Yes. I'm still unclear as to why this was abolished. The game has rapidly deteriorated since its abolishment. Was it really just to quell our influence? :confused:
Printable View
I agree with most of this except doing away with boundary throw ins. There are some unique things in our game and one is the boundary throw in. However, the boundary umpire shouldn't wait for the rucks to set up, they should just throw it in.
We need to reverse some rules as they have not enhanced the game:
* Prior opportunity - need clarity, as Sedat said, has caused alot of the stoppages, but as usual umpires have gone too far the other way.
* The third man up needs to be back in to help clear the ball from ball ups.
* Kick out after a behind - just rubbish letting the backman to run out from the goal square. All teams do now is setup further down the ground and clog up the oppositions centre to half forward line.
* 6.6.6 - has done nothing for the game - just needs more officiating, waste of time.
* interchange - should be unlimited, bring on players fresh that can run, run, run
All these are reversing rules that came in that have done nothing to improve the game, and scoring.
If you:
a) rewarded high scoring with bonus premiership points
b) enforced play on for short kicks under 15m-20m
c) brought back third man up
I think you'd see an overall improvement in the game, and it doesn't require a complete change to the structure of the game itself such as zones, reduced players on the field, only one tackler at a time etc.
I agree with most of this except doing away with boundary throw ins. There are some unique things in our game and one is the boundary throw in. However, the boundary umpire shouldn't wait for the rucks to set up, they should just throw it in.
I agree with Sedat on this. There would still be throw ins from non-kick or handball out of bounds. But i don't like keeping things for the sake of it if it deteriorates the game.
We need to reverse some rules as they have not enhanced the game:
* Prior opportunity - need clarity, as Sedat said, has caused alot of the stoppages, but as usual umpires have gone too far the other way.
Yes agree it certainly needs clarity. Something that was needed prior to a hasty change. Punish players wanting to keep the ball locked in but tink it through first so its clear to everyone.
* The third man up needs to be back in to help clear the ball from ball ups.
Agreed
* Kick out after a behind - just rubbish letting the backman to run out from the goal square. All teams do now is setup further down the ground and clog up the oppositions centre to half forward line.
Agree. As soon as a player lines up for goal everyone is dropping back. Its just leading to numbers in the middle of the ground as it's eliminated short passes up the ground to draw players in.
* 6.6.6 - has done nothing for the game - just needs more officiating, waste of time.
I think it's actually been good and has led to more scoring chances from centre bounces
* interchange - should be unlimited, bring on players fresh that can run, run, run
I actually think less rotations would result in less players being able to follow the ball for long periods of time. But it could also simply mean more midfielders get selected. It's an interesting area
All these are reversing rules that came in that have done nothing to improve the game, and scoring.
I have heard all the so called experts on this but there is no proof. All I know is when there was unlimited interchange, the scoring was high.
Rocket was one of the first coaches to push the interchange to about 160 per game and under Rocket, we were in the top three for scoring.
If you limit the interchange like now, or even drop the limit, the recruiting of players changes to more athletic, endurance runners, not real footballers, so they can run all day anyway.
Teams have to travel more, yet get significant advantages for only sharing grounds with one other team, or no other teams. Teams get to play under the roof, others on the wide open spaces of the G where finals are played. The fixture isn't balanced, teams used to able to kick massive scores on shit grounds all the time, so I don't know what the problem is.
Finding a way to incentivise scoring is the least invasive way of having a go at something different that may yield a positive result. Everything else tried to date has either been ineffective or correlates with a reduction in scoring. I can't see how the current plan of doing more of the same is going to yield a positive result.
Teams will quickly change their behaviours if they see other teams putting on a big score and earning 25% more premiership points week in, week out. Teams in the top half of the ladder playing bottom half teams will try and rip the game open early, subsequently opening the game up for the opposition to score, or, they'll go hell for leather in the second half doing the same thing.
There's nothing to lose.