SA Footy

I think its time for the AFL to overhaul the current set of rules in the game, or at least change the intricacies of these rules. The game has become so sanitised and soft that i only bother watching AFL if my team is playing.
With the current set of rules you leave players such as Johnathan Brown and Byron Pickett somewhat "unplayable" due to their likelihood of being reported. These guys are two of the most exciting footballers to watch!
And don't get me started on this new "hands in the back" rule- what an absolute joke. With the full forward nearly already an extinct breed this new rule will see genuine full forwards wiped out within 2-3yrs.

There's nothing wrong with the actual rules and laws of the game, it's just the way they are interpreted that's the problem. Do away with interpretations and just umpire the rules, and the game would be easier to watch.

I would have thought the hands in the back rule would benefit the FF as much as it would hinder him?

I agree with what you're saying there AH, 90% at least .. That said there are some stupid rules (Ruck rule) and rules that should never have been brought in and have achieved nothing (15m min kick distance) IMHO - Unfortunately this has lead to the AFL continually introducing new rules to address the loopholes coaches have found to get around the last lot that have been introduced.

The AFL Rules committee need to learn to think laterally when considering a new decision, ie, not just for how they see it bettering the game (to their own ideals anyway), but also how it can expose the game because you can be sure the coaches will work it out in 5 mins.

Along the lines of what 'Hawk said - a 'push in the back' rule already exists so the umpires should just enforce that literally.

If a hand in the back becomes an actual PUSH in the back then give a free kick. If it's not a PUSH then it should be 'play on'.

This rule is going to lead to a multitude of ticky touchwood game-turning free kicks in front of goal.

Exactly Wozfalcon. Most of the rules that are bring introduced this year were already there, it was just the interpretation. How many times do you see a player on the ground get dived on? Technically, this is in the back. Kicking in danger has become extinct as has shepharding off the ball.

..

The game has been evolving ever since it began so I think this debate is often a lot of hot air fuelled by generalisation and change-prejudice. The fundamentals of the game have never changed - kick, handball, mark, goal, point ... if the game had changed as much as some supporters would have us believe, a game from the 60s would be unrecognisable to the modern audience. Yet we can still watch and understand the black and white era games.

The AFL doesn't change rules just for the sake of it. What happens over time is that the Coaches change their game plans and playing styles to make full use of the rules to achieve the ultimate short term goal - winning. Unfortunately some of the Coaches' tactics achieve their desired result to the detriment of the overall spectacle. Does any supporter like the flooding tactics which have evolved since players became fitter and the bench expanded to 4 players? With continued improvements in fitness, we will soon see a game where the entire 36 players follow the ball to each end of the ground. I hear many complaints about this modern trend, and yet many of those same people will cry "leave the game alone" when the AFL eventually does something about it.

As for the Byron Pickett-style/80s retro tough stuff, I don't miss it at all. Despite it's absence, I bet any modern player would take issue if you said to him that the game is 'soft'. You don't need a shirt-front to make it a tough, physical game. Those guys are going in harder and faster today than ever before.

hondo71 wrote:The AFL doesn't change rules just for the sake of it.

That is a debatable comment. The Rules committee has to justify it's existence and does so on a regular basis. The twenty metre rule is a debacle for a start, it just encourages even more handball...surely someone in that committee should have realised that this might happen and actually say something about it.

regards,

REB

..

I'd suggest the rules committee knew the 20m rule would introduce more handball - that would have been what they were looking for to keep the game moving, particularly in the last 5 minutes of a game when the chipping around destroys the spectacle of a close finish.

The NAB cup is the perfect opportunity to trial rule changes like the 20m pass because they need to be tested in game conditions. Some stay, most don't. I am not saying the 20m rule is the answer - but the end of game defensive chipping and the flooding of the opposition forward line with defenders are far more detrimental to the spectacle then the absence of blind-siding shirt fronts, in my opinion.

..

..

I was hoping the article would speak for itself as it covered all the points I wanted to make. However, instead of offering any more insight or comment you dismiss me as a "scaremonger". So I can't tell if you read the article or just the headline. Far from being "ordinary", the Sachse incident is described as neither "intentional" or "reckless". Just, as you say, an unfortunate accident.

None of Neil, the AFL, Kevin O'Keefe (who hit Sachse), the AFL, David Parkin, Peter Schwab or I are "scaremongering". The point being made is that players today are stronger, faster and bigger than 30 years ago and the risk of another incident like the Sachse is very high. There is a potentially very high price to be paid for incidents that some supporters find exciting

You place Stan Magro in legend status for knocking Jezza unconsious - do you place Kevin O'Keefe on the same perch? If Jezza had suffered more serious injury when he was such a popular player, Stan Magro would have been the AFL biggest villian of all time.

I am not saying that all physical contact needs to disappear, just contact to the head. Accidents do happen but the AFL has made huge inroads into changing the culture of the game so that players do not make a consious decision to 'shirt-front' someone as they did 10-20 years ago, and earlier. I don't know about you, but I don't want to see someone permanently disabled nor have someone else suffer from the public ridicule and derision from being the guy that inflicted the damage. It would finish two AFL careers and have a huge impact on the game in to the future.

As I challenged you before, the AFL is tougher and more physical than it has ever been and it should retain it's 'contact sport' roots. But for the sake of safety, I am happy to let the head high contact go and still enjoy watching the game.

Go hire a DVD of the 'Electrifying 80s' if you need your fix. Otherwise, build a bridge because the shirt-front has gone the same way as the mullet. Difference being that the mullet may make a return one day.

..

PhilG wrote:A true shirtfront does NOT involve head high contact. What knocked Jezza out was the impact. But because it was perfect there was no harm done. But head high contact and shirtfronts have nothing to do with each other.

Oh my god ..... you are in a world of your own. The world lounge-room TV fantasy where there is such a thing as a "perfect" shirt front. In this world created by PhilG, there is also the perfect car accident - one where the car flips beautifully 3 times, ends up right way up, the driver gets out and lights a cigarette and picks up the girl watching from the other side of the road marvelling at his driving skill and toughness. No-one ever gets hurt in your world, men are men, boys are boys, the hero always gets up, everything works out.

Now, tell me how you allow players to go for shirt-fronts while at the same time trying to protect the other players from serious injury. Any chance some of your "perfect" shirt fronts might miss a fraction and hit the neck or head ..... I guess not in that fantasy world ... but how about the real one?

I noticed you still described O'Keefe's hit as a shirtfront ...... pity for Neil it wasn't a 'perfect' one.

hondo71 wrote:

PhilG wrote:A true shirtfront does NOT involve head high contact. What knocked Jezza out was the impact. But because it was perfect there was no harm done. But head high contact and shirtfronts have nothing to do with each other.

Oh my god ..... you are in a world of your own. The world lounge-room TV fantasy where there is such a thing as a "perfect" shirt front. In this world created by PhilG, there is also the perfect car accident - one where the car flips beautifully 3 times, ends up right way up, the driver gets out and lights a cigarette and picks up the girl watching from the other side of the road marvelling at his driving skill and toughness. No-one ever gets hurt in your world, men are men, boys are boys, the hero always gets up, everything works out.

Now, tell me how you allow players to go for shirt-fronts while at the same time trying to protect the other players from serious injury. Any chance some of your "perfect" shirt fronts might miss a fraction and hit the neck or head ..... I guess not in that fantasy world ... but how about the real one?

I noticed you still described O'Keefe's hit as a shirtfront ...... pity for Neil it wasn't a 'perfect' one.

I hear what you're saying hondo71, this is a topic I've been concerned about for years. There seems to be this "macho bullshit" attitude that there is nothing wrong with bumps that render players unconcious or injured, and the frightening part is the attitude is also prevalent among some of the people who govern our game.

The idea of the bump was to knock a player off the ball. It was supposed to be delivered by a player with both feet on the ground, and making contact with the opponent's side, thus avoiding head contact and injury. The pace of the game means that players no longer have the time to anticipate, nor deliver the perfect bump. The fact we haven't seen players injured like Neil Sachse comes more from good fortune than good management. We have to get it through players' (and administrators) heads that they have a duty of care to other people.

We need to ask if the bump is relevant in today's football. I fail to see how a "perfect" bump can render a player unconscious. I was annoyed when people were saying there was nothing wrong with Giansiracusa's hit on Koschitzke last season. Koschitzke was running along watching the ball, and Giansiracusa picked him off, causing facial injuries. Once again the "macho bullshit" attitude was that Koschitzke should have been protecting himself better. My question is why a player needs to be protecting himself when he wasn't in the play and would never have been expecting to be hit.

..

PhilG, you have repeated the same thing about 4 times. You keep trying to explain to me that a ‘true shirt-front’ is not the same as head high contact – I agreed with you the first time.

My point, as clear as I can make it, is that if you allow players to go for the ‘perfect shirtfront’, it is fantasy to think that every attempt will come off ‘perfectly’. Instead, some shirt-fronts will miss the perfect spot, and then the other player will be exposed to the risk of hard, head high contact in a game that is faster & harder (with bigger bodies) than 20 years ago. This risk of serious injury, in my opinion, is not worth the ‘entertainment’ value it provides some people.

As for the football laws you quoted, I think you should have included discussion about the rules on ‘charging’ (section 15.4 I think). But I think we have done this issue to death and will have to agree to disagree on this aspect of the game that is now part of history and will never come back, regardless of which one of us is right. No disrespect was intended to your experience and knowledge of the game - just to your opinion on this issue.