The AFL and the tiger repelling rock

[Jabso]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

What does this Simpsons moment remind you of?


The speed of the game has gone up.
The amount of injuries has gone up.
The amount of interchanges has also gone up.

So therefore interchanges must cause injuries! WRONG!

SPECIOUS REASONING!
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

How can a system that will cause more cases of a tired player colliding with a fresh player REDUCE injuries? Even soft tissue non collision injuries will not be reduced because you will have players who are tired and their bodies are weaker and are more prone to injuries. The fresh players won't slow down for them, they will still need to keep up with the pace of the game.

Can someone please point to an injury that was caused by the increased speed of the game. I.e. an injury that 5 years ago would not have happened?

Show me a list of clubs with the most injuries and how many rotations they have.

 

[Spurk]

High altitude?

22 MCG games?

No travel?

 

[Jabso]

To prevent this from being about Collingwood I have removed the reference to Collingwood. Please debate this on it's merits.

 

[handy point]

Knee jerk reactions.

Remember when "something had to be done" about the fact that 6 of the top 8 were interstate teams, and the big vic teams were struggling?

Well, nothing was, and look where we are now.

The game eventually works itself out. Adrian A just doesn't want anyone else to know that.

 

[Spurk]

Whether people admit it or not, it's having an impact on match ups.

It simply looks bad when half a side flees the ground at a stoppage or when they are anywhere near the bench.

Have you seen players just benching themselves when they find themselves in play but near the bench?

Have you seen players running from the bench straight to the forward line without the opposition even knowing? Or looking for the fresh benchman on a wing?

It looks bad, suits sides that play the boundary and weakens players momentum (especially forwards).

Keep the bulls in the ring or risk becoming a merry-go-round of footballing snipers playing bit parts instead of being the centre stage of the theatre that is AFL.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

To prevent this from being about Collingwood I have removed the reference to Collingwood. Please debate this on it's merits.

I think you mean Emirates.

 

[HodgeISgod]

brilliant post OP, maybe even the AFL could understand what they're doing wrong when a simpsons analogy is used!

More to the point, whats more likely to cause injures...

1. Fresher players playing with less fatigue due to short sharp burts/rests allowed by an uncapped interchange

or

2. Using a hand full of grounds only (goodbye Waverley, Optus Oval, western Oval and Victoria <cringe> Park), some of which, one especially, has been pretty clearly responsible for some of the more major injuries in recent years due to sub standard surfaces.

or

3. Rewarding players (ie Joel Selwood) for deliberately running through packs head down to earn a free kick, in fact, even pushing tackles arms into his own head to get the kick!

or

4. Players contesting, either in the air or in the stoppages, with each other to win the footy. Maybe if the first player to simply shout out "mine" should be given the contested ball on all occaisions, surely this will rule out injures AFL, im a genius!

FFS, leave the game alone, injuries a part of it! Without them, would we remember John Coleman as the untouchable superstar that we do? If players are concerned for their safety because they dont want to get hurt, they can do the "reverse-karmichael" and go play rugby.....or netball

 

[Spurk]

Do sprinters or long distance runners get more injuries?

If you put it like that, the game is changing from a type of marathon to coaches using clones to replace the product mid race. Is as close to cheating the game has seen in a fair while IMO.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Do sprinters or long distance runners get more injuries?

About half past eight.

 

[m0nty]

Urge to kill... rising.

 

[Tas]

We have had a lot of injuries this year but the soft tissue injuries are more the minority, we have had a lot of issues with broken bones and the like which are just bad luck more than anything.

I think after the number of games we play on Colonial it probably hasn't helped us at all.

 

[Last of the Roys]

brilliant post OP, maybe even the AFL could understand what they're doing wrong when a simpsons analogy is used!

I couldn't agree more, and that's said even though I think Brisbane are one of the Clubs most likely to benefit from capping interchanges (due to our lack of pace). I think their reasoning that an interchange cap will lead to less injuries is wrong.

But what about their reasoning on more interchanges leading to less one on one contested footy / a worse viewing spectacle?

My gut instinct tells me an interchange cap isn't going to make the game any prettier. I think people who think the game used to be (or could be) a much better spectacle with less interchanges should watch a random handful of game tapes from over the past 30 years and then see if they still hold that view. The game keeps getting better IMHO.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

What the AFL doesn't want you to know, is that the interchange rules are being whinged about by 15 out of 16 clubs that are upset they can't tag Dane Swan anymore.

 

[Old Spice]

Whether people admit it or not, it's having an impact on match ups.

Of course there's no other way to break unwanted match-ups. You never see players blocking, employing zones or moving into the forward line.

Who goes to the footy to watch key match-ups all nite long anyway. Just keep my eyes glued on the "key match-ups" not interested in the flow of the game.

As far as an aesthetic spectacle goes, the Pies and Doggies play a much more exciting brand than the lower rotating Lions and Eagles. Stop me if I'm wrong. I'm sure if we cap rotations and have a bunch of tired players running around, it will improve the spectacle exponentially.

The AFL are really casting around now for any flotsam and jetsam. Kevin Bartlett and the Rules Committee need to be permanently retired. I don't want these killjoys and fuddy-duddys with their own agendas dictating to the competition. A bureaucracy that funds its own existence by serving up to the football community their sh*t sandwiches.

The soft-tissue injury reasoning has already become an embarrassment to the AFL, hence we haven't heard that in recent propaganda. Now it's all about high-impact collisions?!?

Policy on the run. Retrospective, made up rubbish. Some proof here - and as per Jabso's OP not specious reasoning - to prove any case.

I might add that a cap will kill the careers of players who are otherwise great for clubs but can't play out a full game. I'll mention Luke Ball here because I know our list best, but there are others across clubs. It also won't allow you to play 1st years who might only manage @60% game time.

That's utter crap, and really only benefits teams with plodders and no depth. It really screws with young teams who share the load, like Hawks, Dogs and Pies. In fact will impact young rebuilding clubs who need to spread the load across games and seasons.

A 3 year moratorium on these pointless rule-changes. A club plans ahead for years, and then has the rug pulled from under it by these reactive, ill-founded policies. On a whim utterly lacking foundation, scientific or aesthetic.

Better still, the Rules Committee has outlived its purpose, time to pull the plug. A voluntary, non-permanent committee comprised of various stake-holders, including sports science experts - not Voodoo geriatrics - to decide annually if any changes are needed at all.

 

[Lazarus]

It's the old ice cream/shark attack conundrum.
Ice cream sales go up in summer.
Shark attacks go up in summer.
Therefore ice creams cause shark attacks.

 

[Old Spice]

It's the old ice cream/shark attack conundrum.
Ice cream sales go up in summer.
Shark attacks go up in summer.
Therefore ice creams cause shark attacks.

I reckon B Scott wouldn't be too thrilled, pretty certain it was his influence at Pies that led to our higher interchanges.

Then again, what does Brad know, he only has a background in sports science, unlike hungry Kevin.

 

[grimface_87]

The game eventually works itself out. Adrian A just doesn't want anyone else to know that.

Shhhh! You'll put him out of a job!

 

[Vitriol]

Just thinking about it i don't really see there being more injuries than any other year

I saw some stats earlier that were saying that injuries certainly have been rising alongside the increase in rotations but what i was wondering is do the afl count things like "general soreness" and players being put down as injured when really they have just been dropped as propper injuries? Seems to me this sort of thing is happening more than it used to be and it might be throwing the statistics off?

 

[Demonheart]

Yeah nah

The clubs really have themselves to blame for the direction with which this is heading. The clubs pushed hard to increase the number on the interchange bench to help them cope with injuries during the game, they got what they lobbied for and since then the interchange has been exploited and used for a purpose for what it wasn't designed for.
This end result was bound to happen at some stage.

 

[ManicMiner]

The AFL hiding behind "people power" aswell - we are interested in what the fans think. Why would they be if they don't care what the coaches and players think?

Just like they were interested in umpires clashing with players guernseys, the Etihad turf etc etc etc...

 

[Old Spice]

Yeah nah

The clubs really have themselves to blame for the direction with which this is heading. The clubs pushed hard to increase the number on the interchange bench to help them cope with injuries during the game, they got what they lobbied for and since then the interchange has been exploited and used for a purpose for what it wasn't designed for.
This end result was bound to happen at some stage.

Blamed for what, improving the spectacle, reducing soft-tissue injuries?

You haven't stated what the problem is.

 

[Old Spice]

The AFL hiding behind "people power" aswell - we are interested in what the fans think. Why would they be if they don't care what the coaches and players think?

Just like they were interested in umpires clashing with players guernseys, the Etihad turf etc etc etc...

People power, is just a piece of fluff, a fig leaf. What, are we voting for the changes? It's just psuedo consultation, pretending to take in all views before they serve up some more sh*t sandwiches and tell us they're delicious.

 

[Demonheart]

Blamed for what, improving the spectacle, reducing soft-tissue injuries?

You haven't stated what the problem is.

Good question, the answer is that I have no idea what the problem is. Not sure if the AFL have any idea either. I know what the answer is though, the answer is 42. Now we just have to build a computer to tell us the question....

 

[telsor]

I'm not so fussed about the correlation between the bench and injuries.

I do wish the game stopped being 36 players all hovering within ~50 meters of the ball and that pack moving around continually. If fewer interchanges mean players 'rest' by staying in certain positions, then I'm happy to see it.

 

[Spurk]

People power, is just a piece of fluff, a fig leaf. What, are we voting for the changes? It's just psuedo consultation, pretending to................. before they serve up some more sh*t sandwiches and tell us they're delicious.

That's Malthouse, Eddie and the Pie machine every 2nd week.