AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Link
Entering another season, the AFL's appetite for change grows ever more ravenous.
History is bunk. Tradition is a barrier to progress. Sentiment clouds judgement.
Imperfection must be identified. Every wrinkle must be ironed out. Australian Rules must defy the physics of sport. It must be a game without fault or foible.
Actually — there's a tasty morsel of change! — perhaps we should not call it Australian Rules.
Surely that hokey title is a throwback to the days before athletes were tested in laboratories, rule changes presented to focus groups and club uniform dictated by sponsors.
Let's call it AFL! All the better for marketing in those vital northern states.
Don't worry that calling Australian Rules "AFL" creates the impression the top tier is the game's only purpose and those at the base of the pyramid are merely there to serve the elite.
Once the media might have called out such change-by-stealth, but we've had our own significant name change. The rights-holding media is not the old free press.
So not only will those spinning the game's relentless 24-hour news wheel ignore this ludicrous re-branding, they will drive the change.
They know how this game works: When something doesn't seem perfect change is no longer the last resort, it is the first.
So if you can identify a problem — or something that someone perceives to be a problem — you can fill those endless hours of on-air discussion and talk-back with once-ludicrous suggestions.
The relationship between the AFL — the league, not the game — and the most servile elements of the media is symbiotic.
The AFL invites scrutiny of every aspect of its game through its obsession with change; or in the recent case of the non-twilight grand final, by merely hinting at change.
Several years ago the AFL produced a manifesto in which it listed the basic principles of the game. They did not include zones. Yet, this season, zones we have.
Thus nothing seems off limits. So when the content-hungry media speculates about making the goal posts orange or the ball rectangular they can do so straight-faced.
The AFL has put everything from the integrity of the club colours to the starting positions during games themselves on the table.
How does a game justify such rapid change when it considers itself to be the planet's greatest secret — the game that would have taken the world by storm if it, not football, had been exported by the English explorers?
There is that delusion of possible perfection; the self-defeating notion that warts and quirks can be eradicated by statute without diminishing the charm that made the game great.
"You stand here, you stand here and you stand here. Right, now the game will be just like it was when players went where their experience and instinct told them where to go. Got it?"
This is the decision-making of a competition that worships at the altar of change so devoutly that it seems blind to consequences.
Stand in those zones; don't sneeze near the player granted a 50-metre penalty. And if a player twitches at a vital stage in a game and the contest is decided by a technical infringement?
The outrage of the fans will be drowned out by the most pliable commentators victim-blaming players: "He should have known the rule by now!"
Never mind the rule is in contravention of 150 years of collective learning, instinct and muscle memory.
But in the AFL change is cool with those self-styled young progressives who can't remember a time when a season started without some significant alteration to the rules.
"So if you had it your way the captains would still be calling the free kicks and there would be no centre square," they sniff, mistaking the game's slow evolution for the current panic-stricken alteration craze.
A few months ago the same change junkies might have advocated some version of the conference system. After all, "it works in American sports".
Yet conferences worked so well in the AFLW (now routinely disrespected as a laboratory for AFL rule tinkering) that the first-, second-, fifth- and sixth-best teams will contest the finals.
Yet again the benefit was considered and the consequence ignored until it was too late because action was mistaken for progress.
For all that there is a lot to love about the impending AFL season.
The adoption of US-style salary caps and a draft system were radical solutions that have been allowed to bed down and create a competition pregnant with possibility.
That you can make a case for seven or eight teams to win this season's premiership is pleasing and exciting — even as the tinkerers suggest more changes to free-agency rules that would weaken the salary cap/draft system.
And therein lies the problem with the AFL — or at least the way it is projected, analysed and administered.
The only thing we know for certain this season is that no matter how good the game is, it won't be good enough.
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Great article
It is a great article BAD but the changes to the rules that are aimed at reducing congestion were 100% a GOOD IDEA. Not only that, but they reduce the ability of the coaches to impact the game by over-emphasising structure over game-style and limiting the ability of our best players to impact the game. Once upon a time, if you started on the bench you were probably staying there till half-time. I am not yet 50 and even my first experiences of senior footy (hell, u18's footy even) at the state level had two on the bench and < 10-12 rotations each game...stoppage structures? That was all about standing where your ruckman was going to hit it or 'reading it' off hands...kick-ins? Kick it in! I played with a 'centreman' (remember those guys) who didn't leave the centre square and is in the state's hall of fame...
See, I 100% agree and 100% disagree with the sentiment of the article. Yes - the AFL is out of control. But when u12 coaches are splitting their group into 'lines' at the breaks and have multiple stoppage setups and START games (not a reaction to opposition dominance, but just because they WANT TOO) with extra numbers behind the ball...something had to be done. How all of this gets balanced out I really don't know but the game we all grew up loving is still out there - it has just been hidden behind zones and rotations and taggers and 'territory' and everything else that drives us all crazy...
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
I find the rule change outrage fascinating. The most hysterical aren't against all rule changes, just changes to rule changes that were changed before they were young. It's all a bit like the Amish, they're not against technology, just technology that was invented after the 1800's when they drew a line and said no more.
The outraged are against;
Zones rule changes but not against the original zone rule change- the centre square zone.
They're against rule changes to interchange frequency but aren't against rule changes made to interchange that allowed interchange frequency to explode.
They're against toughening the rules interpretation of deliberate out of bound but aren't against the rule change that introduced deliberate out of bounds.
The list goes on. In the end it all just comes back to a complaint of why can't things be like they were when I was young. My Dad complains about the modern rule changes like zones and interchange, but called his Dad a dinosaur when he complained about deliberate out of bounds and not throwing the ball back directly to an opponent, who called his Dad a dinosaur when they changed the rules banning place kicks and hats. I'm sure my son will call me the same when I'm opposed to deliberate rushed behind or hands on the shoulder in a marking attempt rule changes.
I'll know I'm officially old the first time I hear myself say why can't they leave the rules like they used to be.
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
It is a great article BAD but the changes to the rules that are aimed at reducing congestion were 100% a GOOD IDEA. Not only that, but they reduce the ability of the coaches to impact the game by over-emphasising structure over game-style and limiting the ability of our best players to impact the game. Once upon a time, if you started on the bench you were probably staying there till half-time. I am not yet 50 and even my first experiences of senior footy (hell, u18's footy even) at the state level had two on the bench and < 10-12 rotations each game...stoppage structures? That was all about standing where your ruckman was going to hit it or 'reading it' off hands...kick-ins? Kick it in! I played with a 'centreman' (remember those guys) who didn't leave the centre square and is in the state's hall of fame...
See, I 100% agree and 100% disagree with the sentiment of the article. Yes - the AFL is out of control. But when u12 coaches are splitting their group into 'lines' at the breaks and have multiple stoppage setups and START games (not a reaction to opposition dominance, but just because they WANT TOO) with extra numbers behind the ball...something had to be done. How all of this gets balanced out I really don't know but the game we all grew up loving is still out there - it has just been hidden behind zones and rotations and taggers and 'territory' and everything else that drives us all crazy...
When do we stop changing the game we love.
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
I thought the most insightful comments were around the compliant media, and the landscape that's enabled the AFL to serve up whatever type of bullshit it likes without too many critical or detracting voices.
AFL media stinks.
As for the rule changes introduced this year, I'm not too worried about them. The 100m penalty is probably going to cause the most heartburn, but the others are pretty good.
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jeemak
I thought the most insightful comments were around the compliant media, and the landscape that's enabled the AFL to serve up whatever type of bullshit it likes without too many critical or detracting voices.
AFL media stinks.
As for the rule changes introduced this year, I'm not too worried about them. The 100m penalty is probably going to cause the most heartburn, but the others are pretty good.
This is a good point. With as much change as there has been, we will still have Brian Taylor making the game about himself, and Cameron's Ling's special comments.... I hate the AFL media with a passion. While some of the rules make sense it frustrates when clubs don't seem to have understood them and confusion interrupts the flow.
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
When do we stop changing the game we love.
I know this is a bugbear of yours but are there any rule changes you accept or acknowledge that have been OK?
For example:
The centre square was a radical change at it's time, but I think it's been a very good move.
Interchange of 4 rather than a 19th or 20th man was another good move.
Doing their best to limit head high contact must be seen as a positive
And I think the 6, 6 6 will be a positive.
I don't like a lot of changes either but I'm not negative to all of them
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
I know this is a bugbear of yours but are there any rule changes you accept or acknowledge that have been OK?
For example:
The centre square was a radical change at it's time, but I think it's been a very good move.
Interchange of 4 rather than a 19th or 20th man was another good move.
Doing their best to limit head high contact must be seen as a positive
And I think the 6, 6 6 will be a positive.
I don't like a lot of changes either but I'm not negative to all of them
The intent was there but the execution wasn't......as soon as they made the head sacrosanct it meant players would approach contests head first and to draw a free kick.
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
I know this is a bugbear of yours but are there any rule changes you accept or acknowledge that have been OK?
For example:
The centre square was a radical change at it's time, but I think it's been a very good move.
Interchange of 4 rather than a 19th or 20th man was another good move.
Doing their best to limit head high contact must be seen as a positive
And I think the 6, 6 6 will be a positive.
I don't like a lot of changes either but I'm not negative to all of them
I am OK with rule changes that don't impact skills of the game.
Interchange, subs etc - go for your life.
Fixturing/Conferences/finals ... sketchy, but there's different models to try.
666 in its current form is acceptable.
Length of games, time on etc.
It's the tinkering and pandering to market trends that I get upset about.
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SonofScray
I am OK with rule changes that don't impact skills of the game.
Interchange, subs etc - go for your life.
Fixturing/Conferences/finals ... sketchy, but there's different models to try.
666 in its current form is acceptable.
Length of games, time on etc.
It's the tinkering and pandering to market trends that I get upset about.
Good point
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
I know this is a bugbear of yours but are there any rule changes you accept or acknowledge that have been OK?
For example:
The centre square was a radical change at it's time, but I think it's been a very good move.
Interchange of 4 rather than a 19th or 20th man was another good move.
Doing their best to limit head high contact must be seen as a positive
And I think the 6, 6 6 will be a positive.
I don't like a lot of changes either but I'm not negative to all of them
The rule for head high has always been there, but not enforced. Any rule that protects the safety of the player must be put in, however, the AFL get this wrong as well. eg. Taking out a players feet. Effectively the AFL has ruined one of the great spectacles of the game, ie a player diving in a pack, grabbing the ball and hand balling it out. They have allowed incorrect umpiring and the interpretation is wrong - a good example is when Dahl almost got his head taken off when he was on all fours and a player ran into him and was given the free for taking his legs out.
As far as the centre square or interchange goes, who knows how the game would have developed if they were not changed.
Believe me 6.6.6. does nothing to change the game. Alot of changes this year are reversing previous errors, because the AFL don't think about the consequences of the rule change before they change it. eg: hands in the back, Rucks plucking the ball out of the air.
As for congestion, well through rule changes, they have allowed this to happen eg: Prior opportunity, ruck nominations, boundary umpire taking so long to throw the ball back in and allowing congestion to build up
My question remains, when will the AFL stop tinkering - and why the need? Makes a mockery of the game. I think Richard Hinds has some very valid points.
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
How can you be so confident that the 666 won't work and does nothing for the game?
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
How can you be so confident that the 666 won't work and does nothing for the game?
Because it only happens at the centre bounce and then it is positions as usual. Players are so fast now that the wingers will run into the forward 50 pretty quickly once the ball is bounced. There are already 12 in the FWD50, and add in another 4 and you have congestion. Of course if a team can move the ball quickly out of the centre they have the advantage, but that happens now.
Re: AFL's obsession with change blinds it to the consequences of endlessly tinkering with the game
I liked the article. I also wonder if the rules weren't tinkered with how would the game look today.
The AFL many years ago wanted to speed the game up so they changed the rule to do so.
Clubs adapted and an increase of athletic players become the draft of choice but at a decrease in natural footballers.
Roll the game forward and now they are trying to slow it down by clearing the ground so players have more time to execute their skills. Welcome back the more natural footballer that may not be as fast but can drill a pass 40 to 50 metres on the his team mates chest. One on one contests in the forward half.
Are we going full circle?
