The AFL and the tiger repelling rock

[Slattery_20]

"Goal umpires get a 'last touch' and a straight-through-the-middle decision wrong: We need to get rid of 'hit the post' "

Thet's specious es, bro.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So Vlad has magical rock that repels Tigers and keeps them from climbing any higher than 9th.


What a ****

cannot believe everyone is talking about caps when the real story is this bloody rock which has made my club suck for 30 years.

here I've been blaming useless Pies trades, KB, the Geisch, Spud, Terry Teatowel, and the cursed Tigers Skin, when its been this bloody rock the whole time

 

[Jabso]

Hear Hear!
I think it is because their evidence is actually anecdotal and nothing more than opinion. They have no data which supports the claims. If the data did fit it would have been published months ago when the issue was raised.

The data has been published. However like I said only the data that supports their claims has been. It's a very tenuous link between the increasing rotations, average speed of players and increased injuries.

Have a look at 2007-2008 the biggest leap in interchanges, injury prevalence went DOWN.

I could replace "rotations" with any statistic that has increased and argue that it is the catalyst.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

The data has been published. However like I said only the data that supports their claims has been. It's a very tenuous link between the increasing rotations, average speed of players and increased injuries.

Have a look at 2007-2008 the biggest leap in interchanges, injury prevalence went DOWN.

I could replace "rotations" with any statistic that has increased and argue that it is the catalyst.

More handballs = more injuries perhaps?

It's worth looking into.

 

[kfleong2000]

Some data is better than no data.

And re: 2007-08 aberration - the overall injury prevalence only gone down very slightly, while the overall injury incidence went up by a lot more (percentage wise) than overall injury prevalence.

You can always pick and choose data to support your argument and question the methodologies involved, but the overall trends in the data from 2003 onwards does indeed point to increasing injuries along with increasing interchanges and player speed. Correlation of course does not imply causation, but this data is a start.

 

[Jabso]

Some data is better than no data.

And re: 2007-08 aberration - the overall injury prevalence only gone down very slightly, while the overall injury incidence went up by a lot more (percentage wise) than overall injury prevalence.

You can always pick and choose data to support your argument and question the methodologies involved, but the overall trends in the data from 2003 onwards does indeed point to increasing injuries along with increasing interchanges and player speed. Correlation of course does not imply causation, but this data is a start.

It is a start but that's not enough. No data is better than shit data.

I think we need actual medical advice from club doctors who have anecdotal evidence and even players.

 

[kfleong2000]

Doesn't the AFL with the club doctors' information release injury trends regularly every year? I would think that's a good guide - I remember the latest one noting the increase in hamstring and soft tissue injuries for instance.

I do agree that rule changes based on that one set of data only is rubbish. Ask the club medical staff, the coaches, the players, the media for opinions, assess the data, and rule accordingly.

 

[Pie eyed]

The data has been published. However like I said only the data that supports their claims has been. It's a very tenuous link between the increasing rotations, average speed of players and increased injuries.

Have a look at 2007-2008 the biggest leap in interchanges, injury prevalence went DOWN.

I could replace "rotations" with any statistic that has increased and argue that it is the catalyst.

I've seen that before. Jabso.
It is not relevent without specifics. Injury type, when in the game where and by who?
You can hardly count an elbow to the head ala Johnson on Baker as indication of interchange rotation effect on injury. In fact if he had been interchanged Bakker would still not have a black eye.

We need to see the actual data not a summary. Etihad surface would account for at least 6 of this years.

Do these figure take into account what we tend to term "calf" = Rest injuries?

How do you know without the information. It's all a crock of shit as far as I'm concerned. If they had real evidence it would be the first thing they published.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Doesn't the AFL with the club doctors' information release injury trends regularly every year? I would think that's a good guide - I remember the latest one noting the increase in hamstring and soft tissue injuries for instance.

I do agree that rule changes based on that one set of data only is rubbish. Ask the club medical staff, the coaches, the players, the media for opinions, assess the data, and rule accordingly.

Yes, the data's a start, but the real skill lies in interpreting it. The hypothesis must be formed first, with the data used to prove or invalidate it. Basing conclusions on data without forethought is fundamentally flawed.

 

[chappo52]

Since we are quoting the simpsons

The AFLs approach to rule changes:

Skinner: Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend.
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

 

[L_W_P]

It was only what 2 years ago, teams had about 80 changes per game? I don't think that taking it back to a cap of 80 would be as bad as everyone (See Hawks and Pies fans) is saying.

I actually think it would open the game up to more variation of players. Sprinters would benefit from players slowing down late in games and could be used as impact players late in quarters. Endurance athletes will be able to burn off the continued rotation of taggers coming their way each week.

Imagine if in Round 3, rather than have Clinton Jones follow him to the bench, Brent Harvey was able to simply run Jones of the park. If Jones had to come to the bench for a spell it would use up those interchanges. Therefore Jones has to go to someone else and Harvey gets to play a more open game. Robert Harvey and Nathan Buckley were champions of this.

If the guy can't run off a tag then you look for a mismatch. Send Ablett forward and see if Jones can play full back. Throw Goodes into the middle and see if Blake can go with him. Teams already do it so I can't see it being an issue.

I think we would see more kids being given time to develop in the 2's as well so that there bodies can develop over time. We all talk about how we can't judge draftees in their first year or two. This would give them a year or two to play a dozen or so games and get ready. If you get a guy like Rich or Selwood who can play right now then that's great but I think it would give alot of kids a much better chance.

On the field I think we would see more traditional forward/back matchups as well. If teams want to rotate their mids then the big men will have to pace themselves to run out a whole game. Ruckmen will have to spend a little more time up forward before coming to the bench as well. Forward pockets would become a specialty again as mids won't be able to be counted on to kick as many goals.

I can understand people saying leave it alone but I think we all know that this is going to happen anyway. The only thing I would say to the AFL is; Don't make this change for next year, make it for the end of 2011. This gives existing teams 2 years of trades/drafts to adjust their lists and plans and once we have the 18 team comp - the cap goes into effect.

 

[Adam Selwood]

LOL...brilliant thread

Agree 100%. Just another stupid knee-jerk reaction from the muppets at AFL HQ

 

[absfab]

It is a start but that's not enough. No data is better than shit data.

I think we need actual medical advice from club doctors who have anecdotal evidence and even players.

Puhlease. You people can't have it both ways and deride one connection and then hang your Club's self interest on another one.

Isn't it strange that the majority of the noise against comes from Collingwood and Hawthorn. The former having the most to loose from a cap on rotations due to the even nature of their list and a highly rotation based game plan. And then Hawthorn had a dabble with high rotation rates and enjoyed a period of improved performance.

Wanna play anecdotal? Anybody can do that. Geelong has an unusually low rotation rate and the lowest injury rate in the AFL right now.

While I question the AFL agenda, at least in part, at least the connection they draw has a logical base. If a player is working his body harder and faster - then geez he might hurt it. If a collision happens at speed X or speed X plus 10% - which does the most damage?

 

[Jabso]

If something is put forward with anecdotal evidence it can be refuted with anecdotal evidence in kind.