Boring

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Whitefox
An interesting read here

I read this yesterday and thought it was a good article.

Some changes I would consider making:

- kick needs to travel 20m distance for a mark
- backwards kicks outside F50 do not count as marks
- team has [say] 30 seconds to clear their D50 after a kick out (no need to wait for umpires to wave flags either)
- team has [say] 90 seconds to get the ball inside their F50 after taking possession
- goals kicked outside the 50m arc count as 2 goals
- players are not allowed inside centre square after a bounce until the ball is cleared from the square
- umpires move in a few metres from the boundary line during throw ins

[ScottH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I watched the Essendon v. Carlton game and it as much much more entertaining than ours. Wasn't great football, but at least it resembled football with the ball moving long and going from one end to the other and goals being kicked.

We are now reaching the point where the majority of our game is a demonstration of some of the worst football I have seen. It is horrendously dull.

Well I watched the Pies v Crows this arvo, now that was boring. They didn't score for about 20 mins, not even a point. (Glad the crows won tho' hehe).

I only saw the 3rd qtr of Friday's game, and it was entertaining, unfortunately I figured the game was over, so I didn't stay up to watch the last qtr, (damn).

[swansrule100]

this might be rubbish, but i think half our players seem scared to have the ball.


Mcveigh and buchanan are two off the top of my head, they got the ball a bit against the kangas but seem very very keen not to have it and look to dish off to quickly. I think there are some players scared to make mistakes and they end up making more and then the game plan is a bunch of boring little kicks and handballs!

[swan_song]

Having been a Swans member since returning to Oz from o/s in 87, I too, am disillusiuoned with the way we are playing at the moment, and maybe not just us, but other games as well. I watch every game played, thanks to Fox Footy, each week, and it's sad to say that stoppages and players piling on the ball in increasing numbers IS making footy BORING to watch. I was absolutely disgusted with our performance yesterday...it's one of my pet concerns that, seemingly increasingly, the Swans can go for whole quarters, even halves, without scoring a goal!!! Last quarter fadeouts like yesterday are a real concern (like the prelim final against Brizzie). We don't seem to have any plan B, C or D, if things arent going right. On watching the replay, I actually don't think that as boring and as frustrating as it was on TV that it compared with the utter hair-tearing angst of being in Canberra. And ROosie always looks so cool...why doesn't he get fired up....If I were coach Id have given them, with a couple of exceptions (great game from B2), the biggest bollocking of all time.... What happened to the free-running Swannies of 2003...?

[Dpw]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I read this yesterday and thought it was a good article.

Some changes I would consider making:

- kick needs to travel 20m distance for a mark
- backwards kicks outside F50 do not count as marks
- team has [say] 30 seconds to clear their D50 after a kick out (no need to wait for umpires to wave flags either)
- team has [say] 90 seconds to get the ball inside their F50 after taking possession
- goals kicked outside the 50m arc count as 2 goals
- players are not allowed inside centre square after a bounce until the ball is cleared from the square
- umpires move in a few metres from the boundary line during throw ins

but it wouldn't be footy, what would u call the new game of yours?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Dpw
but it wouldn't be footy, what would u call the new game of yours?

It would still be footy. The rules change over time.

Would you still call it footy if you had a diamond instead of a square, there were only 19 players and no interchange, there were 15m penalties instead of 50m penalties, there was no advantage rule, there was just one field umpire, you could only run 10m with the ball, you can handball the ball without punching it (flick pass), you didn't have to return the ball after a free kick, if the ball went out on the full it was just a throw in, a late tackle did not result in a free downfield, a player could bounce the ball before being tackled and if grabbed it was holding the man, etc etc...

Would these things also mean it wasn't footy and hence the Swans have never won a footy flag?

[swansrule100]

NMW is this the article by Healy in the saturday herald??

[NMWBloods]

Yep.

[swansrule100]

interesting, because last week he talked about how many times his article has predicted changes successfully.

[chammond]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I read this yesterday and thought it was a good article.

Some changes I would consider making:

- kick needs to travel 20m distance for a mark
- backwards kicks outside F50 do not count as marks
- team has [say] 30 seconds to clear their D50 after a kick out (no need to wait for umpires to wave flags either)
- team has [say] 90 seconds to get the ball inside their F50 after taking possession
- goals kicked outside the 50m arc count as 2 goals
- players are not allowed inside centre square after a bounce until the ball is cleared from the square
- umpires move in a few metres from the boundary line during throw ins

I certainly favour increasing the kicking distance for a mark . . . 30 m at least . . . a 15 m stab pass to an uncontested mark shouldn't be rewarded . . . just play-on.

I like the idea of forcing kick-ins to go outside the 50m arc, and no marks for backward kicks into the defensive 50m (or even the defensive half?).

Those 3 changes on their own would be easy to implement, easy to understand, and would have an immediate impact on the way the game is played.

I'd agree with anything that would get the ball cleared quickly from centre-bounces. And your throw-in suggestion seems so obvious that it's almost weird that the AFL hasn't done it already.

I'm not sure about the timing suggestions. They tend to encourage continuous end-to-end play, which can be just as boring (like basketball )

[sharp9]

Originally posted by swansrule100
this might be rubbish, but i think half our players seem scared to have the ball.


Mcveigh and buchanan are two off the top of my head, they got the ball a bit against the kangas but seem very very keen not to have it and look to dish off to quickly. I think there are some players scared to make mistakes and they end up making more and then the game plan is a bunch of boring little kicks and handballs!

Well for one thing they don't make nearly as many mistakes as others...and for another the very bloody thing you want in congestion is to dish it off quickly, which Bucky does to very good effect. You have picked on possibly the two players with the least reason to be criticised in the whole on ball army of 12.

McVeigh is not given enough game time to get comfortable.

[ROK Lobster]

Back to Boring. I was just listening to the regular Monday morning analysis of the weekend's sport on the local (Canberra) ABC radio. The consensus was that Saturday's game was BORING, the AFL is dying a slow death and that some people would not be keen to go and watch the Swans again, but are looking forward to Melb and Port playing the Roos here later in the season. This is something of a reversal. On Friday and Saturday morning I heard a couple of times on the radio that the 'Swans' were rolling into town for their annual Canberra match, without much reference to the Roos at all.

At the ground the local support seemed pretty evenly spread. I wonder how many new fans the Swans attracted down here on Saturday.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by sharp9
McVeigh is not given enough game time to get comfortable.

Not according to this article.
More time for McVeigh

"I got a lot more game time; it was really good with (captain) Stuey Maxfield coming off about the ten minute mark I got more game time which was good for my confidence."

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by chammond
I certainly favour increasing the kicking distance for a mark . . . 30 m at least . . . a 15 m stab pass to an uncontested mark shouldn't be rewarded . . . just play-on.

I think 30m is a bit too much.

I like the idea of forcing kick-ins to go outside the 50m arc, and no marks for backward kicks into the defensive 50m (or even the defensive half?).

It may be too easy to guard a kick out that must go outside 50m. This is why a time limit might work better.

I'd agree with anything that would get the ball cleared quickly from centre-bounces. And your throw-in suggestion seems so obvious that it's almost weird that the AFL hasn't done it already.

This is what they do in the WizCup and it seemed to work well.

I'm not sure about the timing suggestions. They tend to encourage continuous end-to-end play, which can be just as boring (like basketball )

Continuous end-to-end play is exciting. Of course, you don't make the timing so tight that the players are too rushed, however you make it such that the players can't take too much time. Quality basketball is exciting because each team is constantly looking to score. The same thing should be the case in football.

As I mentioned, I watched the Car v. Ess game 9second half only) and it was a really enjoyable game to watch. A lot of end-to-end football, tough contests, plenty of goals, not too many scrimmages and a lot of open play.

The above rules would not have affected this game significantly IMHO, however it would have a major impact on our style of game. This is a good thing!

[sharpie]

I dont like the idea of timing at all.

End-to-end basketball style is not exciting to everyone. I personally am not such a bball fan, as the attacking team simply runs the ball to their 3 point line with little obstruction, then stand there and look for a free player near the basket (this is highly simplified obviosuly).

An AFL equivalent would be pretty sad, completely removing the importance of all the space between the 2 50m arcs.

I am a big fan of having to play on if you kick backwards in the defensive 50.

However I am sceptical about the boundary umps moving well inside the boundary to throw it in. It is fine in the middle of the ground, but when the ball goes out beside the point post, the boundary ump would then be throwing the ball right on top of the goal square.