By Adrian Musolino
October 21st 2009 @ 1:54am
Related coverage
AFL can improve, but needs to go back to basics
Jimmy Bartel of Geelong & Chance Baateman of Hawthorn in action during the 2008 Toyota AFL Grand Final between the Geelong Cats and the Hawthorn Hawks at the MCG. GSP images
There was an interesting piece in the News Limited press on the ten ways the AFL can be improved which shows that AFL journos have run out of things to write about in this baron period, and that there is a general consensus emerging that the game needs to backtrack in certain areas.
The piece, written by Jesper Fjeldstad, poses ten interesting ways in which the AFL can, according to the author “stay No.1, on and off the field”, and it is certainly worth a read.
Fjeldstad is absolutely correct in saying that it’s time for the Grand Final to introduce extra-time. AFL diehards maintain that the romance of a drawn Grand Final and the resultant rematch the following week is a uniquely Australian tradition that needs to be upheld.
But the logistical nightmare and inanity of coming back the following week when everyone is there on the day remains one of the most backward rules in the world of sport.
The eradication of the pre-season competition makes complete sense, especially with expansion on the horizon.
Likewise, the hands in the back rule needs to go. It’s one of the most nonsensical in the game today, and the problem with it is the difficulty in applying the rule consistently.
What exactly constitutes hands in the back? It’s too hard to police for umpires who often have an obscured view of such infringements.
But it is Fjeldstad call for the return of State of Origin and state league curtain-raisers that should be debated once again.
Call it mere intuition, but I sense the AFL has distanced itself from the grassroots of the game, namely the state leagues which are the second tier of the game.
If marketed and reworked correctly, State of Origin and a closer association with state leagues could assist the AFL in its further expansion in New South Wales and Queensland.
While diehards would applaud the return of the Victoria versus South Australia clashes, could a replica of the NRL State of Origin – NSW versus Queensland – not help the AFL gain further ground in these states?
The benefits of such a game are debatable, but surely it is worth having that debate.
One point I have to disagree on with Fjeldstad is his proposal to limit the number of interchanges during a game.
The dramatic rise in the rotation of interchange players has given the game a pace and intensity that it’s never had before.
The Grand Final was a classic example of this.
At no point did either team seem to relent in the intensity that they attacked the ball, and this is thanks to the high rotations and strategic and tactical options this opens up.
It may add complexity to the game, but, if used properly, gives great coaches another avenue to make their mark on the game.
Credit to Fjeldstad for the article. Opinion pieces such as these often raise the ire of diehards who hit out at the author rather than the opinion. But the points he raises are all worthy of serious debate, highlighting the possibility for self-analysis and improvement within the AFL.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(53)
Tom said | October 21st 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Apart from the logistical issues, a GF replay would be grossly unfair on any interstate side playing a Victorian side. Its always harder for teams that have to travel in consecutive weeks.
Brett McKay said | October 21st 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Well Adrian, for starters, Grand Overlord Demitriou has apparently said overnight that the AFL might keep expanding after the Gold Coast and Western Sydney, and named Tasmania (finally), Queensland (Cairns?) and WA (um, Margaret River?!?) as potential homes for 19th and 20th teams…..
Pippinu said | October 21st 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
My comments on JESPER FJELDSTAD 10 points:
1. LIMIT INTERCHANGES
The number of interchanges is absolutely bewildering, but for anyone to worry about toughness or pissing contests is a nonsense. Even with rests and interchanges, the average AFL player is running far, far more than any other football code – at a far higher average pace – so there is no concerns on that front.
Also – we now know how hampered a team becomes if even one player is injured for the game – the last thing we want is for arbitrary rules that inhibit what a coach needs to do on match day to last the distance.
Conclusion: Non issue.
2. BRING IN EXTRA TIME FOR GRAND FINALS
Why is this even an issue – it’s happened twice in 112 years!!
And even if it does happen – the following weekend is free.
As recently as 1982, FIFA allowed for a replay of a drawn WC final – now they’ve had to decide two of the last four on penalties.
Keep the replay – allow for extra time in the replay.
Conclusion: Non issue.
3. BRING IN A DRAFT LOTTERY
He’s right that we have to kill off the issue of tanking once and for all. The easiest way is to simply get rid of priority picks – or allow them to only kick in with lower win rates over a longer period, say, 12 wins over 3 seasons – let’s be honest – by that stage that club would need all the help it can get!
Conclusion: Something needs to happen to at least kill off the perception of tanking.
4. FREE AGENCY
Some form of free agency is long over due, we only have to go back to 1973 for our answer.
Conclusion: Yes, introduce a form of free agency for long service (7 or 8 years).
5. BRING BACK STATE FOOTBALL
No one cares enough to be honest – the AFL is built on club loyalties not state pride.
Conclusion: leave it for the occasional special occasion (125 years of VFL/AFL).
6. SCRAP THE PRE-SEASON COMP
It’s absolutely amazing that sponsors want to continue throwing big, big bucks at a comp no one actually wants. It’s not a bad problem to have.
Conclusion: Whatever.
7. BRING BACK CURTAINRAISERS
Not a bad idea.
Conclusion: Maybe (depending on guaranteeing the integrity of playing surfaces)
8. GET RID OF THE HANDS-IN-THE-BACK RULE
Rubbish – I haven’t heard anyone complaining about this rule for yonks – it’s all settled down.
Conclusion: It’s actually nice to have at least one clear cut rule!!
9. PLAY ON GOOD FRIDAY
Non-issue – the Lord intended we have at least one day of rest – even during the AFL season!!!.
10. REVIEW POST DECISIONS
This sort of thing will always grab our attention in a grand final – but it happens about once every 5 seasons (talking about all games) – hardly the end of the world.
BigAl said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Pip
The trouble with the ‘in the back ‘ rule is that when a player is tackled and claimed from behind (run down) the general momentum of both ALWAYS carries both players forward – sometimes this is given as . . . in the back ??
I would change the rule so that if a player is ‘absolutely claimed’ – (perfect tackle ?) then no in the back applies – even if the tackle does result in . . . a push in the back. – the proviso of ‘prior opportunity’ would still be required.
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
I reckon tackling in AFL is a highly technical skill, far more ‘defined’ than in Rugby for example. Too many players aren’t that flash at it and we see all these clumsy tackles from behind. I’m fine with them being called ‘in the back’, and probably MORE should be.
The tackler needs to bring himself down BESIDE the ball carrier, and not on top.
Alas, at my local club, I often saw in training people getting it all wrong with the tackle bag and no one seeking to correct it.
BigAl said | October 21st 2009 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
With the speed and desperation of the players in AFL these days I reckon it would be nigh impossible for the tackler to be really confident of being able to bring himself down ..BESIDE the ball carrier.
That leaves the tackler with the problem of making a split decision whether to make the tackle or not
– i.e. squibbing it ! – now that would be a good look for the fans and coaches !.
It’s a real recipe for inconsistency of interpretation by the unpires and fans, and frustration by the players & coaches.
Elbusto said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Yes Michael of course AFL tacking is so much more ‘technical’ than Rugby’s. It has to be because its AFL! In fact its so technical that nobody in AFL seems capable of doing it LMFAO!
Mad Mex said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
I’m tipping you didn’t see the 160 odd tackles laid in the GF?
Nothing to see here. Run back to the nrl board elbusto.
Pippinu said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Yes – that aspect of the rule has become murky in recent seasons.
I believe the tackler has to make every attempt to avoid getting into the back of the player he is tackling – you don’t want a situation where the rule is relaxed and the tackler is then encouraged to intentionally fall forwards onto the back of the player he is tackling.
In most cases, it is clear whether a player has made a real attempt to roll the bloke over correctly.
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
I’ve split my review of the 10 points into two:
1 LIMIT INTERCHANGES
Definitely, I’ve suggested for some time a form of X + Y of free interchange players plus subs for injuries. At very least. Otherwise, yep, perhaps a 10 per quarter limit.
2 BRING IN EXTRA TIME FOR GRAND FINALS
Perhaps. We’re about due for another drawn grannie. Probably like a lot things – needs it to all go haywire before a fix is deemed necessary.
3 BRING IN A DRAFT LOTTERY
I pefer the theory of set the draft order after round 11 or 15. Very few teams are willing to ‘tank’, – give up on a season – within the majority of the first 11 or 15 rounds.
This is of course distinct – or should be viewed as such – distinct from the priority picks for currently 2 years of aggregated bad performance.
4 FREE AGENCY
A limited format, certainly. Or, at very least, some form of ‘appeals committee’ – - the mediation this year in trade week that facilitated the Burgoyne trade was a good step forward.
5 BRING BACK STATE FOOTBALL
Yes, yes, yes. I prefer the once every 4 years 2 tier SoO carnival. With potential ‘Internationals’ squad a potential starter within the next 10 years.
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
part deux…
6 SCRAP THE PRE-SEASON COMP
I DO like it on tele though!!! Depends on length of season etc. The best thing is practice matches around the regional areas.
7 BRING BACK CURTAINRAISERS
Especially outside of Melbourne. Within Melbourne, it’s hard with the ground rationalization that occurred, it’s a heavy load to put on the MCG or Docklands. We need the Vic Govt to come to the party and build a 3rd boutique venue. Perhaps the shared load could allow the odd curtain raiser. We used to, for a little while, have televised ressies games from Punt Rd on the screen at the ‘G.
8 GET RID OF THE HANDS-IN-THE-BACK RULE
The lack of tolerance for incidental contact is the bug bear. All we needed was umpires instructed to disallow pushing/forceful contact in the back with hands. However – technique wise, the law clearly states that certain contact is permitted. Hands are NOT permitted. Fine. Players need to adapt – effectively, BACK to how it used to be. Using their body to make position.
9 PLAY ON GOOD FRIDAY
At very least, allow a game in Brissie or Perth. Televised on Foxtel.
10. REVIEW POST DECISIONS
I gather the AFL are looking at some form of quick video review on this, so, it’ll probably happen sooner rather than later. It’s funny how a muck up in a GF makes it a priority.
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Point 10 is my main concern.
No, no, no – the posts constitute part of the lesser connected boundary.
We have to KICK a goal, and it has to be a ‘clean’, un-interrupted goal.
No beach balls, no posts, no hands etc.
Although, at least we haven’t got a stipulation that it be on the full!!
Pippinu said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
MC
re the hands in the back rule – you might recall the great controversy of its introduction some 2 or 3 years ago – but it has settled right down – I think the rule is working well.
As long as umps continue watching out for the tell tale signs of the arm extensions, they only need to worry whether the hands are in the back or side (which can be ambiguous at times, I admit).
You’ll know from your playing days, better players (those who can judge the ball in the air better than their opponents), will take strong, contested marks without ever having to get anywhere near another player’s back (of course the flip side is that better defenders will hinder that!)
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Yeah, especially the one against Richo that evening…..but he was a slow learner. I agree. I like it. And it HAD to be zero tolerance initially at least to get the message across. And, probably should stay zero tolerance from a technical perspective.
For me, I never A. chopped arms, B. held shorts, or C. used hands in the back – - – so, yep, I grew up in the era where we defenders learned to use the body to make position. I got annoyed over the journey to see AFL clubs reinvent failed forwards as defenders and teach them ‘cheats’ rather than real skills. Far, far better the skills – - and that way, there will be a need to recruit skilled defenders in the draft.
The whole leeway from umpires goes to the ’90s in the main, with the super power forwards in Dunstall, Ablett, Lockett and Carey where defenders were given soooo much freedom……and, sadly, to the eternal embarrassment of the AFL – Steve Silvagni was awarded full back of the century…..because in a century of footy, no full back was given so much freedom to hold and grapple with a full forward.
Pippinu said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
yeh – agree with that – and you probably know that Carey was the most grappled player in the history of the game (with zero respite)
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
big time!!
and loathed by the umpires……but, that SHOULDN’T matter for professionals. (and he was really for a while the only extroverted player on field for us – - at the Doggies you have often had the same issue…..being too ‘nice’!!! Every team needs a mungrel, and an enforcer…and a wizard.).
hazey.the.bear said | October 21st 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Pip,
There’s one thing that I really struggle with in terms of the hands-in-the-back rule. Obviously, the rule was put in place to protect the player in front and to give him a fair chance at the contest and all that, so can anyone explain why knees and feet (yes FEET, a la Alan Didak especially) can be used as pushing mechanisms?!? Surely that constitutes pushing the player out of the contest, not to mention the risk associated. I mean, I’m no doctor or anything (I do watch Scrubs a lot though, as well as House from time-to-time), but surely a pointed knee or a well-placed footy boot to the spinal cord is not the best thing to do?!?
The flip-side to this is of course that we might miss out on those fantastic marks that we love to see (We’ve already suffered a little in this regard – eg. when the player uses his hands to jump on an opponent’s shoulders), but it’s something that I still see as a problem.
For my perspective, I’d rather it go back to being a “PUSH” in the back, rather than “HANDS” in the back. If there’s some forceful action that causes forward momentum, then a free should be given, regardless of which part of the body is used. Kinda takes out the whole “incidental contact” thing.
What does everyone else think?
Hazey
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
A lot of it had to do with the double action of the hands in the back as a means of pushing the guy under the ball rather than just holding position. (holding position can and should be done via the forearms/hips).
THe knees/feet is usually in the act of marking, or, making a reasonable attempt to mark. If you come in too soon – then they are also penalised.
This is the issue with a couple of calls of hands in the back where there was purely incidental hand contact IN THE ACT of marking that was NOT a double action. The irony is the umpires usually let the incidental hands on the shoulder in the act of a speccie go unpunished…..good thing too. We much prefer ‘positive’ umpiring rather than purely punitive umpiring.
I gather they’d done all this research and it showed that very often the ‘push’ was there even if not clearly discernable. SO, they figured a zero tolerance approach was warranted.
AndyRoo said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
6. SCRAP THE PRE-SEASON COMP
If this leads to the Lions Playing the Calamvale Leopards at Calamvale that sounds good
BigAl said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
I think serious thought should be given to what constitutes the teams playing strip!
With all the bandages & bicycle shorts support gear they often wear, the official jumper & shorts sometimes looks like not much more than a loose ribbon flung over the top of all the other stuff they are wearing !.
Surely with the bicycle shorts at least there should be a rule to ensure that they conform to the strip they are wearing.
Not sure what can be done about the bandaging, but honestly, sometimes the players can look like they are serious burns victims !
Pippinu said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
There are rules about that – and maybe more thought should be given to policing them – but I’m not sure if it’s a huge issue.
You remind me of a season when I played on the Sapphire Coast (far southern coast of NSW), and we had a game in Cooma, and it was bloody freezing, so we all wore t-shirts under our jumpers – and this dickhead ump stopped the game mid way through the first quarter and told us all to take off the t-shirts!!
He cited some blasted rule about proper attire…
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
The AFL has a list each week of ‘approved’ extra items that is circulated to the umpires. This includes braces and the like, helmets etc.
re the bike shorts/pressure garments – - more so at local levels this can be a problem – but, in the main, the requirement is to be skin colour.
The bandaging – ironically, the bandage companies love it. When Wayne Carey was the best around and had both shoulders taped up (he’d had a number of bad shoulder injuries) – - the bandage companies were doing great business ‘cos all the local park footballers were taping up their shoulders too.
I wonder if the same goes for h’roids cream??
Republican said | October 21st 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
As I have recently suggested, slow the game down which may actually encourage more direct football, especially re the hallmark skills i.e. the high mark which has become a tokenistic marketing tool at best.
I agree that the interchange is the key to addressing some of these issues. Any pre season comp should also go, it’s too bloody hot to watch let alone play the game in Feb and we are all suffering from a glut of sport in my opinion, where the seasonal boudaries have been very much blurred.
I agree also that curtain raisers and state footy should be re introduced to reinvigorate those traditional footy rivalries. I do miss all those paper streamers behind the goal together with the dust coats once donned by our goal umpires however I may well be the lone voice in the footy wilderness re the latter.
Gibbo said | October 21st 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
i went to that Vic v All-stars game the other year and it was a complete yawn fest. by the third quarter there was not one scrap of atmosphere left in the place as the novelty of watching Scarlett towl up Mooney had long worn off.
15 years ago with Ablett Snr running around kicking 10 a game in matches that meant something, it was a brilliant thing. But it’s dead. And just like the pet hampster, once its dead it aint coming back. Lets move on.
Pippinu said | October 21st 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
…hard to argue with.
megatron said | October 21st 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
They could still be very entertaining. Much more potential than the Irish clashes etc. If done properly it could mean something like it did in the eighties
Pippinu said | October 21st 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
megatron
there were some great intersate clashes in the 80s, but that was all pre-AFL, there is far less interest now.
Also, just fitting into the calendar, which these days demands a week break at some point, and having 3 more potential match ups – it just makes it all a little too difficult.
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
The reality is the SoO in the NRL has a rather negative impact on the underlying H&A season. I reckon the preferred model for AFL would be once every 4 years to have a fair dinkum time frame of SoO matches, but, to avoid ‘allies’, and involve everyone, it’d have to be two divisions/pools.
Having something on the line would be good.
and whether that was two pools (eg Vic, WA, Tassie and Sa, QLD/NT, NSW/ACT) – - 3 pool games and the top 2 play off for the national champion….and seeding reclassifications for the next year. Actually, you might actually do the pools as 1,3,6 and 2,4,5. i.e. finishing 3rd is okay because you get to play 6th, finishing 5th is better than 6th because you only come up against 2 and 4 and nont 1 and 3 or something like that. I dunno!!!!
megatron said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:20am | Report comment
Scrap the preseason, start the season a lot early and have it at halfway point of the season.
Republican said | October 21st 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
I still reckon a state of origin between the big 3 or possibly 4 would work, but perhaps you are right Gibbo.
megatron said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:17am | Report comment
Me too but it needs to be marketed properly so it means something
Mattay said | October 21st 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
2 of the biggest issues I believe weren’t even accounted for in JF’s article:
1. Anzac Day
First of all, congratulations on Essendon and Collingwood making a spectacle of a football game on a day where everyone has a day off with two of the most heavily supported teams in the competition squaring off against one another. Who would have thought that would be successful .
The Anzac Day Cup should be fought between the reigning Anzac Day cup holder and the reigning premier. Where they are the same club, it should be a GF rematch. This means every player at every club gets an equal opportunity at playing in the biggest H&A match of the season. It will also practically guarantee you will have 2 teams at the top of their game play on the day and “honour the Anzacs” (TM) unlike recent history where to a lot of supporters, Anzac Day meant 11th v 15th.
So, starting next year, it’s Essendon v Geelong. Now, assume Geelong beat Essendon, but the Bulldogs win the flag, in 2011 it is Geelong v Bulldogs. The club keeps the cup for a year, the Anzac medallist actually means something instead of being the best player from a couple of average clubs in an average game, and everyone who isn’t named Eddie is happy.
Fixturing
It boggles the mind that the self-appointed number 1 sport in AFL needs to tamper with the fixtures to remain number one. The season fixtures must be random, or at the very least, determined by a formula based on the prior season’s standings.
No more of this “We must have 2 derbies/showdowns”. No more “Rivalry Round” (a.k.a. a nice way for the AFL to congratulate themselves for record attendances twice a year). No more quabbles about Collingwoods lack of travel.
Of course the fixtures can be tweaked to ensure there is always one game in Adelaide and Perth, and that teams playing late Sunday aren’t also playing the next Friday, but apart from that, I see no reason why the AFL has to massage the fixtures into something that corrupts the integrity of the competition.
Pippinu said | October 21st 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
1. I agree with those who argue Ess and Coll have made it their own – they deserve it.
2. An even draw demands 30 rounds, or 34 rounds in an 18 team comp – that’s impossible for the AFL. so the minute you start talking about 22 rounds, it’s compromised – it seems to me that regardless of what you do to 22 rounds, it’ actually very hard to make it more compromised than it already is. We’ve learned to live with it and understand that it’s a long hard road to a premiership, regardless of who you end up playing.
But apart from that – there are some practical reasons for ensuring a few things happen in a 22 round draw, e.g. Perth teams playe each other twice, Adelaide teams twice, and Carlton, Pies and Dons play each other twice, etc. Some years that will mean an easier draw for one or the other, but in other years it might be the reverse – but it doesn’t matter to be honest.
Michael C said | October 21st 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
A reasonable notion you put forward for Anzac Day,
another – just make it the first annual GF rematch of the previous season,
BUT – the big thing is, Essendon and Collingwood fill the stadium each year. It well and truely ain’t broke.
Tampering with the fixture to remain number 1??….what, so that explains daylight b/w 1 and 2?? Who is 2?? the NRL?? the main alternative – the NRL style floating fixture. After all, they are trying to fix 16 teams into 26 rounds with 24 matches each. There fixture is equally unbalanced. Surely they are tampering with their fixture too.
re the fixturing, the reality is that the AFL gets so many requests from the clubs. Logistically, random just can’t work for several reasons – - including the limited number of AFL standard venues in Melbourne, and the desire (generally) to avoid clashing with other codes (eg ARU and AFL generally work together to avoid clashing).
There are so many arguements for and against various things, like, who get’s Friday nights? A reward of sorts for teams who did well the year before…..
megatron said | October 21st 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
Spot on Mattay. Great points.
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Essendon and Collingwood make ANZAC day what it is. If it aint broke dont fix it.
This game sells out the ‘G’ 4 weeks before the game. Geelong, Bulldogs, most clubs except Carlton could not guarantee a packed MCG.
re blockbusters, debries, you miss the point massively . The fans show they want these games or else they wouldn’t turn up.
the only way to fix would be to play each other twice, that cant happen may as well give the fans what they want.
I want to play Carlton and Collingwood twice each year, dont give a fig about Port Adelaide or Fremantle.
Redb
Mattay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
I miss the point massively? The point is the AFL shouldn’t need to pander to what fans want. The AFL should dictate the fixture and the fans, being true fans of the number one sport in the country, should like it no matter what. What are the AFL afraid of?
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
“The point is the AFL shouldn’t need to pander to what fans want. ”
Geez I hope your not in business.
Redb
Michael C said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Mattay -
the AFL is NOT a NRL half owned by a news-media organisation. The clubs are not privately owned franchise/billionaire playthings. They are owned by the members.
The AFL is a peoples game and the AFL administration runs the game for the people. It sounds a bit banal….but, essentially that’s the case. i.e. it’s not beholden to the whims of a tri-continental SANZAR style grouping, or an IRB or FIFA or what-have-you.
The fans ARE the game. Without Australia and the fans. THe game stops. It’s not like soccer which can mismanage over and over and because of the overseas behemoth of the world game is effectively assured to always be re-incarnated here if nothing else than via immigration.
The fans feedback has often been sought (via the AFL website).
However, the clubs also get their wishlist, and to suggest that Freo and WCE wouldn’t both put forward a desire to host a Western Derby, or that the Crows and Port wouldn’t both put forward a desire to host a ‘Showdown’ would be complete folly.
And that is where the fans get what they want which gives the clubs what they want which gives the fans what they want………a self fulfilling proohecy.
megatron said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:16am | Report comment
I don’t think the Afl fears anyone. They know they’re easily winning the code war.
bever fever said | October 21st 2009 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
Scrap pre-season and have a longer season proper.
Limit interchange at AFL level to stop the amount of rugby type stacks on the mill.
Seriously think about playing only 16 players per side to open up play more.
I know its not really possible but i would like to see some sort of FA cup style Australia wide comp maybe mid week.
play on good friday.
megatron said | October 21st 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Yep preseason must go and they need a longer regular season. It can easily be sustained and I’m sure the tv networks will like. If fatigue becomes an issue then introduce bigger squads so coaches can rotate.
SideShowBob said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:10pm | Report comment
Jesper Fjeldstad. Interesting to see a Norwegian so knowledgable in our game…
Elbusto said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
The obvious thing for the AFL to do is become international. That will improve it immediately. The simple way to do this would be too soften the tackle rules even further, use a round ball on a rectangular field and erect rugby posts instead of those silly posts used now. Adjust the scoring a little bit and BINGO you have GAAFL and its followers can at last claim to be truly international (in two pissy little countries)!!!!!!
Michael C said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Ah, Elbusto – you’ve finally managed to hit on a point.
I penned an article last year I think suggesting that International Rules could be the game most likely to challenge soccer…..except that the AFL wouldn’t really want that and the GAA might not,…
but, the obvious point that the game sits inbetween soccer and rugby and the world is full of square cornered pitches and cross bar goals.
for us AFL types….the round ball just doesn’t ‘do it’ for us. Probably just too predictable, i.e. the roll of it.
bever fever said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
I live in a fantastic country, where do you live, yours is a pissy little one ?.
Explains it all really.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
Once you’ve held a brand new Sherrin in your hands, one of the last things actually manufactured in this great country – you wouldn’t trade it in for the world.
bever
I think Elbusto is a Tasmanian who has disowned his heritage.
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
1 LIMIT INTERCHANGES
Not against the idea. The benefit though of interchange is that the game is still running hard from to start to finish rather than watching a bunch of tired footballers like the old days when the score would often blow out just simply due to fitness.
2 BRING IN EXTRA TIME FOR GRAND FINALS
I’m a traditonalist, but this is a no brainer.
3 BRING IN A DRAFT LOTTERY
No need just remove the priority pick. Over hyped aspect of the game especially when we area talking about the bottom 1-2 teams not the fight for the premiership.
4 FREE AGENCY
In a limited form, age, time at club? Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
5 BRING BACK STATE FOOTBALL
Absolutely, bring the REAL big V.
VIC v SA or WA initially , NSW and QLD in time, QLD maybe strong enough already.
6 SCRAP THE PRE-SEASON COMP
Defintely not , great opportunity for games to be spread around the country.
7 BRING BACK CURTAINRAISERS
Why not. Be good to see VFL, QAFL, SANFL games before some AFL matches.
8 GET RID OF THE HANDS-IN-THE-BACK RULE
Not sure if the umpires did this anyway towards the end of 2009. Not significant, might make top 30 changes but not top 10.
9 PLAY ON GOOD FRIDAY
A Friday Night or twilight game would work.
10. REVIEW POST DECISIONS
No need. Posters are part of footy. It’s funny you get 1 or 2 incidents per year hardly enough to justify a rule change nor is it just for the sake of copying other sports.
———-
Redb
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Redb -
have read your comments on each point, and Pip’s, and made my own.
The question then is -
what do WE think are the big 10 that need review??
for me to start it off:
1. limited send off rule – - perhaps not allowing a player short scenario, but, allow a player to be expelled for the rest of the game (but, perhaps requires agreement by central umpire plus umpires advisor in the stands)
2. limited video review……ump’s a mic’d up anyway, no issue given the re-start time after a goal, that an ump advisor in the stands could run a quick review or be called upon to have a quick look if the umps are uncertain. Although, the normal processes do usually work pretty well.
3. tackle rule – - no free kick to the tacklers if more than 2 fellows are applying the tackle. Thus, a fellow on the ground, if 3 or 4 opponents bury both him and the ball, the only possible results are for an illegal tackle, or play on.
4. 9 point super goals……I like them…….they ain’t traditional, but, I love the 3 pointers in basketball. It’s a qualitative measure.
5. I’m not a fan of the bucket of balls…..i.e. means too many brand new balls get used all through a game and doesn’t permit the ball to get ‘played in’.
Redb said | October 26th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
MC,
re send off rule. I dont like the idea becuase unless its blatant – Barry Hall and the umpire fully sights the incident it is never that straight forward especially on the size of the ground that footy is played on.
We have 18 positions man on man, incidents happen at times accross the board, unlike the rugby codes where teams line on their side of the ball and all the focus is only where the ball is positioned it is easier to pick up a fight.
So in the end , if a fight occurs near where the ball is being played they are likely to be sent off, whereas if a behind the scenes ‘fraca’ occurs, no-one is watching. This would be inconsistent, the video picks up most incidents in post match review.
If we were to implement a send off I’d follow the soccer example of a yellow card and then a red card. Whether the player would stay off for the entire game or just 10 minutes like the sin bin is another question.
Redb
Michael C said | October 26th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
my main thought would be that no send off is NOT replaceable.
Therefore, it’s a penalty on the day too for the player involved – - but, requires a level of concensus by the officiating umpire and perhaps either of one other on field umpire or via comm’s to the umpire advisor in the stands with a replay facility.
And, only for blatant infringements…..i.e. clocking someone who themselves will be off the ground and out of the game.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
MC
to be honest – I don’t see any of those as burning issues – maybe the tackle rule has merit – there’s a bit too much holding the ball in and putting up your hand for the free for my liking.
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
so, it all comes back to the fixture, and the priority draft pick….
….and those don’t really mean much for seasons 2010,11 and 12 with 2 new teams coming in.