AFL wanting fan feedback on rule changes

[Ron The Bear]

And wht is this so called negative impact?
What is wrong with having a large number of interchanges????

LEAVE THE GAME ALONE,

I voted for the 2+2 cap on interchanges because whilst I think the injury reason is a furphy, fresher players are enabling teams to employ rolling zones and clog up space more efficiently, to the point where players run and bounce the ball only half as often as they did four years ago, while there has been a corresponding increase in tackles and congestion.

Year Int Bo Tck
---------------
2006 .92 41 .98
2007 116 38 104
2008 162 35 107
2009 182 29 124
2010 232 21 135

I'm not strongly in favour of the change because I don't know for certain that it will have a positive effect, but for all the perceived evils of the AFL I reckon cross-pollination with other sports has done a lot more damage.

 

[db swannie]

No. With all this money the AFL's spending on investigating rule changes, why don't they spend some of it on making umpiring a full time profession which will lead to a reduction in errors? As opposed to "OMG, something happened that happens maybe once a year, CHANGE EVERYTHING"

I love aussie rules footy, but christ I hate the AFL.

All the money in the world and "professionalism" won't eradicate the errors that happen to goal umpires. Their job is difficult, they have to watch two posts, a ball is kicked in at high speed, there is (often) huge crowd noise, the posts are 12 metres high, things happen so fast...Plus it happens more than once a year, and each time it does half the people on BF go bananas and cry out how bad decisions are robbing the game, etc etc...

I'm not a huge fan of constant rule changes, but the reality is, some of them work. Remember the rushed behind rule? We all thought (me included!) that the sky was going to fall in once it was introduced, yet despite the whining of commentators like Walls, Dunstall et al, we all know that it has improved the game. Well, I think it has anyway...

There's a lot of "the fabric of the game" talk going on here, but to me a lot of people are ignoring one fact: A solution to the problem that so many people bitch and moan about is at hand. If the ball hits the post but still goes through, it's a goal, if it doesn't, it's a behind. Simple.

I do agree (and was originally unaware of this) that the clause relating to the ball being kicked along the ground not applying is just plain bizarre? I really don't get what difference there is between a drop punt going through on the full and a kick along the ground, and why one can be called a goal if it hits the post, and the other not. That makes NO sense to me...

 

[thebiff]

Why do rules have to be changed? AFL is fast becoming a joke, I hate to say it because I love the game but you don't see any other sports changing rules just for fun because they are bored. Is this now an annual thing that they have to change rules because they feel like it? 150years of history and they make changes at the drop of a hat, disgrace.

 

[db swannie]

Why do rules have to be changed? AFL is fast becoming a joke, I hate to say it because I love the game but you don't see any other sports changing rules just for fun because they are bored. Is this now an annual thing that they have to change rules because they feel like it? 150years of history and they make changes at the drop of a hat, disgrace.

I think there's strong arguments on both sides of this debate. Firstly, I believe they change rules because they think there's something wrong with the game, simple as that. As I mentioned previously, most people were dead against the rushed behind rule being changed, but once it happened, 99% of fans loved it. It works, very simple.

I don't believe administrators change the rules because they're bored, or they feel like it. Their concerns are largely market-driven, as they attempt to maximise the appeal of the sport and gain a further share of the sporting dollar. I'm being slightly cynical here, but I think that plays a big part. And I can understand why this frustrates many fans, me included. But part of me also is proud to follow a sport that says to the world, we are evolving, and will continue to do so. Soccer, now there's a sport where the rules have barely changed over many many years, but to me it's boring. Same tactics, same rituals, same lack of goals, same diving and playing for offside...I could list many other sports, but that's not the point.

I watched a VFL game on fox the other day from the eighties and was surprised at how different the game was, how much faster our game is today, how the skills level has improved, etc. The game has changed, because (in part) the game has evolved on a number of levels, including rule changes, amongst other things.

 

[Spurk]

I think there's strong arguments on both sides of this debate. Firstly, I believe they change rules because they think there's something wrong with the game, simple as that. As I mentioned previously, most people were dead against the rushed behind rule being changed, but once it happened, 99% of fans loved it. It works, very simple.

I don't believe administrators change the rules because they're bored, or they feel like it. Their concerns are largely market-driven, as they attempt to maximise the appeal of the sport and gain a further share of the sporting dollar. I'm being slightly cynical here, but I think that plays a big part. And I can understand why this frustrates many fans, me included. But part of me also is proud to follow a sport that says to the world, we are evolving, and will continue to do so. Soccer, now there's a sport where the rules have barely changed over many many years, but to me it's boring. Same tactics, same rituals, same lack of goals, same diving and playing for offside...I could list many other sports, but that's not the point.

I watched a VFL game on fox the other day from the eighties and was surprised at how different the game was, how much faster our game is today, how the skills level has improved, etc. The game has changed, because (in part) the game has evolved on a number of levels, including rule changes, amongst other things.

Pretty spot on.

The game today is better in some ways, but has lost it's drama.

Characters have gone and with shit stain media types like Caro and Walls are gone for good.

The characters were a huge part of the game, obviously.

Flooding is the other blight. Coaches simply have too much influence these days and bend the rules for breakfast.

The AFL dont do a whole lot wrong when having to fight off shitty soccer, basketball tactics.

 

[Canine]

A few posters, like myself, seem to be unhappy that the AFL only choose three options for the third part of the interchange question. If you don't want want to see a change to the interchange rules then don't select one of the available options for part C, just fill in the comment box. The survey does allow you to to submit it even if a question has been skipped.

 

[Perry Pie]

Kudos to the AFL for asking the fans. Whether they listen to us is another matter.
........

What! They produce a skewed set of questions designed to support the answers they have already decided they want.
The survey is a joke. A very bad joke. It shows me that the leadership in the AFL have no self confidence because they keep wanting to justify what they do with faked surveys. Third rate behaviour by second rate people.

 

[Perry Pie]

A few posters, like myself, seem to be unhappy that the AFL only choose three options for the third part of the interchange question. If you don't want want to see a change to the interchange rules then don't select one of the available options for part C, just fill in the comment box. The survey does allow you to to submit it even if a question has been skipped.

But it is NOT part of the survey - they will claim "X"% voted this way or that - its rigged, your comments DON'T count.
This really hacks me off. Its fraud, its fake, its designed to generate specific results.
I will give you an extreme example to illustrate:
Someone is caught abusing a 4 year old boy, do you
a) shoot the sick f**k at the first chance
b) hang the sick f**k the next day
c) put the sick f**k on trial so a slimmy lawyer can get the sicko off

 

[Brad Roo]

I voted in Yes for:

- Cap it at 80 interchanges.
- Penalise players for pushing the ball under an opponent to milk holding the ball free kicks.
- Goals and points for the ball hitting the posts and going through the goal/point area.


These are all good rule changes.

I hope the AFL also seriously consider looking at Leigh Matthews idea about instituting zones.

The sooner the AFL take the game away from athletes and give it back to footballers, the better. Coaches are having far too much influence on games with convoluted structures that ruin the game as a spectacle.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

No. With all this money the AFL's spending on investigating rule changes, why don't they spend some of it on making umpiring a full time profession which will lead to a reduction in errors? As opposed to "OMG, something happened that happens maybe once a year, CHANGE EVERYTHING"

I love aussie rules footy, but christ I hate the AFL.

Exactly right. Make umpires full time and get two goal umpires at each end one standing next to each goal post. Would almost eliminate errors in goal umpiring decisions however human error means there will always be some (like Waite's one the other night for example).

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I voted for the 2+2 cap on interchanges because whilst I think the injury reason is a furphy, fresher players are enabling teams to employ rolling zones and clog up space more efficiently, to the point where players run and bounce the ball only half as often as they did four years ago, while there has been a corresponding increase in tackles and congestion.

Year Int Bo Tck
---------------
2006 .92 41 .98
2007 116 38 104
2008 162 35 107
2009 182 29 124
2010 232 21 135

I'm not strongly in favour of the change because I don't know for certain that it will have a positive effect, but for all the perceived evils of the AFL I reckon cross-pollination with other sports has done a lot more damage.

Wouldn't this make it worse though? If players cannot be rotated as often then they will tire quicker. The coaches will therefore go the safe option and play more players behind the ball for more of the game and it will create more soccer-like formations and defensive game plans. It will also mean clubs go for recruiting endurance athletes rather than pure footballers something which already happens to an extent anyway.

I say leave it alone. They say the increase in rotations has led to greater injuries? Well which coach wants his players injured? Let it go for a couple of years and see how it goes, I think the coaches and game will sort itself out.

 

[Papa Juggs]

I posted a nice comment in the box for each question.

In the first one I voted 80 changes but I said it was too high and they should go lower.

For the holding the ball one at the end I posted a big spray about high contact after the initial tackle not being paid as holding the ball.

Why change the rule if you can't get it right the way it is now???

 

[Final Siren]

The Age has a poll with (*gasp*) an option for leaving interchange rules as they are:

http://www.theage.com.au/polls/ch-ch-ch-changes/20100811-11z3o.html#poll

Could be interesting to compare to the AFL's version.

 

[Final Siren]

I watched a VFL game on fox the other day from the eighties and was surprised at how different the game was, how much faster our game is today, how the skills level has improved, etc. The game has changed, because (in part) the game has evolved on a number of levels, including rule changes, amongst other things.

Yeah. Today's game is very different, and imho superior.

The one thing I miss from those old games is the bash and crash: blokes could hurl themselves at one another without the umpire blowing the whistle every time someone's pinkie finger accidentally brushed another guy's hair. Today's game seems very over-umpired by comparison. But I understand that legally and morally the AFL needed to act to prevent serious on-field injuries.

 

[Subprime]

All the money in the world and "professionalism" won't eradicate the errors that happen to goal umpires. Their job is difficult, they have to watch two posts, a ball is kicked in at high speed, there is (often) huge crowd noise, the posts are 12 metres high, things happen so fast...Plus it happens more than once a year, and each time it does half the people on BF go bananas and cry out how bad decisions are robbing the game, etc etc...

I'm not a huge fan of constant rule changes, but the reality is, some of them work. Remember the rushed behind rule? We all thought (me included!) that the sky was going to fall in once it was introduced, yet despite the whining of commentators like Walls, Dunstall et al, we all know that it has improved the game. Well, I think it has anyway...

There's a lot of "the fabric of the game" talk going on here, but to me a lot of people are ignoring one fact: A solution to the problem that so many people bitch and moan about is at hand. If the ball hits the post but still goes through, it's a goal, if it doesn't, it's a behind. Simple.

I do agree (and was originally unaware of this) that the clause relating to the ball being kicked along the ground not applying is just plain bizarre? I really don't get what difference there is between a drop punt going through on the full and a kick along the ground, and why one can be called a goal if it hits the post, and the other not. That makes NO sense to me...

Sometimes it is hard to tell whether the ball is touched or not before it goes through, it all happens very fast, the players can be all together, there is crowd noise, in other sports it doesn't matter who touches the ball last, should this rule be changed too?

Sometimes it is hard to tell whether the ball hits the boot or not before it goes through, it all happens very fast, the players can be all together, there is crowd noise, in other sports it doesn't matter whether its kicked or not, should this rule be changed too?

 

[Pie eyed]

The Age has a poll with (*gasp*) an option for leaving interchange rules as they are:

http://www.theage.com.au/polls/ch-ch-ch-changes/20100811-11z3o.html#poll

Could be interesting to compare to the AFL's version.

The poll appears to be pretty conclusive as to the opinion of the supporters (73% opposed to change.), but I would be interested to see what the AFLPA, the AFLCA and the individual clubs poll on the matter.

I think it's clear from their statement over the last few weeks regarding the matter that the majority of clubs are against change to the interchange laws. I assume this equates to the same stance from the majority of coaches.

Players have yet to show their hand as far as a I am aware.

The other issue is that while the AFL, through Anderson continues to claim it has data to support it's feel there needs to be change, it has failed to make any of this data available for review and discussion.

This is what I would have liked to have seen well before any "vote" or "poll was undertaken.

Most are formulating an opinion, simply based on the AFL's unproven assumptions not only on the subject of interchanges, but in the case of every proposed law change.

The proposal to allow Boundary Umpire to award free kicks is without doubt the most alarming.

 

[shintemaster]

I voted in Yes for:

- Cap it at 80 interchanges.
- Penalise players for pushing the ball under an opponent to milk holding the ball free kicks.
- Goals and points for the ball hitting the posts and going through the goal/point area.


These are all good rule changes.

I hope the AFL also seriously consider looking at Leigh Matthews idea about instituting zones.

The sooner the AFL take the game away from athletes and give it back to footballers, the better. Coaches are having far too much influence on games with convoluted structures that ruin the game as a spectacle.

Disagree with at least 2 of these. There is no need to penalise players for pushing the ball under an opponent. Stop unduly penalising players making the play and there will not be such a big chance of a reward for this behaviour.

It hits the post it's a point. That is the way it should always be.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

The proposal to allow Boundary Umpire to award free kicks is without doubt the most alarming.

Actually, I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I think that's the way it should have been from the start. I can't see why it makes sense that the boundary umpire can see an infringement clearly, yet cannot do anything about it.

 

[Ron The Bear]

All the money in the world and "professionalism" won't eradicate the errors that happen to goal umpires. Their job is difficult, they have to watch two posts, a ball is kicked in at high speed, there is (often) huge crowd noise, the posts are 12 metres high, things happen so fast...Plus it happens more than once a year, and each time it does half the people on BF go bananas and cry out how bad decisions are robbing the game, etc etc...

So in other words, goal umpiring is no different to what it ever was. Sure we've had a spate of bad decisions in the last year, but I don't believe this to be a chronic problem.

There is no need to penalise players for pushing the ball under an opponent. Stop unduly penalising players making the play and there will not be such a big chance of a reward for this behaviour.

I think this is perfectly reasonable. We're not talking about holding the ball to a player in a tackle, it's raking the ball under a player and holding it there to make it look as though the player isn't trying to get the ball out. Trying to stooge the umpire, essentially.

As long as the umpire is in no doubt about what has taken place, I don't think this is a bad rule (or a major change to the game).

 

[Andrew Mc]

Not sure why they need to change/add a rule to ping a bloke dragging it back under another - just pay a free against the bloke that drags it in as surely _he_ is holding the ball.

 

[Bodicifer]

Here's some feedback for the AFL...the interchange rules proposed are #$&%& stupid !

 

[Pie eyed]

Actually, I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I think that's the way it should have been from the start. I can't see why it makes sense that the boundary umpire can see an infringement clearly, yet cannot do anything about it.

The more umpires we have the more errors we have. I have conclusive data on this. Anderson must listen.

Seriously though, it can only slow down the game with endless additional, suspect frees paid behind the play. Half the time they can't even judge if a ball is in or out correctly.

 

[shintemaster]

The more umpires we have the more errors we have. I have conclusive data on this. Anderson must listen.

Seriously though, it can only slow down the game with endless additional, suspect frees paid behind the play. Half the time they can't even judge if a ball is in or out correctly.

You're actually correct IMO. I think our game is so grey at times that out of any 10 or so decisions there is a good chance that at least 1 will be completely wrong and 3-4 will be 50-50 and could probably just as easily have been left alone. To me that means a game of 25 free kicks probably has 8 or so that shouldn't have been paid. A game of 50 free kicks will probably have 25 or so that shouldn't have been paid. I'm a lot more comfortable with 8!

None of this takes into account how much massive amounts of umpiring decisions ruin the spectacle for supporters. The AFL was militant about teams ruining the spectacle with stoppages (a part of the game) yet is happy to ruin it through over officiation. Dissapointing.

 

[Barnzy]

The AFL has recently met with all clubs, coaches and players to discuss a number of topics relating to the Laws of the GameThe following are some of the proposals which the Laws Committee has developed to get feedback on as part of the final round of consultation and we are very interested in the views of our supporters on these topics.

Yeah, I'm sure.

You don't even listen to the players or coaches on these matters. They can stick the poll up their ass, I noticed too they didn't have a no interchange cap option.

 

[Brad Roo]

Disagree with at least 2 of these. There is no need to penalise players for pushing the ball under an opponent. Stop unduly penalising players making the play and there will not be such a big chance of a reward for this behaviour.

I can see your point, but do we really want to return to the Sydney mid 2000's philosophy of constantly diving on the ball and turning the match in to a clearance fest?

This is why we need rule changes, if it was left to coaches the game would eventually revert to rubbish anyway.

It hits the post it's a point. That is the way it should always be.

I like the proposed post rule, it deals with any controversy surrounding whether a ball has hit the post. It's the simplest solution.