SA Footy

bennymacca wrote:

MJ_23 wrote:My idea is to stop the analysis

Two things have led to a decrease in the quality of the game

1. Addition of 2 extra teams has diluted the talent pool. This is obvious and should have been expected but we dont really talk about it. Another 5 years and this wont be an issue

2. Time taken to make an umpiring decision. In the quest to create a free flowing continual motion game, the umpires decided to give players longer to dispose of the ball, which, whilst reducing ballups, created a huge congestion issue.

If they went back to being quick and decisive with their decisions, the congestion wouldnt have time to form and the game would flow freely. A prime example of this is the holding the ball rule. The umpires hatch a bloody egg every time they make a decision, just give the free and move on.

Similarly for incorrect disposal, which seems to have disappeared as a free kick, but also allows rolling mauls to form.

Don't blame the umpires, blame those that set their agenda. They've all got someone to answer to as with most positions in any business, if they're not doing their job they'll cop a whack, but it doesn't seem to happen too often. Probably because the game is near impossible to umpire to the level they're instructed.

It pains me to say this, but I agree with Bennys no.2 point.

If they paid holding the balls (the ones that should be paid, but aren't anymore) players will have to vacate the immediate area so the player can take his kick. Letting him hold onto it, then call a ball up just causes everyone to congregate in same area, and most ball ups result in another stoppage immediately after.

Pay the frees that are there, and the game will flow. They don't call them either way. They let the player being tackled drop the ball. Once the ball hits the ground, of course everyone's gonna jump on it if they haven't heard a whistle.

JK wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

MJ_23 wrote:My idea is to stop the analysis

Two things have led to a decrease in the quality of the game

1. Addition of 2 extra teams has diluted the talent pool. This is obvious and should have been expected but we dont really talk about it. Another 5 years and this wont be an issue

2. Time taken to make an umpiring decision. In the quest to create a free flowing continual motion game, the umpires decided to give players longer to dispose of the ball, which, whilst reducing ballups, created a huge congestion issue.

If they went back to being quick and decisive with their decisions, the congestion wouldnt have time to form and the game would flow freely. A prime example of this is the holding the ball rule. The umpires hatch a bloody egg every time they make a decision, just give the free and move on.

Similarly for incorrect disposal, which seems to have disappeared as a free kick, but also allows rolling mauls to form.

Don't blame the umpires, blame those that set their agenda. They've all got someone to answer to as with most positions in any business, if they're not doing their job they'll cop a whack, but it doesn't seem to happen too often. Probably because the game is near impossible to umpire to the level they're instructed.

Oh I'm not blaming the umpires, it is their instruction

HH3 wrote:It pains me to say this, but I agree with Bennys no.2 point.

If they paid holding the balls (the ones that should be paid, but aren't anymore) players will have to vacate the immediate area so the player can take his kick. Letting him hold onto it, then call a ball up just causes everyone to congregate in same area, and most ball ups result in another stoppage immediately after.

Pay the frees that are there, and the game will flow. They don't call them either way. They let the player being tackled drop the ball. Once the ball hits the ground, of course everyone's gonna jump on it if they haven't heard a whistle.

Boundary umpires and field umpires also contribute to congestion with the throw ins and bounce ups. They continually look over their shoulders and wait for people to get to the impact zone. Don't wait for the players and they will learn pretty quick. It will probably lead to less off the ball free kicks.

Hey, good bloody idea Dogmatic!
If someone's gone for the safety of the line, the boundary umpire should just throw it back in straight away. If one team is under represented at the ball in it is probably the reason why they put the ball out of bounds in the first place. This would make players think twice about allowing the ball to go out if they understand that the pill will be automatically hurled straight back and their ruckman is no where in sight. Rewards the team with better structure and would make the game more free flowing.

bennymacca wrote:

JK wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

MJ_23 wrote:My idea is to stop the analysis

Two things have led to a decrease in the quality of the game

1. Addition of 2 extra teams has diluted the talent pool. This is obvious and should have been expected but we dont really talk about it. Another 5 years and this wont be an issue

2. Time taken to make an umpiring decision. In the quest to create a free flowing continual motion game, the umpires decided to give players longer to dispose of the ball, which, whilst reducing ballups, created a huge congestion issue.

If they went back to being quick and decisive with their decisions, the congestion wouldnt have time to form and the game would flow freely. A prime example of this is the holding the ball rule. The umpires hatch a bloody egg every time they make a decision, just give the free and move on.

Similarly for incorrect disposal, which seems to have disappeared as a free kick, but also allows rolling mauls to form.

Don't blame the umpires, blame those that set their agenda. They've all got someone to answer to as with most positions in any business, if they're not doing their job they'll cop a whack, but it doesn't seem to happen too often. Probably because the game is near impossible to umpire to the level they're instructed.

Oh I'm not blaming the umpires, it is their instruction

Completely agree with you then

If there was one rule I would support, making it last touched over the line gives away possession wouldn't be too bad. Would stop a lot of the boundary line then reset tactics too

Although I'm not certain the dilution won't still have a detrimental impact on the standard. Mike Sheehan said the other week he reckons 12 teams, he believes, would be the ideal number. Obviously that won't ever be the case but it's an interesting thought about how good the teams would look.

JK wrote:Although I'm not certain the dilution won't still have a detrimental impact on the standard. Mike Sheehan said the other week he reckons 12 teams, he believes, would be the ideal number. Obviously that won't ever be the case but it's an interesting thought about how good the teams would look.

The standard of footy would be pretty awesome, but I'm not convinced it would make the game as a whole better off.

Funny how we all hate the continual rule changes/reinterpretations but have plenty of suggestions for both.

All they have to do is enforce the rules we've gone by for the last 50 years and the game will flow.

They think paying a free slows down the game, but really the only person that stops is the player with the ball. Everyone else is on the move creating options.

Its alright they are killing it, The AFL said that the tribunal got the Cooney suspension wrong and he should have got more, but they can not appeal it because of their rules. (Can only appeal if they think suspension is too heavy)

Hey you change all the other rules weekly, why is this any different.

Absolute shambles

Agree with some points. Takes far too long now to call a ball up. Call it, get in and toss it up and it will stop some injuries too. Combine this with calling incorrect disposal correctly, rewarding the bloke first to the footy and paying the obvious free's consistently. If that doesn't work then look at other options.

Still think 1 rule that should be bought in immediately is that you can play on at any stage if you have been awarded a 50 metre penalty and are in transition to the new mark.

For me, the abuse of interchange is what's spoiling footy.

I think the game will be improved dramatically if interchange was reigned in by these means:

- Interchanges can only be made when a goal is scored. The goalscoring team can make up to two, the non-scoring side just 1.
- If a player comes off he can't go back on again in the same quarter.
- Changes unlimited at quarter-time and half time breaks.
- The only other acceptable changes would be when a bloke comes off injured on the stretcher or is ordered off by the umpire through the 'blood rule'. At those times it's just a one for one replacement. If a guy comes off through the 'blood rule' after a goal is scored the same team limits apply.
- A bloke who came off via the blood rule can be swapped back on at any time.
- A guy stretchered off is off for the rest of the game.
- If a side takes a bloke off at any other time or for any other reason that's fine but you can't replace him. You have to play a man short for the rest of the quarter.

westozfalcon wrote:For me, the abuse of interchange is what's spoiling footy.

I think the game will be improved dramatically if interchange was reigned in by these means:

- Interchanges can only be made when a goal is scored. The goalscoring team can make up to two, the non-scoring side just 1.
- If a player comes off he can't go back on again in the same quarter.
- Changes unlimited at quarter-time and half time breaks.
- The only other acceptable changes would be when a bloke comes off injured on the stretcher or is ordered off by the umpire through the 'blood rule'. At those times it's just a one for one replacement. If a guy comes off through the 'blood rule' after a goal is scored the same team limits apply.
- A bloke who came off via the blood rule can be swapped back on at any time.
- A guy stretchered off is off for the rest of the game.

So you can only have 4 changes a quarter per team?

That wouldn't work. Everyone will be laying on the ball just to get a rest.

HH3 wrote:

westozfalcon wrote:For me, the abuse of interchange is what's spoiling footy.

I think the game will be improved dramatically if interchange was reigned in by these means:

- Interchanges can only be made when a goal is scored. The goalscoring team can make up to two, the non-scoring side just 1.
- If a player comes off he can't go back on again in the same quarter.
- Changes unlimited at quarter-time and half time breaks.
- The only other acceptable changes would be when a bloke comes off injured on the stretcher or is ordered off by the umpire through the 'blood rule'. At those times it's just a one for one replacement. If a guy comes off through the 'blood rule' after a goal is scored the same team limits apply.
- A bloke who came off via the blood rule can be swapped back on at any time.
- A guy stretchered off is off for the rest of the game.

So you can only have 4 changes a quarter per team?

That wouldn't work. Everyone will be laying on the ball just to get a rest.

oops I forgot to say extend the interchange bench to six.

Even so, I don't like that idea. Limiting the interchange has merit, I have talked in another thread about maybe allowing interchanges after either a goal or a forward 50 mark, but I don't think additional restrictions would help

LaughingKookaburra wrote:
Still think 1 rule that should be bought in immediately is that you can play on at any stage if you have been awarded a 50 metre penalty and are in transition to the new mark.

Same here. Hate it when a player receives a 50m and tries to run to the new mark quickly but is slowed down by the ump because his opponent isn't moving back with the same intent.

JK wrote:Although I'm not certain the dilution won't still have a detrimental impact on the standard. Mike Sheehan said the other week he reckons 12 teams, he believes, would be the ideal number. Obviously that won't ever be the case but it's an interesting thought about how good the teams would look.

Back in the 80's we had 30 teams playing top shelf footy in the SANFL, WAFL and VFL. T
In the early 80's the wealth of talent available in Tasmania was largely untapped,and participation rates in Queensland and NSW were much lower than today. Obviously those 3 leagues drew on a much smaller pool of players than today.
So why is it no one complained about the standard when we had 30 teams and less players to choose from, yet I am reading about this line of thinking now that we have only 18 teams and participation levels at an all time high Australia wide?

I would say there are players playing state leagues that are better than most GC, and other lower clubs players, but they were drafted by a better team, and have to play lower levels of footy, while less talented players who are at lesser clubs are playing AFL.