View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
woodys_world69
Joined: 04 Jul 2005 Location: Brisbane
|
Post subject: | |
|
Can you imagine the crows with Buckley's suggestion?
Crow throws everywhere trying to get rid of the ball ASAP.
Nobody would want to pick up the footy of prior op was taken out. It's jow the pies played during Mick's tenor. Sit on the opponent until they pick up the ball and just tackle them lol |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
qldmagpie67 wrote: | ...
By forcing the players to dispose of the ball quicker or be pinged its might mean the DE drops due to turn overs from rushed decisions but it would also reward players with higher skills under pressure and encourage players to take the game on more
... |
I don't think the AFL wants to reward those with higher skills more; the AFL should want to raise the skills of the player pool overall. That of course is a difficult task that won't be achieved by any simple rule change. For example, Eade thought that the idea of limiting rotations would lead to a greater mismatch at the end of the game (in favour of a skilled side like the Hawk premiership sides of a few years ago), so there would be more score blow-outs, which clearly the AFL do not want. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
woodys_world69 wrote: | Can you imagine the crows with Buckley's suggestion?
Crow throws everywhere trying to get rid of the ball ASAP.
Nobody would want to pick up the footy of prior op was taken out. It's jow the pies played during Mick's tenor. Sit on the opponent until they pick up the ball and just tackle them lol |
The point is players would knock the ball out of packs rather than piling on top of it as they do now. It would keep the ball alive more and in open space.
However, I still think reducing/eliminating the interchange would be the best fix. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: | ...
However, I still think reducing/eliminating the interchange would be the best fix. |
I think that might well break the players. Apart from the fact that is bad in itself, the increased injury lists would dilute the talent even more, so that even poorer skills would be displayed on-field, leading to further congestion. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
Post subject: | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: |
However, I still think reducing/eliminating the interchange would be the best fix. |
Totally agree with this Rude. As I said before.. aren't we a little sick of watching an under 12's game... cause that's mostly what our game has developed into. _________________ All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
We'd then just be watching episodes of ER. |
|
|
|
|
jatsad
Joined: 29 May 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
I would change 2 things and they are not going to change the fabric of the game or history, but will assist in removing congestion and the most contentious rule in the game.
At each centre bounce, either the start of the quarter or after a goal, each team must have 6 players in their forward area, 6 in the centre area (includes wingmen but still outside the square), and 6 in their back half. This eliminates flooding. Once the ball is bounced, they are all free to move.
Remove the deliberate out of bounds rule by paying a free kick if the ball goes out by foot only. Then there can be no arguements as to whether it was deliberate or not. Players will then strive to keep the ball more centered so as not to give away a free kick.
Also keeps the boundary umpires in the game.
Simple and will be effective. _________________ Jatsad - That is all |
|
|
|
|
Invigoration
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: | I actually disagree with Bucks on this.
I'm in favour of eradicating the interchange completely. Have 4 or even 6 on the bench, but when a player comes off, he can't come back on. This would significantly slow the game down and reduce the ability of masses of players continually running up and down. There would also be far less burst speed going on. It might even lead to a bit of a return to position football, since players would need to pace themselves to last the whole game. Then again wtfwik? |
I'm surprised anybody would think this is a good idea. Compare the first three quarters of our game on the weekend to the last quarter when we were out on our legs. That last quarter is what you'd start to see happening about half way through the second quarter I reckon.
It just would lead to is scrappy tired football with considerably worse skills on display. _________________ Brown re his GF omission:
"It’s not about me & it never has been. It’s about the team & it’s about Collingwood & it’s about the 22 other blokes out there on the park. That’s all that matters to me" |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ Yep, worse skills and score blow-outs, as Eade said. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
If you are in the camp that believes a lack of skills is part of the reason for congestion, then the answer is simple.
Raise the draft age to nineteen and no umpiring rule changes are required.
Give the kids an extra 12 months in the TAC system after their year 12 exams and their AFL preparedness will improve dramatically. They will develop their strength, skills and have the extra time needed to do the “ whiteboard learning “ while still at a TAC feeder club.
There is usually a direct correlation between poorly performed clubs and high numbers of young players in the team. The more kids you play, the more likely you will lose ( particularly against more mature opposition )
The kids simply aren’t capable of executing the skills required at AFL level after only a couple years of part time training at a TAC club. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Indeed, P16, I think you and I are both in that camp. But I don't think that problem is so simply solved. Seasoned players have poor skills too. The solution that really cannot and should not be implemented is to reduce the number of teams back to twelve. With all these teams, the talent is being diluted too much, especially once the injury list is substantial, as seems to be typical nowadays. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | Indeed, P16, I think you and I are both in that camp. But I don't think that problem is so simply solved. Seasoned players have poor skills too. The solution that really cannot and should not be implemented is to reduce the number of teams back to twelve. With all these teams, the talent is being diluted too much, especially once the injury list is substantial, as seems to be typical nowadays. |
Yep, we know 18 teams are here to stay, if for no other reason than TV rights.
We have the same dilemma with umpires. We are now require 54 field umpires every week and the consistency and interpretations of the rules are worse than ever.
I agree that plenty of mature age players also have poor skills but every team has its weakest link and that will never change. I’m just trying to reduce the likelihood that the weakest link will always be a kid who isn’t ready but still gets the call up only because of injury.
I chatted to a TAC field officer today and he reckons how can TAC KPP kids be expected to succeed in the AFL when the TAC kids play in anti density zones.
They get drafted and haven’t got a clue about leading patterns against the extra defender or knowing when to play a role other than to mark the ball and kick a goal. I and others believe it’s the single biggest reason why so many early KPF draft picks have struggled so much in recent years to establish themselves as automatic selections.
That’s a whole new topic though. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
What did he have to say? |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | RudeBoy wrote: |
However, I still think reducing/eliminating the interchange would be the best fix. |
Totally agree with this Rude. As I said before.. aren't we a little sick of watching an under 12's game... cause that's mostly what our game has developed into. |
Really? I still enjoy watching the game immensely, and, so it seems, does everyone else!
Attendances are through the roof!
AFL’s massive financial windfall from record 2017 season
The AFL’s best season on record last year has translated into a massive financial windfall for the competition.
The league will announce to its clubs today that 2017 — the first year of the new six-year broadcast rights deal — produced a record $60 million profit.
www.theaustralian.com.au last year.
Already, this year, after 6 rounds, attendances are up OVER 10%. To 38,740 each match, compared with 34,000 each match last year. _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 22 Nov 2004 Location: Lexus Centre
|
Post subject: | |
|
jatsad wrote: |
Remove the deliberate out of bounds rule by paying a free kick if the ball goes out by foot only. Then there can be no arguements as to whether it was deliberate or not. Players will then strive to keep the ball more centered so as not to give away a free kick.
Also keeps the boundary umpires in the game.
Simple and will be effective. |
God no, as someone stuck umpiring a junior league that has brought in the stupid last kick rule, it is a clustercluck that they are hopefully going to remove after this weekend. |
|
|
|
|
|