Only one thing worse than nostalgia causing people to look back to a mythical golden age -

- people who think the present situation is always the best of all possible worlds.

Reduce the interchange rotations to 10 per quarter for both sides.

Problem solved.

But i have no faith in Dill or his tiresome brother.

Only one thing worse than nostalgia causing people to look back to a mythical golden age -

- people who think the present situation is always the best of all possible worlds.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.........

Yeah well it always going to be what you like. I like British bulldog. That's where this game came from. Rugby ....the school Rugby in England. Wills dad sent him to Rugby and he came back with the idea for our game. I am familiar with the arguments re the indigenous contribution to the development of the game but there is no evidence for it. Blainey dismisses this argument. Of course I accept that these white fellas dismissed anything indigenous and just may be wrong.

Back to British bulldog....I like it better when Jessie Hogan rag dolls his opponent than when it goes end to end really fast ...'with men kicking and jumping over each other.'

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-marketing-fiction-of-its-own-making-with-flashing-lights-20150515-gh1hj7

"We should look to the lessons of Irish football, which continues to thrive by standing steadfastly by its core values, celebrating its place in Irish culture, and not being seduced by the tawdry and ultimately conformist values of the global entertainment industry."

Reduce the interchange rotations to 10 per quarter for both sides.

Problem solved.

But i have no faith in Dill or his tiresome brother.

What if we got rid of rotations all together and just like soccer we had instead 4 or more substitutes, where the game started in the first place with the 19 and 20th men. When did we introduce interchange? What was that decision based on and it seems that the decision makers had little idea of where that decision would lead the game. It has been transformational. One of the main differences of our game was its positional, and 360 degree nature versus the off side rule games like soccer and rugby that dictate players face each other and there are no fixed playing positions except the goalie is soccer. Let's trash the interchange I say.

As much as I bemoan the constant alterations to the game, the stoppage fest we're currently seeing on a weekly basis needs to be looked at very soon, if not now. The game is showing little sign of growing out of it and frankly it's an ugly, uninspiring spectacle at present. "Seagulls fighting over a chip" has never been more appropriate.

Simple fixes would be a) capping the rotations allowing the game to open up in the second half (injuries will happen regardless and I don't buy the theory that the injury toll will skyrocket as a result); and b) actually rewarding the tackler and reducing the leniency given to the man in possession. More free kicks means less congestion. Get it done and let's see some free flowing footy, like it used to be and the way it was intended to be.

Severely capping rotations would force players to spread a bit more and not all run to the stoppage ad infinitum as they would get exhausted trying.

Sure reward the tackler but don't excessively penalties the poor bugger who goes in and gets it......so if, as so commonly happens, the guy with the guts to get the ball is monstered and goes to ground with a pack of players lying on his back pay in the back!!

In other words protect he ball player and only reward correct tackles; penal use incorrect tackles.

Penalize all players going in to an opponent head down.

This would result in far fewer ball ups around the ground.

Boundary throw ins should be from 10 meters inside the boundary with two designated and separated rucks contesting.

I like the idea of a zone around stoppages though I have no idea how incompetent umpires could possibly police it fairly.

If any changes are to be made they should be gradual. 10 interchanges a quarter would be a good start and if it doesn't' work them expand on it. Radical changes implemented too quickly will make a mockery of the game. Best to devolve the game back to something less riotous without overreaction.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-marketing-fiction-of-its-own-making-with-flashing-lights-20150515-gh1hj7

"We should look to the lessons of Irish football, which continues to thrive by standing steadfastly by its core values, celebrating its place in Irish culture, and not being seduced by the tawdry and ultimately conformist values of the global entertainment industry."

yes Davos only little tweak, here or there. not big tweaks like bringing in brand new rules... just interpretations of rules need drift from one shade of grey to another & back.

changing or bring ingf in new laws is too big a change. except to return the game back to its integrity prior to pro football.

back to 2 or maybe 3 interchange, & undo the new laws of the past 15years.

Interchange is the main issue. I know it seems like following popular opinion, but less interchange means more fatigue, more open play, less numbers at the stoppage, shorter quarters etc etc. Its not so much a rule change, more just enforcing the way the rule was meant to be used in the first place, rather than being abused like it is now.

If any changes are to be made they should be gradual. 10 interchanges a quarter would be a good start and if it doesn't' work them expand on it. Radical changes implemented too quickly will make a mockery of the game. Best to devolve the game back to something less riotous without overreaction.

2 interchange bench; with one emergency, for only those who have been hospitalised with a very serious injury like a broken leg or a serious knockout behind the play, type situation.

I can't see zones being a good idea. The game is complicated as it is, how are you meant to police zones?

I found the article pretty simplistic. There are a greater number of issues facing the game than just stoppages.

For one, I'm bored sh!tless with Hawthorn being an ever-present powerhouse. They're odds-on to win it again, making it three in a row, four GFs in a row, five Preliminary finals in a row. If their opponent is Sydney or Fremantle, which is more likely, then that will mean we've had a grand total of three sides make the GF in four years.

But just as importantly, fixturing is horrendous. Free to air TV is dominated by the same sides. If I want to sit down on a Friday night and enjoy a game, I'm essentially forced to watch Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn and Geelong. I'm sick of being forced to watch the same sides weekly. So I've significantly reduced watching non-MFC games. Meanwhile, if I want to follow Melbourne closely, I'm forced to show up at ridiculous times like 1.10 or 4.40, or even 3.20 which exists solely for TV. And if my club goes interstate they essentially disappear off the face of the earth, save for those fortunate enough to afford the rip off that is Foxtel (although I will give credit to local pubs who do their best to have AFL on where possible).

As for the game, I've always believed it will evolve over time and problems like stoppages will sort themselves out. Having said that, I agree that the interchange cap needs to be reduced (significantly, IMO). I don't like the concept of zones, nor do I think they're necessary - eventually, with interchange rotations forced downwards, sides are going to start resting more players in the forward line (because they can't rest them on the bench and they won't be able to push up to the stoppages like they do now). It will sort itself out if we give it the push it needs in the form of reducing rotations.

Interchange is the main issue. I know it seems like following popular opinion, but less interchange means more fatigue, more open play, less numbers at the stoppage, shorter quarters etc etc. Its not so much a rule change, more just enforcing the way the rule was meant to be used in the first place, rather than being abused like it is now.

agreed

today's players are much fitter now than their semi-professional predecessors

so that in itself should mitigate against rotations

why would fitter stronger more athletic players of today need a rest on the rotation bench unless you were trying to turn the game into a rugby scrum or start-stop full-performance gridiron

too many afl execs easily seduced by too many boozy tours of discovery to the us

the tv execs wanted a faster, flashier spectacle but they fooked it up spectacularly

I agree with titan-U, it was a deadset boring article that went nowhere.

We all know that the games is being cruelled by stoppages and it's a style of play that our coach is well-aware of and has taken steps to recruit players accordingly - Vince, Brayshaw, Tyson, Vanders etc.

The interesting thing was when he started talking about indigenous players and then backed off the topic right away as if he knew it was taboo or was simply just to whoosy to confront.

The fact is that after a massive high when Port won the flag with something like 7 indigenous players, most sides now play only two or three IPs because most are light weight and get buffeted of the ball easily or break bones like Jurrah.

It's only the ones with big hips and pace - ie: Rioli, Franklin, Betts, Varcoe, Jeffy - that are making it.

Even Sydney's Jetta has lost ground because he's too light to cope with the inside stuff.

That trend is the saddest part of the way the AFL is heading - more stoppages means guys have to be so strong through the core and shoulders to survive.

I notice he didn't mention anything about channel 7 not being in HD.

Or terrible streaming plans and quality.

Or overpriced and outmoded Foxtel pricing.

Or gambling advertising.

Stoppages aren't the only issue affecting fans watching the game, although yes it is a big one.

I think it is a relevant article. Sports that obtain longevity and a consistent appreciation - are those that remain pure.

Sports like AFL that continue to change the rules by the week, do not remain pure, they essentially change into something that does not remotely represent it's historical starting point. Not only have the rules been hijacked, but the game itself has been hijacked. The people making the big decisions and directing the outcome - run football like a business, it has became an entertainment spectacle. It is something that fans just switch off now, like when I see the Kardashians on TV, that is where I see football heading.

I'm visualising two footballs being used at once, for some reason.

Interchange is the main issue. I know it seems like following popular opinion, but less interchange means more fatigue, more open play, less numbers at the stoppage, shorter quarters etc etc. Its not so much a rule change, more just enforcing the way the rule was meant to be used in the first place, rather than being abused like it is now.

I'm all for seeing what happens when interchange numbers are reduced. But I'm not necessarily convinced it will be the panacea. What I suspect it will lead to is teams going back to recruiting athletes (meaning marathon runners and triathletes) rather than pure footballers, so they can run for longer. Coaches will believe he who has the team with the most ability to run will win the most games. So, I think other rule changes to go with an interchange cap reduction will be necessary. Counter-intuitively, those rules might be ones which slow the game down rather than speed it up so players can "rest" on the ground. This would allow the "pure footballers" more of a chance to keep up with the athletes. Rule changes that might help might be simple things such as disallowing a kick in from a behind until after the goal umpire has waved his flags.

How about this. Get your time machine. The Melbournje side of 2015 transported back to 2000. We would have thrashed Essendon in the GF. Despite Essendon being the best side of 2000...our [censored] fight defensive style would have totally befuddled them.

Essendon would physically beat the [censored] out of most of our side.

Just like they did then.

And I'll tell ya something else.

I blame Paul Roos for the state of the game.

The look of the game at present is terrible I only watch games that envolve the MFC.

It is no accident that it has degenarated to this position since the introduction of the interchange and 24 players.

Unless we return to the things that made the game great to watch it will be overtaken by Soccer by the end of the next decade.

Sadly it is being run by a dill at a critical time I fear for its future.

Too true. My 16 year old son asked me to take him to the soccer tonight, my first ever soccer game by the way. He then went out last night and bought a Real Madrid top with his own money ($120). I asked him this morning whether he wants to go Sunday to the St Kilda game and his response was "Dad, after that crap game against Lions, I think I'll pass this week". He then added that the Pies and Dogs are on Foxtel Sunday from Etihad and he'd prefer to watch that game as they both kick decent scores....very sad to hear that as a long suffering Dees tragic, particularly as I have 3 other kids (all members with my hard earned) who have all only come to a couple of games this year also.

This is the worrying trend that could become all too familiar with the rolling mass that we are seeing each week. My kids just aren't turned on by the game and it's not all about where Melbourne is at, it's the game itself - certainly didn't help that I talked all four of them into that rubbish game last week.

My initial reason for joining this forum several years ago was to bring to attention the degradation of the 'style' of footy.

i felt i had an advantageous position to observe this for the reason being that i had gone several years without seeing a game due to living overseas.

Apart from 2 or 3 posters, i was shouted down. i feel vindicated now by the overwhelming shift in opinion amongst the media and footy itself. Due to the unique position i had of observing it through a "back to the Future" type experience i saw the shift and decline in style before it really became obvious to an audience who had viewed it week in week out and could not see the subtle changes .

Throughout this debate I have insisted that the interchange needs to be capped. the counter argument is that it wouldn't change things much but thats when the case is mounted to cap them to say 80 a game. well i agree that 80 a game wouldn't make a difference.

There is a direct and very distinct correlation between the huge uptick in rotations in the mid 2000s and the decline in style of play.

Lets not mess around with 80 rotations. In the early 2000s, say the era of the Lions premierships, or even the late 90s, footy was great. Forget the argument stating there were bad games back then too. Thats such an obvious statement that it shouldn't even be mentioned . of course there were. But the good was better and more frequent.

Rotations were about 25 - 30 a game. Lets bring it below that to counter the superior athletic condition of todays players. Each bench position can be changed once a qtr, excluding the blood rule.

The other argument I believe is false is when people counter that the high rotations create a fast paced game. I call Bullsh1t on that one. What they do is create an ability for players to run faster for longer but there is a BIG difference between players moving faster and the GAME moving faster.

As it stands with all the stoppages and congestion, although players are able to move quicker for longer , the game is moving much slower. Remember 10 years ago when the players were in position, the ball would race down one wing, and then transition back out of defense along the opposite wing. Position to position, one on one to one on one.

Fast footy is the BALL covering ground quickly.

So, in summary, my thoughts are that players are to start qtrs and after goals in traditional positions and that each interchange position can be changed once a qtr, excluding blood rule.

My initial reason for joining this forum several years ago was to bring to attention the degradation of the 'style' of footy.

i felt i had an advantageous position to observe this for the reason being that i had gone several years without seeing a game due to living overseas.

Apart from 2 or 3 posters, i was shouted down. i feel vindicated now by the overwhelming shift in opinion amongst the media and footy itself. Due to the unique position i had of observing it through a "back to the Future" type experience i saw the shift and decline in style before it really became obvious to an audience who had viewed it week in week out and could not see the subtle changes .

Throughout this debate I have insisted that the interchange needs to be capped. the counter argument is that it wouldn't change things much but thats when the case is mounted to cap them to say 80 a game. well i agree that 80 a game wouldn't make a difference.

There is a direct and very distinct correlation between the huge uptick in rotations in the mid 2000s and the decline in style of play.

Lets not mess around with 80 rotations. In the early 2000s, say the era of the Lions premierships, or even the late 90s, footy was great. Forget the argument stating there were bad games back then too. Thats such an obvious statement that it shouldn't even be mentioned . of course there were. But the good was better and more frequent.

Rotations were about 25 - 30 a game. Lets bring it below that to counter the superior athletic condition of todays players. Each bench position can be changed once a qtr, excluding the blood rule.

The other argument I believe is false is when people counter that the high rotations create a fast paced game. I call Bullsh1t on that one. What they do is create an ability for players to run faster for longer but there is a BIG difference between players moving faster and the GAME moving faster.

As it stands with all the stoppages and congestion, although players are able to move quicker for longer , the game is moving much slower. Remember 10 years ago when the players were in position, the ball would race down one wing, and then transition back out of defense along the opposite wing. Position to position, one on one to one on one.

Fast footy is the BALL covering ground quickly.

So, in summary, my thoughts are that players are to start qtrs and after goals in traditional positions and that each interchange position can be changed once a qtr, excluding blood rule.

agree munga

there was more than 2 or 3 posters who didn't shout you down but i agree the majority did

the interchange crap has scarred this game

will be interesting to see if the afl have the cajones to radically set the clock back on interchanges

i suspect they will only fiddle with it in a minor way

there is a definite groundswell building publicly so i have some hope though not holding my breath

agree munga

there was more than 2 or 3 posters who didn't shout you down but i agree the majority did

the interchange crap has scarred this game

will be interesting to see if the afl have the cajones to radically set the clock back on interchanges

i suspect they will only fiddle with it in a minor way

there is a definite groundswell building publicly so i have some hope though not holding my breath

Ironically, I expect the sub will be abolished...which only increases the ability to rotate players.

Whatever the AFL chooses to do, I don't want to see another knee-jerk reaction. As tempting as it is to argue for an extreme cap (or abolishing interchange altogether), I could see merit in a gradual reduction, such as 80 changes per match in 2016 followed by 60 in 2017 and then 40 in 2018. Each change would only be confirmed after reviewing the impact of the earlier change.

Too true. My 16 year old son asked me to take him to the soccer tonight, my first ever soccer game by the way. He then went out last night and bought a Real Madrid top with his own money ($120). I asked him this morning whether he wants to go Sunday to the St Kilda game and his response was "Dad, after that crap game against Lions, I think I'll pass this week". He then added that the Pies and Dogs are on Foxtel Sunday from Etihad and he'd prefer to watch that game as they both kick decent scores....very sad to hear that as a long suffering Dees tragic, particularly as I have 3 other kids (all members with my hard earned) who have all only come to a couple of games this year also.

This is the worrying trend that could become all too familiar with the rolling mass that we are seeing each week. My kids just aren't turned on by the game and it's not all about where Melbourne is at, it's the game itself - certainly didn't help that I talked all four of them into that rubbish game last week.

Gasp, he likes seeing goals scored and yet he took you to the soccer?!

Agree with what you say Munga.

But if you allow extra rotations for the blood rule you will see a rush of self-inflicted cuts..... (god, why has the AFL made me so cynical)

agree munga

there was more than 2 or 3 posters who didn't shout you down but i agree the majority did

the interchange crap has scarred this game

will be interesting to see if the afl have the cajones to radically set the clock back on interchanges

i suspect they will only fiddle with it in a minor way

there is a definite groundswell building publicly so i have some hope though not holding my breath

Good memory Daisycutter! yes i feel you may be right. its got to a stage also that most current players soon won't remember the game being any different unfortunately but like you said, at least its now up for discussion.

Us dyed in the wool supporters will watch anything, almost, but my concern is the ability of the sport in its current form to be appealing to the next generation.