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)

Joel Selwood becomes the most valuable player in the comp

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.

Yes, i agree La Dee-vina, that would be the most sensible approach. in fact probably the only way to get the coaches and players to agree to it

Yes, i agree La Dee-vina, that would be the most sensible approach. in fact probably the only way to get the coaches and players to agree to it

IMO munga you never ask coaches, they have one primary objective i.e. to win games

Everything else runs a bad second it is the coaches who have developed the game that we have at present.

Forget them and do what is necessary to improve the game.

IMO munga you never ask coaches, they have one primary objective i.e. to win games

Everything else runs a bad second it is the coaches who have developed the game that we have at present.

Forget them and do what is necessary to improve the game.

Too true Old Dee.

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.

The other one I would add is stopping penalising the player who goes to ground to get the ball and gets pinged for "below the knees" when another player dramatically falls over the top of him. Garbage rule in the first place, but if they insist on having it, apply it when a player dangerously slides in, not when he is following his most basic instinct to get the ball.

Some of this goes back to the ever increasing argument for full-time professional umpiring, but I think it will be a while before we see that, sadly.

I'm not too sure about zones. That seems a fairly dramatic change and a bit knee jerky. But another 5 years of what we have now and I'd be first in the rally line.

IMO munga you never ask coaches, they have one primary objective i.e. to win games

Everything else runs a bad second it is the coaches who have developed the game that we have at present.

Forget them and do what is necessary to improve the game.

Not so sure about that OD. Was listening to Clarko on Fox the other day on the direction of the game, and he was making the most sense out of anyone I've listened to recently.

If more teams played like Hawthorn, I doubt there'd be many complaints. Clarkson is one voice you'd absolutely want at the table.

Not so sure about that OD. Was listening to Clarko on Fox the other day on the direction of the game, and he was making the most sense out of anyone I've listened to recently.

If more teams played like Hawthorn, I doubt there'd be many complaints. Clarkson is one voice you'd absolutely want at the table.

Sorry but the answer is still no.

It now suits him to say that, I do not believe he has the look of the game in mind any more than all the others.

Sorry but the answer is still no.

It now suits him to say that, I do not believe he has the look of the game in mind any more than all the others.

And why would he? He is paid to win, not to make a good spectacle.

And why would he? He is paid to win, not to make a good spectacle.

That is exactly why i am saying never ask the coaches or let them have any say in the process.

The AFL are do-gooders, their 'better to be safe than sorry' rules do more damage than they do good.

The head is sacrosanct rule where the head cannot be touched has just resulted in players leading in head first.

So what happens when players lead in head first, well, instead of changing the rules back to discourage it - the AFL just makes more rules and harsher penalties.

However well intentioned some of these rules may be, they are causing more damage than was originally the case before they were brought in.

This can go for nearly all their rule changes. Also, they micromanage aspects of the game to make it fan friendly, the end result is similar to the last example - it looks worse.

Strip the game back to it's basics and let it evolve naturally, we'd see a far greater product and spectacle.

The AFL are do-gooders, their 'better to be safe than sorry' rules do more damage than they do good.

The head is sacrosanct rule where the head cannot be touched has just resulted in players leading in head first.

So what happens when players lead in head first, well, instead of changing the rules back to discourage it - the AFL just makes more rules and harsher penalties.

However well intentioned some of these rules may be, they are causing more damage than was originally the case before they were brought in.

This can go for nearly all their rule changes. Also, they micromanage aspects of the game to make it fan friendly, the end result is similar to the last example - it looks worse.

Strip the game back to it's basics and let it evolve naturally, we'd see a far greater product and spectacle.

So, Kingy, what would you call the games' basics?

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.

well said munga.

the tactics & strategies of today's game, has been brought about by the congestion as a necessity; & only the footy techno nurds love it... but thinking cognitively about a footy match whilst there, goes against getting (in the fight flight & emotional part of our brains), this is where we take ourselves out of our mundane weekly work grind, & escape... but the nurds want the tactics, as they are junkies of it, & like to avoid too much emotion.

this is killing the enjoyment & liberation of peoples minds; to forget about anal-why-sing things, & just let go & enjoy a game of footy.

footy has become like a cross between basketball (dying) & soccer (bluh) & bits of rugby. with barely any highlights of yesteryear.

.

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.

hmmn, I'm really sorry to hear this m'kaaay

very sad.

the AFL, & those who ruine'd the game over the last 20 years, have made some terrible blunders, including the CEO's, who wanted to stop players playing S-O-O.

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

they, the AFL are doing the same as the 'politicians', ruining things for Us all. bowing to the wrong groups.

because they are listening to the WRong Stakeholders.

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

who would those posters be, dc?

Dee-luded WTF is wrong with your font?

Did you smoke crack whilst typing?

I feel like I'm reading a ransom note from a b grade film.

Good call, Bray. Everything is crap these days, except nostalgia, it would seem. I too like hard contested footy, where players have to execute their skills under constant extreme pressure.

Anyway, it's what made our species great - the punters are never happy with anything. Just imagine how ecstatic the cave man must have been - no golden past to compare the present with. It's been all downhill since the invention of the wheel.

Probably wasnt the downhill bits that created the need for the wheel though

Dee-luded WTF is wrong with your font?

Did you smoke crack whilst typing?

I feel like I'm reading a ransom note from a b grade film.

I think he dropped a lot of acid in the 70's.

The other one I would add is stopping penalising the player who goes to ground to get the ball and gets pinged for "below the knees" when another player dramatically falls over the top of him. Garbage rule in the first place, but if they insist on having it, apply it when a player dangerously slides in, not when he is following his most basic instinct to get the ball.

Some of this goes back to the ever increasing argument for full-time professional umpiring, but I think it will be a while before we see that, sadly.

I'm not too sure about zones. That seems a fairly dramatic change and a bit knee jerky. But another 5 years of what we have now and I'd be first in the rally line.

I was pretty surprised when I read that article last year about how there are so few umpires at AFL level that they can't even drop one when they have bad games. The article then said they weren't even full time. Unbelievable. The AFL should take some of that money from the broadcast deal that the AFLPA wants for the players and give it to full time umpires. You could argue to the AFLPA that full time umpires may result in safer games by more consistent rulings.

I think he dropped a lot of acid in the 70's.

I was pretty surprised when I read that article last year about how there are so few umpires at AFL level that they can't even drop one when they have bad games. The article then said they weren't even full time. Unbelievable. The AFL should take some of that money from the broadcast deal that the AFLPA wants for the players and give it to full time umpires. You could argue to the AFLPA that full time umpires may result in safer games by more consistent rulings.

It is not one you will win with the union Choke.

More Money is the only thing on their minds everything else is expendable.

I think he dropped a lot of acid in the 70's.

I was pretty surprised when I read that article last year about how there are so few umpires at AFL level that they can't even drop one when they have bad games. The article then said they weren't even full time. Unbelievable. The AFL should take some of that money from the broadcast deal that the AFLPA wants for the players and give it to full time umpires. You could argue to the AFLPA that full time umpires may result in safer games by more consistent rulings.

What would full time umpires do from Monday to Friday? While full time umps sounds good in theory, I'm not sure whether being forced to work on being a good umpire all week might not cause burnout, boredom or disenchantment.

Well.....I blame the phisos and coaches for this mess

Jesse Hogan kicks the first goal last week after 3 minutes of play and then sprints to the bench for a bloody rest

Forwards are not permitted to have goal kicking practise as this puts overdue stress on their legs

FMD.....What the hell is going on.....This is a simple game when it boils down....Kick more goals than the opposition and you win

To many coaches....Too many fitness blokes, all having their 2 bobs worth, To many "experts" having their say.....to many defensive ploys by coaches, who in my opinion have ruined a great game.

who would those posters be, dc?

the 1's who AGreed With munga, d-l

What would full time umpires do from Monday to Friday? While full time umps sounds good in theory, I'm not sure whether being forced to work on being a good umpire all week might not cause burnout, boredom or disenchantment.

Train, like players. Why expect them to do this in their spare time?

Fitter umpires cover more ground.

Get them examining vision and stuff like players do. Meetings about who made which good or bad calls.

It should be a full time position, just like any AFL player.

Six games played in Melbourne on a Saturday afternoon used to work well.

Six games played in Melbourne on a Saturday afternoon used to work well.

Not really. Average total attendances at all 6 games was around 120,000 per week equal to 2,640,000 per year (excluding-finals).

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.

Great post above

The AFL sadly is more about money than fairness to the teams,

I am getting Bored with the game too , same old same old teams getting the better draw , the better grounds ,Friday night games ,better times , less interstate trips and so on play finals , no wonder they have more members , more support . One can only imagine what the have not clubs would have if they have the preferred Games and Times

I will still support Melbourne and follow the team when possible but watching the same teams win and get the above really does annoy me , I don't watch friday night games anymore and very little AFL

like i used too. My kids see more of Storm playing. I am sure its more then just us playing crap for the last few years , I do look forward to us winning some more games but sadly I think GWS will have its turn like Brisbane before we do