Josh Fraser: No more rule changes

[Thewlis Dish]

If Laycock hadn't missed two gimmes, Essendon would have won, and if Geelong hadn't blown a number of shots at goal, they probably would have won. Then this wouldn't even be an issue.

It's ludicrous and all stems from having an 'official' rules committee, who have to justify their own existence. Just re-visit the game every two years or so to evaluate how it's going, and leave people like Kevin Bartlett on the radio.

 

[Hinkley29]

Um, because it is how the game is played.

King-hitting blokes behind the play, and deliberately watering grounds to make a bog to suit the home team used to be "how the game is played" as well.

Don't be afraid of change, heaven forbid you might actually see an improvement in the game.

 

[Waspy79]

I agree, leave it alone.

Unfortunately that will not happen, people in positions of power have agendas to fill and wages to try to justify. To them making changes is control and something they can refer to as an 'achievement' in their next meeting.

They will link their unpopular changes with any kind of positive change to AFL (crowds, sponsorship, participation rate), and blame any negative things on lack of change - and subsequently brainstorm the latest and greatest rule change.

Get more player/fan input I say!


edit:
I think I said this last time I posted...many moons ago... do I have to be a Newbie forever...haha

^
100% correct.

 

[tazhawk]

The sooner that people realise the rationale for these AFL decisions, the sooner the conversation can move on to the real issue at hand.

Defenders have been denied the sanctuary of the boundary line.

Defenders have suffered new and extreme interpretations of "hands in the back" in addition to "chopping the arms" in marking contests.

Defenders will now be denied the sanctuary of the goal line.

These changes, and others, have been made in order that the public will see increased numbers of goals. The flow-on effect is that television viewers will see increased numbers of adverts, maximising revenue for television networks, and maximising the value of TV rights for the AFL.

Nail hammer head.

 

[Bollox]

Good on him for voicing an opinion...and yeah the Stalinists are probably trying to figure out if he should be fined for having a brain in his head.

Make any comittee and they'll always feel obligated to justify their existence...and they can only do that by suggesting rule changes.

Agree absolutely that half the new rules they implement are now just feeding on to counteractive rules to cover the way players adapt to the previous changes.

...and i cannot friggin believe they are even entertaining the idea of MORE ridiculous 50m penalites that just ruin the game...for absolute kneejeerk junk catering to the netballers worried about the .000000001% chance you're gonna get hurt after kicking it.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Moving on, what is so out of line with this rule change when it is viewed along side most other rule changes this decade? Have the AFL not contunually promoted a mantra of keeping the ball alive and keeping the game flowing? How is this any different?

This rule change is only keeping with all the other recent changes in AFL football and as coaches find ways slow down play, the AFL will institute ways to overcome that.


I'm not saying I'm a fan of modern rule changes, i'm not, but where we're all you people when Brendan Krummel & co. got run through and the AFL implemented rule changes that we're contradictory to 100 years of football tradition? Where was your dissent when Wayne Carey continually had to combat three opponents at a time? Where was your dissent when Eade, Roos and Craig continually clogged up their defensive lines and turned the game in to a joke as a spectacle? We're was your dissent when those flooded lines became "rolling zones" that further destroyed the game as a spectacle?

IMO, the flood is primarily responsible for the modern trend in AFL rule changes. You all should have been whinging a decade ago.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

There are other solutions to the rushed behind situation. It should not be the in the umpires hands to determine whether a behind is rushed deliberately or not. They can barely make other decisions with any accuraccy?

Besides, coaches and defenders will find other ways to rush behinds. For example they can just stand on the goal line and draw the tackle.

A better alternative would be to stop the clock until the ball had cleared 50 metres from the kickin or been marked by a player. That way the biggest motivation of rushing behinds - running down the clock - is emilinated.

 

[B-Bomber]

Moving on, what is so out of line with this rule change when it is viewed along side most other rule changes this decade? Have the AFL not contunually promoted a mantra of keeping the ball alive and keeping the game flowing? How is this any different?

This rule change is only keeping with all the other recent changes in AFL football and as coaches find ways slow down play, the AFL will institute ways to overcome that.


I'm not saying I'm a fan of modern rule changes, i'm not, but where we're all you people when Brendan Krummel & co. got run through and the AFL implemented rule changes that we're contradictory to 100 years of football tradition? Where was your dissent when Wayne Carey continually had to combat three opponents at a time? Where was your dissent when Eade, Roos and Craig continually clogged up their defensive lines and turned the game in to a joke as a spectacle? We're was your dissent when those flooded lines became "rolling zones" that further destroyed the game as a spectacle?

IMO, the flood is primarily responsible for the modern trend in AFL rule changes. You all should have been whinging a decade ago.

What a well thought out, coherent and most importantly, troll free post Mario!



I think that you'll find for one thing, a rushed behind hardly slows play down now due to the quick kick in rule -- as has been noted often defenses will use it to quickly set up play and have the ball down the other end in a flash. However, I don't have a problem with this as they are still conceding 1 point to gain 6 which means every goal scored this wasy is effectively only a 5 point goal and even then, thats only if they score a goal immediately after each rushed behind which is far from guarenteed.

What annoys me, is this "Twenty20" mentality of more goals = more fun. What really is fun about a rushed behind being bannana kicked through the goals? Especially when there will be contentious calls which will result in an almost certain goal which is far more of a worry then the free kick that results from a contentious deliberate out of bounds.

In some ways this could lead to more flooding as teams realise that putting a strangle hold on the defense is going to be an even more effective strategy as there is no longer the option of rushed behind then quick kick to a man in space on the HBF.

Let the tactics evolve! If rushed behinds become the new weapon of choice, let opposition coaches counter it with their own brains rather then putting in new rules.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I think that you'll find for one thing, a rushed behind hardly slows play down now due to the quick kick in rule -- as has been noted often defenses will use it to quickly set up play and have the ball down the other end in a flash.

It does if the intention is to run dowm the clock Joel Bowden style.

Invariably teams who deliberately rush behinds tend to be leading on the scoreboard. Solution - stop the clock. Let them do it but give them no "time" advantage.

 

[SM]

I still don't understand what the problem with only penalising consecutive behinds is... That was the main problem last year, with Bowden, not what Hawthorn did in the Grand Final.

 

[Ron The Bear]

He has an ulterior motive; the more the AFL stuff with the rules, the more Josh Fraser's hairline recedes!

It's a trend that cannot be ignored.

Probably enjoyed the chance to get a few words in after getting married recently.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I still don't understand what the problem with only penalising consecutive behinds is... That was the main problem last year, with Bowden, not what Hawthorn did in the Grand Final.

Its still in the umpires hand to determine what is deliberate and what isnt. I dont want games decided by a 50/50 umpiring interpretation on whether a rushed behind is deliberate or not.

And how do you define consecutive rushed behinds? What if the game is scoreless for 5 or 6 minutes?

 

[Primetime Pricey]

now if we can get Josh to talk out on the field we may have a shot.....

 

[The Royal Sampler]

These changes, and others, have been made in order that the public will see increased numbers of goals. The flow-on effect is that television viewers will see increased numbers of adverts, maximising revenue for television networks, and maximising the value of TV rights for the AFL.

I think you're right, JohnD. The AFL are trying to turn our game into American Football, no wonder they're hanging out at the SuperBowl to conduct "research".

 

[Mario the Lothario]

I think you're right, JohnD. The AFL are trying to turn our game into American Football, no wonder they're hanging out at the SuperBowl to conduct "research".

.....and why would they want to do that? Flooding perhaps?

Modern day coaching tactics are to blame for this, not the AFL. Either they find a way to free the game up by keeping the ball moving or they introduce zone limitations. I can't see any other way of fixing the problem.

 

[Go Cats!!]

I think you're right, JohnD. The AFL are trying to turn our game into American Football, no wonder they're hanging out at the SuperBowl to conduct "research".

I dont think they are trying to make it into American Football at all. They state they want a free flowing and fast moving game. American football is stop, start, challenge this, challange that, would take 7 and a half hours to get through one AFL game doing that crap.

Having said that i agree that basically handing a team a free goal is way over the top. Would hate to be a defender in the modern game.

 

[SBI]

The rule changes have done more to encourage teams to flood. There's only a select few clubs who have the cattle to play the type of game the AFL want them to; the rest have to play the chip-chip style otherwise they'll get flogged.

The game is nowhere near as enjoyable to watch as it used to be; mainly because the AFL have tried to manufacture high scores and make the game 'faster'. Like cricket, higher scores doesn't necessarily mean a better spectacle.

 

[Go Cats!!]

.....and why would they want to do that? Flooding perhaps?

Modern day coaching tactics are to blame for this, not the AFL. Either they find a way to free the game up by keeping the ball moving or they introduce zone limitations. I can't see any other way of fixing the problem.

Personally if i want zone limitations id go watch some netball.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Having said that i agree that basically handing a team a free goal is way over the top. Would hate to be a defender in the modern game.

Do you think forwards were getting a fair go in the mid to late 90's and early 2000's? Floods, multiple opponents, punching arms etc?

 

[SBI]

And how does stopping defenders chopping arms and 'placing' hands in the back do anything to encourage teams to not flood?

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Personally if i want zone limitations id go watch some netball.

Then how else do you fix the problem aside from what the AFL are currently doing?

If I had to watch every team play a la Sydney and Adelaide 2004 - present I'd be watching the netball with you.

 

[SBI]

Then how else do you fix the problem aside from what the AFL are currently doing?

If I had to watch every team play a la Sydney 2003 - present I'd be watching the netball with you.

The AFL shouldn't have to fix tactics for teams. Nowhere else in the world does a league look at a negative tactic and say we have to change it.

It is up to the coaches to beat the flood and make it obsolete. Teams that play hard-and-fast football beat the flood; those who chip it around and dick around with the ball suffer.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

And how does stopping defenders chopping arms and 'placing' hands in the back do anything to encourage teams to not flood?

It doesn't. I was just making the point that pitying defenders is a little misrepresentative of the overall facts.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

The AFL shouldn't have to fix tactics for teams. Nowhere else in the world does a league look at a negative tactic and say we have to change it.

It is up to the coaches to beat the flood and make it obsolete. Teams that play hard-and-fast football beat the flood; those who chip it around and dick around with the ball suffer.

Meanwhile, the game suffers badly as a spectacle in it's most strategically expansive period? That would be self defeating.

 

[Go Cats!!]

Do you think forwards were getting a fair go in the mid to late 90's and early 2000's? Floods, multiple opponents, punching arms etc?

They may not have been getting a fair go. That doesnt take away from my statement that i would hate to be a defender in the modern game. They are taking away all of thier defenses one at a time. Pretty soon it may go to zone limitations as you suggested. Thats the day i stop watching football.