Hands in the Back means MORE TELEVISION COMMERCIALS

[GO EAGLES]

COULD THIS BE??????????????

The reason why the AFL does not want to get rid of 'PUSH in the back rule"
is because they want to make it easier for forwards so that there can be more commercials after goals.

So even if people complain - THE afl AND TELEVISION need more goals.

 

[Whitebluestripes]

Right. Well anyway, I noticed yesterday in the Kangas game, yeah ok it was delayed, but even delayed games never used to have 2-3 minutes of ads after 2 goals. It was really annoying

 

[nicnat9]

Right. Well anyway, I noticed yesterday in the Kangas game, yeah ok it was delayed, but even delayed games never used to have 2-3 minutes of ads after 2 goals. It was really annoying

That's exactly why channel 7 delay the majority of their games. Some weeks in Adelaide they don't show a single live game on 7 so it's just fortunate I have foxsports. But I can't think of another reason to compromise ratings other than to make more money off of additional ads.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I've argued in the past that recent rules have been designed to artificially inflate scoring. Whether that in turn is part of a greater scheme to increase TV revenue, I don't know. But I wouldn't dismiss the suggestion out of hand.

 

[EagleMan87]

I always just thought it was to increase scorelines, hence making the game seem more attractive to the layman.

But it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was just to increase ad revenue.

 

[wal]

Forwards being pinged as often, if not more than the backs would go a long way to dispel your theory i would of thought.

 

[AlibiMonday]

I've argued in the past that recent rules have been designed to artificially inflate scoring. Whether that in turn is part of a greater scheme to increase TV revenue, I don't know. But I wouldn't dismiss the suggestion out of hand.

This is absolutely the reason behind Vlad's singling out of the Sydney game style and his focus on knee-capping their game. The AFL are very very shrewd operators and have an almost laser focus on growing the game. The single best way they can do that is to ensure the TV rights are maximized and the showpiece attracts Mums. Any mathematicians out there can probably verify this, but each 10 points added to average score adds somewhere between 50-80 million to the contract. Potentially more if they can demonstrate increased scoring direction trends.

 

[Pocket_Pears]

I reckon umpires are also under direction to hand teams goals wherever possible so that there are more ads. 50/50 decisions always seem to go to either:

a) The dominant team because they look more likely to convert an Inside 50 into a goal.

or

b) The team that is close to goal on an easy angle.

or

c) To the marquee player that is a protected species by the AFL, because a passage of play they are involved in will likely end in a goal.

or

d) The in-form full forward that rarely misses a set shot.

 

[Simon Templar]

I'm wondering if it is at all possible that the hands in the back rule was designed to make it fairer for all that contest a mark.

 

[Hawkers]

How about you do a bit of research and find out how many goals are being kicked now compared to previous years

 

[dart]

thanks to this thread my "crackpot" quota is filled for today


keep up the good work

 

[St DAC]

thanks to this thread my "crackpot" quota is filled for today


keep up the good work

You're OK for the rest of the week as well ...

 

[Ron The Bear]

How about you do a bit of research and find out how many goals are being kicked now compared to previous years

Been done. Scoring was trending downwards until 2007 when "hands in the back" was introduced, picked up briefly and is on the way down again.

With winter just beginning, 2010's average score is the lowest since 1970. Defensive pressure is choking the game.

Crackpot over and out.

 

[Sebastian Balboa]

--When are people on here going to realise: This rule was always in place.

Growing up with the game in the 70s and 80s as a defender, it was always drilled into us, "Don't touch the soft-**** forwards' backs with your hands."

But the rule was somehow forgone through much of the 90s and 2000s.--

 

[Gumblestar]

The single worst conspiracy theory I have ever heard. It barely even gets paid (thank god).

 

[Redb#]

Would you like some tin foil with those fries?

 

[enosis7]

50% of the time it's the forward getting pinged for hands in the back.

 

[WoGiTaLiA]

I'm still not at all sure why they made it, it has taken away from the game beyond doubt but I still can't fathom a good reason why it was introduced in the first place, hasn't simplified for the umpires, hasn't made marking/spoiling any easier, hasn't increased scoring(forwards are more hurt than backs by the rule), it has done nothing to make the game a better spectacle and has simply lead to confusion.

Sounds like most of the rule changes actually...

 

[rgill]

I am still confused about that rule - maybe if there isn't enough goals being kicked then the rule surfaces again - a bit cynical I know

 

[AsianWithAFro]

LOL you should write a book about this

 

[Mr Ripper]

I'm wondering if it is at all possible that the hands in the back rule was designed to make it fairer for all that contest a mark.

--When are people on here going to realise: This rule was always in place.

Growing up with the game in the 70s and 80s as a defender, it was always drilled into us, "Don't touch the soft-**** forwards' backs with your hands."

But the rule was somehow forgone through much of the 90s and 2000s.--

Only need to go the the video library to see that "legal" use of hands in the back only crept into the game probably from the late eighties. The rule just made it a black and white (theoretically) way of redressing the situation and returning to the days when combatants had to USE THEIR BODIES to out-position their opponents.

Good rule if sensibly applied, ie: by letting the incidental ones go.

 

[enosis7]

I'm still not at all sure why they made it..

James Clement.

Made an art of it and became one of the most dominant defenders in the AFL in 2006 on the back of this tactic.