16 minutes ago, one_demon said:

Well there must be three players from each team inside fifty at every stoppage.  If there's a breach, that team is docked rotations for that game.  If a team has reached zero rotations and there's a breach, then they will be docked rotations from the next game.

The rule is policed by an off-field umpire, therefore there's no extra rules for the on-field umpires to adjudicate, no extra whistles and no waiting for players to be in position.

yes, i've heard that version.........and many other versions here and elsewhere too

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i'd prefer to try vastly reduced rotations (back to the past) rather than bring in something that was never part of the game. but if it must be tried then after reduced rotations is tried first

big problem i have with zones is the same problem with the republican debate. nobody seems to be able to define clearly how it would work and be managed and whether the public would accept it on game day or go beserk. I have heard so many different ways zoning could/might work that it all seems just like a mishmash of rules and confusion.

one of the things i always liked about aussie rules was the individual skills, creativity and the attacking nature of the game. the coaches have ruined it (in the main) with control, possession and defense as non-negotiables and turned players into athletic robots too frightened to be creative and take the game on

You mean the USA republican party or the Australian monarchy/republic debate? Both debates have their problems! 

26 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You mean the USA republican party or the Australian monarchy/republic debate? Both debates have their problems! 

the 2nd one

The umpires can't even get the current rules right, this is the most off putting part of Australian Football to me. My Old Man claims we should have the old NO umpires and a fair cheat all round. More rules ain't going to fix the game up. What's a free kick to some teams ain't what others get during the same round so I don't know what's going to work. The last few years the umpiring has been horrid for everyone. Seems like it's just got worse for them, who would want to umpire?

Danger complaining about the reduction in rotations

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/11/18/patrick-dangerfield-not-particularly-a-fan-of-afl-rule-change/

....we know why....the older players will struggle to keep up....which team has the oldest players as a group?

How did players cope when there was only a 19 and 20th man?

 

Reckon Danger will be placated with 18minute quarters.

18 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm glad they're trialling some rules first. On first blush I suspect the obligation to have a prescribed number of players in the forward line at every kick in and throw in will have the reverse effect to what is intended as it will slow the game down while we wait for players to get into those positions. While that's going on, the team that needs to defend will use the time to block more space. 

The only way this rules works is in steed of for every kick in and throw in,  there should be a certain number of player in the forward 50 all the time. I think there should be 6 player in both 50's all of  the time, 3 forwards and 3 defenders.

8 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Danger complaining about the reduction in rotations

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/11/18/patrick-dangerfield-not-particularly-a-fan-of-afl-rule-change/

....we know why....the older players will struggle to keep up....which team has the oldest players as a group?

How did players cope when there was only a 19 and 20th man?

 

I posted that  danger would complain  about less rotations, he can see his old granpa team fad away, they benefit the most from the 16 minute quarters with 90 rotations which relatively was a increase. They signed Hawkins for 2 more years, many old players have had really good seasons, like Hawkins had only to fall ever quickly the next year.

11 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Danger complaining about the reduction in rotations

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/11/18/patrick-dangerfield-not-particularly-a-fan-of-afl-rule-change/

....we know why....the older players will struggle to keep up....which team has the oldest players as a group?

How did players cope when there was only a 19 and 20th man?

 

Does there always have to be a conspiracy theory?

Maybe, instead, he's just doing his job as the president of the AFLPA and representing the majority of players who are concerned about the AFL wanting them to be fatigued/exhausted in matches and the potential for injuries to increase on the back of that.

Players get fatigued playing AFL.  They always have, they do today.  In the past players had to play 100 minutes, with no rotations. The game is not a sprint it is a marathon. 

Players coped by pacing themselves.  Just like all sports. 

Robert Harvey is quoted as saying he could always run his opponent into the ground in the last quarter, because of his endurance.  Less rotations will see the better players excel in the latter stages of the game. 

So for Danger to suggest players will get injured because they are fatigued, doesn't face up to the reality of competitive sport.

Everything Danger says has to be viewed through the lens of his desperation for a flag, and 16 minute quarters with 90 rotations is Geelong's (and his) best chance.

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Does there always have to be a conspiracy theory?

Maybe, instead, he's just doing his job as the president of the AFLPA and representing the majority of players who are concerned about the AFL wanting them to be fatigued/exhausted in matches and the potential for injuries to increase on the back of that.

This is an internet forum. So, yes, there always has to be a conspiracy theory.

23 hours ago, daisycutter said:

oh c'mon. the current game as it stands now has plenty of examples of fatigue kicking, chasing etc. and the reason is the ridiculous 2-way running the game plan places on all players whether it suits them or not. force the coaches to change the game plan by making it harder to play the 2-way constant running and there will be less fatigue .

It must be made too hard to play the current style in order to change the coaches' mindset. They won't do it voluntarily because they are obsessed with control and defense 

p.s. with greatly reduced rotations there will only be more player fatigue if the coaches persist with current defensive game plans which would become counter productive

You are so correct in what you say.. Shortening the rotations will only make players play harder and facts are they will be "fatigued" even more..and quicker.... Such a stupid rule change.  Fortunately for the MFC we have players like Salem and especially Ed Langdon who can play 100 minutes. I cannot understand the Leagues logic in reducing Interchange to 75 frankly..

7 minutes ago, Ohio USA - David said:

You are so correct in what you say.. Shortening the rotations will only make players play harder and facts are they will be "fatigued" even more..and quicker.... Such a stupid rule change.  Fortunately for the MFC we have players like Salem and especially Ed Langdon who can play 100 minutes. I cannot understand the Leagues logic in reducing Interchange to 75 frankly..

we seem to disagree, david. i argue that the risk of more fatigue with less rotations will force coaches to change to a less defensive game than now. I think the current game has the defensive/offensive mix all wrong, resulting in a game that increasingly looks less like the australian rules game that we all loved. 

what i'm not sure is whether 75 is a big enough restriction to change the coaches mindset. I would go for 50 then later even more.

I'm comfortable with the change and hope it continues reducing in future years. I don't know any other game on the planet that uses such high interchange rotations. As george says the game is more a marathon than a sprint and players need to pace themselves and not rely on a cosy rest on the bench.

I also think there can be other complementary miscellaneous rule changes/interpretations to encourage more offense.

Has there been any justification of 18 minute quarters?

the rationale for 16 minute quarters was the virus (what aspect escapes me now.... long year).

Thanks

On 11/15/2020 at 2:14 PM, big_red_fire_engine said:

It amazes me that they consider making rules changes for the upcoming season after trade period. Surely reducing rotations would put a greater price on endurance beasts or players with greater positional flexibility.

The AFL need to better understand what they are trying to fix before they start doing things to fix. If they want a more attractive game with less duration then they should focus on understanding the root cause of improving the flow of the game rather than improving scoring. If you want to Improve the flow Hulu need to address the root cause which Is continual heavy stoppages and the chip game.

To start addressing these remove the most offensive rule in the game of having to call out a ruckman. Ball it up when the ump is ready and expect one from each team to contest. Reduce the rotations to 15 per quarter and go back to 2 on the bench with 2 emergencies only for concussion tests and non returning injuries. This will create more positional play and keep the better players on the ground for longer. It also additionally supports the smaller list sizes. Thirdly increase the length of a kick to a true 20 or 25m and umpire it effectively.The game will open up, the play will flow and the scoring will follow. Less stoppages and short marks less time off and shorter quarters with more actual play. 

I prefer the AFL's more novel approach where they seem to make arbitrary rule changes to see if they work without first understanding;

A) the problem they are trying to solve.

B) what is causing the problem.

C) how the rule change will address the problem.

D) any unintended consequence of the rule change that might make the unidentified problem worse.

I know I’m a heretic but I preferred the shorter quarters. Some games were interminable under the normal format the result known long before the final siren.

4 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

I know I’m a heretic but I preferred the shorter quarters. Some games were interminable under the normal format the result known long before the final siren.

I watch on kayo on thirty minute delay. The FF button that moves the play forward by 30 seconds is invaluable.

8 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Players get fatigued playing AFL.  They always have, they do today.  In the past players had to play 100 minutes, with no rotations. The game is not a sprint it is a marathon. 

Players coped by pacing themselves.  Just like all sports. 

Robert Harvey is quoted as saying he could always run his opponent into the ground in the last quarter, because of his endurance.  Less rotations will see the better players excel in the latter stages of the game. 

So for Danger to suggest players will get injured because they are fatigued, doesn't face up to the reality of competitive sport.

I agree with the importance of fitness.

I don't agree with your comment that "less rotations will see the better players excel in the latter stages of the game".

Your comment would be more accurate if it said "less rotations will see the fitter players excel in the latter stages of the game". We have had many discussions on here about the club drafting players who are fit and athletic but not necessarily good football players. This could very well increase that trend: clubs will want players who can run out games, even if they can't kick.

As to Dangerfield's comments, the issue the overarching playing group has is that they are being asked to produce high quality exciting football when the AFL has openly stated the goal of these rule changes is to make them fatigued. It's a genuine concern that isn't necessarily motivated by some sort of personal vendetta he has.

3 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

.......... the AFL has openly stated the goal of these rule changes is to make them fatigued. It's a genuine concern that isn't necessarily motivated by some sort of personal vendetta he has.

tu, i think you re misrepresenting or not understanding this comment re fatiguing.

it will only increase fatigue IF the coaches keep playing the same 2-way constant running game which is part of the defence-first current game plans

the intent is they will modify their game plan resulting in a less defensive game with less 2-way running. if they do this the fatigue levels would be just the same as they are now (and were before interchange rotations)

it's not hard to understand

[ in my view 75 is still too high if they have 18 minute quarters }

The rules for the second tier competition are absurd. Apart from anything else, they should be the same as the AFL for the benefit of players who go up and down between the competitions.

18 hours ago, daisycutter said:

we seem to disagree, david. i argue that the risk of more fatigue with less rotations will force coaches to change to a less defensive game than now. I think the current game has the defensive/offensive mix all wrong, resulting in a game that increasingly looks less like the australian rules game that we all loved. 

what i'm not sure is whether 75 is a big enough restriction to change the coaches mindset. I would go for 50 then later even more.

I'm comfortable with the change and hope it continues reducing in future years. I don't know any other game on the planet that uses such high interchange rotations. As george says the game is more a marathon than a sprint and players need to pace themselves and not rely on a cosy rest on the bench.

I also think there can be other complementary miscellaneous rule changes/interpretations to encourage more offense.

Spot on dc.

14 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The rules for the second tier competition are absurd. Apart from anything else, they should be the same as the AFL for the benefit of players who go up and down between the competitions.

With every passing day the second tier competition looks more ridiculous.

One of my ongoing concerns with the tinkering of the rules is that I'm not sure what the purpose is. I keep hearing about "congestion", but is that actually the problem or the cause of the problem? Without a clear explanation of what the end-game is, I don't know whether rule changes will fix the "problem".

Without becoming political, one of the great strengths of Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan was that it didn't define or try to explain when America was great. The slogan just appeals to differentypeople with differnt views as to when America was great. Some might believe it was in the 60s or the 70s or the 80s or any other era.  AFL is similar. Different people have different views as to when the game was at its greatest. If we don't know what we're aiming for, how do we know what will work?

there is a good article in today's hun on the rule changes kevin sheedy would like to make.

he mentions a lot of rule changes he calls the ten commandments

i agree with most (certainly not some) of them, but all are primarily aimed to alter the current defensive imbalance

Summary: 

.  Return to 20 min quarters ?

.  Keep cutting rotations ?

.  No mark kicking backwards ?

.  Be ruthless on holding the ball ?

.  No coaches on rules panels !! ?

.  Banish throw-ins (only ball-ups 15-20m from boundary)) ?

.  Make it a 25m penalty (not 50) ?

.  Raise it to 20m for a mark ?

.  Kick-in changes (extensive) ?

.  Ditch the wingers !! ?

.  Reintroduce the flick pass !! ?

.  Protect the head more ?

 

? = essentially agree

? = disagree

? = unsure