SA Footy

AFL Chief Operating Officer Gillon McLachlan today said the AFL was finalising its schedule of venues for matches in the 2009 NAB Challenge, with an emphasis on regional locations that don't normally host elite AFL football.

The NAB Cup fixture was released in October and Mr McLachlan said the AFL had been planning a draft schedule for matches in the NAB Challenge, once teams were eliminated from the NAB Cup, to give all clubs the best possible preparation in terms of understanding potential travel requirements.

As part of the joint commitment with NAB to take matches to venues that don't normally host regular AFL football, Mr McLachlan said games would be played in Alice Springs (NT), Berri (SA), Bunbury (WA), Cairns (Qld), the Gold Coast (Qld), Manuka Oval (ACT), Morwell (Vic) and Shepparton (Vic), as well as Casey Fields in outer suburban Melbourne as the competition progressed.

"The AFL will program NAB Challenge matches across Australia, as part of our on-going work to expand our game," Mr McLachlan said.

"In our traditional football base, the NAB Challenge matches in regional SA, regional WA and regional Victoria will continue to be shared around different parts of each state to give the competition the widest exposure from year to year."

Mr McLachlan said games would also be played in Manuka, Alice Springs and Cairns, with the remaining matches to be scheduled to traditional AFL venues depending on which sides were eliminated from the NAB Cup.

"The AFL has already determined which clubs will be programmed into which NAB Challenge venues in week one, after they are eliminated from the NAB Cup, so that all teams can prepare their likely training and travel schedule in advance," he said.

Mr McLachlan said the AFL was extremely appreciative of the support of NAB and of the respective state and regional leagues around the country in confirming venues for NAB Challenge matches, and the amount of preparation that had gone into arranging venues.

The indicative NAB Challenge fixture is as follows:
WEEK 1 – February 27-28 2009
Friday 4.30pm Visy Park Bris/StK vs WB/Ess
Friday 7.00pm Alice Springs Geel/Adel vs Coll/WCE
Saturday 1.00pm Manuka Oval Carl/Nth vs Frem/Rich
Saturday TBC AAMI Stadium/Visy Park Haw/Melb vs Syd/Port

WEEK 2 – March 6-7 2009
Friday - Matches to be played in Cairns, Shepparton
Saturday - Match to be played in Berri.
Dates to be confirmed - Matches at three other venue locations.

WEEK 3 – March 13-14 2009
Saturday - Matches to be played at Gold Coast, Bunbury, Morwell, Casey Fields.
Dates to be confirmed - Matches at three other venue locations.

The sooner we piss off the NAB with it's bull5hit rules and bring in a fair 30 round draw the better. Andy D is a farquit.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:The sooner we piss off the NAB with it's bull5hit rules and bring in a fair 30 round draw the better. Andy D is a farquit.

regards,

REB

Someone's not happy.

This then from the Laws of the Game release yesterday:
"Feedback from the clubs and coaches indicated they would like to see the rules of the NAB Cup brought more in line with the rules of the Toyota AFL Premiership Season to assist with player preparation.
In light of this feedback, Mr Anderson said the following alterations had been made to the rules that were part of the 2008 NAB Cup:
a) Interchange system - remove the restriction on the number of interchanges permitted that was used in the 2008 NAB Cup and introduce a system of two substitute players in addition to six standard interchange players;
b) Remove the rule allowing play on when ball hits goal or behind post; and
c) Remove the ball being thrown back into play 10m in from boundary line.

The rules used in the 2008 NAB Cup to be retained for the 2009 NAB Cup are;

a) No marks for backward kicks in the defensive half of the ground;
b) Nine points for a goal from outside 50m;
c) Ball to be thrown up around the ground; and
d) Distance for a kick to be awarded a mark retained at 20m.

Well waddya reckon Rog? You're a pretty cluey bloke here's something else that's pretty cluey LEAVE THE GAME ALONE.

Imagine bringing in a rushed behind rule just because of what happened in the Grand Final and in one or two matches out of what, four hundred games or something? We need some brains in AFL House mate, get yourself down there and fill out a job application form for the good of the city.

regards,

REB

rogernumber10 wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:The sooner we piss off the NAB with it's bull5hit rules and bring in a fair 30 round draw the better. Andy D is a farquit.

regards,

REB

Someone's not happy.

This then from the Laws of the Game release yesterday:
"Feedback from the clubs and coaches indicated they would like to see the rules of the NAB Cup brought more in line with the rules of the Toyota AFL Premiership Season to assist with player preparation.


Mr Anderson

Correct me if I am wrong,but could this be read as "play the NAB Cup like we do the season proper and get rid of all these stupid friggin rules that will never have a bearing on the real season" ?

I think it does.

People should only be reffered to as "Mr" if they have done something to earn your respect.

Correct Booney...hell it's a wonder some clubs don't take it seriously so they can play the Challenge games under the proper rules....

Rik E Boy wrote:Well waddya reckon Rog? You're a pretty cluey bloke here's something else that's pretty cluey LEAVE THE GAME ALONE.

Imagine bringing in a rushed behind rule just because of what happened in the Grand Final and in one or two matches out of what, four hundred games or something? We need some brains in AFL House mate, get yourself down there and fill out a job application form for the good of the city.

regards,

REB

I guess if they left the game like it was in 2002, it would be a pretty poor spectacle still.

The best way of leaving the game alone is probably asking the coaches to stop bending / breaking rules in a bid to win, and forcing things into the game that nobody likes to see, such as that developing tactic of pulling down a very good runner in the contest, giving away a free, so that he can't run on down the ground.

That argument is fundamentally flawed Rog.

If 'the game' is going to adopt new rules every time a coach,club or player develops a tactic to give him an advantage then the game is screwed.

Half forward runs up the ground and doubles back towards goal,bring in the off side rule?

Buddy Franklin jumps to high for a FB to compete against him,must have feet on the ground while marking?


With all tactics,like flooding,opposition coaches will develop a tactic to counter the advantage the team introducing the 'new' tactic has had.I argue its up to the coaches and players to change the game,not the administrators.Just like Richmond administrators have done with the Cousins case its about time the administrators listened to the fans.

Now you will counter that with crowd figures and membership numbers,but you know what,people like me continue to go to games because we love our club,our jumper and our players.The same admiration for the 'game' is slipping.Joe Average will tell you that.

Booney wrote:That argument is fundamentally flawed Rog.

If 'the game' is going to adopt new rules every time a coach,club or player develops a tactic to give him an advantage then the game is screwed.

Half forward runs up the ground and doubles back towards goal,bring in the off side rule?

Buddy Franklin jumps to high for a FB to compete against him,must have feet on the ground while marking?


With all tactics,like flooding,opposition coaches will develop a tactic to counter the advantage the team introducing the 'new' tactic has had.I argue its up to the coaches and players to change the game,not the administrators.Just like Richmond administrators have done with the Cousins case its about time the administrators listened to the fans.

Now you will counter that with crowd figures and membership numbers,but you know what,people like me continue to go to games because we love our club,our jumper and our players.The same admiration for the 'game' is slipping.Joe Average will tell you that.

Not every time a club does something new, but on the major ones that are having a serious detrimental impact.
In terms of flooding, you tell me what impact these things have had in the last five years;
- asking the boundary umpires to throw the ball in quicker when it's out of bounds
- asking the field umpires to bounce it quicker when there is a bounce called
- paying a free kick against a bloke who is not getting the ball out, so there is not a secondary or tertiary bounce
- paying a free kick against a bloke who kicks it out of bounds in the hope of forcing a throw-in, rather than kicking to a contest
- allowing a team to bring the ball back in if you have the ball
- making a player kick the ball around the ground from within 4-7 seconds, so less time to spot up marks or for the opposition to flood back
- making a player kick for goal within 30 seconds so that we don't wait forever for a scoring shot, and again allow everyone to flood back

None of those things are actual rule changes, but all those interpretations have actually made the game move so there is more time actually playing, and less time watching umpires gather balls for bounces, gather balls for throw-ins, watch players line up for kicks, or wait for the ball to actually do something.
A couple of clubs have realised that if you move the ball quickly, the opposition won't be in your backline and they've won flags by having the best skills.
I'm happy if you disagree but I think there does need to be intervention, or we would still be watching guys boot the ball out on the full from the back pocket, like they did in the 50s.

There in lies the problem IMO Rog,they are not rule changes but 'interpretations',therefore each umpire has a different (even if only slighty) view on each contest making the game infuriatingly frustrating for the spectators who dont know what will get paid from one end of the ground to the other.

I will respond to each dot point shortly when I have more time.

Booney I am on Rog's side

Rule or interpretation changes have been happening since day dot. You can't draw a line in the sand and say "that's it, no more" when the game is continuously evolving in terms of the way it's played (coming from the coaches and players). Evolution is a must. As Rog says, imagine if the game was still the slow, kick & mark product of the 50s?

Yet, as it's gone on, the game's got more popular. IMO the purists are a vocal minority who think they speak for everyone and that their criticism reflects some massive, looming supporter-walk out. They usually reflect back on nostalgic memories of footy as they knew it in their teenage years.

But the majority just get on with it and front up year after year and love it just as much as they always did. For every person that rings up 5AA, or posts on here, with threats of not watching anymore - what % actually follow through? Very few.

If you want to issue a "no more changes" rule - send it to AFL House AND the Coaches!