daisycutter

ffs, are we going to keep up this mfcss petracca hysteria running for another 2 years?

understand where you are coming from but i think you are being too pessimistic saying "incentivising attack isn't enough. And measures to try to reduce congestion aren't enough". I think they can work but not straight away and the current changes for 2021 aren't enough but they are a start and importantly an admission by the afl of the problem. and remember it's not necessary to eliminate congestion , just minimise it enough to restore a better balance of defense vs offense. I hate the notion of turning players into defensive robots and inhibiting the natural football creative and attacking instincts of players

hindsight is the refuge of those with no foresight pDC

oh i agree coaches will try and dig in. maybe even look for more athletic types, but let's face it most players in today's environment have to be fit and athletic anyway, certainly compared to the past and there is now a diminishing advantage in improving this aspect. sure they'll try all the tricks you allude to to maintain congestion but their options will become increasingly restrictive and i'm confident over time (and with more changes) they (at least some initially) will start to build the offensive side of their game or be left behind, won't happen overnight though. agree with your thoughts on zones. I just can't accept it with all the different suggestions i've heard. Also i don't like the reduction of players a'la the old vfa but i'm trying to keep my mind open on that one. it would certainly reduce congestion. i'm not against defence per se, it can be a great part of the game, it's just about having a good balance between defence and offence

here is a snip from sheedy's article in hun re kickins.....not too much detail

he's too fat, filth can have him

dean, the objective is NOT to STOP congestion it is just to REDUCE congestion, thus changing the BALANCE between defence and offence

iirc that is what he proposes.......will read again to check

there's a good chance daniher could be a bit of a destabilising agent if he he only gets on the park occasionally which is likely

well tu, only time will tell..... but i don't think we will see much either way in 2021 with 18 min qtrs and 75 rotations either way i don't see any extra risk to player's health. If anything thing the whole rotation overload caused bigger risks there's no doubt we see fitter, faster more athletic types these days, but that is largely due to the shift from semi-professional football to full-time professional football

think you are allowed to. just pay a soft cap tax

past his use-by date

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

i heard that in austria teabagging was an automatic 50m penalty

yeah, but.....the nrl are just as dependent on tv (ch9 in this case) and they have lower crowds at games memberships or membership options definitely at risk spot on about the daggy beard and hippy haircut.....surely he can't be lacking the coin

i think they are doing it because they think there could still be covid problems and restrictions in 2020 and they want to squeeze more games into a short time as insurance against possible delays caused by covid at least i hope this is their reasonings. i hope they are not thinking of doing this stuff when we get back to normal seasons

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 }

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.

well the nrl managed to play normal times all of this year why are the afl so special?

no, ron, but deespenser seems to think that everyone on a 44 player list should be best 22 (and never take chest marks) :)

the 2nd one

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

Jim, there is also another approach to combat the defensive, possession at all costs coach's game and that's to bring in lots of small rule changes e.g. just off the top of my head . minimum kick distance 25m . no marks awarded for backward kicking (except in fwd 50) . 3 second limit holding the ball where prior opportunity exists . no tackling the tackler . no play on where tackled player just lets the ball drop to his feet . play more free kicks for incorrect tackling once player has been brought to the ground - 2nd 3rd tackler tackling round the neck in the back etc . penalise the too many dodgy handballs . no ruck nomination and allow third man up i'm sure you could think of many others. many of these too are just interpretation changes or the way it was prior

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

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