Why the pent up anger at the whole concept of rule changes?
Writing in The Age, Jake Niall has claimed that a sizeable “conservative faction” among fans has developed what he describes as “change fatigue”. But it is the AFL itself with its continued need to justify its self-appointed role as caretaker of the game that is pushing fans into this faction.
Most AFL fans realise that the game has changed and evolved over time. Sometimes these changes have been small and gradual, like the development of the substitute and then interchange bench, while others have been more radical, like the change in the scoring system to include behinds way back at the league’s inception in 1897.
These differences have given us the game that we have today, but it’s the rate of change in recent years that has led to the current aversion to any big shifts.
If you look at the list of rule changes on the AFL’s own website, the first thing you notice is it’s constant. But if you look at the game from the mid-to-late 1990s onwards, this has accelerated, with rule changes occurring every couple of years. These have not been minor, but changes that have greatly affected how the game is played at the top level.
It seems that the only reason this debate is happening this year is that there have been some high-profile game flops. Suddenly, after this, a meme has developed that the game is in trouble.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
There are simple questions to ask about the state of the game. Have there been more poor games this year than in the past? No.
Has scoring been down? Certainly; it’s on track to be down 15 points this year compared to last.
Is this a genuine problem? Not by the looks of it, and this can be proved by some simple statistics.
There are record membership subscriptions all over the place. Richmond has 100,000, and at the lower end of the spectrum, GWS has reached 25,000 for the first time, making them the fourth-largest sporting club by membership in NSW. Even St Kilda, whose gulf between expectation and reality has been one of the largest in recent times, and Carlton, whose season was on track to be the worst of any club since Fitzroy, have record memberships.
Nearly 90,000 fans turned up to see Richmond versus Collingwood, the largest crowd between those two clubs since the 1980 grand final. Overall crowd numbers are up this season compared to last year, too. The fans simply aren’t buying that the game is in crisis.
The AFL has not told us what the problem is. If it’s simply lower scores, why not wait a couple of years to see if it’s a trend and not just a blip? They could even try some of their rules in the preseason, where they should be trialled – not in the middle of a still active season, as the AFL themselves quickly raised and just as quickly dropped.
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
If they believe it to be a deeper problem, why not release their findings and let the public decide for themselves?
Maybe, though, the problem is simply about how much money the game creates. In June Channel Seven CEO Tim Worner called for more goals, saying the time after a goal is kicked is “the most valuable 30 seconds of screen real estate in Australian television.”
When your major broadcaster, an organisation that has paid many millions of dollars to broadcast your product, starts complaining about the state of the game, of course you’re going to listen.
If the AFL-watching public has developed ‘change fatigue’, it’s not because of their innate conservatism; it’s because the AFL is insisting that the product they are watching is broken. If the AFL could just leave the game alone for a few years and let it develop naturally, they could look at introducing new rules that have been properly trialled and that, if they worked, would be generally accepted by the public.
To quickly introduce untested rules in order to solve a problem that has not been properly explained reeks of both panic and amateurism from the largest sporting league in the country – or of a league that is frightened of its own broadcast partners.
Frank Deville
Roar Rookie
In any case, I haven't been to a game in 20 years or so, therefore my perspective is somewhat limited.
Frank Deville
Roar Rookie
Trial balloon or thought bubble - it seems to be part of the process. Anyway, a friend put a sly question to me during the Showdown last weekend asking me to explain the holding the man/ holding the ball rule. "That's the beauty of our game" came my poker-faced reply.
Frank Deville
Roar Rookie
Just finished writing a 25k book - thought I'd handball.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
You should write these up into your own article Frank, there's a lot of good thoughts there.
Philby
Guest
There are a lot of reasons for fan unease, but how's this for two of them: 1. The AFL insists on changing interpretations of rules (and therefore effectively the rules) on almost a weekly basis. Examples of this are the deliberate out-of-bounds rule, the 10-metre exclusion zone rule, and the deliberate behind rule; and 2. All these 'changes' have been bungled. First the umps are (out of the blue) absolutely red hot on the rule, making its interpretation ridiculous. Then, fast forward 10 weeks, and they've just about forgotten about the whole thing and reverted to how the rule was in the first place - except for some vital moment in some big game, when an ump suddenly decides to trot it out once more. So if the AFL can't even manage these 'adjustments' to existing rules properly, how can anyone expect them to manage these more major changes? Well, we can't, and the AFL's bungled, and now dropped, idea of having AFL clubs in lower ladder positions 'test' the changes is just proof that they couldn't be trusted to arrange the proverbial in a brewery.
Frank Deville
Roar Rookie
AFL 2019 Evolution - Clean it up! I’ve been a footy fan for 50 years and the suggestions below are the best that I’ve thought of or heard suggested recently. 1. Scoring a. Two points for a deliberate rushed behind: definitely. b. Two points for hitting the goal post: maybe. 2. Field Play a. Reduce 50m penalty to 40m: 50 is too far – especially now. b. Longer goal square and no kicking to yourself in the air: trade-off. c. No kicking backwards into the defensive 50 arc: the line is already there. d. Two forwards/two defenders inside each forward 50 at all times: or 3 3. Teams a. 16 players: why 18? b. 4 interchange: or three. c. no cap on rotations: try it again now. 4. Players a. 20 y.o. minimum: life beyond football b. Yellow card when deliberate act injures player: one off/both off 5. Umpires a. Three umps good, four umps bad: put it away b. Protected zone bad, illegal interference call good: players know
Shane
Guest
Aren't memberships up - didn't they say they broke some sort of record? Think you kicked an own goal there.
Shane
Guest
Not as damning as over 60% saying to leave the god damn game alone O_o Weird how you have overlooked that.
The Doc
Roar Guru
im a bit torn on this whole rules debate. The afl has intervened many times over the years to incredible effect - out on the full, centre square, limiting numbers wtihin centre square, interchange, rushed behind rule etc. AFL tactics also changes in cycles - there was the sydney that brought the flood to come degree, contested stoppage based brand but then countered by the great geelong sides 2007-2011, hawks played great skilful footy with an effective press/.defensive system and now we have WB/richmond winning with pressure, contested footy, quality by hand, small forward lines. The game waxes and wanes but I think the AFL generally has its finger on the pulse when it comes to the game - i dont want to be cynical and think this all TV driven and happy to give the AFL some leash to make some tweaks - larger goal square I think is a brilliant idea
Martin
Roar Rookie
To placate Tim Worner how about the AFL allow a 15-second timed commercial break after a behind is kicked? This would surely add value to the next TV broadcast deal. I recall years ago the rule used to be that after a behind was kicked a player needed to wait until after the goal umpire had waved the flags to signify the point scored. Some years ago, perhaps a decade or more, the AFL changed the kick-in rule after a behind was scored to speed the game up; which is ironic, considering that these days the game is too fast.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
i'd say the complete opposite Cat. The AFL website and its authors tend to talk up the AFL rather than admit something is wrong.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Jacques, agree with everything you said except that " It’s up to coaches to clean up the aesthetics of the game" . Any coach that wins a flag doesn't give two hoots how he does it and nor should he. We need to take the coaches option to clog the game out rather than rely on their goodwill.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
30 % of unhappy fans equals less future membership, ratings, backsides on seats but you all forget future generations. The tribalism of footy is mostly handed down through generations. 8 year old kids don't decide to go to a game without family and peer influence and Generation Z has a plethora of other entertainment options on their devices. You don't want to forget the 30% and lose that growth the AFL is going to need in the rise of e-sports and other entertainment and sporting options. So yes, those 30% are clearly shareholders in the game and deserve to be heard.
Peppsy
Roar Guru
Panic! At The Afl
Cat
Roar Guru
Let me guess, that poll followed an article crapping on the the current state of the AFL? Selection bias.
jacques of Liliydale
Guest
The game itself is becoming unwatchable. It's ridiculous to have 36 players in a quarter of the ground. Sydney is the worst offender, their style of play is just horrible to watch with their over reliance on congested defence . It's more akin to watching rugby than AFL. It's up to coaches to clean up the aesthetics of the game, to win you need to score, not try to defend a zero score line, Sydney defend from the outset!! Go figure. Longmire's game plan is Neanderthal, so the game will sort that out itself as it is doing now. Watch Essendon with their daring run and carry, it renders Sydney's uber defensive zones irrelevant. We don't need any more rules or rule changes, leave the game alone, it will sort itself out.
JamesH
Roar Guru
That's a flawed analogy, Peter. Unhappy fans don't sell shares in the AFL and they certainly don't see their support as a business investment. They buy fewer tickets to games and less merchandise, but that isn't a big issue if sales are increasing overall. You can't please everyone all of the time. IMO the AFL's attitude of 'being seen to be doing something' is actually part of the problem. Rule tinkering is a massive bugbear, particularly when it seems haphazard, rushed and driven by the value of TV rights.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
' . . . you just need to be seen to doing something.' I think you're onto something there!
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
JamesH, lucky stock exchange companies don't heed that advice. If 30% of their shareholders aren't happy you think they brush that aside or strategise to win them back? Doesn't mean you disenfranchise the other 70% but you don't have to, you just need to be seen to be doing something.
Kris
Guest
Not in a self-selecting online poll. Disgruntled people have a tendency to vote while the complacent majority don't.