Josh Fraser: No more rule changes

[Hodgepodge]

http://sportal.com.au/afl-news-display/fraser-no-more-changes-64479

Fraser: No more changes

06/02/2009 1:15 PM
Luke Buttigieg

Sportal

Collingwood ruckman Josh Fraser has called on the AFL to halt any further rule changes in the wake of its NAB Cup trial of free kicks awarded against teams conceding rushed behinds.
After Hawthorn matched the league record by conceding 11 rushed behinds on the way to winning last year's grand final against Geelong, the AFL has moved to stop the growing trend of teams giving up a point in order to gain uncontested possession.
During the NAB Cup any team that is ruled to have deliberately rushed a behind will also concede a free kick in front of goal to the opposition, with the position the kick is taken from to depend on where the ball crossed the line.



But speaking at Melbourne Airport on Friday morning before the Magpies headed to Perth for Saturday's NAB Cup opener against West Coast at Subiaco Oval, Fraser said he'd prefer the game be left alone.
"I think every year we seem to get thrown with different rules in front of us and I don't know, I'm a little bit of a traditionalist in a way, I'd like to see the game settle at some point," Fraser said.


"I think the game itself is attractive enough to keep drawing people through the stands and you only have to look through the competition there's some really exciting players at the moment and they're the players people come to see not all these rule changes."

About time one of the players said it. The fine's in the mail, no doubt.

 

[choppa77]

Gotta Agree.

It really is getting ridiculous!

And who cares if hawthorn rushed 11 behinds.
they set the game up in the 3rd quarter and Geelong couldnt kick straight.
they didnt win it because of the rushed behinds.

 

[lenny&carl]

I can't beleive they felt the need for a rushed behind rule change at all. The defenders conceed the point, the opposition crowd hisses at them. It's fun! Maybe that point could determine the game? What's wrong with any of that?

 

[jayjones1]

have to say he is right its a great game leave it alone

 

[Avatar]

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

 

[B-Bomber]

Thing is, they constantly cite the grand final as the issue with 11 rushed but the real problem was the situation with Bowden where he just rushed multiple behinds in a row to milk the clock instead of risking a kick in... And the fix for that is simple. If the ball is rushed a second time before the defending team loses posession then there should be a bounce instead of a kick in (top of the square, 25m out whatever).

As has been said, people Boo when there is a rushed behind but thats only the opposition supporters. It's like booing the bad guy in a wrestling match, you do it because you love to hate em. It's not the same as when there is constant chipping behind play where both sides supporters start to voice their disapproval.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I can't beleive they felt the need for a rushed behind rule change at all. The defenders conceed the point, the opposition crowd hisses at them. It's fun! Maybe that point could determine the game? What's wrong with any of that?

the reason they felt the need to change it is because of a few media outlets, and most fans said it was cowardly by hawthorn etc, etc. Then few came out, walls who was one, saying it should be changed, of corse, the afl felt that it should also

 

[mattys123]

Seems the majority of players, coaches and supporters keep saying what Josh has said, yet AA (Adrian Anderson) and his crew keep trying to "fix" the problems that the AFL seems to think exist.

I remember Leigh Matthews saying that we should bring in a rule, and that is to not change any rule for 3 years, and then check the situation.

Why do we have to keep changing our game, sports like Soccer and Rugby seem to cope on an international scale without massive and constant ruel changes.

Leave it for 2-3 years, and then check.

 

[damochandler]

absolutely agree with josh. but as if nerd boy anderson and a bloke who hasnt played for more than 25 years in kb. will listen to him or any other player. thats the problem. gets some ex players that have played the game in the last 5 years in on rules committee.

 

[Zvim]

Seems the majority of players, coaches and supporters keep saying what Josh has said, yet AA (Adrian Anderson) and his crew keep trying to "fix" the problems that the AFL seems to think exist.

I remember Leigh Matthews saying that we should bring in a rule, and that is to not change any rule for 3 years, and then check the situation.

Why do we have to keep changing our game, sports like Soccer and Rugby seem to cope on an international scale without massive and constant ruel changes.

Leave it for 2-3 years, and then check.

A long time ago players weren't professional, coaches weren't full time professionals and you didn't have all the stratetic analysis. Now clubs abuse everything they can and to compensate for that rules need to change.

They have made so many changes to the rules so the game is faster and more free-flowing and more attacking you think they are going to let teams rush 20 consecutive points if they have a 21 point lead late in a game?

If they didn't give a shit about the image of the game and marketing it then these guys would be making half the money they are now. Ask any of these players if they want more money and none of them will say no.

 

[bringbackschwarter5]

They are trying to make it into 20/20 AFL

 

[B-Bomber]

They are trying to make it into 20/20 AFL

The Rock 'n' roll version of the game!

 

[Avatar]

Surely we can take Josh's comments at face value, and realise he is speaking more as a fan than a player. He seems a very average country lad, someone not buying into his status at all and just giving his personal opinion. Kudos to him for speaking as a fan and telling it like it is.

 

[FIGJAM]

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.

 

[Danog]

Bouncing the ball 25 metres out from goal is a sensible penalty for a rushed behind. A free goal is just ridiculous.

 

[FIGJAM]

Bouncing the ball 25 metres out from goal is a sensible penalty for a rushed behind. A free goal is just ridiculous.

True.

The irony is that this was all compounded by the fact they changed the kick in rule in the first place. What Joel Bowden did could have been done by anyone at any point in history, but the advantages of rushing behinds is huge given the rebound and lack of time for the oppo to zone (if moved on quickly), and the odds of a full field transfer is worth the point.

 

[handy point]

Well, there goes his chance of ever being appointed to the rules committee.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Season after season, the AFL destroying the game as it was once known. The game now is totally unappealing. I barely watch a game all year the last few years now due to what the game is now.

 

[Fluro Boots]

i'm totally against changes to the rules, rushed behinds especially. but if they are going to do it i think they need a 3 year trial trialling 3 different versions of change. i.e the free kick, the bounce 25m out. maybe a throw in from the point post. not the knee jerk reaction that they should have copped more criticism for after the interchnge debacle last year.

 

[JohnD]

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.

 

[Pie eyed]

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.

I have to say I agree completely. Nailed it!

 

[Ant85]

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.

Interesting take. But a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Granting a free goal for a rushed behind is beyond a joke.

Your above analysis doesn't take into consideration the AFL's haste to intervene with other rules, such as the embarrassing interchange bench rule debacle last year.

There might be $$$ motivating the AFL's weakening of defender tactics, but I think there is a general power trip problem with the current hierarchy. They are intervening in the game far too often, and overplaying their hand.

An AFL game still needs to be appealing on TV for viewers to watch. Adding unwarranted rules each year and altering the game will only make the game more frustrating and boring to watch, and ultimately alienate viewers.

I think it's in the best interests of the game for the Demetriou/Anderson partnership to be done away with, and common sense restored at the top.

 

[Hinkley29]

Seems the majority of players.....keep saying what Josh has said, yet AA (Adrian Anderson) and his crew keep trying to "fix" the problems that the AFL seems to think exist.

Really?

I didn't realise that Josh Fraser by himself = "the majority of players".

 

[Hinkley29]

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.

I can't disagree with any of this, but I also don't think it is necessarily a bad thing.

Why should a defender be able to use the boundary as a pressure release? Why should a defender be able chop arms or push forwards in the back? Why should a defender be able to use a rushed behind as a way to release pressure and set up attacking moves?

If a consequence of defenders actually having to play football, rather than take the easy option is that more goals are kicked, then that can only be a good thing.

 

[Vince Van Mackay]

I can't disagree with any of this, but I also don't think it is necessarily a bad thing.

Why should a defender be able to use the boundary as a pressure release? Why should a defender be able chop arms or push forwards in the back? Why should a defender be able to use a rushed behind as a way to release pressure and set up attacking moves?

If a consequence of defenders actually having to play football, rather than take the easy option is that more goals are kicked, then that can only be a good thing.

Um, because it is how the game is played.