The AFL wants to reduce tackling

[Dr. Gonzo 22,540]

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

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.

 

I'm not saying reduced interchanges can't be trialled or used in conjunction. But I'm not certain it will automatically lead to a more offensive free flowing game.

Are you fundamentally opposed to reducing the number of players on field? If so, why?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,540]

4 hours 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. 

The TV production is absolute rubbish in all aspects. That has to have an impact too.

[Macca 16,173]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The TV production is absolute rubbish in all aspects. That has to have an impact too.

I'll take your word for it Gonzo as I only tune into our games and when that happens I block out all the noise and what-not and focus in on how we play.

But from memory there is too much talk and too many talking.  And they're too loud. 

Back a few years back cable had a facility where you could watch from a widescreen aspect with only crowd noise with no commentary.  So no close-ups and you could see the whole ground and where all the players were.

It mirrored being at the games and was thoroughly enjoyable.  I've never needed the game told to me as the visuals say it all.

[jnrmac 19,205]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'm not saying reduced interchanges can't be trialled or used in conjunction. But I'm not certain it will automatically lead to a more offensive free flowing game.

Are you fundamentally opposed to reducing the number of players on field? If so, why?

For years the TV networks demanded the AFL speed up the game. Nearly every rule brought in over a 12 year period was designed to do just that including increasing the interchange. I think its beyond dispute that the interchange is the major cause of the flooding/congestion style of game that we have. Reducing I/C numbers takes the game back more to what it was without fundamentaly altering the game.

Reducing the number of players is the wrong solution and fundamentally alters the game IMO.

The problem the AFL creates for themselves is that they make a rule change and then they have to make further rule changes because the first rule changes was ill conceived or not thought through. This has been going on for years. So I am opposed to making further rule changes per se and rather see them unwind what to me is the obvious cause of the problem.

Edited July 18, 2019 by jnrmac

[Gunna’s 1,887]

11 hours ago, daisycutter said:

• severely limit interchange
• scrimmage time allowed to be greatly limited (as it used to be)
• reduced time limit for holding the ball decisions when prior opportunity (as it used to be)
• get rid of nominated ruckmen and also allow 3rd man up (as it used to be)
• get rid of new 8m extended area for kickouts (achieved fa)
• min 20m kick for a mark
• (maybe?) playon for backwards kicks, except in team's forward 50
• big crackdown on what is a legitimate handpass (after an extensive slo-mo video study of archives)
• reduce protected area from 10m either side to 5m either side
• more generous interpretation of protected area violations (i.e. common sense)
• have a 25m and 50m penalty (and allow umpire more discretion to ignore inconsequential technical breaches)
• free kick reversal to result in a ball-up (i.e. no double penalty)
• completely re-write the ruck rules, both for bounce-ups and boundary throw-ins

and that's just for starters

Add in:

boundary and central umpires to throw/bounce straight after a decision

umpires to be closer to the play so they aren’t guessing 

no more stars preferential rule treatment 

Pay a free for illegal disposal (it’s already a rule)

no more rule of the week

allow boundary umpires to make decisions to get 360 view (will need better boundary umpires that aren’t kids)

Pay ‘run too far’ rule more (too often players run further than marks from short kicks - they are both 15m) 

Remove the mic from umpires and let them speak freely to players and vice versa

allow comments about umpires that are both positive and negative from all

hold umpires to account (how many umpire the following week after making mistakes)

conversations between clubs and afl about officiating to be disclosed to the public

Fix the goal review system with better quality cameras

accelerators and sensors in the ball for touched decisions

Pay frees for players not being self aware (ie leading with the head) 

Reduce penalties for for football actions (bumping with incidental head contact - ie May on berry)

throw the book at non football actions (ie cunnington throwing punches) (this detracts parents pushing kids into soccer)

Commentary to call out incorrect/poor decisions by all (players, coaches and umpires)

make collingwood wear an away strip

Ensure the fixture has teams never playing two home games consecutively against the same opponent (ie our last three against Carlton have all been away games)

Get rid of Bruce and BT and employ someone to just call the game and not try and get a ‘following’

telecast in 4K with viewer options of angles

Simulcast the grand final on FoxFooty 

And there are plenty more.

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

18 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

And ..... while they are improving the game ..... I think the AFL needs to take a good hard look at this idea of kicking the football 

Far too much of it ATM 

European Handball, anyone? 

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

7 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

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

Ablett, Selwood, DangerEgo, etc, must NOT be tackled!! This is an unwritten rule which must be made official.?

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

On 7/17/2019 at 11:40 PM, Dee Zephyr said:

Hocking mentions people should take some confidence that they are looking at the right things. On the evidence here so far I think it’s the total opposite.

Even the people I speak to at work or elsewhere are fed up with the running of the game and constant changes, yet all we hear or read is that there is plenty of positive feedback from the public. Where are those people? I’m genuinely interested to hear if anyone thinks the AFL is doing a good job at the moment and why.

Whenever anyone at the AFL refer to positive feedback from the public I think they point to the attendances at games and TV viewing to justify this statement. What they don't realize is that people are loyal to their clubs and they love football. Also Victoria's population growth is booming and this could be a factor in bigger crowds. People will love their team and football no matter what. It doesn't mean everyone is happy with what the AFL is doing simply by looking at the amount of people who continue to support their teams and attend the matches. The AFL are deluding themselves if the fans are giving them the seal of approval by doing this. The fans support their teams. There is no team called AFL.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,470]

The game’s being butchered by Gil, Hocking and Co. I wonder what their endgame is? (No Marvel pun intended). IMO there was nothing wrong with the game a few years ago, the constant tinkering of the rules since then has turned it into an almost unwatchable mess. Looking at the bigger picture and not the outcome of each individual rule change, what are they hoping to achieve overall from all of these changes? Do they think the competition will become more even? Are they hoping it will appeal more to an international audience? 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Ethan Tremblay

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

As said by several here, Gil believes he is administering an entertainment experience. Not a sporting competition. Everything is about making it more attractive on TV. Faster paced, more goals, etc. But his attempts to do so are like introducing cane toads to kill the cane beetle. They backfire and then create a bigger problem.

However, I expect Gil would say "where's the problem? Have you seen the tremendous numbers of cane toads? We must be doing something right!" He would be more at home in Hollywood working on the Star Wars series of movies.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,501]

15 hours ago, Macca said:

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'

 

Thanks Macca, for this and your subsequent posts on the topic, especially those that provide the data which backs up your earlier post. It is interesting that we're having this discussion the same week the drop off in cricket became a big story in the UK. The drop off in support for cricket there (not just at-ground spectators and TV viewers but also numbers of players) has been directly linked there to the transfer of the TV product from free-to-air to pay TV in 2005. Hopefully the AFL will appreciate that having only one-third of the games on free-to-air TV has a significant downside which might have more effect on the future of the competition than the "watchability" of the games. However, I have no confidence in either the Commissioners or the Executive to understand the sensitivity of what they are dealing with.

[Macca 16,173]

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Thanks Macca, for this and your subsequent posts on the topic, especially those that provide the data which backs up your earlier post. It is interesting that we're having this discussion the same week the drop off in cricket became a big story in the UK. The drop off in support for cricket there (not just at-ground spectators and TV viewers but also numbers of players) has been directly linked there to the transfer of the TV product from free-to-air to pay TV in 2005. Hopefully the AFL will appreciate that having only one-third of the games on free-to-air TV has a significant downside which might have more effect on the future of the competition than the "watchability" of the games. However, I have no confidence in either the Commissioners or the Executive to understand the sensitivity of what they are dealing with.

But I'm not doom and gloom about footy's future despite my concerns about the aesthetics etc.  Crowds & memberships are very very strong

My motive is that I want the sport to be bullet proof with very little criticisms of the spectacle that we see. 

Others who were never attached to the sport might criticise the sport in similar ways but their morives are different.  Mine is a form of tough-love as I do wonder about whether people love the sport like they once did.

TV numbers are always a good indication and the sport has to be attractive to the viewers

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,501]

12 minutes ago, Macca said:

But I'm not doom and gloom about footy's future despite my concerns about the aesthetics etc.  Crowds & memberships are very very strong

My motive is that I want the sport to be bullet proof with very little criticisms of the spectacle that we see. 

Others who were never attached to the sport might criticise the sport in similar ways but their morives are different.  Mine is a form of tough-love as I do wonder about whether people love the sport like they once did.

TV numbers are always a good indication and the sport has to be attractive to the viewers

 

I used to have confidence in the capability of the AFL Commission to administer the competition. For example, I have agreed with the concept of the expansion strategy (ie, Giants and Suns) and the Commission's willingness to support social causes.  But I'm not as confident as I used to be, especially when it comes to their understanding of the product itself. 

[Supermercado 2,640]

They should reduce the time Hocking talks publicly, he couldn't sell a winning Tattslotto ticket.

[Macca 16,173]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I used to have confidence in the capability of the AFL Commission to administer the competition. For example, I have agreed with the concept of the expansion strategy (ie, Giants and Suns) and the Commission's willingness to support social causes.  But I'm not as confident as I used to be, especially when it comes to their understanding of the product itself. 

Almost the complete opposite with me ... I've been calling the AFL poor custodians for more than 25 years

But that's just me ... I'm a Demon supporter and tbat's it.  I couldn't even tell you who plays who from week to week.  My interest in the league is closr to zero.

There are others like me and I suspect those people are the ones who aren't watching neutral games on TV (as much)

[Dr. Gonzo 22,540]

10 hours ago, Macca said:

Almost the complete opposite with me ... I've been calling the AFL poor custodians for more than 25 years

But that's just me ... I'm a Demon supporter and tbat's it.  I couldn't even tell you who plays who from week to week.  My interest in the league is closr to zero.

There are others like me and I suspect those people are the ones who aren't watching neutral games on TV (as much)

To he fair, if all you're watching is Demons games it might skew your view on the current product ?

[Superunknown 3,370]

On 7/18/2019 at 3:39 PM, Demon Disciple said:

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.

Except of course trump knows exactly what he is doing and is brilliant at it (you don’t have to like that fact but it is unarguable )

[Macca 16,173]

42 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

To he fair, if all you're watching is Demons games it might skew your view on the current product ?

Not really ... I also talk to numerous people about footy and watch enough of it to know how the sport is played. 

There's no rule that says anyone has to like anything.  We all have choices ... you have yours and I have mine.

This is a fan site for the MFC not the AFL.  The Demons just happen to play in a sport that I no longer like to watch.  Personal choices Gonzo.  Nothing more,  nothing less.

And I used to love footy.  Face it,  the sport has changed dramatically and the new version doesn't take my fancy.  Most other sports aren't much different to what they were previously.

Footy is unrecognisable from just 15 years ago.  The sport is a mess ... most players are on the ball like it's the under 12's.  Flooding and the forward press is an eyesore.  The rules are ridiculously grey thus rendering the sport unumpirable.  There are no wingmen,  no full forwards,  no space,  no true CHF's.  Dashing defenders are no more and players don't run and bounce the ball anymore.  There would be no place for a Robbie Flower or an Allen Jacovich these days. 

I don't like watching it and make no apologies for my thoughts.  They fix it and I'll watch it again.  Until then,  its just my team and my team alone.  You know,  like a Collingwood supporter.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Macca

[Dr. Gonzo 22,540]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Not really ... I also talk to numerous people about footy and watch enough of it to know how the sport is played. 

There's no rule that says anyone has to like anything.  We all have choices ... you have yours and I have mine.

This is a fan site for the MFC not the AFL.  The Demons just happen to play in a sport that I no longer like to watch.  Personal choices Gonzo.  Nothing more,  nothing less.

And I used to love footy.  Face it,  the sport has changed dramatically and the new version doesn't take my fancy.  Most other sports aren't much different to what they were previously.

Footy is unrecognisable from just 15 years ago.  The sport is a mess ... most players are on the ball like it's the under 12's.  Flooding and the forward press is an eyesore.  The rules are ridiculously grey thus rendering the sport unumpirable.  There are no wingmen,  no full forwards,  no space,  no true CHF's.  Dashing defenders are no more and players don't run and bounce the ball anymore.  There would be no place for a Robbie Flower or an Allen Jacovich these days. 

I don't like watching it and make no apologies for my thoughts.  They fix it and I'll watch it again.  Until then,  its just my team and my team alone.  You know,  like a Collingwood supporter.

Oh I agree completely. Was just having a light hearted dig at how bad the MFC is traveling.

The game hasn't lost me yet, but it's getting there. I used to think no game in the world could top Aussie rules but now I think American football might actually be a better game (for all its faults and issues with the current administration).

Edited July 19, 2019 by Dr. Gonzo

[Macca 16,173]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Oh I agree completely. Was just having a light hearted dig at how bad the MFC is traveling.

The game hasn't lost me yet, but it's getting there. I used to think no game in the world could top Aussie rules but now I think American football might actually be a better game (for all its faults and issues with the current administration).

My criticisms are solely aimed at fixing the sport ... tough love.  I want the sport to be king

I would prefer footy to be my sport of choice with daylight to my next choice.  The way it used to be.

By speaking up the way I do might encourage others to do the same.  Sitting on one's hands is not my bag.

You want change,  speak up.

[sue 8,463]

10 hours ago, Macca said:

,,,

You want change,  speak up.

Ha. To whom?  Should I boycott McDonalds, Toyota, Harvey Norman, Betting companies until they lean on the AFL to ask for fewer ad breaks?

[Demonstone 19,421]

1 hour ago, sue said:

Should I boycott McDonalds, Toyota, Harvey Norman, Betting companies

You'll be pleased to know that I'm doing my bit ... I don't spend my money at any of those establishments.

[sue 8,463]

38 minutes ago, demonstone said:

You'll be pleased to know that I'm doing my bit ... I don't spend my money at any of those establishments.

the option to boycott them is not available to me either

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Perhaps a deep breath and a cuppa needed folks...

“It was fake news. The AFL is not considering rules to reduce the amount of tackling in the game. It’s just not. In fact, there are no new rules in the pipeline,” Whateley said.

“Their stated aim, which was reiterated at the briefing, of which tackling did become part of, is to open the game up and thus, as a cause, the tackling numbers would reduce.

“So the discussion was around Greg Williams saying I don’t go to the footy to watch people tackle and Steve Hocking agreed with that. He felt that 161 tackles in a game as opposed to the running and the marking and the kicking of goals was out of whack, but there are no rules being contemplated to reduce the number of tackles.

“That got completely misconstrued and led to a really damaging and fake debate."

Hocking tackling comments "misconstrued" and led to "fake debate": Whateley

 

[TRIGON 4,719]

Fake news or about-face? Guess we’ll never know. 

Personally my interest in non-MFC AFL games has dropped off dramatically.