Rohan Connolly - perfect storm article

[dee-luded 2,959]

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.

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 you want to wreck something let the business community take charge. if you want to make money let the business community take charge.

making money quickly requires exploitation of things. exploitation of things cutting corners for margins wrecks things. the issue is the margins eat away the natural beauty, & are corrosive, to beauty.

because beauty can't be quantified by money; its about feelings.

.... the western world is full of unhappiness atmo, more-so now, than 50 years ago.

[Macca 17,034]

if you want to wreck something let the business community take charge. if you want to make money let the business community take charge.

making money quickly requires exploitation of things. exploitation of things cutting corners for margins wrecks things. the issue is the margins eat away the natural beauty, & are corrosive, to beauty.

because beauty can't be quantified by money; its about feelings.

.... the western world is full of unhappiness atmo, more-so now, than 50 years ago.

dee-luded, I get what you're saying but it's probably best to stick with the actual subject matter.

To me, fixing footy is not that hard a fix ... they can do it gradually but to my way of thinking, they'll end up needing to reach an "end point" which they may as well do straight away. In other words, don't dilly-dally, get it right now.

And I respect the opinions of those who have a diametrical opposed viewpoint (those people are not necessarily the "let the game evolve" types - it's much more complex and nuanced than that)

I've yet to come across a person who doesn't believe in some sort of change to the sport that they feel is needed (even if it's just a very minor change) Even the most ardent supporters of the sport often have their own strong ideas on where they believe the sport should be heading. And of course, that's their right.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

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).

But that's just it. The coaches would do exactly as you say, 15 minutes or no, and the AFL would in turn say, "gee, they've gone and bent our beautiful rule. There's absolutely nothing we can do about it. It's out of our hands!!!"

The option of saying "six rotations for any and all reasons, no exceptions, even for blood, corkie, broken neck, or hurt feelings. Tough [censored]" wouldn't occur to them as viable.

That's how we get abominations creeping in to the game, such as the current scourge of throwing the ball. "Gosh, they're bending our rule. But it's impossible for us to do anything about that! Rather that ten players throw the ball without penalty, than even one player gets pinged for throwing when he actually handballed. Give me liberty or give me death!" ...When instead they should penalise everything less than a clear-cut textbook handpass. The players would clean up their disposal in a jiffy, and scourge removed.

The AFL have brought this on themselves but we all pay the price.

[dee-luded 2,959]

dee-luded, I get what you're saying but it's probably best to stick with the actual subject matter.

To me, fixing footy is not that hard a fix ... they can do it gradually but to my way of thinking, they'll end up needing to reach an "end point" which they may as well do straight away. In other words, don't dilly-dally, get it right now.

And I respect the opinions of those who have a diametrical opposed viewpoint (those people are not necessarily the "let the game evolve" types - it's much more complex and nuanced than that)

I've yet to come across a person who doesn't believe in some sort of change to the sport that they feel is needed (even if it's just a very minor change) Even the most ardent supporters of the sport often have their own strong ideas on where they believe the sport should be heading. And of course, that's their right.

to fix something, properly, you have to understand what happened to it, why; to be able to fix it truly.

[rjay 25,093]

Just ditch the interchange altogether - 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.

'Macca', i wouldn't like to see interchange ditched altogether but would like to see it reduced significantly. Definitely to 40 or under.

Speaking from a local footy perspective I can remember when it came in to replace the 19th & 20th man. As a kid coming into my first senior season I found myself on the bench for the firsts team on a few occasions, sitting around getting cold and then having the obligatory few minutes at the end of the game if no one was injured. So interchange solved this problem and allowed for more players to get more ground time. It was also really handy when I was coaching a few years later.

Now we can't make rules to just suit local footy but I do think it needs to be consistent across all levels.

I also think it does create issues for coaches having 2 to 4 players as subs (the old 19th & 20th man).

I would much rather radical reduction of interchange but don't see this as the answer, just see it as one of a few measures. The other glaring one is umpire interpretation.

Edited July 26, 2015 by rjay

[dee-luded 2,959]

'Macca', i wouldn't like to see interchange ditched altogether but would like to see it reduced significantly. Definitely to 40 or under.

Speaking from a local footy perspective I can remember when it came in to replace the 19th & 20th man. As a kid coming into my first senior season I found myself on the bench for the firsts team on a few occasions, sitting around getting cold and then having the obligatory few minutes at the end of the game if no one was injured. So interchange solved this problem and allowed for more players to get more ground time. It was also really handy when I was coaching a few years later.

Now we can't make rules to just suit local footy but I do think it needs to be consistent across all levels.

I also think it does create issues for coaches having 2 to 4 players as subs (the old 19th & 20th man).

I would much rather radical reduction of interchange but don't see this as the answer, just see it as one of a few measures. The other glaring one is umpire interpretation.

just bring the game very simply back to what it was in numbers, except for One, or Two, emergencies, to replace seriously injured players.... so that either team won't be reduced to less than the 20.

keep the interchange as it allows for treatment on the sideline, or toilet break, or change of shorts, etc. but keep it to just the 20 men available to play... plus one or two emergencies for emergency hospitalisation injuries.

And if a player goes off to be replaced by an emergency, then the player being replaced, is automatically barred from the next 2 matches of that season.

Edited July 26, 2015 by dee-luded

[Macca 17,034]

'Macca', i wouldn't like to see interchange ditched altogether but would like to see it reduced significantly. Definitely to 40 or under.

Speaking from a local footy perspective I can remember when it came in to replace the 19th & 20th man. As a kid coming into my first senior season I found myself on the bench for the firsts team on a few occasions, sitting around getting cold and then having the obligatory few minutes at the end of the game if no one was injured. So interchange solved this problem and allowed for more players to get more ground time. It was also really handy when I was coaching a few years later.

Now we can't make rules to just suit local footy but I do think it needs to be consistent across all levels.

I also think it does create issues for coaches having 2 to 4 players as subs (the old 19th & 20th man).

I would much rather radical reduction of interchange but don't see this as the answer, just see it as one of a few measures. The other glaring one is umpire interpretation.

Fair enough rjay - I could live with a significantly reduced number of rotations (say 10- 20 per team) or I could live with the interchange being ditched altogether. Either way, it would have the same sort of effect from my point of view.

Rugby league has 12 rotations per team whilst union and soccer only have subs. As I said, I could live with a significantly reduced amount of rotations but only from a tactical point of view - "fresh legs" should be reserved for replacement players (subs)

Fans need to remember that the sport has evolved into how it is now because the AFL has stood idly by and let the coaches control the sport - I want the coaches to have no such power.

As for what I've highlighted in your post - umpiring the game would be a damn side easier if we didn't have huge numbers around the ball (which can often happen quite frequently these days)

.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Macca

[titan_uranus 25,045]

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?"

You're clearly an intelligent person who thinks things through and enjoys debating issues, but your hypocrisy can be so infuriating.

You say I 'don't seem to like a strong contrary view' - that's the exact problem you have when someone says 'I'm of the view the game will sort itself out'. That's 'diametrically' opposite to your view - that's fine, but don't go telling me I'm stubborn just because I'm at the other end of the spectrum to you.

My reference to your suggestion of reducing numbers on the field was exactly that - whether you think it's a last resort or otherwise, you see the game as being in such dire straits that this is a potential option for you to consider. I don't agree with it and I find the concept of lowering field numbers OTT.

Then you make it sound like, because I don't agree with you, I must think the state of the game is fine and I have to find a way to 'win you back'. Well, you had a go at me for not reading your posts, so why don't you read mine again - I agree with you that the state of the game currently is not good, and that change needs to occur. I also agree with you that some AFL-led intervention is warranted. In my case, I believe reducing interchange rotations will be sufficient without the need for the other rule changes you have in mind. I think, if rotations are reduced, it will force the hands of coaches and clubs to leave forwards forward and to stop pushing numbers to every stoppage. For clubs who are blessed with tall forwards who can move around (Daniher, Boyd, Hogan etc.), I think we'll see a movement towards those types of forwards staying deeper to goal and destroying opposition defences who leave them too much space. Reducing interchanges will keep the forwards on the ground, and will keep them forward of centre too.

So, my view is that one change this off-season could well flow through to create the desired effect, without needing to re-write the entire rulebook (e.g. no need to increase minimum kick distance, no need to stop kicks backwards). Obviously the only way to know for sure will be to see what happens. But does my differing belief to you mean I don't have the sports best interests at heart? Or is that just another unnecessary insult?

You're perfectly entitled to believe the game needs more intervention than simply interchange rotations - you may well be right. But don't belittle people who believe the game will evolve and right itself. It's hypocritical, and in my case wrong, given I agree that AFL intervention is warranted and will make things better.

[Macca 17,034]

You're clearly an intelligent person who thinks things through and enjoys debating issues, but your hypocrisy can be so infuriating.

You say I 'don't seem to like a strong contrary view' - that's the exact problem you have when someone says 'I'm of the view the game will sort itself out'. That's 'diametrically' opposite to your view - that's fine, but don't go telling me I'm stubborn just because I'm at the other end of the spectrum to you.

My reference to your suggestion of reducing numbers on the field was exactly that - whether you think it's a last resort or otherwise, you see the game as being in such dire straits that this is a potential option for you to consider. I don't agree with it and I find the concept of lowering field numbers OTT.

Then you make it sound like, because I don't agree with you, I must think the state of the game is fine and I have to find a way to 'win you back'. Well, you had a go at me for not reading your posts, so why don't you read mine again - I agree with you that the state of the game currently is not good, and that change needs to occur. I also agree with you that some AFL-led intervention is warranted. In my case, I believe reducing interchange rotations will be sufficient without the need for the other rule changes you have in mind. I think, if rotations are reduced, it will force the hands of coaches and clubs to leave forwards forward and to stop pushing numbers to every stoppage. For clubs who are blessed with tall forwards who can move around (Daniher, Boyd, Hogan etc.), I think we'll see a movement towards those types of forwards staying deeper to goal and destroying opposition defences who leave them too much space. Reducing interchanges will keep the forwards on the ground, and will keep them forward of centre too.

So, my view is that one change this off-season could well flow through to create the desired effect, without needing to re-write the entire rulebook (e.g. no need to increase minimum kick distance, no need to stop kicks backwards). Obviously the only way to know for sure will be to see what happens. But does my differing belief to you mean I don't have the sports best interests at heart? Or is that just another unnecessary insult?

You're perfectly entitled to believe the game needs more intervention than simply interchange rotations - you may well be right. But don't belittle people who believe the game will evolve and right itself. It's hypocritical, and in my case wrong, given I agree that AFL intervention is warranted and will make things better.

Let me spell out to you what I absolutely dislike about the modern game ... this will give you an indication of why I can't understand the view that the game will sort itself out or those who believe in the "let the game evolve" concept (a concept of which I've never bought into)

I want to see players play in their traditional positions but I rarely get to see that. I also want to see fast, free flowing footy played mainly through the corridor - if that doesn't happen, I probably won't be watching. That free flowing corridor football is what drew me to the sport in the first place and now we don't get to see it, except fleetingly ... my dislikes ...

• All the short passes - we see hundreds of them in all the matches and I only want to see them when they're necessary or to a leading forward.
• All the uncontested marks - I only want to see them when they're necessary ... again, we see hundreds of them in all the matches and I find them to be dead boring
• All the rotations.
• Flooding
• 36 players in one quarter of the ground
• The forward press
• Boundary hugging football
• Teams who "work" for stoppages
• All the packs
• The ridiculously loud adverts at the games
• Vacant forward lines
• Fixturing favouring the bigger clubs and disadvantaging the smaller clubs
• 20-30 players around the ball
• Forwards in the backline a lot of the time
• Poor gameday timeslots which disadvantage those with families
• Backmen in the forward line a lot of the time
• The drafting age being as low as it is and the issues that ends up causing (mainly supporters lashing out in an unnecessary way)
• Players handpassing to players who are already under pressure (we're not the only team that does it)
• Ruckmen tapping the ball to their own feet (which often causes another stoppage)
• Players kicking the ball backwards.
• The way the game is umpired (which isn't the umpires fault)
• Clash guernseys when they're not necessary - why the need to copy other codes?
• The fact that the AFL are too preoccupied with the money - we even have advertising on the actual football - how crass and classless.
• Most of the above has all been introduced (or not rectified) in last 10 years or so - that's a lot of change and it's why the sport is largely unrecognisable from how it once was.

That's quite a lot to dislike yet I don't have any issues with any other sports which I've always liked or loved. I'm not in the habit of making stuff up so (save for our games) I rarely watch any other games at all - I often don't even know who plays who anymore and I rarely bother to check the scores. I might watch the finals.

I now find the sport boring, tedious, unexciting and unspectacular.

You said that you want to let the game evolve but you also want the AFL to intervene - just to clear things up, what is your interpretation of letting the game evolve? Perhaps its better to say ... "Let the game evolve (with AFL intervention)" ... although, I'm not sure that makes a lot sense.

Everything I've suggested that might fix the sport is connected - that includes people no longer sitting on their hands and hoping for the best. Affirmative action is required I believe but again, I have no faith that the AFL will do anything other than make cosmetic changes. I suppose if the AFL lost 10-15% of it's support it would still be quite big - I would prefer the sport to grow by that amount though. Personally, I've got lots of other stuff to occupy my time.

We're probably miles apart on how we view footy so it's probably best to agree to disagree now.

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Macca

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

Yesterday's game showed how a simple interpretation could improve the game. Players from both teams clearly punched the ball over the boundary line rather than trying to take a mark when they thought they were outnumbered at the contest. Sometimes they even did it when they were not outnumbered, or even on their own. Why not penalise the person who makes no effort to keep the ball in play much more rigorously?