Game time "more than likely" to be reduced from 2012

[Ron The Bear]

Live or on delay?

Honestly, I've never sat at a game thinking that the break after scoring a goal is too long.

You've never yelled "Hurry up and ****ing bounce it" when your team's on a roll and the umpire's looking over his shoulder for the green light?

 

[Riders of Rohan]

It was on delay, but **** it was a long time.

 

[cleomenes]

The last quarter of the Eagles Carlton game will doubtless be dragged into this argument. To see where all the time went after the five minute warning on the TV presentation, I wrote down the time of stop and start play for teh whole period. Nearly all of it was taken up in the delay at restarting after a goal. Conclusion from this: the game time has not increased. No change is necessary.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Live or on delay?

Honestly, I've never sat at a game thinking that the break after scoring a goal is too long.

I have it's ridiculous sometimes that the umpire and players have to sit there waiting for a green light to flash so they can restart play. Even moreso when the game is on Foxtel.

 

[grimface_87]

Just when I thought things couldn't get any crazier:

THE nine-point goal used in pre-season matches will become part of the game, Demetriou believes.

After GWS coach Kevin Sheedy suggested that teams that score the most goals be rewarded to make the game more attractive to NSW and Queensland, the AFL chief said : "I'm a fan of the nine-point goal - anything that makes the game more attractive. I think it will be part of the game in the home and away season at some time."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/arizona-will-be-fixture-for-all/story-e6frf9jf-1226143957844

Surely this is a joke? I'm happy to have trial rules and gimmick rules in the preseason, but please just leave the premiership season alone!

EDIT: I love how they bury these massive proposed changes at the end of articles about something else entirely

 

[King Elvis]

Umm... Percentage isn't a reward for scoring?

Sheedy is senile.

 

[XFactor1979]

I reckon if the clock keeps ticking away, it would eradicate those pointless hopeless quarters like the last quarter between West Coast and Geelong

If both teams know the game is over and they shut up shop (ie smash the ball out of bounds and keep locking it up), quarters will probably only run for 22 minutes. 10 extra minutes this afternoon for the last quarter proved nothing

 

[Rassilon]

I think they're conflicting their agendas also. They want the game to be as "exciting as possible", thus the talk of 9 point goals, hands in the back etc. I believe by reducing the length of the game, an extra emphasis will be placed on defense, as it will be marginally more realistic to defend leads of small/moderate size by slogging the game out.

 

[XFactor1979]

I was discussing this with a guy from victoria when i was watching the preliminary final for the National Rigged League

He suggested


20 minute quarters

Flat!

^ *senses an eery silence to that suggestion*

 

[lloydy_loinchop]

The problem with the AFL Rules Committee and its kneejerk rule changes is it oversees the potential repercussions of the rule changes. If the game is shortened by keeping the clock running when the ball goes out of bounds, sending the ball out of bounds will be a tactic to ice the game and waste time. Nowadays, icing the game can be difficult, as free players are manned up and the umpires vigiliantly call play on (don't get me started about how in the last minute of the game, a mark buys you 5 seconds, whereas in the first quarter, you get closer to 20 seconds). With a rule change keeping the clock rolling, any team winning the game will keep the ball along the boundary, and in the ensuing ball ups, hit the ball back to the boundary so that the ball keeps going out and time is wiped off the clock. I bet the moronic AFL hasn't considered this before it puts in their short-sighted rule.

If they really insist on shortening game time (which isn't required), I would prefer they make 'time-off' stricter, i.e. stop the clock after every whistle - even a mark, and then shorten game time to 15mins (rather than 20mins). In this way, hopefully quarters would remain apprx.30mins in continuous length and players could never ice the clock, because all dead time (incl. marks) would not contribute to the clock.

 

[XFactor1979]

The problem with the AFL Rules Committee and its kneejerk rule changes is it oversees the potential repercussions of the rule changes. If the game is shortened by keeping the clock running when the ball goes out of bounds, sending the ball out of bounds will be a tactic to ice the game and waste time. Nowadays, icing the game can be difficult, as free players are manned up and the umpires vigiliantly call play on (don't get me started about how in the last minute of the game, a mark buys you 5 seconds, whereas in the first quarter, you get closer to 20 seconds). With a rule change keeping the clock rolling, any team winning the game will keep the ball along the boundary, and in the ensuing ball ups, hit the ball back to the boundary so that the ball keeps going out and time is wiped off the clock. I bet the moronic AFL hasn't considered this before it puts in their short-sighted rule.

If they really insist on shortening game time (which isn't required), I would prefer they make 'time-off' stricter, i.e. stop the clock after every whistle - even a mark, and then shorten game time to 15mins (rather than 20mins). In this way, hopefully quarters would remain apprx.30mins in continuous length and players could never ice the clock, because all dead time (incl. marks) would not contribute to the clock.

Try telling the 1993 Premiership winning team from Essendon

They would never have got away with their tactics of smashing the ball to the boundary had the clock not been ticking away and the life ebbed away for the Adelaide Crows

That's one game Adelaide crows fans will never redeem in their living memories