The Sham Cup

[LostDoggy]

The game is OK now based on the fact that things like the advantage rule and the line separating the ruckman have worked. It's no longer a constant dour struggle.

I think they are also on a winner with the sub even though I was originally against it.

I'd like to see clubs being able to nominate any player from the emergency bench as the sub. Would make it a lot easier for clubs to manage whilst still having its desired effect (minimising interchange rotations)

[bornadog]

I'd like to see clubs being able to nominate any player from the emergency bench as the sub. Would make it a lot easier for clubs to manage whilst still having its desired effect (minimising interchange rotations)

Why do we need to minimize bench rotations? The whole sub rule is a joke and has added nothing to enhance the game.

[chef]

Why do we have to trial anything?

For gods sake people, why do we have to change this game, what is wrong with it?

Watching the game tonight with these ridiculous rules makes it the Sham Cup. Its so frustrating.

So you don't like the center square or the interchange rule or the 50 meter penalty etc, etc?

I don't mind trialling things as in my opinion they can improve our game and to be honest we have been fidling with it for the last 140 years.

[chef]

Why do we need to minimize bench rotations? The whole sub rule is a joke and has added nothing to enhance the game.

I like it. Happy for it to become 2 & 2 next season as well which looks like happening.

This rule actually takes football back a few decades(I thought this may be one that you would like too bornadog) IMO to where the better players stay on the ground longer and rest in different positions instead of one the bench.

[LostDoggy]

Why do we need to minimize bench rotations? The whole sub rule is a joke and has added nothing to enhance the game.

Because otherwise we are heading towards ice hockey.

I like it. Happy for it to become 2 & 2 next season as well which looks like happening.

This rule actually takes football back a few decades(I thought this may be one that you would like too bornadog) IMO to where the better players stay on the ground longer and rest in different positions instead of one the bench.

Agree. I like the sub rule. I don't think 2 + 2 is right, as the players are just going to suffer more injuries, I mean look at last night, we were totally stuffed at the end. But 3 + 1 is a good thing, and if the club was able to have a few different options available to sub in, so they can replace any player with injury as well as have the fresh legs, it would alleviate most concerns about the rule and would also add a bit more intrigue to each game, e.g. “Who's going to be subbed in?”

[bornadog]

So you don't like the center square or the interchange rule or the 50 meter penalty etc, etc?

I don't mind trialling things as in my opinion they can improve our game and to be honest we have been fidling with it for the last 140 years.

Every time new rules are brought in, the game changes. The Centre square I have already said was a good idea, and the out on the full as well, otherwise the game would have been Rugby like, but the rest of the rules are just put there because of a knee jerk reaction from the AFL. They don't think about the long term consequences. One minute they want the game to be fast and furious, so they change the kick ins after point is scored, they double the boundary umpires to get the ball flowing. Then they tell us because its so fast they have to restrict the interchange bench.

Very little has been improved in the game since the centre square and line across the centre for ruck duels.

Tell me do you like the interpretation of the hands in the back, chopping the arms? Last night Dahlhaus was pinged for nudging a player under the ball and then marking it.

[bornadog]

Because otherwise we are heading towards ice hockey.

Oh please, the four interchange bench was introduced 20 years ago.

The reason these old farts at AFL house change the rules is because they are dreaming of how footy was played in the 1980's so they want to turn the clock back by counteracting the coaches tactics. They want the long kicks, the big pack forming and some one taking a screamer over the top etc. As new coaches come into the game, and bigger and faster players, they bring in new tactics and the game evolves naturally. No rules are going to stop the way the game develops, all the rules do is frustrate the supporters.

[LostDoggy]

Oh please, the four interchange bench was introduced 20 years ago.

The reason these old farts at AFL house change the rules is because they are dreaming of how footy was played in the 1980's so they want to turn the clock back by counteracting the coaches tactics. They want the long kicks, the big pack forming and some one taking a screamer over the top etc. As new coaches come into the game, and bigger and faster players, they bring in new tactics and the game evolves naturally. No rules are going to stop the way the game develops, all the rules do is frustrate the supporters.

Watching the game open up in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters last year says you're wrong buddy. Sorry. The sub did change the way the game was played last year.

[bornadog]

Watching the game open up in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters last year says you're wrong buddy. Sorry. The sub did change the way the game was played last year.

That is just AFL spin to justify their decision.

[Topdog]

Watching the game open up in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters last year says you're wrong buddy. Sorry. The sub did change the way the game was played last year.

It did?? Stats to back it up?

[LostDoggy]

Watching the game open up in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters last year says you're wrong buddy. Sorry. The sub did change the way the game was played last year.

BAD wasn't talking about rule changes not changing the game -- of course it does, that's the problem. I think BAD's point was more that players and teams evolve and will keep evolving and you can't just keep putting more and more rules up to roadblock the evolutions that a committee of conservative dunderheads in AFL House doesn't like.

It's crazy, everytime a coach develops a new approach or game plan KB and his mates think that they need to legislate it out of the game. There IS a better way -- instead of creating rules to cockblock the smartest coach in the game, let the other 17 smartest blokes (coaches) figure out a way to stop him, which may be a slightly slower process, but a lot more exciting and organic.

That's the essence of sport.

[Ghost Dog]

Tom Williams didn't have to dive for that mark last night.
If he had let it go, it would have been his free kick.
Drat! NAB rules could have saved him some bother.

[bornadog]

BAD wasn't talking about rule changes not changing the game -- of course it does, that's the problem. I think BAD's point was more that players and teams evolve and will keep evolving and you can't just keep putting more and more rules up to roadblock the evolutions that a committee of conservative dunderheads in AFL House doesn't like.

It's crazy, everytime a coach develops a new approach or game plan KB and his mates think that they need to legislate it out of the game. There IS a better way -- instead of creating rules to cockblock the smartest coach in the game, let the other 17 smartest blokes (coaches) figure out a way to stop him, which may be a slightly slower process, but a lot more exciting and organic.

That's the essence of sport.

Thanks Lantern, exactly what I was saying. Remember when flooding first came in and the Stupid rules committee wanted to do all sorts of things to counteract it. Stop players Kicking backwards, only allowing so many players in the 50metre arc etc etc. Luckily they weren't that silly, and whats happened, its slowly sorted out by another tactical coach to get around it.

Big Will has come out today and basically said the same thing, leave the bloody game alone.

[LostDoggy]

Just to add to this sham of a competition. Adelaide are on top with games- 2 home games and 1 neutral venue against a side that was terrible in 2011. Last game at aami. WC haven't had to leave the state yet. 2 games and the last game at Pattersons.
We could have had a chance to win this comp too. Next time let's play 2 rounds at Whitten oval and Gws in Broken Hill.
Remember they give out money for this and a sponsor seems to be proud to be associated with it.

[Maddog37]

Great call chops. No equalization payments either..............