Jump to content

NAB Cup trial rules target interchanges

dazzledavey36
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

 
http://afl.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArti...px?newsId=54624

whats everyones thoughts? now its been changed to 8 players on the bench? i think its a great idea as it mean more young players to be given a run. just my opinion

Right with you Razzle Dazzle, the excitement of the NAB cup is finding out what's [who's] new on the scene for your club. Looking forward to seeing the youngsters in action, roll on 2008

  • Quote

    8 players on the bench allows a couple extra youngsters to get a run.

    However with limited interchange will everybody get the game time the club would want? We already know that more senior players are less likely to play because of this fact.

  • Quote
    •  

    It is absolute madness that in the hottest matches where the players are still working to full fitness, the AFL would allow an extended bench but then restrict interchange. The NAB Cup is a joke competition anyway, but these rules deserve the criticism they are getting. Still, not surprising for the same league that implemented the technical and rubbish hands-in-the-back rule.

  • Quote
    It is absolute madness that in the hottest matches where the players are still working to full fitness, the AFL would allow an extended bench but then restrict interchange. The NAB Cup is a joke competition anyway, but these rules deserve the criticism they are getting. Still, not surprising for the same league that implemented the technical and rubbish hands-in-the-back rule.

    I think 64 changes a game is plenty. It is a Pro-active step that tries to get around coaches looking for ways to avoid rules.

    It cant be that restricting and I for one think the hands in the back rule had to come in and just needs to be enforced correctly.

    It is difficult for umpires but it is way better than the blatant push outs that coaches were training backs(and forwards) to engineer.

    Each time a rule is tried or changed seems to be because coaching staff are on the lookout for ways to get around the spirit of the game, in an effort to gain an edge.

  • Quote

    I think 64 changes a game is plenty. It is a Pro-active step that tries to get around coaches looking for ways to avoid rules.

    It cant be that restricting and I for one think the hands in the back rule had to come in and just needs to be enforced correctly.

    It is difficult for umpires but it is way better than the blatant push outs that coaches were training backs(and forwards) to engineer.

    Each time a rule is tried or changed seems to be because coaching staff are on the lookout for ways to get around the spirit of the game, in an effort to gain an edge.

    I agree....the changes are in the games best interest.

    Players are tending to become crippled much earlier in there careers compared to the past, and a rule that puts a slight dampener on the speed of the game can only help in this regard.

    Especially O.P, which is in some cases, is finishing careers before they even get off the ground

  • Quote
    I agree....the changes are in the games best interest.

    Players are tending to become crippled much earlier in there careers compared to the past, and a rule that puts a slight dampener on the speed of the game can only help in this regard.

    Especially O.P, which is in some cases, is finishing careers before they even get off the ground

    Oh come on. Where's your evidence that players are getting crippled much earlier than in the past? Even if it were true, surely clubs would be very aware of the welfare of their players, and it is clearly in their best interests to strike the correct balance between playing their players and resting them for longevity.

    The changes to our rules have not made our game a better spectacle IMO. The hands in the back changes the whole balance of a contest and makes a black letter law rule out of something that has always been, and should be, subjective. It is in fact a new rule - PUSH in the back is the old rule, hands (no push necessary) is a new rule.

    I think it's dumb. I agree with the clubs. Next we will be capping the games players over 30 can play per season - after all, it's in the interests of health and wellbeing.

    Administrators are paid too much money and have to come up with things to do to justify their positions. That's what this is about.

  • Quote

    does anyone understand this whole extra circle thing...does that mean there will now be three circles in the centre?? i preferred it when there was one personally

  • Quote
    •  
    does anyone understand this whole extra circle thing...does that mean there will now be three circles in the centre?? i preferred it when there was one personally

    As I understand it, it is a rectangular area attached to the circle that only the umpire can enter in the initial instance; players can, aparently, enter this area once the umpire has exited it.

    This has the Anderson mark of stupidity all over it. It can only be applied for the cente bounce and the only time the ball is bounced in the NAB Cup is at the start of quarters and after goals. At all other times, the ball is thrown up and the old rules apply.

    The farce has been seemingly brought about because players are getting very good at using the upmires as shields whilst technically obeying the non-contact rules. This has, apparently, led to contact between umpires and taggers. This, seemingly, well intended rule is a feeble attempt to counter the tactic.

    Just wait until the ball enters the area and the first player to try and get the ball is, perforce, penalised.

  • Quote
    Oh come on. Where's your evidence that players are getting crippled much earlier than in the past? Even if it were true, surely clubs would be very aware of the welfare of their players, and it is clearly in their best interests to strike the correct balance between playing their players and resting them for longevity.

    The changes to our rules have not made our game a better spectacle IMO. The hands in the back changes the whole balance of a contest and makes a black letter law rule out of something that has always been, and should be, subjective. It is in fact a new rule - PUSH in the back is the old rule, hands (no push necessary) is a new rule.

    I think it's dumb. I agree with the clubs. Next we will be capping the games players over 30 can play per season - after all, it's in the interests of health and wellbeing.

    Administrators are paid too much money and have to come up with things to do to justify their positions. That's what this is about.

    I take your point, and I don't think you have taken my point in context. There is nothing stopping them from resting players in the same way they have been - 64 a game is heaps.

    It's really to prevent clubs from going down the path they have been, in order to get that extra edge. It's a reality that the more creative clubs become to try and get a win, that this will need to be matched in someway with rule changes in order to keep the integrity of the game. Take the "keepings off " crap that goes on for example. The game will become ridiculous if the rules aren't differed slightly over time.

    The increasing speed of the game is undeniable. Do you think that the game needs to slow down or at least not get any quicker?

    IMO, more speed means more load on the joints, and besides the increased risk of injury, this is going to wear the body out quicker than if you were playing at 1980's speed. Haven't seen any Michael Tuck's lately?, and look at all of the players that retired last year, most of them were riddled with injuries in their twighlight years and probably didn't play more than half the games for the season, if they were lucky. Guys like Hird and and Kouta became Rehab specialists and you hardly know they are playing sometimes.

    Yeah sure player welfare is addressing all of those issues as best it can, but the mere fact that it has developed to the extent that it has over the past few years is a sign that more has to be done.

  • Quote

    Fair enough demonscoast. Maybe 64 is plenty, but it's an extended bench, hard grounds and potentially hot weather. And who cares if clubs want to get an edge by interchaging their players to share the load more.

    Also, in context, the change makes no sense. Either players will still go hell for leather when they are on the ground, in which case strain injuries are even more likely, or they slow the game down - in which case more of the crap keepings off. Certain clubs have already said they think it will be detrimental to older players, who they will now not play. And as I said, the clubs have the biggest vested interest in maintaining their players' welfare - especially NAB Cup.

    I can't think of many good changes to the rules since the 80s. Fair enough, it's only the NAB Cup, but I still think it's illogical but typical of the AFL.

  • Quote
    Fair enough demonscoast. Maybe 64 is plenty, but it's an extended bench, hard grounds and potentially hot weather. And who cares if clubs want to get an edge by interchaging their players to share the load more.

    Also, in context, the change makes no sense. Either players will still go hell for leather when they are on the ground, in which case strain injuries are even more likely, or they slow the game down - in which case more of the crap keepings off. Certain clubs have already said they think it will be detrimental to older players, who they will now not play. And as I said, the clubs have the biggest vested interest in maintaining their players' welfare - especially NAB Cup.

    I can't think of many good changes to the rules since the 80s. Fair enough, it's only the NAB Cup, but I still think it's illogical but typical of the AFL.

    So as an alternative, do you suggest no rule changes at all? Or different ideas that you think will work?

  • Quote

    • Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • GAMEDAY: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      It's Game Day and the Demons are back on the road again and this may be the last roll of the dice to get their 2025 season back on track as they take on the Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 34 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Gold Coast

      The Gold Coast Suns find themselves outside of the top eight for the first time since Round 1 with pressure is mounting on the entire organisation. Their coach Damien Hardwick expressed his frustration at his team’s condition last week by making a middle-finger gesture on television that earned him a fine for his troubles. He showed his desperation by claiming that Fox should pick up the tab.  There’s little doubt the Suns have shown improvement in 2025, and their position on the ladder is influenced to some extent by having played fewer games than their rivals for a playoff role at the end of the season, courtesy of the disruption caused by Cyclone Alfred in March.  However, they are following the same trajectory that hindered the club in past years whenever they appeared to be nearing their potential. As a consequence, that Hardwick gesture should be considered as more than a mere behavioral lapse. It’s a distress signal that does not bode well for the Queenslanders. While the Suns are eager to remain in contention with the top eight, Melbourne faces its own crisis, which is similarly deep-seated but in a much different way. After recovering from a disappointing start to the season and nearing a return to respectability among its peer clubs, the Demons have experienced a decline in status, driven by the fact that while their form has been reasonable (see their performance against the ladder leader in the Kings Birthday match), their conversion in front of goal is poor enough to rank last in the competition. Furthermore, their opponents find them exceptionally easy to score against. As a result, they have effectively eliminated themselves from the finals race and are again positioned to finish in the bottom half of the ladder.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 15

      As the Demons head into their Bye Round, it's time to turn our attention to the other matches being played. Which teams are you tipping this week? And which results would be most favourable for the Demons if we can manage to turn our season around? Follow all the non-Melbourne games here and join the conversation as the ladder continues to take shape.

        • Like
      • 287 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Port Adelaide

      Of course, it’s not the backline, you might argue and you would probably be right. It’s the boot studder (do they still have them?), the midfield, the recruiting staff, the forward line, the kicking coach, the Board, the interchange bench, the supporters, the folk at Casey, the head coach and the club psychologist  It’s all of them and all of us for having expectations that were sufficiently high to have believed three weeks ago that a restoration of the Melbourne team to a position where we might still be in contention for a finals berth when the time for the midseason bye arrived. Now let’s look at what happened over the period of time since Melbourne overwhelmed the Sydney Swans at the MCG in late May when it kicked 8.2 to 5.3 in the final quarter (and that was after scoring 3.8 to two straight goals in the second term). 

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 3 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Essendon

      Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

        • Clap
      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Gold Coast

      The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

        • Thanks
      • 372 replies
      Demonland
    View All