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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?