I find it interesting that both Gillian and Hocking have been interviewed by Whately over the last 2 days. 

NOT ONCE were the interchange numbers mentioned as a way of creating space. 

They just do not want to acknowledge it, even though it is the root cause. 

Custodians my [censored]...

Whately is an over rated wet blanket....

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Rubbish. The interchange is the reason players can run up and down all day. Couldn't do that in the past.

Wind back the interchange and the game becomes more one on one.

It's not rubbish. Even if you reduce interchanges coaches will still train players to run all day/recruit athletes over footballers. I don't disagree that interchanges should be reduced but can you guarantee coaches won't go even more defensive and stack the backline, trying to win off a fast break? 18 players allows the defending team to create an effective zone within kicking distance of the player with the ball. Reducing numbers breaks down the zone because the gaps between defenders makes it too difficult to cover by the time the ball is kicked to an opponent.

Players are now full time professionals, infinitely fitter than the days of the Victorian era but the ovals remain the same size. The only way I can see congestion being reduced is to remove players from the field. It makes sense, I'm not sure why so many people seem opposed to it. It would reduce congestion without actually changing any of the rules which determine how the game is played.

What is your reasoning for not wanting a reduction in player numbers on the field? It's reduced before, it used to be 20 on the field in the late 19th century (and even early 20th from memory). VFA had 16 a side without much issue, I don't see the problem with having anywhere between 12-16 a side on the field.

Edited July 18, 20195 yr by Dr. Gonzo

One thing I've noticed recently is that many tackles start out as pushes in the back, but if the tackler rotates his opponent at the last minute, it is deemed a legal tackle.  Pay that and there will be a free, not a ball up.

Also, I've been saying for years that players jumping on the tackler and tacklee, often tackling players who do not have the ball, should be penalised.  Often the last player in tackles the tackler - surely that is a free since the tackler does not have the ball.  Clearly the motivation of this 'stacks-on-the-mill' behaviour is to create a ball up and it should be penalised if you want to reduce ball ups.

Edited July 18, 20195 yr by sue

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I find it interesting that both Gillian and Hocking have been interviewed by Whately over the last 2 days. 

NOT ONCE were the interchange numbers mentioned as a way of creating space. 

They just do not want to acknowledge it, even though it is the root cause. 

Custodians my [censored]...

Whately is an over rated wet blanket....

Look at the difference between when Gil is on 360 vs when he is on Footy Classified. Say what you will about that mob but at least they make him sweat.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Look at the difference between when Gil is on 360 vs when he is on Footy Classified. Say what you will about that mob but at least they make him sweat.

Sorry, but which program are you saying "makes him sweat"?

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Look at the difference between when Gil is on 360 vs when he is on Footy Classified. Say what you will about that mob but at least they make him sweat.

Very rarely watch those TV Shows

are you insinuating that Classified goes in harder than 360?

i used to have respect for Gerard, but that is dropping off

He is an AFL (and Jeelong) mouthpiece and if you disagree the conversation is cut very short. 

8 minutes ago, sue said:

One thing I've noticed recently is that many tackles start out as pushes in the back, but if the tackler rotates his opponent at the last minute, it is deemed a legal tackle.  Pay that and there will be a free, not a ball up.

Also, I've been saying for years that players jumping on the tackler and tacklee, often tackling players who do not have the ball, should be penalised.  Often the last player in tackles the tackler - surely that is a free since the tackler does not have the ball.  Clearly the motivation of this 'stacks-on-the-mill' behaviour is to create a ball up and it should be penalised if you want to reduce ball ups.

the other thing i've noticed is once the opponent is tackled to the ground the tackler can tackle any way he wants.....over the shoulder, round the neck, jump on the back etc etc. it gets quite physical on those extra long scrimmages the umpire now allows, with fatigued players getting increasingly sloppy

and another......when did we allow the tackler to be tackled? happens all the time. should be a free

oh, and why are we the only comp that retains the blood rule.......even for v. minor bleeds?

TWEEET! Contact!

Just like netball!

we could merge with the Vixens (actually we should already)

The board in charge of running the AFL is the most inept in footy's entire existence.

I would be ashamed to have these nitwits running the MFC (let alone being responsible for running the game). They truly rival Trump in idiocy. But hey, so long as they are in the news.

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's not rubbish. Even if you reduce interchanges coaches will still train players to run all day/recruit athletes over footballers. I don't disagree that interchanges should be reduced but can you guarantee coaches won't go even more defensive and stack the backline, trying to win off a fast break? 18 players allows the defending team to create an effective zone within kicking distance of the player with the ball. Reducing numbers breaks down the zone because the gaps between defenders makes it too difficult to cover by the time the ball is kicked to an opponent.

Players are now full time professionals, infinitely fitter than the days of the Victorian era but the ovals remain the same size. The only way I can see congestion being reduced is to remove players from the field. It makes sense, I'm not sure why so many people seem opposed to it. It would reduce congestion without actually changing any of the rules which determine how the game is played.

What is your reasoning for not wanting a reduction in player numbers on the field? It's reduced before, it used to be 20 on the field in the late 19th century (and even early 20th from memory). VFA had 16 a side without much issue, I don't see the problem with having anywhere between 12-16 a side on the field.

Yep ... and the VFA went to 16 a side in the early 1950's.  For the reasons why use the Occam's Razor approach.

I'd go to 16 a side just to see where it takes the game.  Too many are turning away and there are too many complaints.  No other sport has these issues.  It's just footy. 

I'd keep a version of 666 though.  (6-4-6 if we went to 16 a side) And reduce rotations to 10 per side per game. 

We might see the clubs recruit more athletes but what we might see the clubs recruit more footballer types.  The latter type of recruiting might come later. 

But the game would have less congestion and as a result,  less tackling.  Keepings-off would still exist but less-so if the length of a kick for a legal mark to be taken was increased to 20 or 25 metres. 

All I know is that most people I know watch way less footy these days and I myself barely watch the sport at all.  Apart from our games of course.  Those who are turning away from the sport need to be catered for rather than condemned.   Loyalty is a 2-way street.

26 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yep ... and the VFA went to 16 a side in the early 1950's.  For the reasons why use the Occam's Razor approach.

I'd go to 16 a side just to see where it takes the game.  Too many are turning away and there are too many complaints.  No other sport has these issues.  It's just footy. 

I'd keep a version of 666 though.  (6-4-6 if we went to 16 a side) And reduce rotations to 10 per side per game. 

16 a side at VFL level for the next 2 years plus (SANFL and WFL)

6-6-6 for last quarter only... it is actually reducing scoring unless risks are taken which teams will not take in the forst three quarters.

Reduction of interchange numbers by itself will just change the length of the rest periods. It may have  a slight impact upon player fatigue but it's not that simple. Probably needs to be reduction of the number on the bench. Hate the sub rule but you could have one sub for umpire (third party) confirmed injuries.

On the complete flip side..a lot of these comments are coming from ground attendees and at game commentators. On TV it has always been difficult to capture the quick run on play. May need to rethink the TV coverage angles if it really worked.

Edited July 18, 20195 yr by Diamond_Jim

Player gains possession of the football, he is tackled, if he does not kick or handball it or attempt to get rid of it, the tackler gets a free kick.

Player gains possession of the football, gets pushed in the back....The ball holder gets a free kick.

Player gains possession of the football and is tackled above the shoulders....Ball holder gets a free kick, around the neck.

Geez, this is simple isn't it? Wasn't it good to watch the game when these simple rules were in place?

The protected zone rule can go.

The deliberate out of bounds rule can go.

The advantage rule can stay......just.

Fix this and the game will be the great game we so fondly remember. Not this crap that have us watching now.

Time for a revolution comrades, we need to tell the AFL in no uncertain terms that we will not stand for much more fiddling and making the game unwatchable. I am almost done with it.

 

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's not rubbish. Even if you reduce interchanges coaches will still train players to run all day/recruit athletes over footballers. I don't disagree that interchanges should be reduced but can you guarantee coaches won't go even more defensive and stack the backline, trying to win off a fast break? 18 players allows the defending team to create an effective zone within kicking distance of the player with the ball. Reducing numbers breaks down the zone because the gaps between defenders makes it too difficult to cover by the time the ball is kicked to an opponent.

Players are now full time professionals, infinitely fitter than the days of the Victorian era but the ovals remain the same size. The only way I can see congestion being reduced is to remove players from the field. It makes sense, I'm not sure why so many people seem opposed to it. It would reduce congestion without actually changing any of the rules which determine how the game is played.

What is your reasoning for not wanting a reduction in player numbers on the field? It's reduced before, it used to be 20 on the field in the late 19th century (and even early 20th from memory). VFA had 16 a side without much issue, I don't see the problem with having anywhere between 12-16 a side on the field.

Yeah it is rubbish. It is proven that players can sustain high energy performances in bursts by having short breaks. Reduce the breaks and you reduce the energy they have to run.

Reducing interchanges will reduce the ability of players to run fwd and back all day. Stats show that second half scores outweigh first half scores (although not by much) and this would mostly a result of  players not being able to sustain high pressure tactics, tackling and running.

 

Every other rule change since Hocking got the job has advantaged Geelong so why would this be any different? 

Edited July 18, 20195 yr by Clintosaurus

22 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

16 a side at VFL level for the next 2 years plus (SANFL and WFL)

6-6-6 for last quarter only... it is actually reducing scoring unless risks are taken which teams will not take in the forst three quarters.

Reduction of interchange numbers by itself will just change the length of the rest periods. It may have  a slight impact upon player fatigue but it's not that simple. Probably needs to be reduction of the number on the bench. Hate the sub rule but you could have one sub for umpire (third party) confirmed injuries.

On the complete flip side..a lot of these comments are coming from ground attendees and at game commentators. On TV it has always been difficult to capture the quick run on play. May need to rethink the TV coverage angles if it really worked.

Many have their own remedy ... bottom line is that 85% - 90% of footy fans don't really have an issue with how the sport is played. To them it's just footy no matter how it is served up.

But the concern for the AFL has to be the other 10% - 15%.  Lose them and then you have to try and get them back.  Memberships are strong and crowds are great but TV numbers have dropped off over the last 4 years by around about 18%.  Conversely,  Rugby League TV numbers have increased by about the same percentage.

The sport has always been best experienced by being at the game though.  Loses a lot on TV.  So it's not going anywhere but the criticisms of how the game is presented remains.  I can't think of another sport where that sports own fans are openly critical of their sport. 

20 minutes ago, Macca said:

Many have their own remedy ... bottom line is that 85% - 90% of footy fans don't really have an issue with how the sport is played. To them it's just footy no matter how it is served up.

But the concern for the AFL has to be the other 10% - 15%.  Lose them and then you have to try and get them back.  Memberships are strong and crowds are great but TV numbers have dropped off over the last 4 years by around about 18%.  Conversely,  Rugby League TV numbers have increased by about the same percentage.

The sport has always been best experienced by being at the game though.  Loses a lot on TV.  So it's not going anywhere but the criticisms of how the game is presented remains.  I can't think of another sport where that sports own fans are openly critical of their sport. 

Do you know where that figure can be found? I'm reasonably sure I heard Gil speaking the other day claiming that TV viewership is the highest its ever been. Not that I trust him.

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

the other thing i've noticed is once the opponent is tackled to the ground the tackler can tackle any way he wants.....over the shoulder, round the neck, jump on the back etc etc. it gets quite physical on those extra long scrimmages the umpire now allows, with fatigued players getting increasingly sloppy

and another......when did we allow the tackler to be tackled? happens all the time. should be a free

Good post, you have to absolutely bury the ball holder in the back these days before they get a free kick

34 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you know where that figure can be found? I'm reasonably sure I heard Gil speaking the other day claiming that TV viewership is the highest its ever been. Not that I trust him.

Do you not remember the conversation you and I had about the very same subject matter?  It was just a few months ago. 

For the 2nd time ...

Google ... 'NRL trumps AFL in TV ratings War'

 

54 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you know where that figure can be found? I'm reasonably sure I heard Gil speaking the other day claiming that TV viewership is the highest its ever been. Not that I trust him.

Or google this article ...

'NRL on course for TV Ratings victory over AFL'

Not that I'm barracking for the NRL here ... I would prefer it if the AFL was king and bullet proof. 

But TV rules and if a percentage of the masses are starting to switch off then that's a red flag.  Crowds & memberships will always keep the AFL as a strong entity but it needs TV (as well)

I'm talking long term ... going from 4 free-to-air games back to 3 free-to-air was a retrograde step which the Melbourne media conveniently ignored.  And if the TV numbers continue to drop then we might only see 2 free-to'air games in the future. 

 

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you know where that figure can be found? I'm reasonably sure I heard Gil speaking the other day claiming that TV viewership is the highest its ever been. Not that I trust him.

"The AFL's TV ratings have fallen considerably, with a 12.8 per cent decline to the end of their regular season. Cumulative season audience figures for the two codes highlight the NRL's dominance. The NRL's cumulative audience this season was 94.3 million, compared to the AFL's live audience of 89.2m."

From the SMH of September 10 2018

PS.. don't forget that the NRL figures include three State of Origin Games which are massive television events.

PPS.. the comparison is made pre finals so perhaps AFL caught up

Edited July 18, 20195 yr by Diamond_Jim

9 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

"The AFL's TV ratings have fallen considerably, with a 12.8 per cent decline to the end of their regular season. Cumulative season audience figures for the two codes highlight the NRL's dominance. The NRL's cumulative audience this season was 94.3 million, compared to the AFL's live audience of 89.2m."

From the SMH of September 10 2018

PS.. don't forget that the NRL figures include three State of Origin Games which are massive television events

The State of Origin games were 'Excluded' DJ.

So you could add on at least 6 million to make the NRL's season total to 100.3 Million. 

Quite a margin all things considered.  Gil can spin it anyway he wants but the numbers can't be disputed. 

And the rule changes that came in this season were/are designed to make the product more watchable.  Not sure it's worked though.

1 minute ago, Macca said:

The State of Origin games were 'Excluded' DJ.

So you could add on at least 6 million to make the NRL's season total to 100.3 Million. 

Quite a margin all things considered.  Gil can spin it anyway he wants but the numbers can't be disputed. 

And the rule changes that came in this season were/are designed to make the product more watchable.  Not sure it's worked though.

League exists on telly north of the Murray..Actual gameday attendences are laughable.

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

 

My argument centres on TV numbers.  And the bulk of the AFL's income comes from broadcast rights. 

So they should be concerned especially when Channel 7 dropped 1 of the 4 free-to-air games not so long ago.

8 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Sorry, but which program are you saying "makes him sweat"?

Footy Classified