1 hour ago, Macca said:

Kornes is clueless but so is the AFL

The coaches have re-designed the game and the game evolves into a different form on a year to year basis

There's too many players on the field for the modern game. 15 or 16 a side would fix most of the issues with congestion and allow far more free-flowing football

As a result, the game would be far easier to umpire

But it might take the AFL another 10 years to realise that the crowded nature of the sport is the real issue. Maybe 20 years

From the mid 2000's onwards the sport became too congested with endless stoppages

Meanwhile, Rugby League (the AFL's biggest competitor) is now a fast, free-flowing sport with very few stoppages

I agree. I still believe having so many interchange rotations is the game's greatest evil as it allows onballers to keep up with the play making the game look like primary school football. Increasing to five players on the bench may yet make it worse. If the AFL is going to persist with five on the bench, I would love to see interchanges limited to 20 a game (plus extras for blood rule and while concussion assessments are undertaken). That would, in effect, allow one rotation per player on the bench per quarter.

Are we seriously getting rid of the bounce? It’s a unique part of the game and visually epic.

Are we seriously going to start a Grand Final with a ball up?

The people running the game are truly lost.

56 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree. I still believe having so many interchange rotations is the game's greatest evil as it allows onballers to keep up with the play making the game look like primary school football. Increasing to five players on the bench may yet make it worse. If the AFL is going to persist with five on the bench, I would love to see interchanges limited to 20 a game (plus extras for blood rule and while concussion assessments are undertaken). That would, in effect, allow one rotation per player on the bench per quarter.

Yes, all the changes that they make to try and get less stoppages and more free-flowing football are a band-aid approach

After a time, the coaches find a way to create stoppages again so it's rinse & repeat

Try doing that with 15 a side and 20 rotations ... 2 games in and the players would be cactus

Extreme examples of free-flowing & way less congestion are Rugby 7's & AFLX (which is not what I'm advocating)

Just take 4-6 players off the field with limited rotations

By the way, in Rugby League, they still only allow 8 rotations per team

This stand rule "upgrade" is going to be a farce. The players don't know where this imaginary zone is at the best of times. They're being penalised for running through or near it already. Now they're supposed to realise they are in this imaginary zone, and rather than run away from, or out of it, they have to stop and stand still??

I've got a feeling there will be so many 50m penlties paid in the first 3 rounds due to players not standing, that they will do away with it.......I hope

36 minutes ago, HBDee said:

This stand rule "upgrade" is going to be a farce. The players don't know where this imaginary zone is at the best of times. They're being penalised for running through or near it already. Now they're supposed to realise they are in this imaginary zone, and rather than run away from, or out of it, they have to stop and stand still??

I've got a feeling there will be so many 50m penlties paid in the first 3 rounds due to players not standing, that they will do away with it.......I hope

I anticipate a tweak to the amended rule within weeks. It will make it clear that only one player needs to "stand" while all other players will be allowed to leave, as long as they leave the protected zone immediately. Of course, it will be much harder to umpire than that - who knows which player is the one who has to "stand"? I'm convinced eliminating the "stand" rule is still the best option.

4 hours ago, Macca said:

Kornes is clueless but so is the AFL

He's an inflammatory shock jockey, but in this case he's 100% right. We're seeing rule changes to counter-act the failure of previous rule changes. These rules are basically all objectively bad and will cause further confusion to an already over-officiated sport with too many interpretations on what should just be clear rules. It's a sad state of affairs when games are deciding by unclear umpiring decisions on a weekly basis, and the media wind up discussing poor umpiring more than the sport itself.

5 hours ago, Demonland said:

Well said by Kane. Sucks having to agree with him when he's right!

22 hours ago, Craig T said:

They may be planning on adjudicating it differently with the men, but in the AFLW if it comes off a player's foot by any method it is deemed last disposal and they are penalized. 🙄

Good point. I've definitely seen it paid that way...but also the other way. Consistency 🙄

1 hour ago, Lord Travis said:

He's an inflammatory shock jockey, but in this case he's 100% right. We're seeing rule changes to counter-act the failure of previous rule changes. These rules are basically all objectively bad and will cause further confusion to an already over-officiated sport with too many interpretations on what should just be clear rules. It's a sad state of affairs when games are deciding by unclear umpiring decisions on a weekly basis, and the media wind up discussing poor umpiring more than the sport itself.

Well said by Kane. Sucks having to agree with him when he's right!

No, Kane is wrong because he can't see the big picture ... 6 too many players on the field and what is needed is a drastic cut in rotations. Why should the players get a rest? It's bs

What are Kane's answers? Has he ever had an original thought? As I said, he's clueless

But 18 per side seems like it's an untouchable number

Here's another tradition that's gone ... the playing positions are now obsolete and each team is full of mids

It's an ok sport if you enjoy watching endless stoppages

I only follow the sport because I want the Demons to win. There's no other reason

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Macca

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I anticipate a tweak to the amended rule within weeks. It will make it clear that only one player needs to "stand" while all other players will be allowed to leave, as long as they leave the protected zone immediately. Of course, it will be much harder to umpire than that - who knows which player is the one who has to "stand"? I'm convinced eliminating the "stand" rule is still the best option.

And they've now made the stand ruling even more complicated with protection zone criteria.  It's like a dog chasing it's own tail

The Stand rule is another band-aid approach.  Although it kind of works, it's another example of how the fabric of the game has changed

Apart from the changes that I've advocated, I'd ditch the stand rule because with a more open game with loads more space, it wouldn't be needed

So many of these "rules" never used to exist.

Look its meat and 3 vegetables game. It ought not be that complicated...it never used to be. Now it's mutton dressed up as lamb with VCAT presiding !!

It's far too over complicated now.

4 hours ago, No10 said:

Are we seriously getting rid of the bounce? It’s a unique part of the game and visually epic.

Are we seriously going to start a Grand Final with a ball up?

The people running the game are truly lost.

Yes, they could have at least left the bounce in there for the start of the match (any match)

Out of the 4 umpires, one of them would be adept at the bounce

57 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yes, they could have at least left the bounce in there for the start of the match (any match)

Out of the 4 umpires, one of them would be adept at the bounce

While I am a long time critic of the bounce, I cannot for the life of me understand why the AFL would not retain it for the start of a match. My only reserv ation about doing it at the start of each quarter that in a tight game a bad bounce at the start of Q4 might have too much infkluence on the outcome.

2 minutes ago, sue said:

While I am a long time critic of the bounce, I cannot for the life of me understand why the AFL would not retain it for the start of a match. My only reserv ation about doing it at the start of each quarter that in a tight game a bad bounce at the start of Q4 might have too much infkluence on the outcome.

One bounce at the start of each match would have kept a small part of a rich history

Did you ever try bouncing the footy? Damn hard thing to do and with the first 10 or so tries, the ball would often come back straight at your snozz (and ... would bring tears)