daisycutter

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

i'd guess 5% real 95% smokescreen

it didn't stop them tearing down the members stand at the g, and that was a 100x more heritage than that rotting wooden ferals stand.

or the Clickbait Board

well i don't personally know too much about his character, but i'm sure the filth would know a lot more about his character than you or i. so, given this they were derelict in not placing some kpi or get-out clauses in his contract, despite eddie vouching for him. worse they started playing with other players contracts (back-loading, maybe even cuts) to squeeze him in i suppose if his character is quite bad then he won't be amenable to negotiating much

he's absolutely cooked

well jim, in 4-5 years time there is every chance that the afl won't look like australian rules football, what with all the meddling and continual rule changes :)

180cm 72kg a neville jetta replacement? would compete with jay lockhart for same possie worth watching for

only problem there luci is that the filth poached beams knowing he had mental health problems. then gave him a 5 year contract on good coin with no get-out clauses even though he had history filth made their bed, they need to lie (npi) in it

well, first we should ask ourselves why the rotation system was brought in in the first place It was because (some) coaches asked for it to increase the speed of the game arguing it would make for a better spectacle. Initially the number of rotations was much smaller then it got increased and increased. So what did the coaches doing with this new change? They used the extra speed in 2-way running to increase the defensive nature of the game resulting in increased congestion, the rolling maul and more tackling and ball ups. It didn't add to a better spectacle. Worse, it didn't really add to the speed of the game, except for 2-way running. Players in indulged in ring-a-rosy handball, moving the ball backwards, switching play, dinky chip passing and kicking for the boundary when distance kicking was necessary, because so many players were out of position. So, ask yourself, did the introduction of rotations improve the game, make a better spectacle, be more entertaining? Not to this little wood duck! I'm not advocating no rotations, just vastly reduced numbers. There are other more legitimate reasons for interchange players.

it's not just about tiring players. players get fatigued now. it's about forcing coaches to change expecting players to run relentlessly both ways for defensive purposes. without rotations (or greatly reduced) coaches will be forced to change. midfielders will get their rests by rotating on field (like they used to) to a fwd pocket or flank etc. other players will reduce the extent that they follow the ball so far out of their nominated positions. plenty of other sports have reduced or no rotations. nrl has very few and many play a full 40 minute period. how often have you seen a long 5 set tennis match with the skills just as good in the 5th set as the first, and these guys are not just "athletes" they are skilled tennis players as for favouring athleticism and more fitness, i don't think there is much more room now to move on this front. restricting rotation should in fact create more emphasis on natural skills and empower player and coaches to encourage initiative and risk taking rather than this increased tendency to defense, possession and turning players into robots who are not allowed to be creative. sure it will force coaches to rethink game plans but i think it could mean a more skilled, less predictable and attractive game

some of the best rules changes..... ....are to remove(/change) a (largish) number of rule changes made by the afl over the last 20 years.... ....not all but probably most..... ....as they have little to no meaningful benefit to the game besides, i was never consulted in the first place

oh well, could;ve been worse.....you could have been called a privileged white colonial ?

wth is "radical" about it? the game went without rotations for a 100 years or more........radical! introducing the rotation, now that was radical

so why are you beating yourself up over something that is not happening? shattered?.....puleeze......smell the roses instead

zoning would be a disaster.......ruin the fabric of the game......more debatable infuriating free kicks......confuse spectators

just asking for a friend, but which one (or more) of these do you think dr gonzo is? ?

i was talking of useless tinkering not fixing up minor loopholes etc 5m will make little to nothing change (plus could waste more time whilst umpire tries to enforce the mark)

after last years kickin changes designed to create more distance and avoid locking the ball in...i didn't note any real difference average kickin penetration was much the same, didn't see many playons and bounces and 80% of kickins were still to the boundary line region. kickins were still defensive and "safe" more examples of clueless meddling based more on wishful thinking than any great exercise of intelligence

why would the extra 5m at kickin be fairly logical? it's such a fringe level change, why would you bother more fiddling at the edges