View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
23 YIPPEE!!!
YIPPEE 23!!!
Joined: 24 Jul 2019
|
Post subject: These new rules | |
|
The man on the mark rule the afl have made up is ridiculous. Does not make sense and I want them to go back to what it was. Im telling ya there will be stack of 50m penalty given due to this rule if it goes ahead.
Can not see it in the season proper. Trail it though in the pre season but thats it. |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010 Location: Living rent free
|
Post subject: | |
|
AFL have made it clear it's here to stay.
That said, I don't get the rule and why the player has to remain still and cant move laterally. What problem is it supposedly solving? _________________ Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
Post subject: | |
|
Easy way to fix the game is to severly limit interchange. I'd go so far as to say you have your bench and thats how many subs/interchanges you get a quater... plus two injury subs ala what bevo said _________________ All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
Mr Miyagi
Joined: 14 Sep 2018
|
Post subject: | |
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | Easy way to fix the game is to severly limit interchange. I'd go so far as to say you have your bench and thats how many subs/interchanges you get a quater... plus two injury subs ala what bevo said |
Sure, if you want the club to have even more soft tissue injuries |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mr Miyagi wrote: | The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | Easy way to fix the game is to severly limit interchange. I'd go so far as to say you have your bench and thats how many subs/interchanges you get a quater... plus two injury subs ala what bevo said |
Sure, if you want the club to have even more soft tissue injuries |
You mean like when they last didnt have interchange?
lol maybe at the start... maybe... but it would _force_ coaches to adjust their playstyle because it would become _impossible_ to have non stop 100% effort at the ball ala under 10's rugby scrum style - we'd get back positional play... _________________ All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010 Location: Living rent free
|
Post subject: | |
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | Easy way to fix the game is to severly limit interchange. I'd go so far as to say you have your bench and thats how many subs/interchanges you get a quater... plus two injury subs ala what bevo said |
Love this idea. Once you come off in a quarter, you cant come back on. If you are injured and replaced by an injury sub, you are off for 2 quarters.
If the team goes too hard too early, it simply runs out of gas. |
|
|
|
|
Mr Miyagi
Joined: 14 Sep 2018
|
Post subject: | |
|
We were all bitching about rotation restrictions the last time they did it to stop Malthouse breaking the rotations record! |
|
|
|
|
Pebbles Rocks
Joined: 28 Sep 2008 Location: Collingwood
|
Post subject: | |
|
The man on the mark rule looks like a game changer. Without seeing it in a real game yet I it looks like a very astute change. Having said that I will reserve judgement until we see a few rounds... _________________ "You must be a parking ticket, cuz you got fine written all over you" Glen Quagmire |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
Post subject: | |
|
You know the games broken when we're marking down stats like records for 'rotations' LUL _________________ All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010 Location: Wantirna
|
Post subject: | |
|
They have limited rotations to 75 per team per game and now qtrs back to 20 mins could see a shitload of red time goals. _________________ Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
Post subject: | |
|
Hopefully 75 is just the start, obviously I like my idea above.. or something to simular effect BUT more realistically they will gradually tinker with rotations a bit more say down to 12-15 rotations a 1/4.
Players will still be fit as hell (I mean come on we all know that AFL is the most athletic ball sport in the world), but if we limit rotations... no matter how fit they're they just won't be able to continually follow the ball and contest repeat efforts all over the ground - players will adjust, as will coaches... 1st impressions could be that there will suddenly be a tidal wave of soft tissue injuries... but players and coaches are smarter than you give them credit for - they would adjust... and fear not I totally doubt both teams will march all their players suddenly into their defensive ends.. it would open up the game without needing to adjust any other rules because it would be impossiable for everyone to follow the ball all game... they will adjust and it'll bring back positional play and more geniune one on one contests.
It's win win win win but they're either too scared to implement it all at once (and doing other fiddly shit like the mark rule), or they are too stupid to see. _________________ All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006 Location: Thailand
|
Post subject: | |
|
A lot of these rules are introduced needlessly to justify the annual junkets to the superbowl and FA cup etc. This one is needless. They would never have introduced it if Peter Daicos was still playing. Smartarses like Fartlett etc on these bloody rules committees trying to keep their overpaid jobs. This one smells when Matt Stevic is the champion. Will pay a zillion 50s against us and none for.
What is needed is a 15 metre penalty for a minor offence and 50 for a violent or overtly deliberate act. _________________ Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
I've been saying for years that we should abolish rotations off the bench. We should return to how footy was, before we became obsessed with trying to speed it up. Have 4 or 6 on the bench, but once a player goes off, they stay off. This would change the way the game was played. We would return to more positional type one on one football, because players would not be able to constantly run all over the ground as they do now. It would also lead to star players being on the ground for the full 100 minutes, with star on ballers 'resting' in the forward pockets.
I've seen the nature of our once great game slowly deteriorate over the past 30 yrs or so, and I am convinced that having bench rotations has been the main cause of it. Still, I'm obviously an old fart, so wtfwik? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
Post subject: | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: | I've been saying for years that we should abolish rotations off the bench. We should return to how footy was, before we became obsessed with trying to speed it up. Have 4 or 6 on the bench, but once a player goes off, they stay off. This would change the way the game was played. We would return to more positional type one on one football, because players would not be able to constantly run all over the ground as they do now. It would also lead to star players being on the ground for the full 100 minutes, with star on ballers 'resting' in the forward pockets.
I've seen the nature of our once great game slowly deteriorate over the past 30 yrs or so, and I am convinced that having bench rotations has been the main cause of it. Still, I'm obviously an old fart, so wtfwik? |
You would think exactly the same as I do!
I don't for a second accept the logic that that would lead to more soft tissue injuries either. |
|
|
|
|
|