If the AFL wants the game to be slower why don't they scrap some of the rules introduced to make the game faster in the last couple of years?

Immediate kick ins. No dragging the ball in. Players decide advantage. The advantage rule. Suggested rules against kicking backwards, the rushed behind rule... the list goes on.

The idea behind almost all of these rules is to keep play continuous and fast moving, avoiding congestion, stop plays, ball ups.. Yet the AFL says the sub rule needs to slow the game down to prevent injuries. I understand the logic however I think the AFL is reaping the effect of what they sow having made the game faster.

Maybe if the AFL ever admitted they were wrong and reviewed most of the changes over the last decade the sub rule wouldn't be nescessary...

Actually, all of those rules are there to make players fatigued, so that impact injuries are decreased. There's a difference between speeding the game up (which the AFL likes) and speeding the players up (which the AFL does not like).

Finey on SEN the other night had a take on it as well. Why change the rules so often (something like 50 rule changes in 30 odd years) to "tire the players out" and not have as many stoppages/flooding when we have 2 examples of ways to tire players out. Subiaco and we did have Waverly Park, 2 large grounds were stoppages are a whole lot less prevelant.

The rule change will Hit the Flooding and Zoning tactics the hardest. The Pies and Saints, masters of the defensive flood. Malthouse doesn't like it,,, and Lyon will have to rejig.

By creating these new circumstances that lead to fatigue, it's been pointed out that we may no longer see the likes of the magnificent speccy that Goddard took in the last quarter of the tied GF last year as players will simply be too tired.

A converse effect of this is that players like Brock McLean will now have a bit more of a platform to flourish despite their lack of outright pace. McLean always did his best work in the last half of each quarter when the speed of general play had slowed down to his pace. Its now less tailor made for guys like Brett Peake who have genuine explosive pace that makes up for their lack of field kicking skills and stamina.

The rule change will Hit the Flooding and Zoning tactics the hardest. The Pies and Saints, masters of the defensive flood. Malthouse doesn't like it,,, and Lyon will have to rejig.

Whatever the Pies do it doesn't appear to hurt their ability to kick a huge score which, if I'm not mistaken is a good thing.

Actually, all of those rules are there to make players fatigued, so that impact injuries are decreased. There's a difference between speeding the game up (which the AFL likes) and speeding the players up (which the AFL does not like).

Chook, this is a great point, however as of now we have yet to see a direct link between these rules and player speed decreasing. In fact it has increased in spite of most of these rules. As the game has sped up so have players as more athletes capable of high speed running etc have come into the game and become a necessary part of team strategy.

Also It seems a logical thing to assume that if we slow blokes down impact injuries will decrease. But I believe it may be the case that impact injuries tend to be unlucky, or the result of players being unable to protect themselves in awkward positions, hence hard (near impossible) to control or prevent. There are so many instances of high speed contact in our game which do not lead to injuries that it tends to be bad luck, or one or many players being out of position, rather than constant high speed that accounts for the worst of these injuries.

The sub rule may be the one rule which has resulted in more fatigue and slowed the game down towards the end of quarters. However, I for one am not sure if the sub rule (or the other rules) will stop impact injuries as suggested as I would think that players being more tired would lead to them being more prone to get themselves in awkward positions where they can not fall as safely or protect themselves from negative impact.

Finally it is worth mentioning that having one completely fresh player coming on in the final quarter and bashing into blokes is probably equally as likely to cause high speed incidents as having a few more rotations is... if not more so.

Whatever the Pies do it doesn't appear to hurt their ability to kick a huge score which, if I'm not mistaken is a good thing.

No, it just helps to level up the playing field a bit. Learning that flooding tactic and those Zones, take a while for young teams to pickup, and to maintain the focus to stay with it.

IMO the focus for the future will start to return to footy oriented recruits with footy brains, and endurence.

That flooding is a scurge on the game.

The 4 man interchange had started to effect the game, like Metal woods and graphite shafts, ruined pro golf courses. The courses started being too short.

The AFL grounds were too small for so many rotations. In Swimming, those Swimsuits in the Olympics were making a mockery of past world records.

Technology and rule changes can have both ying and yang.

I actually prefer to see players get tired and the fitter guys stand out. The Premiership quarter is coming back!

It also means that tall players like Spencer who are being pushed out because they aren't 'athletes' have a place in our game as do small players. It's one of the great things about our game.

But most of all - I hate how our game is being turned into basketball/soccer/hockey (take your pick). The play is all up one end with all of the players then rushed to the other with all of the players and held in till a score happens.

If they are tired they can't do that. Remember most of these rule changes in the past 10 years have been designed to speed the game up for TV. Stuff em I say. It's unattractive IMO. Much rather see a G Jakovich take on a W Carey than see a game of keepings off.

Great post. Talking sense post.

I've read the article in the OP several times and almost every sentence makes no sense.... And how can anyone logically claim this as a fail or even 'not looking good' after only 2 rounds? Ridiculous.

Injuries may or may not fluctuate but the more our game opens up (i.e less rotations) then the better it looks. Every year there's more and more congestion around the ball, I'm over it - the new rule goes some way towards fixing that.

If Malthouse had his way the AFL would be glorified basketball from 50 to 50. He's a [censored] bag.

Great post. Talking sense post.

I've read the article in the OP several times and almost every sentence makes no sense.... And how can anyone logically claim this as a fail or even 'not looking good' after only 2 rounds? Ridiculous.

Injuries may or may not fluctuate but the more our game opens up (i.e less rotations) then the better it looks. Every year there's more and more congestion around the ball, I'm over it - the new rule goes some way towards fixing that.

If Malthouse had his way the AFL would be glorified basketball from 50 to 50. He's a [censored] bag.

The Game itself finds a way to deal with ugly football.The AFL making up new rules EVERY YEAR defeats the purpose.For Gods sake let the game be played in the same spirit the Grand Final gets umpired in.