Limited Interchanges

[CyberKev]

So people, are we in favour or against this proposal?

A maximum of 30 interchanges a game would certainly serve to ease the pace somewhat, although it would make life harder for the coaches.

I don't have a problem with it, provided they make suitable allowances for players injured badly enough during a game to ensure they can't go back (these instances shouldn't be counted as an interchange).

I'd certainly support initiatives that would potentially lessen the injury toll. Last season we had just about the best soft-tissue record in the comp, but an horrendous overall injury record due to a marked increase in collision injuries.

On a side note, I'm keen for the promotion of greater contested situations, particularly in marking contests.

As such, I'd definitely like to see a new rule that rules out marks for backward kicks (except for kicks originating inside a team's attacking 50).

 

[lockyno1]

Silly idea. End of story.

 

[CyberKev]

Silly idea. End of story.

Care to elaborate on why an initiative aimed at reducing player injuries and increasing contested plays is a silly idea?

 

[lockyno1]

If there is limited interchanges there would be MORE injuries Cyber. Especially considering our game nowadays is quicker, less stopages, etc. People need a rest periods to avoid injures. I am struggling to see how making less interchanges reduce he number of injuries!

 

[CyberKev]

If there is limited interchanges there would be MORE injuries Cyber. Especially considering our game nowadays is quicker, less stopages, etc. People need a rest periods to avoid injures. I am struggling to see how making less interchanges reduce he number of injuries!

That's not what the medicos are saying though.

The word is that the faster pace of the game is leading to more and more collision injuries.

Aligned with this is the view that constantly rotating to keep players fresh on the ground and runing at optimum speed is also putting greater physical stress on players bodies.

Outside of the injury angle, the league is getting battered by a public frustrated at a game that is becoming basketball like in tone, with reduced contests and decreased contested marking instances.

The AFL will make some move to slow the pace, bet the farm on it, and I'm just flummoxed as to why they've recently been enacting rules aimed at further speeding it up to begin with??!!

 

[lockyno1]

That's not what the medicos are saying though.

The word is that the faster pace of the game is leading to more and more collision injuries.

Aligned with this is the view that constantly rotating to keep players fresh on the ground and runing at optimum speed is also putting greater physical stress on players bodies.

Outside of the injury angle, the league is getting battered by a public frustrated at a game that is becoming basketball like in tone, with reduced contests and decreased contested marking instances.

The AFL will make some move to slow the pace, bet the farm on it, and I'm just flummoxed as to why they've recently been enacting rules aimed at further speeding it up to begin with??!!

I love the speeding up of the game. It has made the game AFL better in the end even though it does not suit the Dons one bit. I realise it is better for the sport. Collisions are what bring fans to the games. They want a quick, hard hitting game. In the end the current product is fine.

 

[CyberKev]

I love the speeding up of the game. It has made the game AFL better in the end even though it does not suit the Dons one bit. I realise it is better for the sport. Collisions are what bring fans to the games. They want a quick, hard hitting game. In the end the current product is fine.

Mate, more injury-causing collisions does not equate to more competitive games.

Some of the games I've seen this year have been absolute rubbish, purely because players are not making genuine contests.

The best game I've seen by far was the Hawthorn vs Essendon clash where conditions didn't allow for a fast game and there were constant contests all over the park, with players more willing to put their bodies on the line.

Its also true that the faster pace of the game has led to an associated decrease in the overall skill levels of players and sides.

Not every game in the current day is tripe and not every game played during the nineties (and before) was a masterpiece, but I share the view of most that football in the noughties is a lesser product than it used to be.

 

[Hoops]

Just sounds like another rule to complicate the game even further if you ask me. I doubt it would slow down the game that much, just means in the future they will recruit even fitter athletes and less "footballer" types.

With the kicking bacwards rule, is backwards
a) kicking closer to the oppositions goal
b) kicking further away from your own goal (not one and the same thing necessarily)
c) having imaginary lines running pararell across the gound which determines what's backwards (which could mean that if you kick inside into your 50m arc it could be considered backwards)

 

[meltiger]

Kev, I tend to agree and i would suggest the combination of more intense training with the faster pace of the game is why we are seeing more and more kids come through with OP


Do you think these changes Kev would stop flooding? As far as I am concerned, that is the biggest scourge in the game at the moment (& yes I'm aware TW was one of the instigators ;-)) Anything we can do to stop flooding has to take the highest priority.


One suggestion was increasing the bench to 6 and reducing the players on the field to 16. My only worry with this is that it would make the game even faster, but maybe combined with your suggestion of a limited number of changes per game, this could actually be feasible?

 

[lockyno1]

Mate, more injury-causing collisions does not equate to more competitive games.

Some of the games I've seen this year have been absolute rubbish, purely because players are not making genuine contests.

The best game I've seen by far was the Hawthorn vs Essendon clash where conditions didn't allow for a fast game and there were constant contests all over the park, with players more willing to put their bodies on the line.

Its also true that the faster pace of the game has led to an associated decrease in the overall skill levels of players and sides.

Not every game in the current day is tripe and not every game played during the nineties (and before) was a masterpiece, but I share the view of most that football in the noughties is a lesser product than it used to be.

I want a quick game. If footy goes to a period where it slows it down then you will lose many new fans. People want fast games and exciting games. End of story. From a business perspective it is smart. Hey and this is one example...my sister who is a massive league fan (loves her dragons to bits) hated AFL until I took her to a few WC matches last year. She said she loves it becuase its quick and exciting. It is smart business if you leave it as it is.

 

[CyberKev]

People want fast games and exciting games. End of story.

What's all this 'end of story' crap.

If you've been monitoring broad-based football discussion (in its multiple forms) over recent months you'd recognise that a very large component of the footballing public want more genuine in-play contests, better player skill deployment, and more big pack marks.

The constant speeding-up of the game serves to decrease all of the above, and threatens to turn the game into an alternative form of basketball.

Increasing the stamina of players and decreasing the overall pace of the game would not make the game a slow game (its never been that), but it would help to make it more exciting and skillful.

The other worrying issue as the game continues to increase in speed by around 2% per year, is that you risk overtly diminishing your potential future player base.

Player deskilling + decreasing player recruitment pool = disaster for the code; especially in a time when you are getting less and less youngsters into the game.

 

[lockyno1]

What's all this 'end of story' crap.

If you've been monitoring broad-based football discussion (in its multiple forms) over recent months you'd recognise that a very large component of the footballing public want more genuine in-play contests, better player skill deployment, and more big pack marks.

The constant speeding-up of the game serves to decrease all of the above, and threatens to turn the game into an alternative form of basketball.

Increasing the stamina of players and decreasing the overall pace of the game would not make the game a slow game (its never been that), but it would help to make it more exciting and skillful.

The other worrying issue as the game continues to increase in speed by around 2% per year, is that you risk overtly diminishing your potential future player base.

Player deskilling + decreasing player recruitment pool = disaster for the code; especially in a time when you are getting less and less youngsters into the game.

Cyber think from a business perspective. In the end that is all that matters for the AFL. New fans are not going to come to a game that is dull, boring and slow. The quick pace is needed to attract new fans. From a business perspective it is smart and the best way is to leave it as it is.

 

[CyberKev]

Cyber think from a business perspective. In the end that is all that matters for the AFL.

The flaw in your logic is that the band of disgruntled AFL devotees grows by the day, hence the reason for the AFL wanting to reshape some rules.

New fans are not going to come to a game that is dull, boring and slow.

If you went back 10 and even 20 years, you would find people (including overseas visitiors unaccustomed to the sport) describing the sport as fast, high skilled and exciting.

I've NEVER heard the game described as slow, and the boring tag is something that has only gathered serious momentum over the past few years.

If you're doing 110km/hr in your car you're moving fast. If you're doing 150km/hr in your car you're going faster, but have less control and are more likely to crash and burn.

The quick pace is needed to attract new fans. From a business perspective it is smart and the best way is to leave it as it is.

Tosh.

The biggest attractions surrounding AFL are the big pack mark and the unbelievable goal, neither of which depend on rapidfire pace to any extent, and both of which become less likely as the pace of the game increases.

 

[lockyno1]

The flaw in your logic is that the band of disgruntled AFL devotees grows by the day, hence the reason for the AFL wanting to reshape some rules.

If you went back 10 and even 20 years, you would find people (including overseas visitiors unaccustomed to the sport) describing the sport as fast, high skilled and exciting.

I've NEVER heard the game described as slow, and the boring tag is something that has only gathered serious momentum over the past few years.

If you're doing 110km/hr in your car you're moving fast. If you're doing 150km/hr in your car you're going faster, but have less control and are more likely to crash and burn.

Tosh.

The biggest attractions surrounding AFL are the big pack mark and the unbelievable goal, neither of which depend on rapidfire pace to any extent, and both of which become less likely as the pace of the game increases.

Jeez Cyber, most people realise the game is fine as it is. There is no reason to change it. One of the best things going to a AFL game is the fast paced game I see. If we slow the game down it will become less attractive for neutral fans to watch. Even less for new fans. Let the game be.

 

[CyberKev]

Kev, I tend to agree and i would suggest the combination of more intense training with the faster pace of the game is why we are seeing more and more kids come through with OP

Yeah, mate.

Part of the concern with long-term player health is the increasing pace of the game, but the other problem is clubs continuing to play players through injury.

Hodge has been getting games in recent weeks despite carrying a shonky ankle, and Luke Ball is clearly suffering badly from his abdominal complaint. I can but assume that the club medicos are being overruled by the coaching staffs. Its a shame that the AFL doesn't oversee 'independent' medicos to visit troubled players each Thursday and make rulings on their well-being that are forcibly acted upon by the AFL (and not the individual clubs). Of course, it would only be a matter of time before we had a "pay for the okay" scandal.

Do you think these changes Kev would stop flooding? As far as I am concerned, that is the biggest scourge in the game at the moment (& yes I'm aware TW was one of the instigators ;-)) Anything we can do to stop flooding has to take the highest priority.

Not likely.

Dropping players back is a long-engrained tactic in the sport and much of the hooha surrounding flooding mistakenly refers to this tactic. In Saturday's game, however, there was extensive full-on flooding.

The only way you could truly stamp out flooding would be to restrict players to specific parts of the field (i.e. you can only have 6 players from each side inside 50 at any time). Very hard to police.

While the changes mooted wouldn't eradicate flooding perse, they would help by increasing the potential for contested contests inside 50. Without restricting player placement, the best ways to fight flooding (as I see it) would be to increase contested marking potency inside attacking 50 AND ensure that your side has a few midfield types that can bomb long goals from 60-70m out.

One suggestion was increasing the bench to 6 and reducing the players on the field to 16. My only worry with this is that it would make the game even faster, but maybe combined with your suggestion of a limited number of changes per game, this could actually be feasible?

I presume you'd have to cut the wingers from each side.

I'm not sure that eradicating 2 players from each side would stop it either. Having 30 players huddled at one end of the paddock isn't a lot different from having 34.

 

[Twizzle]

I don't see any benefit in limiting interchanges

If the players can rest up and provide us with a fast paced game, then the AFL fans are the one who will benefit from a better spectacle, and aren't they the ones that support the game.

 

[CyberKev]

I don't see any benefit in limiting interchanges

If the players can rest up and provide us with a fast paced game, then the AFL fans are the one who will benefit from a better spectacle, and aren't they the ones that support the game.

Even if more and more players break down physically as a result.

I'll say it again, a faster contest is not a better and certainly not a more skillful contest.

 

[Twizzle]

How can more player break down if you are lessening thier time on the park ?

Surely if you are limiting the interchange, they are spending more time on the park hence more likely to break down.

 

[CyberKev]

How can more player break down if you are lessening thier time on the park ?

Surely if you are limiting the interchange, they are spending more time on the park hence more likely to break down.

Injuries are increasing because key players are only getting short breather breaks on the bench before being returned to the paddock with an expectation that they will go flat to the boards until their next breather.

Its the extra physical stress that they're being subjected to on the field that's upping the number of OP cases and stress fracture problems.

Its also a worry that we are seeing less and less contested situations in games these days, yet we're seeing more and more impact injuries from the contests that are leading to collisions.

God damn rules committee! They've lessened the standard of the game and made a rod for their own back.

Do they not realise that we're using largely the same ball that we were using decades ago?!

The game was tops 10 years ago before they went seriously into tamper mode.