.

BINGO...The game has to rise to an elite level like Basketball & Soccer, to exploit overseas markets.
 
Liverpool said:
Offside works in soccer cause of the size of the pitch....it stops the goalkeeper just banging it the length of the ground, to a waiting 'scrum' in the opposite penalty-box, and destroying the skill, and the need for midfielders
The offside rule encourages inventive midfield play, through balls fro midfield to the strikers, and for the 'cat and mouse' tactics of the offside-trap from the defence, and the quickness of strikers.

Offside rule will NOT work in AFL!

i agree that an offside rule wouldn't work, but something akin to the opposite of offside might work. and that is the "play on when you kick backwards" rule. i'm staggered this hasn't been brought into the real season yet. it's a great rule. it should also be called play on if the ball is kicked sideways at 90 degrees. it will encourage players to push forward instead of backwards, and it will make it harder for teams to switch play and create loose players... they will have to kick to a contest more often. this rule should be called the "onside" rule, because it sorta is the opposite to offside in soccer

the claw said:
why make a thousand rule changesto combat the flood when all we have to do is do away with the interchange bench.

we shouldn't do away with the interchange bench but i think the afl should seriously consider limiting the number if interchanges a team can make per quarter similar to how they do it in rugby league. give every team 6 interchanges per quarter. it would certainly elimiate the staggering amount of rotations, make players more tired and maybe elimate flooding
 
Ian4 said:
Liverpool said:
do away with the interchange bench but i think the afl should seriously consider limiting the number if interchanges a team can make per quarter similar to how they do it in rugby league. give every team 6 interchanges per quarter. it would certainly elimiate the staggering amount of rotations, make players more tired and maybe elimate flooding
Excellent suggestion Ian.
 
As mentioned above, it is only the 4 man interchange bench that allows flooding to occur: take it back down to 2 and it would dissappear overnight ...If the AFL can make breathtaking changes like the kick-in and 9-point rules to 'experiment' why on earth cant it 'experiement' with a 2 man bench?

The 4 man bench also means that a greater proportion of the game is fought 'off-field' - ie the match-ups and the rotations - which are battles between coaches not players.. surely thats not a healthy trend: the game is meant to be a battle of the abilities of the players, not a battle of the coaches to constantly shift players. Man on Man is what made the game great; 4 on the bench destroys this in many ways.
 
I would like to see a combination of a few of those ideas.
Firstly take out the wingmen and play 16 a side. The ball is kicked further and the players are fitter than ever before.
All this will mean is that the FFlanker's will push up to the wing (or BFlanker's, or one of each).

Keep the 4 man interchange.
And keep the no mark from a backwards kick outside attacking 50.


Then leave the rules alone.
 
rather than alter the no. of players on the bench just limit the amount of times a player may be interchanged say twice per match . after that any player who comes off for the third time may not participate any further in the game.

clubs could be penalised for negative play . each club receives moneys from the afl .part of this payment could be tied to the image of the game , clubs that play a negative style of football would not receive as much as clubs who play an atractive brand of football.

thoughts ??????????
 
This is an excerpt from a John Harms article entitled "Is Footy Indestructible?" which first appeared in the Age on 22 February 2003:

Footy has seen many changes and its popularity has ebbed and flowed over 150 years. But the essential elements have remained. There is an oddly-shaped football that doesn't bounce truly. The game is set up to reflect the chaos, the injustice and the fickle nature of everyday life. Two athletic teams battle for that footy as fiercely as their courage and endeavour permit, and in a way that rewards individual and collective skill. The idea of form remains as mysterious as ever and in that way, footy is as much art as it is science. And the rules and those charged with the responsibility of interpreting and applying them remain deliciously ambiguous. For me, the game is the thing.

When asked whether the code is indestructible, those close to footy tend to give a cautious response. They are hopeful because they love the game. But they offer a few warnings.

Commentator Tim Lane acknowledges: "Footy is a local indigenous game and as the world gets smaller, its place becomes more seriously challenged. I recall a paper by sports lawyer Hayden Opie some years ago. He suggested that footy is like a corner hamburger store which is under threat from the big heavyweights. We have to concentrate on the unique characteristics rather than trying to match the heavyweights."

We all know that it is beetroot that makes a proper hamburger and there is no doubt that footy is more beetroot than pickle and ketchup. But Lane is concerned with the way in which elements, sometimes key elements, of the game are changed. "The administrators have shown an inclination to fiddle with the game, particularly pre-season, for years," he said. "It seems like a cultural cringe mentality. Every time we see something good in another sport, we amend and modify our game to take on these other characteristics. I just feel, whether they realise it or not, that they are putting out a message that they think the game's not good enough."


Fremantle coach Chris Connolly loves the game. "It's always going to be a great game," he says. "We have to believe in the game, make footy the important thing. If we have enough people who are passionate about the game and can put aside (selfish) concerns, football will be fine."

Ron Barassi says: "The game is fantastic. That has been the saviour." But he argues that it has taken too long for football people to really start working collectively.

"We're fighting for our lives here. We're up against international forces, so, of course, we have to be concerned. I'm optimistic (about the future of footy) if we work harder, work smarter and work together. We have to be more united than ever before - and we haven't been famous for doing that in the past."

AFL Players Association president Brendon Gale also recognises the quality of the game itself. "It's the best game," he says. "It's the most visually appealing. It's action-packed. There's a mix of skill, physicality, aggression and artistry for the punter in the crowd and for the TV viewer. That's why, in my optimistic moments, I think it is indestructible."

It is Gale's brief to represent the interests of players, but he acknowledges that in the small, local community that is Australian football, aggressive and demanding confrontation is likely to damage the future of footy. "We stick up for players, but it's not adversarial here. It's a really strong partnership with all the stakeholders: with the AFL and the clubs. We're conscious of building the game for everyone. That is one of the AFLPA's most important stated objectives."

But Gale also identifies the pressures on the game. "To continue to make footy a great game, we have to continue to get the best athletes. When I was young, there were no alternatives - except cricket. Now they're more prominent. Soccer is the obvious one and (already) you see the young stars enjoying the fame and the admiration of the world and all the benefits that go with that. The global nature of our competitors makes them more attractive."

Footy's place also seems secure because it is so embedded in the culture. It is the people who give the game its significance. It is part of them. Gale is not just a dry old sports administrator. His heart beats.

"Since I've left football and I'm working in the real world, my sense of footy mattering is so much more profound. It puts meaning into people's lives. It's just a great game. It's cathartic for people. It's their team and their players. It means something because it mattered to their parents and to their parents' parents. It is the people who hold the culture close to them and add to it, and develop it. They seed it and cultivate it. The culture is in them. They're the ones who pass it on. They tell the stories. If the game is made accessible to the people, the culture will take care of itself."


--

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/21/1045638482895.html

I'll put the full article on the Journalism board for people to peruse.
 
Kevin is always prominent pre season-last year it was the African recruits amongst others- TW who is media savee is just as prominent-its about keeping your club in the news as supporters wrestle with decision about being a member this year
 
TheUmpire said:
The irony of Sheedy's whinge about flooding is that it was the rule that he personally pushed for that indirectly caused the flood. That rule being that there are now 4 players on the interchange bench. Sheedy was a huge proponent for the expanded bench and it is the expanded bench that has allowed teams to flood. With only two on the bench a super, super fit team MAY be able to flood for three quarters, but they would be blown away in the last. To those that suggest the expanded bench is required to cover injuries, I say that a smaller bench would directly result in a slower pace of game and less "muscular" injuries. Obviously other injuries would still occur but the chances of three game ending injuries to one team would be very low. Another benefit of the smaller bench would be that the good players would stay on the field for longer (due to little or no rotation) and that should please everybody. Furthermore with the pace of the game dropping, and players not rotated off the ground but rather rested in the forward or backline I believe that there would be more "footballers" drafted at the expence of the "athlete".

we have a winner, also Ians suggestion about limiting interchanges per qtr is spot on the money as well, good work boys.

The only issue with dropping interchange players back to 2, is the AFLPA would never allow this to happen ie less players getting payed for senior appearances

Tigerdog said:
I would like to see a combination of a few of those ideas.
Firstly take out the wingmen and play 16 a side. The ball is kicked further and the players are fitter than ever before.
All this will mean is that the FFlanker's will push up to the wing (or BFlanker's, or one of each).

Keep the 4 man interchange.
And keep the no mark from a backwards kick outside attacking 50.


Then leave the rules alone.

not with u at all here TD, IMO having 16 players per side is only going to exasperate the problem.

There will be more room on the field then surely players will be able to find space & be able to spot a teamate & not have to kick to a contest.
 
I agree with the idea of kicks having to travel in a forward direction to be eligible to be marked by a team-mate (any kick should be markable by an opponent). I also can't understand why the distance it has to travel hasn't been increased to about 30 or even 40 metres (adjustable for lower level matches of course).

Another idea I have always had about the interchange is this:
When the side is chosen, the teams have to designate who is 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd man. 19th and 20th are considered part of the 20 that can be interchanged freely. 21st and 22nd are out of that 20 and if used, the player they replace is out of the game. The idea is that 21 and 22 are your backups in the event of injury taking a player out.
This idea restricts the freedom of the interchange which might help reduce the flooding, while still maintaining a bit of freedom for the coaches to replace an injured player.
 
Tigers of Old said:
AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson reiterated the new rules would be reviewed at the end of the season.

Anderson said fans wanted more free-flowing football.

I'm just wondering if he asked fans or he took it upon himself (as he has done since his buddy Demetriou gave him the job) to decide what the fans would like.

As a fan , I would like footy to look the way it did in the early to mid nineties, bet hey, whose asking?
 
Why don't we just paint the oval grounds with 10 grid lines and bring in 'hang time', time-offs and the yellow flag. ::)