Unnecessary changes

[monoccular 17,427]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-23/evans-flags-further-interchange-restrictions

OMG why can't the AFL just leave the rules alone for a year or two.

These guys who make changes for changes sake are just ruining our game.

Cant we somehow get some democracy into our game?  These morons are not elected and do not reflect he views of the general public. 

[Chook 15,013]

I like this proposed change a lot more than just some random flat number. Only allowing interchanges after a goal actually makes some kind of organic sense. Take 25 goals per game multiplied by 4 interchanged players per goal plus the 4 you get at the start of each of the three quarters and you've got a hundred and twelve interchanges anyway.

At least it would be tied in some way to a fundamental aspect of the game.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Chook

[RalphiusMaximus 6,048]

The current cap has achieved what they set out to achieve.  Further changes are completely unnecessary and just highlight the backwards approach of the commission in believing that they are there to be in charge of the game rather than to facilitate it. 

[sue 9,102]

So in a low scoring match which is a real hard slog, it would be just the time to have no rests for teh players unlucky enough to be on the field. Brilliant.

[Little Richard 6,262]

Ridiculous. I'm liking the way that the changes are working this year, just leave it alone.

[Yossarian 1,820]

7 hours ago, Chook said:

I like this proposed change a lot more than just some random flat number. Only allowing interchanges after a goal actually makes some kind of organic sense. Take 25 goals per game multiplied by 4 interchanged players per goal plus the 4 you get at the start of each of the three quarters and you've got a hundred and twelve interchanges anyway.

At least it would be tied in some way to a fundamental aspect of the game.

Interesting argument, Chooka. I kinda support it with that in mind too. Leigh Matthews is still a senile old bastard though.

[Deecisive 1,709]

So the Geelong Essendon game where they kicked a total of 15 goals for the game, 4 interchange players on the bench all rotating in and out would mean 60 changes, though I would assume you could also change at each break for another 12, so that would be a total of 72 interchanges for the game. But would you want to use your interchange if someone kicks a goal in the first minute or two or each quarter. And how do you cope if you have injured players who can not come back on like the saints did a few weeks ago against Collingwood then you would be totally stuffed. I think the brains trust needs to wake up to themselves and stop trying to tweak everything every year.

[daisycutter 29,613]

i'd bring it down by 5 a year until it got to about 60. will be good for the game

[Little Goffy 14,527]

Nobody has any real idea what they are talking about or how it will affect the game. It is all 'accepted wisdom'. Great for pub arguments but useless for policy making.

And yep, the AFL is leading the way on not thinking before they speak.

[sue 9,102]

And I thought I was being paranoid when suggesting the new out of bounds 'interpretation' might lead those idiots at the AFL to move to 'free against the last to touch'.  

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-womens-league-major-rule-reform-for-womens-trial-series-to-be-unveiled-20160426-gofrfr.html

[daisycutter 29,613]

5 minutes ago, sue said:

And I thought I was being paranoid when suggesting the new out of bounds 'interpretation' might lead those idiots at the AFL to move to 'free against the last to touch'.  

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-womens-league-major-rule-reform-for-womens-trial-series-to-be-unveiled-20160426-gofrfr.html

it's actually quite a sexist reaction. they think the women are a pushover compared to the men. they also think that women can't play non-congested football and need a bit of patronising "help". any suggestion they need to play a different version of rules just because they are women is quite telling of archaic thinking. i hope the women administrators oppose this type of male interference and thinking. 

[Little Richard 6,262]

What a crock of [censored].

If the women can play a bloody tough, entertaining and free flowing brand of football at club level, why wouldn't they bring that to the big stage? This is just insulting to the players and the fans.

[Skuit 10,031]

I'm not sure how this is a gendered discussion. AFLHQ aren't restricting any of the contact etc. but taking the opportunity of a newly formed league to shape the game from its inception in the way they wish it was across all competitions. ($)

[Forest Demon 4,681]

I can't believe they are trying to peddle the last touch rule, it's like they forgot how shambolic it was when they already trialled it in the NAB Cup a couple of years back.

"But soccer do it, and basketball do it"...please, give me a spell. In none of these sports can you easily, or even legally, score directly from their respective out of bounds rules.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 minute ago, Skuit said:

I'm not sure how this is a gendered discussion. AFLHQ aren't restricting any of the contact etc. but taking the opportunity of a newly formed league to shape the game from its inception in the way they wish it was across all competitions. ($)

Nail on the head here. The AFL isn't being sexist, although it may look that way. They're looking at the best way to make some MONAAAAAAAY.

Leave it alone AFL, FFS.

[rjay 24,919]

I think the idea of restricting when an interchange takes place is well worth looking at. This is not about interchange cap but more player safety.

The current method where a player can come on at any time is dangerous as a player can be blindsided by another who has just come off the bench...

[daisycutter 29,613]

18 minutes ago, Choke said:

Nail on the head here. The AFL isn't being sexist, although it may look that way. They're looking at the best way to make some MONAAAAAAAY.

Leave it alone AFL, FFS.

they said they were doing it to make the women's game more attractive because they think the women have more congestion. they are also toying around with zone restrictions and playing 16 a side and using a smaller ball. i don't think they are considering all these things for the men's game in the future.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander. one in all in. they know the male comps won't wear it but they can bully the women. just leave it alone ffs.

of course they consider money, but then they always do

[sue 9,102]

31 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think the idea of restricting when an interchange takes place is well worth looking at. This is not about interchange cap but more player safety.

The current method where a player can come on at any time is dangerous as a player can be blindsided by another who has just come off the bench...

instead they could be required to blow a horn to warn players someone is coming on.   (no I'm not serious)

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Last one to touch the ball is penalized. Pretty easy to work out why the want this. 

TV doesn't like boundry throw ins..Pity. I think it is a great contest. 

This is what we get for such a big Media Rights Payout

The TV Networks can pick and change rules to suit their needs. 

Knew this would happen...

 

[pineapple dee 2,892]

44 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think the idea of restricting when an interchange takes place is well worth looking at. This is not about interchange cap but more player safety.

The current method where a player can come on at any time is dangerous as a player can be blindsided by another who has just come off the bench...

Like the Collingwood player was blindsided by Frost who ran in and kicked a beautiful goal. No we cant have that happening.

[Chris 2,892]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 0:31 AM, monoccular said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-23/evans-flags-further-interchange-restrictions

OMG why can't the AFL just leave the rules alone for a year or two.

These guys who make changes for changes sake are just ruining our game.

Cant we somehow get some democracy into our game?  These morons are not elected and do not reflect he views of the general public. 

It is called justifying your job so you dont lose it. Public servants are great at it!

[leave it to deever 17,511]

With regards to deliberate out of bounds, it should be null and void if more than twenty five metres or so. This will eliminate mistakes and help out defenders.

When the ball is kicked out of defence by a player being tackled he needs to have some chance.

[DemonLad5 1,642]

For anyone who just saw that deliberate out of bounds against Luke McDonald, proves how ridiculous and technical the game is beginning to become

[Mach5 4,767]

14 hours ago, DemonLad5 said:

For anyone who just saw that deliberate out of bounds against Luke McDonald, proves how ridiculous and technical the game is beginning to become

Not at all.

McDonald spoiled, deliberately flicking the ball away with an open hand, directing it 20m+ toward the boundary, then followed up to see it out.

A punch to spoil that travels 20m to go out of bounds would be pegged as deliberate, and that is harder to direct than the flick executed by McDonald, sending the ball perpendicular to where he was facing. 

Deliberated act, and paid as such.

[The Backyard Charizard 1,202]

4 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Not at all.

McDonald spoiled, deliberately flicking the ball away with an open hand, directing it 20m+ toward the boundary, then followed up to see it out.

A punch to spoil that travels 20m to go out of bounds would be pegged as deliberate, and that is harder to direct than the flick executed by McDonald, sending the ball perpendicular to where he was facing. 

Deliberated act, and paid as such.

Nice to know we have an AFL umpire in our ranks at DL