Rohan Connolly - perfect storm article

[dee-luded 2,959]

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.

it is how I like, to express myself. it resembles how I feel about things. so you get to see more than just the literal words before you but more depth, than just the thin words.

[dee-luded 2,959]

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

never touched anything other than alcohol, or the occasional bit of weed. & some lead pipe when i was a kid.

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.

[deespicable me 1,485]

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

I agree with these posts.

I am extremely depressed with the state of the game not for the beauty of the spectacle but because there is no change. I used to enjoy seeing teams other than Melbourne rise and fall and the cyclical nature of success. I believed and still do believe in the restorative power of the priority pick. I used to believe that your chance of success in the AFL was indeed cyclical, you couldn't stay down too long before you'd bubble back up with a team filled with early draft talent.

The biggest shift in the game in my opinion is political. The game used to have socialist roots. After the years of St Kilda and Fitzroy being lost down the bottom of the ladder the AFL introduced the draft and the priority pick system to help those that couldn't help themselves. Now I believe we are viewing a Capitalist system where the strong get stronger and the weak....... well its their own fault. Bad luck. I know everyone says Melbourne had its chance and blew it. I know people say its our own fault. It was and is. So how long do we stay down. How much longer?

I have NO faith that we are on a level playing field, that if we work hard and get the right people in place we can become as powerful as any one of Collingwood, Hawthorn or Geelong.

I think the power clubs have too much say and are actively making it impossible for teams like ourselves to ever rise up the ladder.

Hawthorn have homes at Glenferrie, Waverley, Tasmania and now some multi million dollar facility at Dingley. Collingwood has a great set up and a huge power base and Geelong like the interstate clubs has its own stadium.

Equalisation is a myth. People who think we should fight our way out of this are in my opinion mistaken because we can't compete given our circumstances. We are starting from a fair way back and we are only going backwards.

I don't really care about the beauty of the game, I just want us to win something occassionally. Given the political shift the game has taken and a weak AFL administration I see this as virtually impossible.

[dee-luded 2,959]

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

who were they dc?

[Macca 16,903]

The modern game is where it is because the coaches redesigned the sport ... and the AFL has stood idly by and let them do it.

If the AFL had have stepped in when they should have, we wouldn't be witnessing the unappealing aspects of the sport that we currently witness.

I've yet to meet or hear of a footy fan who doesn't really like positional play - yet for most of the games, we don't get to see the players in their rightful positions ... and does anyone genuinely enjoy watching 30 players on the ball at any given time?

My fix ...

• Any backwards kick to be automatically "play on"
• A kick must travel at least 20 metres for a mark to be awarded
• Ditch the interchange (rotations) altogether ... if a player comes off, he stays off. 4 reserves (or subs)
• After each goal all the forwards and backmen must be inside the 50 metre arc until the ball is bounced (which would finally give a purpose to the 50 metre arc)
• Quicker ball-ups when a pack starts forming (or when a free kick is obviously not going to be paid) The umpire to throw the ball up with more immediacy to help break up the play.

Like 'Munga' my concern is whether the current generation and/or the next generation will have a genuine love for the game ... in my opinion it's not enough to just have a strong allegiance for your team or feel an obligation to the sport out of loyalty.

Previous generations had footy as a clear no.1 with daylight to their next preference. These days, the choices are vast so footy has to be great. It's not played outside of this country so we have to get it right (and bullet-proof)

Finally, I feel like we are now watching a bad version of a hybrid style of rugby/soccer.

Our game used to stand apart from all the other sports - now it just looks like a chaotic mess. Cosmetic changes aren't going to change the look of the game but I reckon that's all the AFL will do (if that)

.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Macca

[dee-luded 2,959]

The modern game is where it is because the coaches redesigned the sport ... and the AFL has stood idly by and let them do it.

If the AFL had have stepped in when they should have, we wouldn't be witnessing the unappealing aspects of the sport that we currently witness.

I've yet to meet or hear of a footy fan who doesn't really like positional play - yet for most of the games, we don't get to see the players in their rightful positions ... and does anyone genuinely enjoy watching 30 players on the ball at any given time?

My fix ...

• Any backwards kick to be penalised - whatever happened to having to kick over your mark?
• A kick must travel at least 25 metres for a mark to be awarded
• Ditch the interchange (rotations) altogether ... if a player comes off, he stays off. 4 reserves (or subs)
• After each goal all the forwards and backmen must be inside the 50 metre arc (which would finally give a purpose to the 50 metre arc)
• Quicker ball-ups when a pack starts forming (or when a free kick is obviously not going to be paid) The Umpire to throw the ball up to break up the play.

Like 'Munga' my concern is whether the current generation and/or the next generation will have a genuine love for the game ... in my opinion it's not enough to just have a strong allegiance for your team or feel an obligation out of loyalty.

Previous generations had footy as a clear no.1 with daylight to their next preference. These days, the choices are vast so footy has to be great. It's not played outside of this country so we have to get it right (and bullet-proof)

Finally, I feel like we are now watching a bad version of a hybrid version of rugby/soccer ... our game used to stand apart from all the other sports - now it just looks like a chaotic mess. Cosmetic changes aren't going to change the look of the game but I reckon that's all the AFL will do (if that)

nope, bringing in even more rule changes is weaving a more tangled Web.

there is only one answer when you've driven in too deep down a narrow cliff face track. that is to reverse up back to where you came from. gently. & slowly undo the mistakes you made getting into bother in the first place.

the mistakes initially were increasing the interchange bench, & then to 4...

2 man bench, with one emergency; a non substitute emergency... only to replace seriously injured hospital cases. redressing the bench back to 2 men.

[Macca 16,903]

I can also fully understand why many wouldn't share my views on footy - to each his own.

However, there's just far too many footy fans who are dissatisfied with the sport for it to be just a generational issue. It's odd that the detractors (often aged over 30/35) weren't critical of the sport in the 70's,80's, 90's or even in the early 2000's - it's just now.

This same demographic doesn't have the same attitude with other sports that they like either - test cricket, rugby league, rugby union, soccer and other sports do not attract anywhere near the same levels of criticisms from those who have always liked those sports.

nope, bringing in even more rule changes is weaving a more tangled Web.

there is only one answer when you've driven in too deep down a narrow cliff face track. that is to reverse up back to where you came from. gently. & slowly undo the mistakes you made getting into bother in the first place.

the mistakes initially were increasing the interchange bench, & then to 4...

2 man bench, with one emergency; a non substitute emergency... only to replace seriously injured hospital cases. redressing the bench back to 2 men.

2 or 3 reserves in any sort of capacity which doesn't involve rotations isn't enough - I'd be prepared to go to 5 or 6 reserves (subs) to offset the ditching of the interchange.

The other changes I've suggested are just re-establishing the sport as it once was - which wasn't all that long ago either.

.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Macca

[dee-luded 2,959]

I can also fully understand why many wouldn't share my views on footy - to each his own.

However, there's just far too many footy fans who are dissatisfied with the sport for it to be just a generational issue.

2 reserves isn't enough - I'd be prepared to go to 5 or 6 to offset the ditching of the interchange.

The other changes I've suggested are just redressing the sport as it once was - which wasn't all that long ago either.

Once again you haven't read my post properly - it seems you only see what you want to see.

.

no, I didn't mean 2 reserves, I meant a 2 man interchange bech, with one emergency reserve only for genuine hospitalisations. subject to the umpires acting doctor's advice, Re use of the reserve.

Edited July 24, 2015 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,959]

I can also fully understand why many wouldn't share my views on footy - to each his own.

However, there's just far too many footy fans who are dissatisfied with the sport for it to be just a generational issue.

2 reserves isn't enough - I'd be prepared to go to 5 or 6 to offset the ditching of the interchange.

The other changes I've suggested are just redressing the sport as it once was - which wasn't all that long ago either.

Once again you haven't read my post properly - it seems you only see what you want to see.

.

The modern game is where it is because the coaches redesigned the sport ... and the AFL has stood idly by and let them do it.

If the AFL had have stepped in when they should have, we wouldn't be witnessing the unappealing aspects of the sport that we currently witness.

I've yet to meet or hear of a footy fan who doesn't really like positional play - yet for most of the games, we don't get to see the players in their rightful positions ... and does anyone genuinely enjoy watching 30 players on the ball at any given time?

My fix ...

• Any backwards kick to be penalised - whatever happened to having to kick over your mark?
• A kick must travel at least 25 metres for a mark to be awarded
• Ditch the interchange (rotations) altogether ... if a player comes off, he stays off. 4 reserves (or subs)
• After each goal all the forwards and backmen must be inside the 50 metre arc (which would finally give a purpose to the 50 metre arc)
• Quicker ball-ups when a pack starts forming (or when a free kick is obviously not going to be paid) The Umpire to throw the ball up to break up the play.

Like 'Munga' my concern is whether the current generation and/or the next generation will have a genuine love for the game ... in my opinion it's not enough to just have a strong allegiance for your team or feel an obligation out of loyalty.

Previous generations had footy as a clear no.1 with daylight to their next preference. These days, the choices are vast so footy has to be great. It's not played outside of this country so we have to get it right (and bullet-proof)

Finally, I feel like we are now watching a bad version of a hybrid version of rugby/soccer ... our game used to stand apart from all the other sports - now it just looks like a chaotic mess. Cosmetic changes aren't going to change the look of the game but I reckon that's all the AFL will do (if that)

well I stopped reading after you wanted to bring in further new rules, so didn't read what you said about Munga.

but, sorry, I cannot agree with the writings highlighted above...

to me they need to get rid of all new laws brought in since 1996, especially the ones about the Ruckmen, & chopping arms, etc. let players use strength as a skill, & allow some roughness.

allow the push & shove, scrap the melee fines. & when time on is blown, it stops the clock... no more clock continuing to run allowing teams to run the clock down. time off should not start until the player with the ball actually disposes of the ball, as a legal disposal. no hand-balling over the scoring line, or boundary line, to waste time.

..... that's all I would like to see in rule fiddling..

[Macca 16,903]

no, I didn't mean 2 reserves, I meant a 2 man interchange bech, with one emergency reserve only for genuine hospitalisations. subject to the umpires acting doctor's advice, Re use of the reserve.

Well I've never liked the interchange anyway - we never needed it.

The sport has been redesigned because of the hundreds of rotations. I'd prefer to get rid of it altogether. However, I don't see any changes by the AFL other than cosmetic ones.

well I stopped reading after you wanted to bring in further new rules, so didn't read what you said about Munga.

but, sorry, I cannot agree with the writings highlighted above...

to me they need to get rid of all new laws brought in since 1996, especially the ones about the Ruckmen, & chopping arms, etc. let players use strength as a skill, & allow some roughness.

allow the push & shove, scrap the melee fines. & when time on is blown, it stops the clock... no more clock continuing to run allowing teams to run the clock down. time off should not start until the player with the ball actually disposes of the ball, as a legal disposal. no hand-balling over the scoring line, or boundary line, to waste time.

..... that's all I would like to see in rule fiddling..

If the changes I've suggested were implemented, we'd start witnessing footy as it was primarily played circa late 90's/early 2000's.

Teams started with their "keepings off" style (short passing). kicking backwards, numerous rotations (which has caused all the stoppages) and players running up and down the ground all day from that time period. Players played in their basic positions up until about 10 years ago and then it all started changing. The umpires often create the huge packs by not breaking up the play with a quick ball up.

I'm suggesting that we implement rules that takes us back to how footy was played just over 10 years ago. If people are happy to watch 30 players on the ball for extended parts of the games then good for them. They're easily pleased in my opinion.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Well I've never liked the interchange anyway - we never needed it.

The sport has been redesigned because of the hundreds of rotations. I'd prefer to get rid of it altogether. However, I don't see any changes by the AFL other than cosmetic ones.

If the changes I've suggested were implemented, we'd start witnessing footy as it was primarily played circa late 90's/early 2000's.

Teams started with their "keepings off" style (short passing). kicking backwards, numerous rotations (which has caused all the stoppages) and players running up and down the ground all day from that time period. Players played in their basic positions up until about 10 years ago and then it all started changing. The umpires often create the huge packs by not breaking up the play with a quick ball up.

I'm suggesting that we implement rules that takes us back to how footy was played just over 10 years ago. If people are happy to watch 30 players on the ball for extended parts of the games then good for them. They're easily pleased in my opinion.

I disagree that ditching interchanges will bring footy back to its glory days. If rotations are the problem why has the game gotten uglier and scrappier (lower scoring) with the 120 cap? Probably because coaches are wary of it and more likely to conserve energy by forcing stoppages or moving the ball slowly. Coaching is too advanced now. Sure it'd be interesting to see what'd happen but it'd be chaotic and cause an uproar if brought in

[SaberFang 7,151]

The theory is that the fitter and more rested the players on the field, the more they can run and chase the ball in a big rolling maul for 120 minutes.

The idea is to tire them out by reducing the interchange, thus forcing (by stealth) the coaches to stick their bloody players into the positions they're meant to be, rather than teaching their players to run with the ball the whole game.

[Macca 16,903]

I disagree that ditching interchanges will bring footy back to its glory days. If rotations are the problem why has the game gotten uglier and scrappier (lower scoring) with the 120 cap? Probably because coaches are wary of it and more likely to conserve energy by forcing stoppages or moving the ball slowly. Coaching is too advanced now. Sure it'd be interesting to see what'd happen but it'd be chaotic and cause an uproar if brought in

Because 120 rotations is 120 rotations too many. As I said, I've never liked the interchange.

The sport never needed the interchange - back before all these hundreds of rotations the players were never asked to run up and down the ground all day. The coaches never asked them to do it because they would have tired out their players too quickly.

Because of the rest that the players are now given, they're now able to run up and down the ground all day - and that's what the coaches make them do.

Do you genuinely enjoy watching 30 players around the ball on a fairly constant basis? - if so, what do find to be enjoyable about such occurrences?

[Je Roos Salem 661]

The theory is that the fitter and more rested the players on the field, the more they can run and chase the ball in a big rolling maul for 120 minutes.

The idea is to tire them out by reducing the interchange, thus forcing (by stealth) the coaches to stick their bloody players into the positions they're meant to be, rather than teaching their players to run with the ball the whole game.

I still think it's optimistic to think the design can be controlled like that given how tactics have advanced. There's bound to be teams still who'd go completely conservative and just park everyone back and the fitter teams would still use everyone around the ball. Not to mention there'd be a lot of moaning and more infringements too

[SaberFang 7,151]

The problem isn't so much watching players running after the ball the whole game, it's more the endless cyle of ball-up, mark, tackle, ball to ground, umpire whistle, another stoppage. Wash, rinse, repeat 5 times in a row before someone FINALLY breaks free.

It's goddamn awful to watch. What needs to happen is a radical overhaul of the umpiring. Start calling the endless deliberate out of bounds kicks, handballs, rushed balls, etc. AS DELIBERATE. Start awarding possession to teams rather than the endless parade of ball-ups and stoppages we see now. How many times a game do we need to see a player either run out of bounds while in possession, or conveniently tap the ball 4 times towards the boundary, before you finally wake up and realise that players are exploiting the rules?

[SaberFang 7,151]

I still think it's optimistic to think the design can be controlled like that given how tactics have advanced. There's bound to be teams still who'd go completely conservative and just park everyone back and the fitter teams would still use everyone around the ball. Not to mention there'd be a lot of moaning and more infringements too

Well that's an interesting strategy; just parking all 18 players in defense. You'd stop opposition goals but would need a miracle to score anything.

[Macca 16,903]

I still think it's optimistic to think the design can be controlled like that given how tactics have advanced. There's bound to be teams still who'd go completely conservative and just park everyone back and the fitter teams would still use everyone around the ball. Not to mention there'd be a lot of moaning and more infringements too

Without adequate rest, the players would have limitations on how far and how fast they can run within a game. Parking everyone back is one thing but what do they do if they want to score? 120 minutes of running up and down the ground all day without so much as a minutes rest? I can't see it.

Not sure if you follow ice hockey but the players can only last about 2 and a half minutes before they are interchanged - and there are a total of 20 players with only 6 on the rink at any one time. But it wasn't always that way - interchange has actually helped that sport.

Soccer has never felt inclined to introduce interchange - if it did, that sport would probably become a lot more crowded on the field (or, less open) Well, in my opinion it would anyway.

[Macca 16,903]

Also, there is nowhere near enough outrage about teams "over possessing" the ball

... all the needless handpassing, numerous uncontested marks and hundreds of short passes probably appeals to the dreamteam and supercoach participants but probably not for those who have no interest in "fantasy football"

And no, I'm not one of those "kick it long" people either - the debate is much more complex than dumbing it down to a black and white argument.

Teams hugging the boundary in order to create stoppages is another blight on the game - interesting that the then VFL brought in a rule which operated from 1926 - 1939 where teams were penalised if they were the last team to touch or kick the ball before it went out of bounds.

[Sir Why You Little 36,955]

Radically reduce the interchange rotations aand all the other probleems will fix themselves

Bring back fatigue into the game as a tactic

All the other problems will fix themselves.

[sue 9,096]

Radically reduce the interchange rotations aand all the other probleems will fix themselves

Bring back fatigue into the game as a tactic

All the other problems will fix themselves.

I think you are right. Much better than introducing absurdities like zones.

[Sir Why You Little 36,955]

I think you are right. Much better than introducing absurdities like zones.

There is no way of enforcing zones except at centre bounces

10 rotations MAX each quarter next year.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Well that's an interesting strategy; just parking all 18 players in defense. You'd stop opposition goals but would need a miracle to score anything.

Well it looked like Carlton were doing it on occasions, and it didn't work!

Because 120 rotations is 120 rotations too many. As I said, I've never liked the interchange.

The sport never needed the interchange - back before all these hundreds of rotations the players were never asked to run up and down the ground all day. The coaches never asked them to do it because they would have tired out their players too quickly.

Because of the rest that the players are now given, they're now able to run up and down the ground all day - and that's what the coaches make them do.

Do you genuinely enjoy watching 30 players around the ball on a fairly constant basis? - if so, what do find to be enjoyable about such occurrences?

I don't enjoy it much but I do respect coaching and how tactics evolve. I like watching footy but I don't expect to be entertained by it, particularly as a Melbourne fan with Roos as my coach. Nor do I think tired players will increase the standard of the game. All I really want is some decent umpiring, problem is everyone just wants to settle for stoppages. And then the umpire will just pick out a soft free kick like clockwork, usually penalising a player who's gone hard at the ball. If a bit more hardness was allowed you probably wouldn't see a dozen soft ball ups in a row

[Macca 16,903]

Radically reduce the interchange rotations aand all the other probleems will fix themselves

Bring back fatigue into the game as a tactic

All the other problems will fix themselves.

I tend to agree Wyl, the flow on effect will influence other parts of the sport. I'd still cut the rotations back to zero, all the same.

Interesting that rugby league only allows 12 interchange per team whilst rugby union only has subs (except in the case of the blood rule) Soccer only has subs too.

Meanwhile, rotations in our game was heading towards 180-200 per team until they cut it back to 120 (as if that was going to make much of a difference)

People need to remember that in the whole scheme of things, the high number of rotations is a recent phenomena (introduced by the coaches and allowed to happen by the AFL) The law of unintended consequences kicked in and we're left with a sport that doesn't really resemble what it once was.

Just imagine if we could go back 10-12 years and deliberately change how the sport is played by deliberately increasing rotations to massive levels - most would say "don't do it" but that's exactly what has happened.

I'm all for change when change is necessary or needed - so, I'm all for change right now. Not sure it will happen though - I don't believe the AFL have a clear vision of where the sport is going ... they are far too transfixed on the $$$'s

I know a stack of people who don't watch footy like they once did - of all ages too. The over 35's because they don't like what they see and under 35's because they have numerous other interests.

[Sir Why You Little 36,955]

I tend to agree Wyl, the flow on effect will influence other parts of the sport. I'd still cut the rotations back to zero, all the same.

Interesting that rugby league only allows 12 interchange per team whilst rugby union only has subs (except in the case of the blood rule) Soccer only has subs too.

Meanwhile, rotations in our game was heading towards 180-200 per team until they cut it back to 120 (as if that was going to make much of a difference)

People need to remember that in the whole scheme of things, the high number of rotations is a recent phenomena (introduced by the coaches and allowed to happen by the AFL) The law of unintended consequences kicked in and we're left with a sport that doesn't really resemble what it once was.

Just imagine if we could go back 10-12 years and deliberately change how the sport is played by deliberately increasing rotations to massive levels - most would say "don't do it" but that's exactly what has happened.

I'm all for change when change is necessary or needed - so, I'm all for change right now. Not sure it will happen though - I don't believe the AFL have a clear vision of where the sport is going ... they are far too transfixed on the $$$'s

I know a stack of people who don't watch footy like they once did - of all ages too. The over 35's because they don't like what they see and under 35's because they have numerous other interests.

when rotations came in I was happy to see how far it would go. But now we know it is killing the game.

I say 10 Max per quarter only because the AFL are never going to go back to zero (they Should)

This was all Kevin Sheedy's idea.

It failed Sheeds. YOU WERE WRONG.

[Macca 16,903]

Well it looked like Carlton were doing it on occasions, and it didn't work!

I don't enjoy it much but I do respect coaching and how tactics evolve. I like watching footy but I don't expect to be entertained by it, particularly as a Melbourne fan with Roos as my coach. Nor do I think tired players will increase the standard of the game. All I really want is some decent umpiring, problem is everyone just wants to settle for stoppages. And then the umpire will just pick out a soft free kick like clockwork, usually penalising a player who's gone hard at the ball. If a bit more hardness was allowed you probably wouldn't see a dozen soft ball ups in a row

So your basing your argument around your "respect for coaching"?

And you don't expect to be entertained by footy?

I respect your opinion JRS but we are diametrically opposed here ... I need to be entertained by footy and I couldn't care less about the coaches in the way you do. They should not be the custodians of the sport (yet, effectively, they are the custodians of the sport)

If rotations were reduced to zero, coaches would be forced to leave a number of their players in their rightful positions ... before the explosion of rotations, clubs were always recruiting "athletes" who could play the sport to high levels who could run all day. However, there was never enough of these types in order to have the sport end up looking like it looks now though.

Should a talent like Hogan be required to run up and down the ground all day? (and end up spending a lot of his time in the backline?)