i'd only make it play on for a backwards kick/mark if on the backline, certainly never in the fwd 50 at least

But what if there's 30 seconds to go in a game and the team leading (narrowly) decides to kick the ball backwards out of their own forward line as a time wasting measure?

Perhaps a player could be allowed to kick the ball anywhere within the forward 50 if he's already inside the forward 50?

It's all academic anyway because I just can't see the AFL doing much to properly address the issue of congestion - cosmetic changes is what we should expect.

.

But what if there's 30 seconds to go in a game and the team leading (narrowly) decides to kick the ball backwards out of their own forward line as a time wasting measure?

that is their right. always has been

Reduce or abolish rotations

Leave the rest alone..

that is their right. always has been

Reduce or abolish rotations

Leave the rest alone..

So for over 100 years players rarely, if ever, kicked the ball backwards and now that it happens all the time, it's somehow ok with the footy public? It shouldn't be.

I find the practice of kicking the ball backwards as quite tedious & boring - then again, I'm not easily pleased.

As I said in an earlier post, our game now strongly resembles a bad version of a hybrid form of soccer/rugby. We don't need those type of aspects or traits in our sport - our sport needs to stand apart and be unique. And it still can be unique and stand apart - it just needs a governing body to be true custodians.

,

Australian Rules football looked unique becuase there there are a lot of unique things about it, the main one being a lack of an offside rule.

However, since about 2007 when teams started moving their forwards up to the oppositions forward line (only to run back again) it has started to look more like the sports which do have an offside rule.

Sadly, all AFL coaches are sheep and despite the fact that keeping players forward of the ball is still an extremely effective tactic (I would say the most effective) no one is willing to take the risk.

So for over 100 years players rarely, if ever, kicked the ball backwards and now that it happens all the time, it's somehow ok with the footy public? It shouldn't be.

I find the practice of kicking the ball backwards as quite tedious & boring - then again, I'm not easily pleased.

As I said in an earlier post, our game now strongly resembles a bad version of a hybrid form of soccer/rugby. We don't need those type of aspects or traits in our sport - our sport needs to stand apart and be unique. And it still can be unique and stand apart - it just needs a governing body to be true custodians.

,

the option to kick backwards was always there. A 15 m kick is a mark. No matter what direction.

As a last resort I'd be an advocate of reducing the amount of players on the ground ... one thing is for sure, it's a talking point and the AFL do look like they are possibly going to address the congestion issue.

I'm also a very practical person so I see your suggestion of a cap of 80 rotations as the path that the AFL will probably take - if that happens, only time will tell whether that reduced number of rotations will have any effect on the congestion.

.

Well if there were no rotations it'd almost seem like there are more players than usual, because there'd be no one in the process of running on/off. The cap being reduced to 80 and an abolish of the sub seems to be what's floating around. No matter what though it's quite clear that what the AFL's done has not had its desired effect, and it seems they're trying to dig themselves out of the hole by talking to the coaches about playing attractive styles of footy, which I find a bit pathetic

the option to kick backwards was always there. A 15 m kick is a mark. No matter what direction.

Yeah Wyl, I understand what the rules were (or are) but maybe the AFL could have stepped in years ago and stopped the practice of kicking the ball backwards? You know, like decent custodians of the sport would have done.

It's another blight on the game that I don't like - these thoughts that I've written today I've had for close on 10 years ... the fact that things are finally coming to a head is no surprise to me at all (nor, I suspect, for many others here)

Something I've really noticed is worth noting in this discussion.

Ive been overseas for 15 years. Left 2 weeks after the 2000 grand final! put 4k away to fly back for the GF the following year, never happened did it.

Anyway, years back when i would sit some Brits or French, Italians down and show them some footy over a beer(back then it was VHS tapes sent over), they would really get in to it, marvel at the speed and the marks and of course the bumps. Anyway, to a person, they would be impressed and enthused about the game.

Recently, say from 2011 onwards, whenever I sit someone down and show them the game , the response is of curiosity which soon moves to disinterest and eventually something else happens and they leave.

This is a reflection on the current games ability to attract NEW fans to the sport. Not people brought up in suburban melbourne and adelaide homes but migrants, tourists and Aussies from non footy regions of the country. I don't see it as having that ability at this point in time.

.... & this is exactly how I've been feeling Munga, in pretty much that same time frame. the last 6 years.

prior to those 6 years I was becoming tired of our clubs Footy & our yo-yoing, up one year, down for the next draft, & getting the picks supposedly wrong, or was it our culture that couldn't crack an egg in anger.

the net result for me now, is I've stopped going to games, & I can't be bothered watching footy on TV. I find it UnInspiring, soft, sterile, & I don't recognise it anymore, & don't care about it anymore, they way it is now.

it wont make a difference. 80 cap is still a HUGE amount of rotations. I guess younger supporters don't know any different but in 2004 the average was 35!!

thats the type of footy we waon't to replicate.

80 is a wishy washy middle ground that will be unnoticed in its change

Yep.

Something I've really noticed is worth noting in this discussion.

Ive been overseas for 15 years. Left 2 weeks after the 2000 grand final! put 4k away to fly back for the GF the following year, never happened did it.

Anyway, years back when i would sit some Brits or French, Italians down and show them some footy over a beer(back then it was VHS tapes sent over), they would really get in to it, marvel at the speed and the marks and of course the bumps. Anyway, to a person, they would be impressed and enthused about the game.

Recently, say from 2011 onwards, whenever I sit someone down and show them the game , the response is of curiosity which soon moves to disinterest and eventually something else happens and they leave.

This is a reflection on the current games ability to attract NEW fans to the sport. Not people brought up in suburban melbourne and adelaide homes but migrants, tourists and Aussies from non footy regions of the country. I don't see it as having that ability at this point in time.

I like the perspective. There's been too much meddling with the game within that time frame, compared to other eras. Even though I watch a lot of footy and enjoy it at times, I definitely won't be quick to gloat about it to others its unknown to. I wouldn't even feel good taking someone to a Dees game.

.... & this is exactly how I've been feeling Munga, in pretty much that same time frame. the last 6 years.

prior to those 6 years I was becoming tired of our clubs Footy & our yo-yoing, up one year, down for the next draft, & getting the picks supposedly wrong, or was it our culture that couldn't crack an egg in anger.

the net result for me now, is I've stopped going to games, & I can't be bothered watching footy on TV. I find it UnInspiring, soft, sterile, & I don't recognise it anymore, & don't care about it anymore, they way it is now.

Thats an interesting correlation dee - luded. Fair to say theres something in that.

I like the perspective. There's been too much meddling with the game within that time frame, compared to other eras. Even though I watch a lot of footy and enjoy it at times, I definitely won't be quick to gloat about it to others its unknown to. I wouldn't even feel good taking someone to a Dees game.

True! A old mate of mine moved down to melbourne for work a couple of years ago. He knew nothing of footy and i don't think had ever even watched it on TV. He asked who he should follow when he got down there. I told him to get on the Dees. I did tell him they weren't traveling too well but were a great club and would come good. 6 months later i heard from him - told me to stick the Dees, he's following the Hawks. I nearly put the phone through the wall!

I think just reducing the interchange is a good idea but it would have less impact than everyone thinks.

Zones whereby three players from each side needed to be inside both 50s at stoppages would be easy to police. There are seven umpires on the field.

Well if there were no rotations it'd almost seem like there are more players than usual, because there'd be no one in the process of running on/off. The cap being reduced to 80 and an abolish of the sub seems to be what's floating around. No matter what though it's quite clear that what the AFL's done has not had its desired effect, and it seems they're trying to dig themselves out of the hole by talking to the coaches about playing attractive styles of footy, which I find a bit pathetic

The AFL shouldn't bother with talking to the coaches, they should be just telling the coaches how things are going to work in the future.

They've let the coaches have their way (unimpeded) when they shouldn't have and now that the game is the state that it is, they're now going to try and liasse with these same "uglifiers" of the game? Why should the coaches even get a say? They are there to win games - that's it.

Should cricket coaches be allowed to redesign test cricket? What about the myriad of other sports? I've long felt that coaches are revered too much in our sport - they get too much of a say when it's obvious that self interest is their modus operandi.

Again, the AFL really are clueless - if they were true custodians and governed the game properly, we wouldn't be in the position that we're in now.

I have to laugh at the "let the game evolve" people - where are they now? Strangely silent. These same 'let the game evolve' people haven't noticed that the coaches have redesigned the game right before their very eyes?

.

I think just reducing the interchange is a good idea but it would have less impact than everyone thinks.

Zones whereby three players from each side needed to be inside both 50s at stoppages would be easy to police. There are seven umpires on the field.

Something simple and basic would be good. With all the talk about the 3rd man up during ruck contests as well, looks like the AFL are ready to step in for another rule change. I like the idea of four on the interchange and unlimited rotations. If the game speeds up and injuries occur - that will be enough of a deterrent to slow rotations. The less the AFL can meddle the better. I will be very interested to see the statistics for knee injuries in a few years time, the AFL have brought in no diving, but I think the end result will be more knee injuries. Players now get complacent not expecting others to dive in, their legs are relaxed, they aren't expecting impact, that is when damage occurs.

I have to laugh at the "let the game evolve" people - where are they now? Strangely silent. These same 'let the game evolve' people haven't noticed that the coaches have redesigned the game right before their very eyes?

You've made some good points but you ruin it with denigrating posts like this.

I've always been of the view that the game will evolve, and IMO if nothing was done by the AFL the game will still move away from stoppages in its own time. It's only a matter of time before teams with fit, tall marking forwards start playing them deeper and closer to goal, backing them in to use their height and the space provided. That will cause defensive sides to stop pushing numbers up the ground, otherwise they'll continue to get burnt in space by players like, for example, Tom Boyd, Jesse Hogan, Paddy McCartin, or Joe Daniher.

IMO restricting interchange rotations will help push the game faster to this point, but I think it will happen anyway.

I also think some of your points are far too heavy-handed, and are at times OTT (lowering the number of players on the ground) in pursuit of a goal that is easier to reach than you suggest.

The AFL shouldn't bother with talking to the coaches, they should be just telling the coaches how things are going to work in the future.

They've let the coaches have their way (unimpeded) ...

Hallelujah!

The coaches have had their way far too much in the past. Bouncing the ball at a ball-up... oh, the coaches don't like it because it might not go exactly where they would like it to go... re-bouncing the ball if it's not exactly vertical ... throwing up around the ground ... the centre line at ball-ups ... the extra circle around the centre circle ... ooooh we must give the coaches what they demand, otherwise ........ (otherwise what?)

Subs ... oh we must have a sub because if we get an injury, we only get 3 rotations instead of 4 ... Now it's oh subs are terrible ... we need 4 interchange.

The idea of subs at all was a coach innovation ... Sheedy in particular over the journey lobbied for lots of rule changes and generally got them all.

The AFL need to decide what the game is and how it should be played. Change the rules accordingly if required. Then tell the clubs (coaches included) this is the way it is. And resist the inevitable whinge fest.

I can't get over the hand wringing at the current state of the game. They know it's ugly. They know it's turning people away. Their idea of an improvement is to reduce interchange from 6,000 per game to 5,800. Why is there such a fear of upsetting the coaches?

You've made some good points but you ruin it with denigrating posts like this.

I've always been of the view that the game will evolve, and IMO if nothing was done by the AFL the game will still move away from stoppages in its own time. It's only a matter of time before teams with fit, tall marking forwards start playing them deeper and closer to goal, backing them in to use their height and the space provided. That will cause defensive sides to stop pushing numbers up the ground, otherwise they'll continue to get burnt in space by players like, for example, Tom Boyd, Jesse Hogan, Paddy McCartin, or Joe Daniher.

IMO restricting interchange rotations will help push the game faster to this point, but I think it will happen anyway.

I also think some of your points are far too heavy-handed, and are at times OTT (lowering the number of players on the ground) in pursuit of a goal that is easier to reach than you suggest.

No, you just don't seem to like a strong contrary view that you are diametrically opposed to. Haven't you ever copped a bit of ribbing about your seemingly default mode of "let the game evolve?" - it's such a nothing comment. I know a lot of people say it but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

I don't believe I'm being heavy handed at all - on the contrary, if it wasn't for people like me speaking out, then we'd never have any sort of debate. We'd all just fall into line like dolts.

And you might want to get your facts straight - I see lowering the numbers on the field as a last resort. Go back and read my posts properly.

Finally, I also feel that I have the sports best interest at heart - you just see criticism by the looks of it. If you're offended by the "let the game evolve" comment, bad luck. I see that attitude as a bit lame and not exactly pro-active. One can't just sit back on their hands on this issue - I've seen you speak out when it suits you - plenty of times.

If you enjoy the modern game, good for you. I don't and I rarely watch it - and there's plenty of others like me - have you got a theory on how the AFL can win back people like me?

Or do you just want to "let the game evolve?"

.

Hallelujah!

The coaches have had their way far too much in the past. Bouncing the ball at a ball-up... oh, the coaches don't like it because it might not go exactly where they would like it to go... re-bouncing the ball if it's not exactly vertical ... throwing up around the ground ... the centre line at ball-ups ... the extra circle around the centre circle ... ooooh we must give the coaches what they demand, otherwise ........ (otherwise what?)

Subs ... oh we must have a sub because if we get an injury, we only get 3 rotations instead of 4 ... Now it's oh subs are terrible ... we need 4 interchange.

The idea of subs at all was a coach innovation ... Sheedy in particular over the journey lobbied for lots of rule changes and generally got them all.

The AFL need to decide what the game is and how it should be played. Change the rules accordingly if required. Then tell the clubs (coaches included) this is the way it is. And resist the inevitable whinge fest.

I can't get over the hand wringing at the current state of the game. They know it's ugly. They know it's turning people away. Their idea of an improvement is to reduce interchange from 6,000 per game to 5,800. Why is there such a fear of upsetting the coaches?

It's got me beat - when they get sacked with their million dollar payouts, the public outcry is laughable. Talk about misplaced sympathy. It might be a false reverence or a false adoration - who knows?

The strange bit is that the footy public generally don't lay any blame at the foot of the coaches - of course, the state of the game is ultimately a governance issue so it's a bit of both in all reality. It's like people who blame umpires for the way the game is umpired - those who stand above the umpires are the real culprits.

What I do know is that the coaches have ruined the sport for me - thank goodness for the rusted on footy fans ... the AFL needs them more than they ever have. I actually admire those who are staying loyal.

The game no longer sells itself.

True! A old mate of mine moved down to melbourne for work a couple of years ago. He knew nothing of footy and i don't think had ever even watched it on TV. He asked who he should follow when he got down there. I told him to get on the Dees. I did tell him they weren't traveling too well but were a great club and would come good. 6 months later i heard from him - told me to stick the Dees, he's following the Hawks. I nearly put the phone through the wall!

.... & this is the fault of the governing bodies just rubber stamping eveything the power clubs wanted.... @ the expense of 'the people' ,,, need I say that word again?

'the people' 'the people' 'the people'

this is the equation the governing bodies kept in ignorance, & ignored,,,,, guess what, is happening now ???? the kamic wheel is turning & the people are ignoring the governing bodies product... I say that because its not the peoples game anymore.

hasn't been for sometime since turning Pro

The AFL shouldn't bother with talking to the coaches, they should be just telling the coaches how things are going to work in the future.

They've let the coaches have their way (unimpeded) when they shouldn't have and now that the game is the state that it is, they're now going to try and liasse with these same "uglifiers" of the game? Why should the coaches even get a say? They are there to win games - that's it.

Should cricket coaches be allowed to redesign test cricket? What about the myriad of other sports? I've long felt that coaches are revered too much in our sport - they get too much of a say when it's obvious that self interest is their modus operandi.

Again, the AFL really are clueless - if they were true custodians and governed the game properly, we wouldn't be in the position that we're in now.

I have to laugh at the "let the game evolve" people - where are they now? Strangely silent. These same 'let the game evolve' people haven't noticed that the coaches have redesigned the game right before their very eyes?

.

.... they should listen to the coaches Macca, just NOT the current coaches,

but the past legend coaches who have the games heart, in they're hearts. These past coaches can speak without being biased, Re wins for they're clubs; but rather for the game, & the peoples love.

athletes & sportsmen will travel to any body of competition going, whatever is going to get them the attention they desire.

its the watchers, & the viewers that love a certain style, & hopefully that care about our Heritage. and what is Indigenous to Our Australian Culture.

The game desperately needs a much, much stronger second-tier competition and development pathway.

The ultimate equalisation measure AND the ultimate 'attractiveness' measure is to have enough quality players coming through that every club can play a game based on skill and initiative.

It would also greatly strengthen the pool of capable, skilled assistant coaches and specialist coaches, reducing the advantage gained by being able to pay top dollar for the top staff.

I don't mean token gestures - I'm saying tens of millions of dollars more should be going into the state leagues each year.

.... they should listen to the coaches Macca, just NOT the current coaches,

but the past legend coaches who have the games heart, in they're hearts. These past coaches can speak without being biased, Re wins for they're clubs; but rather for the game, & the peoples love.

athletes & sportsmen will travel to any body of competition going, whatever is going to get them the attention they desire.

its the watchers, & the viewers that love a certain style, & hopefully that care about our Heritage. and what is Indigenous to Our Australian Culture.

Let's not couple in current coaches with past coaches ... it's like politicians, they often seem a lot more fair minded and balanced after they are out of office (not that I have any sort of real interests in politics)

Honestly, the commission should have enough expertise to run the sport properly without any bias or favour - the trouble is, it's not working out that way. They are too preoccupied with crowd numbers, TV viewers and the money. That stuff will happen naturally if the product is great.

For a long time, the game sold itself but I don't believe that's necessarily the case now - I still believe that the sport has a strong core and because of that, the next TV & broadcast rights will probably be a lucrative one.

However, I believe the sport is "trending" in the wrong direction and the AFL needs to address that - pronto. It's more "let's get on top of this" rather than "doomsayer" from my perspective.

If there's going to be fiddling with interchange caps and the sub, I'd like to think someone would also consider the alternative of a cap on interchanges per player per game instead of a team cap. For example, each player is allowed, say, six rotations per game.

Of course, it wouldn't take long for coaches to work out that the blood rule would give players an extra break so players would come off for the tiniest of scratches, so you'd also need a rule that required players sent off for the blood rule to stay off for a minimum time (say 15 minutes).

If there's going to be fiddling with interchange caps and the sub, I'd like to think someone would also consider the alternative of a cap on interchanges per player per game instead of a team cap. For example, each player is allowed, say, six rotations per game.

Of course, it wouldn't take long for coaches to work out that the blood rule would give players an extra break so players would come off for the tiniest of scratches, so you'd also need a rule that required players sent off for the blood rule to stay off for a minimum time (say 15 minutes).

Just ditch the interchange altogether (or reduce the rotations significantly - 10-20 per team) - problem solved (in my opinion)

It surprises me that many don't question institutionalised systems - the drafting system is another one. Whilst not enough see obvious issues the masses are happy to keep things as they are (yet still continue to moan incessantly)

The "let the game evolve" people often have major ideas and plans to fix things - again, that makes little sense to me. Doesn't having an attitude of "let the game evolve" forfeit one's right to push for major change?

It's the same with drafting - many acknowledge that the system is quite flawed yet continue to complain bitterly about the results from a system that they acknowledge is flawed. Again, makes no sense.

.