Macca

... and we're only 7 points down

Fair enough rjay - I could live with a significantly reduced number of rotations (say 10- 20 per team) or I could live with the interchange being ditched altogether. Either way, it would have the same sort of effect from my point of view. Rugby league has 12 rotations per team whilst union and soccer only have subs. As I said, I could live with a significantly reduced amount of rotations but only from a tactical point of view - "fresh legs" should be reserved for replacement players (subs) Fans need to remember that the sport has evolved into how it is now because the AFL has stood idly by and let the coaches control the sport - I want the coaches to have no such power. As for what I've highlighted in your post - umpiring the game would be a damn side easier if we didn't have huge numbers around the ball (which can often happen quite frequently these days) .

dee-luded, I get what you're saying but it's probably best to stick with the actual subject matter. To me, fixing footy is not that hard a fix ... they can do it gradually but to my way of thinking, they'll end up needing to reach an "end point" which they may as well do straight away. In other words, don't dilly-dally, get it right now. And I respect the opinions of those who have a diametrical opposed viewpoint (those people are not necessarily the "let the game evolve" types - it's much more complex and nuanced than that) I've yet to come across a person who doesn't believe in some sort of change to the sport that they feel is needed (even if it's just a very minor change) Even the most ardent supporters of the sport often have their own strong ideas on where they believe the sport should be heading. And of course, that's their right.

Just ditch the interchange altogether (or reduce the rotations significantly - 10-20 per team) - problem solved (in my opinion) It surprises me that many don't question institutionalised systems - the drafting system is another one. Whilst not enough see obvious issues the masses are happy to keep things as they are (yet still continue to moan incessantly) The "let the game evolve" people often have major ideas and plans to fix things - again, that makes little sense to me. Doesn't having an attitude of "let the game evolve" forfeit one's right to push for major change? It's the same with drafting - many acknowledge that the system is quite flawed yet continue to complain bitterly about the results from a system that they acknowledge is flawed. Again, makes no sense. .

Let's not couple in current coaches with past coaches ... it's like politicians, they often seem a lot more fair minded and balanced after they are out of office (not that I have any sort of real interests in politics) Honestly, the commission should have enough expertise to run the sport properly without any bias or favour - the trouble is, it's not working out that way. They are too preoccupied with crowd numbers, TV viewers and the money. That stuff will happen naturally if the product is great. For a long time, the game sold itself but I don't believe that's necessarily the case now - I still believe that the sport has a strong core and because of that, the next TV & broadcast rights will probably be a lucrative one. However, I believe the sport is "trending" in the wrong direction and the AFL needs to address that - pronto. It's more "let's get on top of this" rather than "doomsayer" from my perspective.

It's got me beat - when they get sacked with their million dollar payouts, the public outcry is laughable. Talk about misplaced sympathy. It might be a false reverence or a false adoration - who knows? The strange bit is that the footy public generally don't lay any blame at the foot of the coaches - of course, the state of the game is ultimately a governance issue so it's a bit of both in all reality. It's like people who blame umpires for the way the game is umpired - those who stand above the umpires are the real culprits. What I do know is that the coaches have ruined the sport for me - thank goodness for the rusted on footy fans ... the AFL needs them more than they ever have. I actually admire those who are staying loyal. The game no longer sells itself.

No, you just don't seem to like a strong contrary view that you are diametrically opposed to. Haven't you ever copped a bit of ribbing about your seemingly default mode of "let the game evolve?" - it's such a nothing comment. I know a lot of people say it but that doesn't necessarily make it right. I don't believe I'm being heavy handed at all - on the contrary, if it wasn't for people like me speaking out, then we'd never have any sort of debate. We'd all just fall into line like dolts. And you might want to get your facts straight - I see lowering the numbers on the field as a last resort. Go back and read my posts properly. Finally, I also feel that I have the sports best interest at heart - you just see criticism by the looks of it. If you're offended by the "let the game evolve" comment, bad luck. I see that attitude as a bit lame and not exactly pro-active. One can't just sit back on their hands on this issue - I've seen you speak out when it suits you - plenty of times. If you enjoy the modern game, good for you. I don't and I rarely watch it - and there's plenty of others like me - have you got a theory on how the AFL can win back people like me? Or do you just want to "let the game evolve?" .

The AFL shouldn't bother with talking to the coaches, they should be just telling the coaches how things are going to work in the future. They've let the coaches have their way (unimpeded) when they shouldn't have and now that the game is the state that it is, they're now going to try and liasse with these same "uglifiers" of the game? Why should the coaches even get a say? They are there to win games - that's it. Should cricket coaches be allowed to redesign test cricket? What about the myriad of other sports? I've long felt that coaches are revered too much in our sport - they get too much of a say when it's obvious that self interest is their modus operandi. Again, the AFL really are clueless - if they were true custodians and governed the game properly, we wouldn't be in the position that we're in now. I have to laugh at the "let the game evolve" people - where are they now? Strangely silent. These same 'let the game evolve' people haven't noticed that the coaches have redesigned the game right before their very eyes? .

The games aesthetics aside (because it's all about the winning when it's your own club!) ... if we bring those defensive aspects that we had last week into tomorrow's game, we should be able to get the points. I actually felt that the Lions were the main cause of the standard of the game being below par - they wasted the ball on countless occasions and went wide all day without any sort of purpose. Of course, that was mainly our doing because of our strong disciplines but we will need to score more heavily tomorrow, all the same. I like the idea of T-Mac playing forward as it suddenly gives our forward line more structure (and allows Dawes to play as the 3rd forward where he is better suited) Tom may be needed down back tomorrow but he still may get some time in the forward line regardless A combo of Hogan and McDonald has a nice ring to it - we have a real need for a top rate 2nd tall forward and save for drafting or trading for one, T-Mac might just be the man. It's worth a try for the remainder of the season anyway - what have we got to lose? The side looks ok so it's the Demons by 11 points.

Yeah Wyl, I understand what the rules were (or are) but maybe the AFL could have stepped in years ago and stopped the practice of kicking the ball backwards? You know, like decent custodians of the sport would have done. It's another blight on the game that I don't like - these thoughts that I've written today I've had for close on 10 years ... the fact that things are finally coming to a head is no surprise to me at all (nor, I suspect, for many others here)

So for over 100 years players rarely, if ever, kicked the ball backwards and now that it happens all the time, it's somehow ok with the footy public? It shouldn't be. I find the practice of kicking the ball backwards as quite tedious & boring - then again, I'm not easily pleased. As I said in an earlier post, our game now strongly resembles a bad version of a hybrid form of soccer/rugby. We don't need those type of aspects or traits in our sport - our sport needs to stand apart and be unique. And it still can be unique and stand apart - it just needs a governing body to be true custodians. ,

But what if there's 30 seconds to go in a game and the team leading (narrowly) decides to kick the ball backwards out of their own forward line as a time wasting measure? Perhaps a player could be allowed to kick the ball anywhere within the forward 50 if he's already inside the forward 50? It's all academic anyway because I just can't see the AFL doing much to properly address the issue of congestion - cosmetic changes is what we should expect. .

As a first step I'd cut things back with zero rotations, lengthen the kick for a legal mark by 5 metres, blow "play-on" if a ball is kicked backwards and instruct the umpires to throw the ball up quickly at the first sign of a pack forming. I'd also enforce a rule where as all the forwards and backmen are inside their 50 metre arc after each goal is scored. We do all that and it would have to have an effect on congestion (at least in part) A next step might be to reduce the amount of players on the ground but we may not need to take that measure if the above changes worked. What we need are some visionaries and creative minds at league headquarters but I won't be holding my breath for that to happen Gonzo.

I agree Munga but in practical terms, do you see the AFL reducing rotations all the way to 40, 20 or zero in one hit? It's my belief that they are quite clueless when it comes to being custodians of the sport - they know how to make money but I don't watch the sport because of the money - who does? Apparently Gill was quoted today as blaming the coaches for the state of the game - he might want to look in the mirror because ultimately, it's he and the commission who are the ones responsible for the state of the game. Interesting bit of reading ... Rule changes 1858 - 2013 ... nb - the 3rd interchange was introduced in 1994 and the 4th interchange was introduced in 1998

I remember about 15 years ago Ric Charlesworth (the former Australian Olympian - field hockey) being quoted as saying that if the Germans played "Aussie rules" we'd see scorelines of 5 goals to 3. Prophetic words as it turned out except we didn't need the Germans The flood and the forward press could be countered with draconian measures ... I won't go into how that could happen or how it could be policed but a reduction of the players on the field would be a simpler solution. You know, there's nearly a whole generation of footy fans who have never seen a true wingman at play - the wings are now often the most congested part of the field. When posters here talk about a player being best suited to a wing I often wonder what they are talking about. .

As a last resort I'd be an advocate of reducing the amount of players on the ground ... one thing is for sure, it's a talking point and the AFL do look like they are possibly going to address the congestion issue. I'm also a very practical person so I see your suggestion of a cap of 80 rotations as the path that the AFL will probably take - if that happens, only time will tell whether that reduced number of rotations will have any effect on the congestion. .

To counteract that the league could make the forwards and backmen line up within their 50 metre arks after a goal is scored - that bit wouldn't be too difficult to police. A radical approach perhaps but so was the then "Diamond" and not long after - "The centre square" when those changes were implemented. The supporters back then very quickly got used to that major change to the game. Also, the fans could vote with their feet if an ultra flood was employed on a consistent basis - not every supporter would accept such a ploy. And who would want to watch that sort of thing on TV? I'm not sure the ultra flood would be workable with zero or minimal rotations anyway - the ultra flooding team would still be required to try and score and by doing that, they still might have a need to run up and down the ground all day (without so much as a minutes rest) Or do teams just kick it away like the socceroos of 1974 (we still lost to East and West Germany with that ploy) .

But the game wouldn't develop into a scrappier and slower game - how are you so convinced that it would? Players wouldn't necessarily become tired if the coaches were forced to not make their players run up and down the ground all day (if we had zero rotations or a drastically reduced number) I like seeing forwards play as forwards and backmen as backmen - all the time. The sport is now "interesting" and "complex" but I find it unspectacular and a trifle boring. You've already said that you don't need to be entertained by footy - and that's fair enough. If changes aren't made, we're going to see more and more stoppages and more negative footy. The path we're on isn't magically going to start going in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, many are already turning away from the sport. And to counteract that shift footy needed to be and needs to be more aesthetically pleasing - instead of that, the opposite has occurred. It's probably best we agree to disagree - again, I respect your opinion and find your view of footy most interesting. I've had many other such conversations previously with others who share your view. We're allowed to view things differently.

Even if it was solely Sheedy's idea ultimately the fault lies with the AFL. The fish rots at the head I see the AFL are aiming at getting 1.7 billion from the next set of broadcast rights - that amount might be achieved on the back of people's allegiances to their team, tribal rivalries and loyalty to the sport but unless they fix the aesthetics of the game, a tipping point might be reached down the track. Soccer as a whole is now a genuine threat - the interest in soccer doesn't stop at the A league ... there's the EPL and other European leagues, the Champions league, the World cup, Asian cup, European cup, participation rates and pathways for young sportsmen - even the video game (Fifa 16) is a threat in terms of interest being taken away from the AFL. My preference would be for the AFL to be the clear no.1 sport in this country.

So your basing your argument around your "respect for coaching"? And you don't expect to be entertained by footy? I respect your opinion JRS but we are diametrically opposed here ... I need to be entertained by footy and I couldn't care less about the coaches in the way you do. They should not be the custodians of the sport (yet, effectively, they are the custodians of the sport) If rotations were reduced to zero, coaches would be forced to leave a number of their players in their rightful positions ... before the explosion of rotations, clubs were always recruiting "athletes" who could play the sport to high levels who could run all day. However, there was never enough of these types in order to have the sport end up looking like it looks now though. Should a talent like Hogan be required to run up and down the ground all day? (and end up spending a lot of his time in the backline?)

I tend to agree Wyl, the flow on effect will influence other parts of the sport. I'd still cut the rotations back to zero, all the same. Interesting that rugby league only allows 12 interchange per team whilst rugby union only has subs (except in the case of the blood rule) Soccer only has subs too. Meanwhile, rotations in our game was heading towards 180-200 per team until they cut it back to 120 (as if that was going to make much of a difference) People need to remember that in the whole scheme of things, the high number of rotations is a recent phenomena (introduced by the coaches and allowed to happen by the AFL) The law of unintended consequences kicked in and we're left with a sport that doesn't really resemble what it once was. Just imagine if we could go back 10-12 years and deliberately change how the sport is played by deliberately increasing rotations to massive levels - most would say "don't do it" but that's exactly what has happened. I'm all for change when change is necessary or needed - so, I'm all for change right now. Not sure it will happen though - I don't believe the AFL have a clear vision of where the sport is going ... they are far too transfixed on the $$$'s I know a stack of people who don't watch footy like they once did - of all ages too. The over 35's because they don't like what they see and under 35's because they have numerous other interests.

Also, there is nowhere near enough outrage about teams "over possessing" the ball ... all the needless handpassing, numerous uncontested marks and hundreds of short passes probably appeals to the dreamteam and supercoach participants but probably not for those who have no interest in "fantasy football" And no, I'm not one of those "kick it long" people either - the debate is much more complex than dumbing it down to a black and white argument. Teams hugging the boundary in order to create stoppages is another blight on the game - interesting that the then VFL brought in a rule which operated from 1926 - 1939 where teams were penalised if they were the last team to touch or kick the ball before it went out of bounds.

Without adequate rest, the players would have limitations on how far and how fast they can run within a game. Parking everyone back is one thing but what do they do if they want to score? 120 minutes of running up and down the ground all day without so much as a minutes rest? I can't see it. Not sure if you follow ice hockey but the players can only last about 2 and a half minutes before they are interchanged - and there are a total of 20 players with only 6 on the rink at any one time. But it wasn't always that way - interchange has actually helped that sport. Soccer has never felt inclined to introduce interchange - if it did, that sport would probably become a lot more crowded on the field (or, less open) Well, in my opinion it would anyway.

Because 120 rotations is 120 rotations too many. As I said, I've never liked the interchange. The sport never needed the interchange - back before all these hundreds of rotations the players were never asked to run up and down the ground all day. The coaches never asked them to do it because they would have tired out their players too quickly. Because of the rest that the players are now given, they're now able to run up and down the ground all day - and that's what the coaches make them do. Do you genuinely enjoy watching 30 players around the ball on a fairly constant basis? - if so, what do find to be enjoyable about such occurrences?

Well I've never liked the interchange anyway - we never needed it. The sport has been redesigned because of the hundreds of rotations. I'd prefer to get rid of it altogether. However, I don't see any changes by the AFL other than cosmetic ones. If the changes I've suggested were implemented, we'd start witnessing footy as it was primarily played circa late 90's/early 2000's. Teams started with their "keepings off" style (short passing). kicking backwards, numerous rotations (which has caused all the stoppages) and players running up and down the ground all day from that time period. Players played in their basic positions up until about 10 years ago and then it all started changing. The umpires often create the huge packs by not breaking up the play with a quick ball up. I'm suggesting that we implement rules that takes us back to how footy was played just over 10 years ago. If people are happy to watch 30 players on the ball for extended parts of the games then good for them. They're easily pleased in my opinion.