SANFL V AFL

[Dutchy]

Spelly...Brisbane is significantly further from Darwin than Adelaide, Adelaide is quite clearly the closest capital city to Darwin

[centreman]

A Question for all the 1 eyed SANFL supporters on this SA Footy forum.
Why did yesterdays Slowdown rate better on Tv than Sundays Grand Final Did????????
After all the Slowdown is just kick and a catch charity fundraiser. (Which the Mac's you a great job with every year)
And the 15 odd thousand who attended (which was well down from previous years) is more than attended all sanfl games combined most rounds and simular to most finals games(bar the GF).

[spell_check]

Dutchy, that would help to get my point across, but no matter how closer Adelaide is to Darwin, obviously it's that little bit easier to get there than Brisbane.

A Question for all the 1 eyed SANFL supporters on this SA Footy forum.
Why did yesterdays Slowdown rate better on Tv than Sundays Grand Final Did????????
After all the Slowdown is just kick and a catch charity fundraiser. (Which the Mac's you a great job with every year)
And the 15 odd thousand who attended (which was well down from previous years) is more than attended all sanfl games combined most rounds and simular to most finals games(bar the GF).

-It always gets significant media attention (and TV ads)
-They always have celebrities - Lleyton Hewitt, Guy Sebastian and now Matt Cowdrey, Strauchnie etc
-It was on Channel 7 and not the ABC. I think with the same coverage if 7,9 or 10 did broadcast the SANFL they would get better ratings

[Sir Red of Norwood]

Here is a prime example of why I hate the AFL and prefer the traditional nature of the SANFL....if you read my rant in the "Why you follow your club" thread, I mentioned that I seemed to spend the first 3-4 games of every AFL season re-learning the rules of a game I grew up watching rather than learning the new players in the AFC.....thus AFL= madness, SANFL = 'real footy'. I am over AFL, I will not renew my Crows membership next seaon. The continuing fiddling with the game is a major contibuting factor.

from http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/afl-to-rub-out-rushed-behinds/2008/10/17/1223750337229.html

AFL to rub out rushed behinds

Martin Boulton | October 18, 2008

THE spate of deliberately rushed behinds, as in this year's grand final, will be stamped out of the game by the AFL before it becomes an epidemic.

A rule will be trialled in next year's NAB Cup penalising teams that deliberately rush behinds and the same rule could be enforced in the 2009 premiership season.

Hawthorn rushed 11 behinds in its grand final victory over Geelong, which Hawks coach Alastair Clarkson said afterwards was not a good advertisement for the game.

The league has suggested seven options, including a free kick from wherever the ball is deliberately rushed, a ball-up from a designated distance from goal, a throw-in from the behind post and a free kick from where the 50-metre arc meets the boundary line.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said many clubs had indicated deliberately rushed behinds were "killing the contest" and wanted a remedy.

"The clubs are clearly saying as well that they will deliberately rush more behinds next year," Anderson said.

According to figures released by the league, deliberately rushed behinds rose from 2.0 a game last year to 2.4 this season.

The issue came into sharp focus this year when Richmond defender Joel Bowden walked the ball back through his own goal in the dying stages of the round-16 match against Essendon. The Tigers veteran had conceded one behind only seconds earlier and was widely criticised for wasting time.

In a tight contest, Richmond retained possession of the ball and secured victory.

"They (the clubs) consider something should be done to discourage deliberately rushed behinds," Anderson said.

"There's a general acceptance that if (the practice) is taken to a higher level, which could likely happen, they're keen for us to do something about it."

Anderson said clubs were not in favour of introducing three points for a rushed behind, which has already been trialled in the NAB Cup.

Other rule changes include the removal of interchange restrictions in the NAB Cup and the provision of two substitutes — in addition to the standard six interchange players. Substituted players would not be allowed back on the ground.

The league plans to reduce the penalty for interchange infringements. The rule, introduced this season, imposes a free kick and 50-metre penalty from where play stopped or the centre circle — whichever is the greater penalty.

Other trial rules to be considered in time for the pre-season competition include:

■Awarding a free kick and 50-metre penalty for players who put down, tackle or unreasonably retard an opponent who has disposed of the ball, which prevents them for reaching the next act of play or next contest.

■Introducing a fourth field umpire to provide greater scrutiny at stoppages.

■Increasing the legal kicking distance from 15 metres to 20 metres and possibly as much as 30 metres.

■Making the goal line level with the back of padding around the goal posts.

Clubs have until Friday to make submissions on the proposed changes. The laws committee will then create a final set of proposals for the AFL Commission meeting in November or December.

[Sojourner]

Footy evolves, if sides are rushing behinds then let the opposition coach if he is any good figure out a way to deal with it.... FFS!

[Interceptor]

:roll:

Footy evolves, if sides are rushing behinds then let the opposition coach if he is any good figure out a way to deal with it.... FFS!

Exactly, in most cases the AFL are reacting to coaching tactics that are dragging the game down.

For every "supporter" like Sir Red who deserts the game at the highest level because they have a hissy fit over minor rule changes, there will be others to replace them.

[therisingblues]

:roll:

Footy evolves, if sides are rushing behinds then let the opposition coach if he is any good figure out a way to deal with it.... FFS!

Exactly, in most cases the AFL are reacting to coaching tactics that are dragging the game down.

For every "supporter" like Sir Red who deserts the game at the highest level because they have a hissy fit over minor rule changes, there will be others to replace them.

I'm not quite sure how to read this Interceptor, but it looks as though you are having a go at Sir Red for the stance he has taken over rule changes. I am inclined to back up his sentiments. How much damage can the game take? In one aspect you are correct, as there will be plenty of new people to take the places of those that are fed up with morph football, but the statement made by each individual that gives up AFL because of the constant fiddling becomes louder as more people do it. Basically we'd want everybody who loves the game to follow suit and let them play morph ball in front of half empty stands attended only by the recently converted.
Whatever my wishful thinking may dream up, in reality I applaud Sir Red for turning his back on those that have usurped footy, and are substituting their own code in its place.

[spell_check]

The easiest thing to do is scrap all of the rule changes from the last 15 years and go back to what it was in the early 90s. Except for those brought in for a personal purpose, like the larger centre circle, extra interchange player(s).

[Interceptor]

:roll:

Footy evolves, if sides are rushing behinds then let the opposition coach if he is any good figure out a way to deal with it.... FFS!

Exactly, in most cases the AFL are reacting to coaching tactics that are dragging the game down.

For every "supporter" like Sir Red who deserts the game at the highest level because they have a hissy fit over minor rule changes, there will be others to replace them.

I'm not quite sure how to read this Interceptor, but it looks as though you are having a go at Sir Red for the stance he has taken over rule changes. I am inclined to back up his sentiments. How much damage can the game take? In one aspect you are correct, as there will be plenty of new people to take the places of those that are fed up with morph football, but the statement made by each individual that gives up AFL because of the constant fiddling becomes louder as more people do it. Basically we'd want everybody who loves the game to follow suit and let them play morph ball in front of half empty stands attended only by the recently converted.
Whatever my wishful thinking may dream up, in reality I applaud Sir Red for turning his back on those that have usurped footy, and are substituting their own code in its place.

Okay let me be perfectly clear.

In my opinion, what most seem so upset about the way the game has evolved at AFL level has mostly been brought about by coaches.
Yes coaches, in reality it has little to do with tweaking of the rules.
The critics are just looking for a cop out and there they are -the big, evil monster the AFL hierarchy.
There's only occasional criticism for coaches, such as Paul Roos.

Modern coaching tactics have produced flooding, zones, over-possession, soccer/basketball style pass-backwards play, large packs, excessive tagging and an increase in rushed behinds -all in the name of winning the game.
Players haven't helped the game either with constant guernsey grabbing at nearly every contest.

Now I'm not saying the AFL has does done a perfect job.
Some changes would be better if the umpiring fraternity could get their interpretations right (50 m penalties, holding the ball and hands in the back especially).
But to say they have 'morphed' or ruined the game because of these changes I find absurd.

It's anyone choice to abandon the game at the highest level if they want to.
I'd suggest though, they have a think about where to lay the real blame.

[therisingblues]

I guess it is all subjective Interceptor. I haven't witnessed AFL since many of the recent rule changes came in, so I am not up to date with all the issues going on with that version of the game, but last time I watched footy it was a great sport and didn't need changing.
But I have other issues with the AFL, as I indicated in a couple of earlier posts on this thread, so the more people like Sir Red that give it up the better IMO. My use of the term "morph ball" is a reflection of how I understand the way the game has evolved as a whole, rather than just rule changes, but I didn't make that clear in my other post and you are probably right in what you said about that.

[Sir Red of Norwood]

:roll:

Footy evolves, if sides are rushing behinds then let the opposition coach if he is any good figure out a way to deal with it.... FFS!

Exactly, in most cases the AFL are reacting to coaching tactics that are dragging the game down.

For every "supporter" like Sir Red who deserts the game at the highest level because they have a hissy fit over minor rule changes, there will be others to replace them.

Look mate, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think I'm entitled to tell you to pull your head in.

I've been an emotional part of footy since I was 6 years old, and a financial part of footy since I became an adult and got a job, about 15 odd years now. Like art and wine, I know what I like, and the "product" that the AFL serves up does nothing but annoy me. Modern AFL bears almost no resemblance to the game I grew up watching. Same name, but the modern AFL only seems to share the name of the game I grew up with and love. This was really brought home to me when I went to the Adelaide v Carlton game on a Saturday this year, then spent the next day at Alberton for the Port v Norwood game. Adelaide won the first, Port the second, but I had more fun and enjoyed the day more at Alberton than I did at Footy Park. As a financial member, I am simply voting with my feet and money. I have written to Andrew Payze at the SANFL to tell the him what I think they are doing right and why they will now receive my membership money and patronage. Simplified, it is the tradition of the game, and the fact that SANFL is in my mind "real footy". It is my hope that the SANFL will continue to push the traditional aspect of the game and continue its movement to re-connect with the grassroots footy people, perhaps even reel in more people like myself that are disaffected with "morph ball". Sure, the waiting list at the Crows means my leaving will not really be noticed, but again, this is why I am now proud to be a Norwood member for the first time in 10 years. I imagine that if I decided to not renew my NFC membership, someone at Beulah Rd would probably give me a call and ask why. The AFC/AFL have become fat and complacent IMHO, and yes Interceptor, I think the AFL is in danger of ruining the fabric of the game.

If you think I am incapable of adapting to modern football tactics, then again you are entitled to your opinion, but my response is that I think you should know that I've been a soccer(football) fan for as long as I've been a footy fan, and in my 30 odd years of life, soccer has evolved and changed to reflect modern coaching and tactics too. The difference is that FIFA have resisted the urge to meddle with the basics of the game. In my lifetime, the only major rule change I can think of is the "backpass rule", which has opened up the game, and made goal keepers more accountable for their actions. Soccer is still soccer. I can watch the game with my Opa and Dad, and not have to explain the 'new game' to them.

In all, I am comfortable with the decision I have made. I care less and less about the AFL and more and more about the SANFL. I am happy, because to begin with I thought I was falling out of love wth footy. That weekend with Adelaide, Carlton, Port and Norwood showed me that I still love Aussie rules footy, just not the AFL tripe that is served up. As so, as therisingblues mentioned, I dont think I am the only one, merely part of a movement to 're-connect with real footy'.

Decision made, money spent/redirected, Sir Red is happy and content. You gotta love free choice!

Fortis in Procella.

[Sir Red of Norwood]

:roll:

Footy evolves, if sides are rushing behinds then let the opposition coach if he is any good figure out a way to deal with it.... FFS!

Exactly, in most cases the AFL are reacting to coaching tactics that are dragging the game down.

For every "supporter" like Sir Red who deserts the game at the highest level because they have a hissy fit over minor rule changes, there will be others to replace them.

I'm not quite sure how to read this Interceptor, but it looks as though you are having a go at Sir Red for the stance he has taken over rule changes. I am inclined to back up his sentiments. How much damage can the game take? In one aspect you are correct, as there will be plenty of new people to take the places of those that are fed up with morph football, but the statement made by each individual that gives up AFL because of the constant fiddling becomes louder as more people do it. Basically we'd want everybody who loves the game to follow suit and let them play morph ball in front of half empty stands attended only by the recently converted.
Whatever my wishful thinking may dream up, in reality I applaud Sir Red for turning his back on those that have usurped footy, and are substituting their own code in its place.

Okay let me be perfectly clear.

In my opinion, what most seem so upset about the way the game has evolved at AFL level has mostly been brought about by coaches.
Yes coaches, in reality it has little to do with tweaking of the rules.
The critics are just looking for a cop out and there they are -the big, evil monster the AFL hierarchy.
There's only occasional criticism for coaches, such as Paul Roos.

Modern coaching tactics have produced flooding, zones, over-possession, soccer/basketball style pass-backwards play, large packs, excessive tagging and an increase in rushed behinds -all in the name of winning the game.
Players haven't helped the game either with constant guernsey grabbing at nearly every contest.

Now I'm not saying the AFL has does done a perfect job.
Some changes would be better if the umpiring fraternity could get their interpretations right (50 m penalties, holding the ball and hands in the back especially).
But to say they have 'morphed' or ruined the game because of these changes I find absurd.

It's anyone choice to abandon the game at the highest level if they want to.
I'd suggest though, they have a think about where to lay the real blame.

I completely understand what you are saying, but if the coaching tactics are to blame, then why do the AFL feel the need to tinker with the rules each time a coach finds a way to push the boundaries? Each little tinker taken in isolation seems minor, but taken over a 20 year period, the camels back is well and truly broken in my mind.

eg: hands in back, chopping arms, holding the ball interpretations, interchange rules, rushed behinds, softening up of the game in general, sanitising of the match day experience....it never seems to end, and I'm well and truly over it.

I refuse to blame the umpires, they have been crap since Jebus played CHF for Jerusalem Jets. The fact that HQ seems to tell them what to focus on and crack down on makes things worse IMHO, and the fact that the focus seems to change from season to season and even from week to week at times. I think the umpires should just be allowed to get on with the (admittedly tough) job that they do with out HQ meddling in their affairs. IMO the meddling just distracts them from their work.

Just my $0.02.

[Adelaide Hawk]

In my opinion, what most seem so upset about the way the game has evolved at AFL level has mostly been brought about by coaches.
Yes coaches, in reality it has little to do with tweaking of the rules.
The critics are just looking for a cop out and there they are -the big, evil monster the AFL hierarchy.

To me, this is obvious. I made the comment that coaches were to blame for the rules of the game but was told I didn't know what I was talking about. I think it's abundantly clear, but apparently not to the masses.

Coaches are like lawyers, they spend their time making existing rules work to their advantage.

Some changes would be better if the umpiring fraternity could get their interpretations right (50 m penalties, holding the ball and hands in the back especially).
But to say they have 'morphed' or ruined the game because of these changes I find absurd.

This is where I equally lay the blame. If officials just umpired rules to the letter, rather than by "interpretation", there would be far less need for new rules.

The rule is in the book, you can't hold onto a player without the ball ... so why then is it allowed to take place? At what point in the game were full backs suddenly allowed to place a full forward in a sleeper hold ala Silvagni? At what point were ruckmen allowed to wrestle each other to the ground at each ball up? The only rule AFL umpires are consistenly hot on is 50 metre penalties for minor infringements.

Don't change the rules, just umpire the ones that are already in place.

[Psyber]

... Don't change the rules, just umpire the ones that are already in place.

YES. Spot on, AH.

[Interceptor]

Guys, having watched the game at SANFL/AFL level for 25+ years now I can appreciate the various perspectives and points of view expressed here.

I grew up with the SANFL in the early 80s and loved it as the state's dominant and vibrant competition.
The VFL was seen via a highlights package and State matches were special matches on the season's calendar.

Obviously when the VFL admitted extra teams, this all began to change and when the Crows started up, the SANFL was changed forever.
The media coverage dropped away, the standard declined and many fans stopped attending games.

I think some AFL resentment is still based on the 'demotion' the SANFL comp was forced into back then -largely via the media as their focus was Crows, Crows, Crows.
The AFL coverage continues to dominate the SANFL of course and there is more hype and exposure than ever before.

Some people simply prefer the 'tribal' nature of the SANFL versus the hyped, corporatised and sanitised AFL experience, I can understand that.
Baracking for the same side as 95% of the supporters in a stadium is indeed a (in)different experience.
I went a number of AFL games, but also continued to attend most Norwood games from 1991 through the good and bad times until I moved up here a few years ago.

Anyway I feel the AFL's underlying agenda is to make the game appealing to kids, women and new fans in general. I don't think they are too worried if they disenchant a few 'old school' followers along the way. They've clearly tried to make the game as fast as possible to make that a standout feature of the game. Then there's the Rules Committee who I assume hold full responsibility for controversial rule changes like arm chopping and hands in the back. Why did they bring them in? I can only guess that they felt that (mostly) defenders were getting way with too much and it was time to cut them down. Obviously that's a highly debatable topic, but they got their way.

Have changes like these ruined the game?
For me not much, but it's a matter of perspective.
For what it's worth, followers of Rugby League tend to complain that their code has been cleaned up and sanitised too much as well.

[Ash59]

Hi all, some interesting cooments here... my thoughts...

I don't like all the rule changes - because every rule change seems to have unintended consequences which require further rule changes. For example, draw a line across the centre circle to get ruckman running at each other; consequence an increase in knee injuries to ruckmen requiring a further rule change to limit the distance of the run-up. Teams have always conceded rushed behinds but the prevalence has only increased since the rule change which allows teams to kick in immediately. Result; further rule changes.

I don't care about comparisons between the two competitions, AFL and SANFL. What really annoys me is the AFL's attempt (promoted by lazy media) to have the "AFL" brand accepted as the name of the sport of Australian Rules Football. AFL is not a sport - its the name of a competition, as I have more than once told someone who has asked me whether they 'play AFL' in South Australia.

[Interceptor]

I don't care about comparisons between the two competitions, AFL and SANFL. What really annoys me is the AFL's attempt (promoted by lazy media) to have the "AFL" brand accepted as the name of the sport of Australian Rules Football. AFL is not a sport - its the name of a competition, as I have more than once told someone who has asked me whether they 'play AFL' in South Australia.

Yeah it's an annoyance that won't go away and will only get worse unfortunately.
When you hear ex and even current players talking that way, then you know it's momentum is growing

We can only do what you have done and educate the ignorant ones out there

[therisingblues]

I don't like all the rule changes - because every rule change seems to have unintended consequences which require further rule changes. For example, draw a line across the centre circle to get ruckman running at each other; consequence an increase in knee injuries to ruckmen requiring a further rule change to limit the distance of the run-up. Teams have always conceded rushed behinds but the prevalence has only increased since the rule change which allows teams to kick in immediately. Result; further rule changes.

This is what I have read elsewhere, but my lack of contact with AFL prevents me from speaking with confidence when the details come up. The perception I have gotten in the past from reading other people's posts is that the rule changes are what the current crop of coaches are exploiting.
Is this the truth? I have read a few comments on here by people who have seen much more of the game than me in recent times that claim the rules changes have had a minimal impact, but if the above cause and affect, as described by Ash is true, then the rule changes have much further consequences.