Bombertalk

In this era of 130+ interchanges I am increasing not enjoying the game as a spectacle. Now thats just not because our beloved Bombers are going through a bad trot, its just something that seems to have crept in over the last maybe 5 to 10 years.

At times I look at all the players around the ball and feel the game is starting to resemble rugby union rolling mauls. The replacement of players with skills by super athletes that can run at top speed in bursts has taken away the quintessential nature of our game.

I think the game needs to slowed down and it become a contest of superior overall fitness and skill execution when tired rather than 8 minute bursts of power running. Quite a few of media are talking about this issue and the question is has the way the game is played become too fast for its own good.

I'd be interested in what others think about this. I personally would like to see the following;

- Limit interchanges to a maximum of 15 per quarter
- Get rid of the being able to play on immediately from a kick in make the flags be waved
- Play on if the ball is kicked backwards and marked on the backline
- Reward the play maker as opposed to the tackler
- Revert the holding the ball interpretation to what it was say 10 years ago as opposed to nano second prior opportunity
- Get rid of this ridiculous hands in the back rule and reintroduce push in the back interpretation
- Only allow an interchange during a time off period

Also coaches - an end to this practice of interchanging the guy that has just kicked a goal - that has always irked me.

MH_Bomber wrote:In this era of 130+ interchanges I am increasing not enjoying the game as a spectacle. Now thats just not because our beloved Bombers are going through a bad trot, its just something that seems to have crept in over the last maybe 5 to 10 years.

At times I look at all the players around the ball and feel the game is starting to resemble rugby union rolling mauls. The replacement of players with skills by super athletes that can run at top speed in bursts has taken away the quintessential nature of our game.

I think the game needs to slowed down and it become a contest of superior overall fitness and skill execution when tired rather than 8 minute bursts of power running. Quite a few of media are talking about this issue and the question is has the way the game is played become too fast for its own good.

I'd be interested in what others think about this. I personally would like to see the following;

- Limit interchanges to a maximum of 15 per quarter
- Get rid of the being able to play on immediately from a kick in make the flags be waved
- Play on if the ball is kicked backwards and marked on the backline
- Reward the play maker as opposed to the tackler
- Revert the holding the ball interpretation to what it was say 10 years ago as opposed to nano second prior opportunity
- Get rid of this ridiculous hands in the back rule and reintroduce push in the back interpretation
- Only allow an interchange during a time off period

Also coaches - an end to this practice of interchanging the guy that has just kicked a goal - that has always irked me.

I like a lot of your ideas MH.

I'm not a fan of limiting the interchanges though. But that's just me. I like the idea of playing on if you kick backwards (similar to the VFL style) - but won't that qicken the game up? But I like the rest of your suggestions. A lot.

There is something retarded about the laws of the game that allows a contest like where Hooker was shoved in the back in a marking contest against Hansen (which was allowed because he used his forearms), but a free kick would have been paid if he planted his hands on his back without any force whatsoever.

You look at the guys "rotating" on and off the interchange bench and they are sprinting. No wonder they're all buggered by the end of the game.

The interchange bench is used to rest blokes who have just sprinted off the ground.

What would happen if a club had used their 15 interchanges and had an injury?

I think players should be able to hold off a player pushing back into them with their hands as long as they don't use a pushing motion.

robrulz5 wrote:I think players should be able to hold off a player pushing back into them with their hands as long as they don't use a pushing motion.

Ie. the rule should be you cannot "push in the back".

Stupid AFL thinking they're changing the rules to make it easier to umpire, but it f**** up the way the game has always been played.

j-mac31 wrote:

robrulz5 wrote:I think players should be able to hold off a player pushing back into them with their hands as long as they don't use a pushing motion.

Ie. the rule should be you cannot "push in the back".

Stupid AFL thinking they're changing the rules to make it easier to umpire, but it f**** up the way the game has always been played.

Geez...if they are making it easier to umpire, I will be stuffed if I can see how...most of the maggots didn't have a clue before all the rule changes and now they are expected to keep with the AFL's continual tinkering and general stuffing up of our great game...

The game will naturally correct itself, as it always does.

If it becomes conclusive that increased interchanges are leading to more injuries, then coaches will not have an incentive to interchange as much.

robrulz5 wrote:What would happen if a club had used their 15 interchanges and had an injury?

I think players should be able to hold off a player pushing back into them with their hands as long as they don't use a pushing motion.

Too bad. They play a man short and stick the cripple in the forward pocket. Serves them right for swinging too mny changes. Two injuries, they have two cripples in the forward line. You get my drift.

Personally I would love to see this happen and it needs to be the next big rule change IMO if I am to continue supporting the game of AFL.

Someone mentioned above that the AFL are changing the rules to make it easier to umpire but are screwing the game up. Think about this and whythjs might be the case and I think you will find it is the average footy punter who has a lot to
answer for this.

The wankers who get loaded and go to the footy and make themselves feel like big tough guys by shouting abuse at the umpires, then you have the wankers at suburban and country football or parents at underage football who physically intimidate, make threats, verbally abuse and on occasions physicLly assault the umpires becuSe they don't agree with their interpretation of the rules.

I cannot remember who said it or where but over the course of the weekend some football journalist stated that nation wide all the different leagues combined, were 19,000 umpires short. That is ridiculous. And it has to do with the ridiculous amounts of abuse umpires cop becuase the nature of the game and the fact that applying the rules involves a lot of interpretation.

So is it any wonder that the AFL as the peak body is introducing rules that limit the amount of interpretation umpires need to use. In fact as an employee you could argue that it is their responsibility under Occ Health and Saftey to provide a safe work places for their employers including umpires. I'm sure this is an area they have received far amount of legal advice in and that in at least part has driven some of the rule changes, like hands in the back and the new holding the ball interpretation.

Old mate wrote:

robrulz5 wrote:What would happen if a club had used their 15 interchanges and had an injury?

I think players should be able to hold off a player pushing back into them with their hands as long as they don't use a pushing motion.

Too bad. They play a man short and stick the cripple in the forward pocket. Serves them right for swinging too mny changes. Two injuries, they have two cripples in the forward line. You get my drift.

Personally I would love to see this happen and it needs to be the next big rule change IMO if I am to continue supporting the game of AFL.

Surely if this was to happen a duty of care would be breached.

They were talking about the interchange rules on Footy Classified and stated that at the moment a if a player comes off the field there replacement does not necessarily need to immediately come on, as long as there are 14 on the field and coaches had actually started to hold back the new players coming on until strategic times such as kick ins.

ealesy wrote:They were talking about the interchange rules on Footy Classified and stated that at the moment a if a player comes off the field there replacement does not necessarily need to immediately come on, as long as there are 14 on the field and coaches had actually started to hold back the new players coming on until strategic times such as kick ins.

And if the other team kicks a goal because of an extra man the coach looks like a dickhead. I don't think it is worth the risk.

From Adrian Anderson's comments on Offsiders last Sunday, it looks likely that the AFL will do something about the interchange rule soon, possibly even next year. Studies are showing that as the number of interchanges rises so does the injury rate and they realise they have to slow the game down a bit.

I would like to see the interchange done away with completely - once you are replaced you are off for good. Or as a compromise, you can come back on but not for, say 20 minutes. However, neither of these options will happen and they will probably just limit the number of interchanges allowed per quarter.

MH_Bomber wrote: - Limit interchanges to a maximum of 15 per quarter

3 Per player, per quarter is my call. Third one off = no more replacement. Little rest and positional changes as required.

Easily recognisable via scoreboard (such as basketball).

Much like NRL after Storms progressed in late 90's with rotations of front row off bench to win the flag.