The game has become bogged down. There is too much emphasis on chasing the ball from one end of the stadium to the other, too many useless handballs, too much 'system', in fact. I always look back on the chaos of old matches with some degree of nostalgia. Why not mandate that there can only be one or two handballs before the ball has to be kicked? There is too much precision in handballing, kicking allows pure football to prevail, and it also allows an element of chance of an unforced turnover. This is to be applauded, and we should get back to it. The rolling mauls and sheer boredom of modern Aussie Rules needs to be addressed.

I am also coming from this from an occupational health and safety angle. The amount of head collisions caused by close contact is creating medical and legal issues which are being overlooked by the profiteers of our game. Freeing the game up and opening the game up should be a priority, so let's get back to the past.

PS note it is Aussie rules, it is not AFL. there is no such thing as afl:

Gee what struck me from the short film of the 1945 Grand Final is how familiar the game looks to what we have seen so far this year in round one. So far we have been spared the mauls and presses, it has all been open, running football. My memory of the football film reels of the 50's and 60's was of stop, start footy but this 1945 highlights reel shows, high skills and a marking, run on game with the occasional handball to advantage.

Personally, I like the way the game has evolved and kept evolving over time.

I watch matches from 15 or even 10 years ago and the game seems foreign to me... and I like that.

I don't like it changing too quickly or drastically, but I like gradual change over time, as new tactics are employed and coaches adjust.

I don't agree with all the rule changes in an effort to preserve a moment in time, and it clearly doesn't work.

Just because it changes over time doesn't mean it gets better to watch.

I haven't enjoyed it any less due to the game evolving over time.

The complaints about "rolling scrums" and "ugly footy" confuse me.

I've never seen it like that.

Where's the "Dislike" button when you need it?

  On 21/03/2014 at 10:50, Machsy said:

Personally, I like the way the game has evolved and kept evolving over time.

I watch matches from 15 or even 10 years ago and the game seems foreign to me... and I like that.

I don't like it changing too quickly or drastically, but I like gradual change over time, as new tactics are employed and coaches adjust.

I don't agree with all the rule changes in an effort to preserve a moment in time, and it clearly doesn't work.

actually there were too many rule changes from the late 80's. The interchange bench grew, & again in the 90's, I think it was. adding more interchange places. Multiply that with the effects of the sport going full-time, Professional... & then the creeping in of sports science, the players are fitter & attuned like never before.

More Athlete types play because of the need to compete with other superior athletes; but many Pure footballers go by the wayside because they can't train as hard for so long, or run such a quick 3Klm time trial. the skills are let down by this push for run run run...

I have been on a bandwagon against so many interchange rotations, to slow down the run & the congestion, for the very reasons Bush demon has mentioned.

we are losing the spirit & the character of the great game.

reduce the interchangeable numbers back to 2 + 2 subs.

.

  On 21/03/2014 at 10:01, The Hood said:

Gee what struck me from the short film of the 1945 Grand Final is how familiar the game looks to what we have seen so far this year in round one. So far we have been spared the mauls and presses, it has all been open, running football. My memory of the football film reels of the 50's and 60's was of stop, start footy but this 1945 highlights reel shows, high skills and a marking, run on game with the occasional handball to advantage.

I agree hood.

I didn't realise the game was so fluent back in the 40's. & some speed & finesse.

  On 21/03/2014 at 11:49, dee-luded said:

actually there were too many rule changes from the late 80's. The interchange bench grew, & again in the 90's, I think it was. adding more interchange places. Multiply that with the effects of the sport going full-time, Professional... & then the creeping in of sports science, the players are fitter & attuned like never before.

More Athlete types play because of the need to compete with other superior athletes; but many Pure footballers go by the wayside because they can't train as hard for so long, or run such a quick 3Klm time trial. the skills are let down by this push for run run run...

I have been on a bandwagon against so many interchange rotations, to slow down the run & the congestion, for the very reasons Bush demon has mentioned.

we are losing the spirit & the character of the great game.

reduce the interchangeable numbers back to 2 + 2 subs.

.

Capping interchange or substitutes will just mean more rotation between positions and more athletes over footballers. Rohan Bail will thrive, Liam Jurrah will dive.

The simple fact is that once full ground pressure footy became evident that elite endurance takes priority over everything.

Ross Lyon with an interchange cap still plays Ross Lyon footy, he just makes the players fitter and more versatile. Already teams are down to one ruckman. Interchange caps will eventually kill the small and medium forwards who are already on the way out. It really will be come 5 big guys then 17 versatile runners.

Interchange has to stay. Methods need to be considered to retrain the focus on style of play which will then dictate the athlete. I believe the TAC are looking at introducing a rule to keep players inside each respective forward 50. That should be considered.

But so far we've had 6 games this season.

Freo v Collingwood. The winners of the other 5 games - GWS, Gold Coast, Port, Geel and Ess all played attractive football.

The Geel v Adel game was beautiful to watch and highlighted all skills AFL players have.

I think the actual game itself, it is better than ever.

The game needs to be better than ever - in order for the businessman to make money off of it.

I'd like to see the game perhaps more even though, more pure.

I don't like that the business side of things impacts the fairness of the game.

TV rights dictating the draw is just one example of business dictating the game.

Sides should play each other once - or twice - and more effort should be put into purifying the game.

Business really does need to come second.

The style of football is ok atm, but other areas are severely compromised.

if you want to start looking ar clips of footy when it was at its best look at footy in the late 90s early 2000s.

instead of a cap on interchange put a minimum time that players have to be off if they come off the ground. eg 10 or 15 min,

bring the rotations back to 20 or 30. gee it was an exciting game then. positional play, not rolling mauls where a quick kick out the back gows to no one because the fwd line are in the defensive 50. every NON footy fan that iknow tells me its gone to [censored] compared to how it used to be. hence why rugby league has overtaken it as the most popular code in australia. only the die hards still insist its a pleasure to watch.

In addition to limiting the number of consecutive handballs to two/three, I would also bring back the drop kick. That is, to stop chipping around (and thereby bypassing the handball curfew) I would mandate that the third kick had to be a drop kick or stab kick. Again, I tender as evidence the 1945 final (embedded above). That way, players would have to re-learn their foot skills and the sheer beauty of FOOTball would be returned. Aussie rules needs to see a return to open-space football, not to mention the massive speccies which result. I would make it mandatory for the full-back's kick out to be a to drop kick, a la Phil Roden. That would stop the pathetic defensive mindsets which clog up our backlines.

Finally, a word on chronic traumatic encephalopathy. The penny will drop when administrators of our game become aware that they will be liable to massive class actions in this area. Players like Daniel Bell, Brett Kirk, Diesel Williams, Rohan Bail and Jimmy Bartel have been smashed playing the 'honour code' of our game and it won't be a comfortable feeling if they develop reported symptoms later in life (as some apparently have). This close-, head over the ball ethic is nothing more than a blood sport, where supporters pay good money to see their villains get smashed. American football is the worst culprit in this area - as soon as this game is severely modified as well, the better!

I have loved the game in every era, with each having its strengths and weaknesses.

The late 70's, early 90's and early 2000's were three great phases of footy. And what stands out in each of these eras is the direct down-the-line style of footy. The modern two-way-running football is incredible from a fitness point of view but it diminishes two great strengths of our game: 1) The run and carry, and 2) One player beating one opponent, Both these things happen, but are getting less and less in the 36 man crush of modern footy.

The main frustrations for me now do loom rather large on the footy landscape. Constant behind the scenes news, footy politics, TV rights etc... have their place but take up too much air time. Journalists drive this stuff and it is simply boring.
Watson last night was exceptional - let's talk about him.

The amazing coaching of Ken Hinkley - let's talk about that.

Freo's demolition of the Pies - let's talk about that.

Melbourne's resurgence - let's talk about that (hopefully!)

  On 21/03/2014 at 22:36, bush demon said:

In addition to limiting the number of consecutive handballs to two/three, I would also bring back the drop kick. That is, to stop chipping around (and thereby bypassing the handball curfew) I would mandate that the third kick had to be a drop kick or stab kick. Again, I tender as evidence the 1945 final (embedded above). That way, players would have to re-learn their foot skills and the sheer beauty of FOOTball would be returned. Aussie rules needs to see a return to open-space football, not to mention the massive speccies which result. I would make it mandatory for the full-back's kick out to be a to drop kick, a la Phil Roden. That would stop the pathetic defensive mindsets which clog up our backlines.

Finally, a word on chronic traumatic encephalopathy. The penny will drop when administrators of our game become aware that they will be liable to massive class actions in this area. Players like Daniel Bell, Brett Kirk, Diesel Williams, Rohan Bail and Jimmy Bartel have been smashed playing the 'honour code' of our game and it won't be a comfortable feeling if they develop reported symptoms later in life (as some apparently have). This close-, head over the ball ethic is nothing more than a blood sport, where supporters pay good money to see their villains get smashed. American football is the worst culprit in this area - as soon as this game is severely modified as well, the better!

You really haven't thought much of this through have you?

Mandating kicks would increase short backwards or sideways kicking. If you have to kick under pressure you're more likely to go backwards or sideways. Same with the kick outs. For every attacking rule you aim to create will come with defensive tactics.

Any rules that aim to stop congestion need to be thoroughly tested at lower levels and Preseason football because there is a huge risk that they backfire or have no effect at all. Take a drop punt from kick outs. When a team scores a quick point and the other side has an open defensive 50 you want players to move the ball as quickly as possible which means you wouldn't restrict them to an unreliable kick.

Looking at that 1945 game you'd be tearing your hair out as a supporter. No chasing, no tackling, no smothers and the foot skills are pretty ordinary compared to modern players it's just they have so much time and space to get the ball. Watching that these days you would do nothing but complain it's like watching under 13's. Their would be media backlash about how the game has turned in to meaningless aerial ping pong.

As for CTE it pays to remember the research is still in it's infancy. I doubt anyone suing at the moment could provide enough evidence, the US lawsuits have focused on hidden medical knowledge and aimed at the helmet company. But at the same time the AFL (and NFL) are way ahead of the curve. We've got the concussion sub rule. We've got advanced concussion testing. We've increased the penalties for head high contact at the tribunal. Footballers who played in the 90's and 00's may have cause for legal action although I doubt it will be a massive class action as seen in the US. But I hope the lawyers have protected the clubs and AFL from any players who play today because if you are playing today you should be well aware concussion is a risk.

The game will evolve as life does. Nothing goes backwards.

I hope there are never restrictions on where players can move on the ground.

The interchange is an interesting one. I think on reflection capping it is a good move.

Maybe even down to 60 for the game. Use them whenever.

Fatigue is a part of the game. Mind over matter.

  On 21/03/2014 at 12:51, the master said:

Capping interchange or substitutes will just mean more rotation between positions and more athletes over footballers. Rohan Bail will thrive, Liam Jurrah will dive.

The simple fact is that once full ground pressure footy became evident that elite endurance takes priority over everything.

Ross Lyon with an interchange cap still plays Ross Lyon footy, he just makes the players fitter and more versatile. Already teams are down to one ruckman. Interchange caps will eventually kill the small and medium forwards who are already on the way out. It really will be come 5 big guys then 17 versatile runners.

Interchange has to stay. Methods need to be considered to retrain the focus on style of play which will then dictate the athlete. I believe the TAC are looking at introducing a rule to keep players inside each respective forward 50. That should be considered.

But so far we've had 6 games this season.

Freo v Collingwood. The winners of the other 5 games - GWS, Gold Coast, Port, Geel and Ess all played attractive football.

The Geel v Adel game was beautiful to watch and highlighted all skills AFL players have.

actually not.

thats how it was back in the 70's - 80's where you had to be a footballer or a meathead. not many (athletes only) back then, but plenty of players who could run all day & were great footy players, but usually slow.

TWallace, Diesel Williams, Robert Harvey, etc others with speed, Ricky Barham, Michael Turner, Keith Greig, Brian Wood,

tough guys, Ayers, Ditterich, Balme, Brereton, Lockett,

I t means that the rotations will slow, & the players with natural endurance will prevail, & the skilled players will dominate more than now, using their skills in more space, (see Flower) less congestion. Players will be more specialised skilled in a certain position, see Diacos, Bartlett.

But the game Will not be the same as the 70's - 80's,,,, as the full-time nature & the learned level of skills, plus the sports science, will dictate that our players will remain much fitter than back then, so they will still be able to run quick, & far. but not from end to end, all game.

the game would grow into a Hybrid of the gamestyle of Today's game, crossed with a more positional game of the 80's. the players would be bigger (stronger) heavier except the skilled runers like the wingers who'ld be like todays. there would be 2 rucks, & tough. they would have to be great marks, & use the body skillfully, to go forward to the pocket.

In short, the game would reinstate many of the old skills lost, of yesteryear. but with the modern run & fitness.

.

I totally disagree with the sentiment of this post.

The game has improved so much over the years.

Bring up youtube and have a look at a game from the 80's or early 90's.

It is horrible. Players in the back half seemingly instructed to boot the ball as far as they can, the moment they receive it.

No intelligence involved whatsoever.

All in all, I think the game is headed in the right direction and players play the game with more brains than brawn, and for me, that's a good thing.

Even the rules that seemed a bit over the top to begin with (e.g hands in the back) have had a positive effect on the way the game is played.

  On 22/03/2014 at 01:50, WAClark said:

I totally disagree with the sentiment of this post.

The game has improved so much over the years.

Bring up youtube and have a look at a game from the 80's or early 90's.

It is horrible. Players in the back half seemingly instructed to boot the ball as far as they can, the moment they receive it.

No intelligence involved whatsoever.

All in all, I think the game is headed in the right direction and players play the game with more brains than brawn, and for me, that's a good thing.

Even the rules that seemed a bit over the top to begin with (e.g hands in the back) have had a positive effect on the way the game is played.

the fitness & intensity is good, but the spectacle & WoW factor has diminished.

we need more space to open up so there are more long kicks, & more big marks... even if the mark is dropped, then see the smalls run riot. the spontaneity from this is great & brings back more passion, as its more a roll of the dice. yes, back to a game, rather than being so controlled.

  On 21/03/2014 at 17:53, Munga said:

if you want to start looking ar clips of footy when it was at its best look at footy in the late 90s early 2000s.

instead of a cap on interchange put a minimum time that players have to be off if they come off the ground. eg 10 or 15 min,

bring the rotations back to 20 or 30. gee it was an exciting game then. positional play, not rolling mauls where a quick kick out the back gows to no one because the fwd line are in the defensive 50. every NON footy fan that iknow tells me its gone to [censored] compared to how it used to be. hence why rugby league has overtaken it as the most popular code in australia. only the die hards still insist its a pleasure to watch.

Hmm... 10 or 15 minute compulsory rests. So... that would mean a cap of approximately... 6 rotations per quarter maximum. Not sure you've thought that one out. Nevermind that the players would be constantly jogging the boundary to keep warm on breaks that long.

And that rugby league point... you're kidding right? Or just stating the opposite of reality as a kind of confuse-a-cat ploy?

Anyone who thinks that there are no contests in the game, and no long kicking, and no open spaces, well, I have to admit they just seem a bit silly to me. We're not even one round in, if you can't tell that there are serious differences in the way each game is played, and even how the opponents in a single game approach it differently, frankly you're just not watching.

Essendon v North, for example, was a textboook case of two teams with radically different set-ups and tactics squaring off, where at different times in the game it broke in favour of each team, resulting in surges of scoring and, shock, an unpredictable game!

Awful awful stuff.

Some people want to go back to another time in football, without realising that the game has past that time by, never to be recaptured.

If you instituted those exact same rules today, coaches would just used newer and more sophisticated ways to do pretty much what they are doing now.

Quit living in the past.

I love AFL footy the way it was, the way it is now, and for what it will become in the future.

  On 22/03/2014 at 07:03, Machsy said:

Some people want to go back to another time in football, without realising that the game has past that time by, never to be recaptured.

If you instituted those exact same rules today, coaches would just used newer and more sophisticated ways to do pretty much what they are doing now.

Quit living in the past.

I love AFL footy the way it was, the way it is now, and for what it will become in the future.

well its a problem when you don't feel like going to watch & can't be bothered watching it on TV, but now enjoy some rugby games more?

And its not only hard to see who's running on & off the interchange bench with 50Yrs + eyes,,, the congestion makes it nearly Impossible to see what's happening with the congestion.

this further alienates the older devotees.

you see in older generations of our game, the differing generations didn't have worry about these things, as the game rarely changed. just the eyes did, & it was always easy to see whats happening. & who's playing where.

so where actually living in the future, yours.

  On 21/03/2014 at 23:45, the master said:

You really haven't thought much of this through have you?

Mandating kicks would increase short backwards or sideways kicking. If you have to kick under pressure you're more likely to go backwards or sideways. Same with the kick outs. For every attacking rule you aim to create will come with defensive tactics.

Any rules that aim to stop congestion need to be thoroughly tested at lower levels and Preseason football because there is a huge risk that they backfire or have no effect at all. Take a drop punt from kick outs. When a team scores a quick point and the other side has an open defensive 50 you want players to move the ball as quickly as possible which means you wouldn't restrict them to an unreliable kick.

Looking at that 1945 game you'd be tearing your hair out as a supporter. No chasing, no tackling, no smothers and the foot skills are pretty ordinary compared to modern players it's just they have so much time and space to get the ball. Watching that these days you would do nothing but complain it's like watching under 13's. Their would be media backlash about how the game has turned in to meaningless aerial ping pong.

As for CTE it pays to remember the research is still in it's infancy. I doubt anyone suing at the moment could provide enough evidence, the US lawsuits have focused on hidden medical knowledge and aimed at the helmet company. But at the same time the AFL (and NFL) are way ahead of the curve. We've got the concussion sub rule. We've got advanced concussion testing. We've increased the penalties for head high contact at the tribunal. Footballers who played in the 90's and 00's may have cause for legal action although I doubt it will be a massive class action as seen in the US. But I hope the lawyers have protected the clubs and AFL from any players who play today because if you are playing today you should be well aware concussion is a risk.

Well, it is a bit tongue-in-cheek.

  On 21/03/2014 at 23:45, the master said:

You really haven't thought much of this through have you?

Mandating kicks would increase short backwards or sideways kicking. If you have to kick under pressure you're more likely to go backwards or sideways. Same with the kick outs. For every attacking rule you aim to create will come with defensive tactics.

Any rules that aim to stop congestion need to be thoroughly tested at lower levels and Preseason football because there is a huge risk that they backfire or have no effect at all. Take a drop punt from kick outs. When a team scores a quick point and the other side has an open defensive 50 you want players to move the ball as quickly as possible which means you wouldn't restrict them to an unreliable kick.

Looking at that 1945 game you'd be tearing your hair out as a supporter. No chasing, no tackling, no smothers and the foot skills are pretty ordinary compared to modern players it's just they have so much time and space to get the ball. Watching that these days you would do nothing but complain it's like watching under 13's. Their would be media backlash about how the game has turned in to meaningless aerial ping pong.

As for CTE it pays to remember the research is still in it's infancy. I doubt anyone suing at the moment could provide enough evidence, the US lawsuits have focused on hidden medical knowledge and aimed at the helmet company. But at the same time the AFL (and NFL) are way ahead of the curve. We've got the concussion sub rule. We've got advanced concussion testing. We've increased the penalties for head high contact at the tribunal. Footballers who played in the 90's and 00's may have cause for legal action although I doubt it will be a massive class action as seen in the US. But I hope the lawyers have protected the clubs and AFL from any players who play today because if you are playing today you should be well aware concussion is a risk.

all are aware concussion is a risk. doesn't mean we can't create rules to minimise the risk.

  On 21/03/2014 at 23:45, the master said:

You really haven't thought much of this through have you?

Mandating kicks would increase short backwards or sideways kicking. If you have to kick under pressure you're more likely to go backwards or sideways. Same with the kick outs. For every attacking rule you aim to create will come with defensive tactics.

Any rules that aim to stop congestion need to be thoroughly tested at lower levels and Preseason football because there is a huge risk that they backfire or have no effect at all. Take a drop punt from kick outs. When a team scores a quick point and the other side has an open defensive 50 you want players to move the ball as quickly as possible which means you wouldn't restrict them to an unreliable kick.

Looking at that 1945 game you'd be tearing your hair out as a supporter. No chasing, no tackling, no smothers and the foot skills are pretty ordinary compared to modern players it's just they have so much time and space to get the ball. Watching that these days you would do nothing but complain it's like watching under 13's. Their would be media backlash about how the game has turned in to meaningless aerial ping pong.

As for CTE it pays to remember the research is still in it's infancy. I doubt anyone suing at the moment could provide enough evidence, the US lawsuits have focused on hidden medical knowledge and aimed at the helmet company. But at the same time the AFL (and NFL) are way ahead of the curve. We've got the concussion sub rule. We've got advanced concussion testing. We've increased the penalties for head high contact at the tribunal. Footballers who played in the 90's and 00's may have cause for legal action although I doubt it will be a massive class action as seen in the US. But I hope the lawyers have protected the clubs and AFL from any players who play today because if you are playing today you should be well aware concussion is a risk.

The jury is in, out and gone home on this one. (CTE). The evolution of the code is forcing more collisions, so something has to be done about the rules to make it (once again) a more open game, not requiring so much crash and bash.

  On 21/03/2014 at 06:26, bush demon said:

The game has become bogged down. There is too much emphasis on chasing the ball from one end of the stadium to the other, too many useless handballs, too much 'system', in fact. I always look back on the chaos of old matches with some degree of nostalgia. Why not mandate that there can only be one or two handballs before the ball has to be kicked? There is too much precision in handballing, kicking allows pure football to prevail, and it also allows an element of chance of an unforced turnover. This is to be applauded, and we should get back to it. The rolling mauls and sheer boredom of modern Aussie Rules needs to be addressed.

I am also coming from this from an occupational health and safety angle. The amount of head collisions caused by close contact is creating medical and legal issues which are being overlooked by the profiteers of our game. Freeing the game up and opening the game up should be a priority, so let's get back to the past.

PS note it is Aussie rules, it is not AFL. there is no such thing as afl:

I agree with this post. I've always suspected that the people running this game want us to become more professional and americanised. And because of this the game has lost it's innocence. Younger people on this forum really never saw this game when it had a sense of beauty and grace. It may have been slightly slower but it was much much more exciting to watch.