I hate most rule chanes that have made the game a mess with free kicks getting paid willy nilly where nobody has any idea which way thy are going. But this actually makes sense to me.

Although it doesn't excuse KB and Demetriou's behaviour.

I hate soft frees for very minor incidental contact, such as a hand brushing a shoulder, etc. and unfortunately the recent NAB games have been full of them. It makes my blood boil.

If only they umpired every game like they do Grand Finals, where they only pay blatant free kicks.

Note: I appreciate that it's the best umpires that officiate in the GF, but you get my drift.

Never ever leave the game in the hands of coaches.

Not one coaching contract would list an item called " how the game looks"

They have to win at all costs that is their chief responsibilty.

There has never been a coached sacked because he produced a game plan that made the game look like crap.

They get sacked for not winning games pure and simple.

That is what drives them.

I pay no heed to Malthouse, Neeld and company when they complain about these changes.

In this area they have no credability.

Never ever leave the game in the hands of coaches.

Not one coaching contract would list an item called " how the game looks"

They have to win at all costs that is their chief responsibilty.

There has never been a coached sacked because he produced a game plan that made the game look like crap.

They get sacked for not winning games pure and simple.

That is what drives them.

I pay no heed to Malthouse, Neeld and company when they complain about these changes.

In this area they have no credability.

It's kind of true what you say 'old', but where is the advantage here, that's the bit I don't get. Pretty much every coach is speaking out against the changes. By the way, on the surface I think the cap seems a good idea but back to the coach's. If only one or two were speaking out you would have an educated guess that it didn't suit there team, there mix of players or game structure, they would be talking though their self interest but if all of them are who is getting an advantage.

Is their problem that they are all egomaniacs who are freaking out because there view is not being taken as gospel (in Malthouses case that probably stacks up), are they fearful of losing any influence they still have on game day or do they actually have a point here. The win loss thing does't stack up at all in this debate.

Never ever leave the game in the hands of coaches.

Not one coaching contract would list an item called " how the game looks"

They have to win at all costs that is their chief responsibilty.

There has never been a coached sacked because he produced a game plan that made the game look like crap.

They get sacked for not winning games pure and simple.

That is what drives them.

I pay no heed to Malthouse, Neeld and company when they complain about these changes.

In this area they have no credability.

Never ever leave the game in the hands of current coaches.

IMO ex coaches (over 40 Yrs old) should form 30% of the rules of the game committee with input from the supporter base, & from former commentators & former players.

The majority of the committee should be aged over 40 Yrs of age.

leave the game in the hands of the elders of the game. to maintain its character.

It's kind of true what you say 'old', but where is the advantage here, that's the bit I don't get. Pretty much every coach is speaking out against the changes. By the way, on the surface I think the cap seems a good idea but back to the coach's. If only one or two were speaking out you would have an educated guess that it didn't suit there team, there mix of players or game structure, they would be talking though their self interest but if all of them are who is getting an advantage.

Is their problem that they are all egomaniacs who are freaking out because there view is not being taken as gospel (in Malthouses case that probably stacks up), are they fearful of losing any influence they still have on game day or do they actually have a point here. The win loss thing does't stack up at all in this debate.

the changes upset the pathway the coaches have engineered their teams & styles for.

Badluck.

Their destroying the game.

Never ever leave the game in the hands of current coaches.

IMO ex coaches (over 40 Yrs old) should form 30% of the rules of the game committee with input from the supporter base, & from former commentators & former players.

The majority of the committee should be aged over 40 Yrs of age.

leave the game in the hands of the elders of the game. to maintain its character.

Accept your correcting dee-luded

The average last year was about 130 not 160. The Crows were the only team that averaged as high as 160 I believe.

I'm aware of that. I did say "where 160 is not unusual". Perhaps could've phrased it better but it doesn't detract from my point that 80 seems like a big drop.

Anyhow, it's happening, and if it results in opening up the game without a significant impact on injuries then I think it will be deemed a success. I expect the intial period to be pretty rocky, but we will at the very least find out the extent of Neeldy's tactical nous in adapting to it.

less players = less congestion

less players = less congestion

.. exactly.

reduce the interchange, not the rotations.

Bring the rules back to where they where in the early nineties, except allow 2 emergencies for bad injuries.

Don't make more rules to correct the rule changes that went bad. Just back pedal.

I like this rule change, it was my preferred option when the sub came in. Do we really need a sub if this comes in? Subs are a pain the arz for supercoach purposes.

.. exactly.

reduce the interchange, not the rotations.

Bring the rules back to where they where in the early nineties, except allow 2 emergencies for bad injuries.

Don't make more rules to correct the rule changes that went bad. Just back pedal.

this could work.

I do not like the situation where a player needs to come off because of fatigue and cannot because a cap has been reached.

It is dangerous. The game will continue to get quicker incremently so i will never like a finite cap per quarter. But dropping from 4-2 may address both sides.

What will be the penalty for exceeding the cap? (couldn't spot it on the AFL website)

this could work.

I do not like the situation where a player needs to come off because of fatigue and cannot because a cap has been reached.

It is dangerous. The game will continue to get quicker incremently so i will never like a finite cap per quarter. But dropping from 4-2 may address both sides.

In the early nineties WYL, if you took my meaning, I think it was 2 on the interchange bench.

then the coaches screamed they wanted "More"..... 3.

Then at some stage it went to 4 on the interchange bench..... & then, later the game went Pro'..

.... later again came more money in the rich clubs football dept purse, so they went headlong into 'sports science'...

...and here we are with a 'Field of Schemes', instead of a game of football.... we have a game of handball + ring-a-ring-a-rosy, & rolling malls.

Hell.... why don't we just play British Bulldog instead...

and the laws of the game committee & the AFL, are too scared about the coaches screaming Blue murder in the 'media'...

I hate soft frees for very minor incidental contact, such as a hand brushing a shoulder, etc. and unfortunately the recent NAB games have been full of them. It makes my blood boil.

If only they umpired every game like they do Grand Finals, where they only pay blatant free kicks.

Note: I appreciate that it's the best umpires that officiate in the GF, but you get my drift.

I agree 100%, the problem is that umpires are instructed to pay a free kick if they see it no matter what.

That's the fundamental issue which I believe leads to poor umpiring. As you say the Grand Finals have the best umpiring because the consequences are so high they pay decisions only if they are certain it is there.

In the early nineties WYL, if you took my meaning, I think it was 2 on the interchange bench.

then the coaches screamed they wanted "More"..... 3.

Then at some stage it went to 4 on the interchange bench..... & then, later the game went Pro'..

.... later again came more money in the rich clubs football dept purse, so they went headlong into 'sports science'...

...and here we are with a 'Field of Schemes', instead of a game of football.... we have a game of handball + ring-a-ring-a-rosy, & rolling malls.

Hell.... why don't we just play British Bulldog instead...

and the laws of the game committee & the AFL, are too scared about the coaches screaming Blue murder in the 'media'...

I might be by my lonesome, but I disagree with the coaches and their whining. I'm happy to have less rotations, more fatigue and the game opening up. Six or 7 years ago 40 rotations was the norm. I'll also get to see the better players on the ground for longer.

It works for me.

Agree see the real footballers and less short sharp impact athletes. I think there will be less congestion as fatigue will kick in and we will see more 1 on 1 contests. Part of me would like to see gradual change where the cap starts at 120 and after two seasons is dropped to 80.

It wont kill the game, it continues to evolve and players adapt

If the cap is introduced I'd like to see the substitute removed, never been a fan of it

Of course, the coaches are complaining. They've built their game plans around the flood, press, stoppages and packs.(which they, and they alone created) They've reduced the sport as a spectacle as far as I'm concerned. Roos, Wallace, Eade, Malthouse and Lyon are the main culprits (By the way, 4 of these 5 are excellent coaches, but that's not the point)

The coaches in the main are the ones who have changed and manipulated the way the game is played - not the AFL. The coaches do not care about the game as a spectacle - they are simply there to win matches. They don't care how the game looks and never will. Why they are even involved in this debate is questionable.

In some ways, I'm glad that the coaches are moaning. It says to me that the new restrictions will have an effect.

Just be careful. The coaches aren't complaining because their game plans are ruined but because they fear players careers will be ruined. They might not change their plans one bit.

If someone has a reasonable suggestion about how you make Afl players work less hard but still win games then let me no. I don't think a coach will suddenly say its ok guys save your energy we aren't worried about forward pressure any more.

Also as a tactic if we are bottom 4 this year do we limit ourselves to 80 rotations per game in the last 5 or so weeks to get an advantage?

Of course, the coaches are complaining. They've built their game plans around the flood, press, stoppages and packs.(which they, and they alone created) They've reduced the sport as a spectacle as far as I'm concerned. Roos, Wallace, Eade, Malthouse and Lyon are the main culprits (By the way, 4 of these 5 are excellent coaches, but that's not the point)

The coaches in the main are the ones who have changed and manipulated the way the game is played - not the AFL. The coaches do not care about the game as a spectacle - they are simply there to win matches. They don't care how the game looks and never will. Why they are even involved in this debate is questionable.

In some ways, I'm glad that the coaches are moaning. It says to me that the new restrictions will have an effect.

So, what? Do you want to get rid of coaches? Either they're here for a good reason and we let them do their jobs, or they shouldn't be here at all and we get rid of them. Actually now that I think about it, that seems like a pretty good philosophy for life.

Just be careful. The coaches aren't complaining because their game plans are ruined but because they fear players careers will be ruined. They might not change their plans one bit.

If someone has a reasonable suggestion about how you make Afl players work less hard but still win games then let me no. I don't think a coach will suddenly say its ok guys save your energy we aren't worried about forward pressure any more.

Also as a tactic if we are bottom 4 this year do we limit ourselves to 80 rotations per game in the last 5 or so weeks to get an advantage?

Players come & go, get injured or don't get injured. some have long careers & some don't.

the game isn't about the players. its about the supporters.

Its the peoples game.

Some who are involved in the game are trying to claim ownership, as if its there's, mr Malthouse... he who wants a 6 man bench...

When you hear about past players who have lost interest in the game as it is, & can't watch it, you better take notice.

... the Tail is out & its wagging hard.

So, what? Do you want to get rid of coaches? Either they're here for a good reason and we let them do their jobs, or they shouldn't be here at all and we get rid of them. Actually now that I think about it, that seems like a pretty good philosophy for life.

lets let the ironing witch of the West, Gina Rhinehardt run WA then. she can have the west... and give Clive Palmer Qld... lets see how the people feel in 10 years.

Just be careful. The coaches aren't complaining because their game plans are ruined but because they fear players careers will be ruined. They might not change their plans one bit.

If someone has a reasonable suggestion about how you make Afl players work less hard but still win games then let me no. I don't think a coach will suddenly say its ok guys save your energy we aren't worried about forward pressure any more.

Also as a tactic if we are bottom 4 this year do we limit ourselves to 80 rotations per game in the last 5 or so weeks to get an advantage?

The coaches aren't always truthful. If you want to believe them, fine - I don't. The coaches will have to reign things back. Without adequate rest players will not be able to race up and down the ground for 2 hours. Teams will get run over in the last quarter if they are worked too hard in the 1st half. It stands to reason.

So, what? Do you want to get rid of coaches? Either they're here for a good reason and we let them do their jobs, or they shouldn't be here at all and we get rid of them. Actually now that I think about it, that seems like a pretty good philosophy for life.

Of course I don't want to get rid of coaches. It's about the aesthetics of the game isn't it? Or am I missing something?

I'm simply saying that the reason the game is sometimes difficult to watch is because of the coaches. I'm specifically talking about the flood, press, stoppages, packs, rolling mauls and 36 players in one quarter of the ground. Now, if people enjoy watching that sort of stuff, fine. I don't find it particularly engaging.

The coaches need to be reigned in and good on the AFL for doing so.

In a lot of other ways I do not like the AFL.

20 interchanges per quarter equates to about 4 minutes rest per player per quarter. (on average) And each player may have to take his 4 minutes rest in one hit.

I can't see how this won't slow the game down (especially towards the end of the 3rd quarter). Any coach who wants to employ the flood and the press on a continuous basis (under these circumstances) is going to be playing with fire.

The coaches are not going to take undue risks. Why would they risk their players getting injured (by fatiguing them) during a match. It's a long season as well.

lets let the ironing witch of the West, Gina Rhinehardt run WA then. she can have the west... and give Clive Palmer Qld... lets see how the people feel in 10 years.

I think Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer are in the "shouldn't be here at all category."