 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
woftam 
I used to be undecided, but now I'm not so sure.
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Carum Downs, Vic
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Museman wrote: | Keep the sub rule, matter of fact have 6 if you want.
Just scrap interchange.
Kb is right for one of the first times in his life.
It's only about fatigue as in so far as it's about creating change. Our game has become under 9's with a bit more cerebral capacity, 36 players around the ball with about 20 of them actually knowing where to stand a zone, if you're a fan of this you are obviously a fan of both Basketball and Union. It's not unique any more in fact it's outright ugly a good % of the time.
The idea is to stop players from the forward half flooding into the defensive half and clogging both stoppages and space, and conversely stop the defensive half flooding the forward half (the press), tinkering will not achieve this and others are right it will create injuries, because coaches god bless their hearts, will still push the physical limits of players, demand an even higher level of aerobic capacity and drive drafting even further away from the pure footballer, you know the one that does it with his brain and skills rather than the one who can make the most contests.
The current version is so far removed from the old as to be hardly recognizable, rule changes and coaching have driven it here, the answer would seem a simple fix.... remove the directing factors, rule changes? this game started out all those years ago with no interchange and 2 or 3 substitutions and has somehow matured into a conveyer belt rotational blitz, given what they have to work with coaches have brought it here, now you cannot remove coaching but you can force it's hand
How anyone could love the current model is beyond me, though I suppose even fat chicks in lycra have their fans. |
I'm not sure why people think that limiting rotations will eliminate the congestion. It wont make an ounce of difference & as usual KB is full of it.
We have already reduced the rotation numbers & brought in a sub with absolutely zero effect.
The press & zoning is the coaches mantra. It is responsible for the congestion.
Outman at stoppages. Flood defences & push numbers back & push up when in forward half. Put a spare man in defence. All coaches instructions in every footy team these days.
The only way to limit this is to make sure a certain amount of players have to stay inside their 50 meter arc. Perhaps 2 or 3 forwards at all times along with 2 or 3 defenders from the opposition team. People may not like it. Hell, I probably wont like it, but it is the only way to reduce numbers around the ball. Limiting rotations has done nothing so far & limiting them further will do nothing again. |
|
|
|
 |
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Museman wrote: | Keep the sub rule, matter of fact have 6 if you want.
Just scrap interchange.
Kb is right for one of the first times in his life.
It's only about fatigue as in so far as it's about creating change. Our game has become under 9's with a bit more cerebral capacity, 36 players around the ball with about 20 of them actually knowing where to stand a zone, if you're a fan of this you are obviously a fan of both Basketball and Union. It's not unique any more in fact it's outright ugly a good % of the time.
The idea is to stop players from the forward half flooding into the defensive half and clogging both stoppages and space, and conversely stop the defensive half flooding the forward half (the press), tinkering will not achieve this and others are right it will create injuries, because coaches god bless their hearts, will still push the physical limits of players, demand an even higher level of aerobic capacity and drive drafting even further away from the pure footballer, you know the one that does it with his brain and skills rather than the one who can make the most contests.
The current version is so far removed from the old as to be hardly recognizable, rule changes and coaching have driven it here, the answer would seem a simple fix.... remove the directing factors, rule changes? this game started out all those years ago with no interchange and 2 or 3 substitutions and has somehow matured into a conveyer belt rotational blitz, given what they have to work with coaches have brought it here, now you cannot remove coaching but you can force it's hand
How anyone could love the current model is beyond me, though I suppose even fat chicks in lycra have their fans. |
Quite a few contradictions in this post… but I get your vibe.
The reality as you suggested is that if you change the number on the bench or even if you don't the coaches will still demand hard running from mids and others to congest/chase the ball.
I think what would solve your issues with the game looking like rugby and basketball is netball rules!
Limiting player rotations etc is just playing around the edges but dividing the game into halves and limiting the movement of some backs and forwards might be the only way to resolve the congestion to some extent… but I don't support it and I think that given you have KB on your side speaks volumes - the guy wanted easy ball away from contested footy and thinks that fast flowing footy is the only entertaining footy… which is dead wrong!
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yep, require players to stay in zones. Tick.
Also, get rid of the daft one-sixth of a goal scoring system. Goal or nothing. No behinds. Tick.
Ban dangerous features of the game such as bumping and tackling. Tick.
Get rid of the idiotic out-of-shape ball and use a proper one. Tick.
Stop players cheating by using their hands to touch the ball, except for full-backs. Tick.
It's all perfectly simple. Why don't we do it?
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
woftam
I used to be undecided, but now I'm not so sure.
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Carum Downs, Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Yep, require players to stay in zones. Tick.
Also, get rid of the daft one-sixth of a goal scoring system. Goal or nothing. No behinds. Tick.
Ban dangerous features of the game such as bumping and tackling. Tick.
Get rid of the idiotic out-of-shape ball and use a proper one. Tick.
Stop players cheating by using their hands to touch the ball, except for full-backs. Tick.
It's all perfectly simple. Why don't we do it? |
No need for the soccer scenario Tannin, although your point is well noted.
I said I wouldn't like the fact that players had to stay in zones. but it is the only way to guarantee less players around the ball. Limiting roations has not worked & will not work in the future.
The other solution (and this is the one I like most) is to not whinge about the game & demand rule changes because some knob who retired 30 odd years ago thinks the game was better back in his day. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| woftam wrote: | | The other solution (and this is the one I like most) is to not whinge about the game & demand rule changes because some knob who retired 30 odd years ago thinks the game was better back in his day. |
Amen to that. Surely there must be some other pursuit in life he can dedicate his wisdom and experience to, like patenting toilet brushes.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
How anyone could love the current model is beyond me, though I suppose even fat chicks in lycra have their fans.[/quote]
One of the truly great posts. Agree with every word.
But hmmm ... fat chicks in lycra ... Well, OK then. I mean, you can always take the lycra off and turn the light out.[/quote]
Your lycra or hers. because hers might cause a spill.
Here is another idea. Having 3 defenders hanging off one forward just give the boundary and goal umpires discretion to say to the field umpire "Cloke was grabbed off the ball" etc. Ok it might finish the career of josh Gibson but who cares. Todd Goldstein is the correct one here. Having a sub almost forces you to have a utility or running player as sub is stopping a young tall getting a real taste of it. Say 5 minutes a quarter whilst the number i ruck has a rest.
As for KB. Brought in silly rules because he was still bitter about his tactic being outlawed and Richmond sacked him because he couldn't coach a dog to piss on a car tire.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
