This current debate about game length = more injuries bewilders me a bit.
Carlton on Saturday combined between the seniors and reserves probably had the highest aggregate of game length in the history of the sport.
Reserves 1st q went for 41 minutes, second quarter went for well over 35 minutes as examples and then in the seniors the second quarter went for 37 minutes and the whole game for a total of 137 minutes.
I note Fagans comments on this issue, what I don’t get is that yes the game as a whole went for a bloody long time however to me the game is still 80 minutes long and in this case there was 57 minutes where the players are not exerting themselves.
Is it really an issue? Is it just another complete overreaction?
I sense quite strongly it’s a massive overreaction and quite simply a sly underhanded way of coaches getting a bit more control back over the game.
Thoughts?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Carlton on Saturday combined between the seniors and reserves probably had the highest aggregate of game length in the history of the sport.
Reserves 1st q went for 41 minutes, second quarter went for well over 35 minutes as examples and then in the seniors the second quarter went for 37 minutes and the whole game for a total of 137 minutes.
I note Fagans comments on this issue, what I don’t get is that yes the game as a whole went for a bloody long time however to me the game is still 80 minutes long and in this case there was 57 minutes where the players are not exerting themselves.
Is it really an issue? Is it just another complete overreaction?
I sense quite strongly it’s a massive overreaction and quite simply a sly underhanded way of coaches getting a bit more control back over the game.
Thoughts?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com