Boring

[NMWBloods]

Basketball has a lot more to it than you state (I know you said it was simplified, but that was an understatement).

As I noted, a good football game already has these elements. The ball runs end to end and plenty of goals are scored. there is absolutely no reason why the centre of the ground would lose its importance. There is still plenty of time for the team to work the ball through the centre. There is also the opportunity for the opposition to apply pressure and turn the ball over. Given the time clock, it would be better to turn the ball over closer to your own goals than in D50. Additionally, with the double goal for outside 50, teams will have to guard the centre.

I have no problem with the throw ins going further in when it is in the forward line. Will reduce the tactic of pushing the ball out of bounds. Also, it will end up further out than the top of the goal square.

[sharpie]

My point about basketball was that there is rarely any defense midcourt. The game just moves end2end giving the team with the ball a chance to score, then it goes down the other end and the other team gets a chance. I personally find it quite dull. But since the court is small, it is ok.

Can you imagine if as soon as a behind was kicked the defending team just all streamed back to the defensive 50 to play a basketball style defense? And you think there's a problem with the amount of flooding at the moment.

As for the throw ins, it depends what ground. If the ground is wide in the forward pockets, then fine, but what about at the SCG or Homebush?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sharpie
My point about basketball was that there is rarely any defense midcourt.

I wouldn't say rarely, as half-court and full-court presses are used, however yes it is less often.

Then again, there is a 24 second clock whereas I am suggesting a longer time period. Also, it is a different game and it is much easier to turn the ball over in football than in basketball, so I suggest there will still be a middle ground game.

Can you imagine if as soon as a behind was kicked the defending team just all streamed back to the defensive 50 to play a basketball style defense? And you think there's a problem with the amount of flooding at the moment.

Why would they? You could kick it from outside 50 and get two goals.

I did forget one thing though. I would like a restriction on the number of players in each part of the ground. I think there should always be at least [say] two players in each part of the ground, unless the ball is within a certain distance.

Now, people may say these are a lot of restrictions, but given the horrible nature of AFL now, it provides more chance of returning the game to the spectacle it used to be.

As for the throw ins, it depends what ground. If the ground is wide in the forward pockets, then fine, but what about at the SCG or Homebush?

SCG has probably the deepest pockets in the comp. Also, the ball is thrown in towards the middle, so it should usually end up higher than the goal square. I still don't see that being a huge problem anyway.

[ROK Lobster]

It's starting to sound like Auskick Bloods.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
It's starting to sound like Auskick Bloods.

Currently it looks like U13 football, with huge crowds following the ball around the field leaving large epanses of ground quite empty. Not a great spectacle!

[chammond]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think 30m is a bit too much.

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

Yeah, but they'd both encourage a lot more contested and pack marking, which is the object of the exercise as far as I'm concerned. Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that the Swans have always been hopeless at long kick-ins

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.

You'll never convince me about basketball. I played competitive basketball in Melb for some years . . . loved playing . . . . hated watching! A terrible spectator sport, and I'd be horrified if footy followed it's lead.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[B]I wouldn't say rarely, as half-court and full-court presses are used, however yes it is less often.

Then again, there is a 24 second clock whereas I am suggesting a longer time period. Also, it is a different game and it is much easier to turn the ball over in football than in basketball, so I suggest there will still be a middle ground game.

[B]

Why would they? You could kick it from outside 50 and get two goals.

I did forget one thing though. I would like a restriction on the number of players in each part of the ground. I think there should always be at least [say] two players in each part of the ground, unless the ball is within a certain distance.

Now, people may say these are a lot of restrictions, but given the horrible nature of AFL now, it provides more chance of returning the game to the spectacle it used to be.


SCG has probably the deepest pockets in the comp. Also, the ball is thrown in towards the middle, so it should usually end up higher than the goal square. I still don't see that being a huge problem anyway.

But this new game you're inventing will really far too heavily on the umpires, giving them more power, which in turn gives them more opportunities to stuff up.

Keeping their eye on their stopwatch instead of the game, counting heads instead of watching tackles, etc...

[NMWBloods]

Sideline umpires.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by chammond
You'll never convince me about basketball. I played competitive basketball in Melb for some years . . . loved playing . . . . hated watching! A terrible spectator sport, and I'd be horrified if footy followed it's lead.

And yet even the worst games of pro basketball is more entertaining than some of the dross we serve up to the viewing public.

[snajik]

Originally posted by Diego
I agree with the boring comments. For the first time in many years i couldnt give a toot about this season. I am not excited about the lead up nor am i excited about watching the swans. I am bored of footy. Maybe being in Melbourne and the over saturation of the game has turned me away but i am sick of footy.

And for the first time in many many a moon i allowed myself to be distracted and not pay attention to the game yesterday.

I cannot see us win a flag under roos no matter how much some people defend his game plan. It makes me wonder if 2003 he was really coaching and had anything in place, becasue as soon as 2004 came around and he put a game plan into place it was like watching the swans under eade.

I am not fussed atm if i miss any swans games this year, frankly i rather doing something more construstive and creative than watch a game of stop start footy.

Roos let the boys play like you did in 2003 and watch them go direct. Our talented forward line is being wasted atm.

/rant over

The thing I enjoyed most about this game was my late decision not to travel to Canberra to watch the game (anyone who did, I suggest that you ring the club to claim your reimbursement). The thing that I really did not enjoy about this game was that I wasted 3 hours sitting around in my shady lounge room when the weather outside was glorious. I could have taken my youngster for a walk down to the park, gone to the beach or seen a good fillum. Capital D for dismal.

[Sanecow]

I felt like I wasted the afternoon as well and commented that I was glad that at least I wasn't at the game. And then I thought ahead to the WCE game and wondered.

[snajik]

And the grand irony is that over on FFC an ultimately exciting contest was being played out between the Dogs and the Demons. Rodney Eade (remember him?) has the Doggies playing a far more exciting brand of footy than Roosie seems to be able to extract from the Bloods atm. Funny how these things go in cycles.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Sideline umpires.

So you want more umpires? More umpires = poorer skill level of the average umpire. And they aren't exactly crash hot at the moment anyway. The problem now is that umpires over-officiate. And there's only 3 of them!

Plus who is gonna fork out the cash for more? The AFL wont even pay for an extra 2 goal umpires at the moment.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by sharpie
So you want more umpires?

Believe it or not, the long term plan is one umpire per player. Here is a picture from the junior umpires training camp.

http://tinyurl.com/6fn7s

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sharpie
So you want more umpires? More umpires = poorer skill level of the average umpire. And they aren't exactly crash hot at the moment anyway. The problem now is that umpires over-officiate. And there's only 3 of them!

It's a job for timekeepers - they manage the clocks.
As for players in each zone, the on-field umpires can keep an eye on that - shouldn't be too hard with three umpires.