New Interpretations

[sharp9]

I was in favour of the new interpretations regarding ensuring that the defender is only trying to spoil the BALL and not the man. A very good rule, I think.

I have changed my mind now for one simple reason. Consistency. Some players and teams are seen to have infringed and some are not. Or even more to the point, putting aside the fact that so many more errors are made against the Swans than in favour that it is inconvceivable the umps are not biased (presumably subconsciously) ....... Infringements that are small but correctly paid will be seen sometimes and not others. it is impossible to be cionsistent unless you had three umpires watching every contested mark from 15 metres away on three differernt angles. This is never going to happen and so the Swans will NEVER get the same number of "small infringement" frees that many other teams get.

[goswannie14]

What new interpretations?

OOB deliberately is still not paid.

30 seconds to shoot at goal is not enforced.

Umpiring is as inconsistent as ever.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Umpires, umpires, umpires,
Every year they are flogged for inconsistency, officiousness and even bias. Which is a terrible situation for the AFl, the fans and the umpires themselves.
And we begin each year trying to solve this problem by fiddling with the rules and the interpretations of the rules.
This seems merely to exacebate the situation. The solution of course is blindingly clear, and demonstrated for all to see on the last saturday in september!
Can anyone recall a GF where the umpires aren't lauded for the way they took a back-seat and allowed the game to flow?
What we need is for the umpires to go into each season with the same mindset that they approach a grandfinal.

The game does not need a rules committee especially one whose primary objective seems to be seek to justify their existance by fiddling with the rules. Furthermore the official who approves these changes without game-testing them is extremely foolish.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Umpires, umpires, umpires,
Every year they are flogged for inconsistency, officiousness and even bias. Which is a terrible situation for the AFl, the fans and the umpires themselves.
And we begin each year trying to solve this problem by fiddling with the rules and the interpretations of the rules.
This seems merely to exacebate the situation. The solution of course is blindingly clear, and demonstrated for all to see on the last saturday in september!
Can anyone recall a GF where the umpires aren't lauded for the way they took a back-seat and allowed the game to flow?
What we need is for the umpires to go into each season with the same mindset that they approach a grandfinal.

The game does not need a rules committee especially one whose primary objective seems to be seek to justify their existance by fiddling with the rules. Furthermore the official who approves these changes without game-testing them is extremely foolish.

Totally agree. The rule interpretation changes from LAST year are still being digested by umpires and players alike, yet they get given a whole new list to consider.

As an example, watch the Sydney v Geelong SF again. ROK goes for a huge speccie, gets both hands to the ball, and then drops it due to a defender's arm (Harley I think) coming through and taking out his right arm. Without a doubt a 'chopping the arm' infringement. Not paid.

To make it worse, the replay comes up and Chris McDermott says something along the lines of "Great work there taking the arm out to prevent the mark". Oops. Thats after 22 rounds and a bunch of finals games, and still both the umpires and commentators miss correctly judging a new interpretation.

Stop changing the rules. Bring in a morartorium on rule changes, preventing more than a set number of changes and only once every set number of years. This includes 'interpretations'. For the sake of the game.

[smartplay]

video log all these interpretations

the umpire inconsistent interpretation, often against swans, drives me/us mad.

maybe there should be video log of frees given for each type of foul, logging clear foul to marginal foul etc
when the next contentious foul occur, the video log database can be quoted and referenced to e.g. when an opponent just touches oppoents hands in the marking contest, it is foul, citing game 1 2006 Essendon Vs Swan Lloyd & barry, as the example. This interpretation should apply ALL OTHER players/team.

We must keep the umpires ACCOUNTABLE for their rulings.
If they fail consistently with video references, they should GO! Why should the public pay to see rubbish umpiring? The games ought to be decided by the players/team with consistent good umpiring!

why persists of bad umpiring/umpires?
Are true neutral umpires hard to get/train?

Why can't the umpires let the games be played as the teams were playing in 2005 finals? the rules were CLEARLY relaxed to allow the game to flow. Even a new AFL fan, like myself, can see this - are the the officials in AFL head office so blind that they cant see this??? they just allow this problem to go on & on !

[Old Royboy]

Re: video log all these interpretations

Originally posted by smartplay
Why can't the umpires let the games be played as the teams were playing in 2005 finals?

You've got a short memory. The only reason we got a decent run in the Grannie was because we were playing a non Victorian team. While McLaren and Goldie showed that they can be good maggots in that game I will NEVER forgive them for what they tried to do to us in the prelim. Between them they had given 13 free kicks against us to 2 for at 3/4 time.

It's a fact of Viccentric AFL life. Regardless of what the latest rules are, the Swans have to be a four goal better team to break even when playing a local team in Melbourne. I don't care how bad SA, WA and QLd umpires are - the only way we can get a fair free kick deal is for non Victorian maggots to officiate when we play in Melbourne.

[SMFC]

McLaren is the "Hollywood" Harrigon of the AFL.

I'd prefer if they were never named these umpires, stick to the number and then they get no profile to spruik during a match.

[anne]

Maybe the Swans could show some examples of the proof of bias (not that the AFL would ever admit it) to the AFL and ask for non-Victorian umpires when they play in Melbourne.

[Legs Akimbo]

I have been thinking through the rule changes and what the AFL is trying to achieve and find myself getting more and more confused and frustrated.

Was the AFL's belief that the game, and the way Sydney play it in particular, was too prone to flooding? Was it that we attempt to retain possession too much? Too many stoppages.

Of all of the above?

I am confused because my recollection of last season was that we probably played a more accountable style of footy than other teams. So I guess the problem was the number of stoppages. They want the game to be free flowing. The four finals were all wonderful games. Even the Geeling final was wonderful becuase it was close and exciting and I think the first three quarters of scrappy footy can be put down to the sprinklers being on all night.

So the AFL has introduced rule changes that say, effectively, play on at all times, the ball carrier is protected, no waiting to wave the flag. The want the game played fast and they want tired players to make mistakes.

The first round turns into a possession uberfest because not suprisingly, clubs play keepings off. Moreover, the clubs that have not done their homework or with slower lists, get shellacked. The game resembles soccer with players running from one end of the field to the other.

They definitely killed the stoppage, but created something worse in its stead. I watched that excruiting 9-minutes of play between Adelaide and Collingwood where Adeilade just chip kicked around. That was horrible. Very few contested marks and lots of circle work from one end of the ground to the other.

It's only round one, but given the rule changes, it is probably going to continue.

I don't understand how Demetriou and Anderson can do this and get away with it without some more serious ramifications. Most people (evidently including at least three coaches and quite a few commentators) feel it is horrible to watch. D&A just say it's what the fans want, but is it and how would they know anyway? Even David Parkin, who has a responsibility to be the voice of the fans to the AFL came out this week and said the game has been damaged and its popularity may suffer in the future.

I know it is early days yet, but who is accountable for this mess. Why aren't the fans making more noise? Why do we put up with it?

[giant]

Here's a pretty good article on the rationale - and failure - of the new rules.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/04/05/1143916592413.html

It's not exactly flattering of the Swans but I can live with someone sayin we ain't pretty if they don't say we were lucky. In essence, I don't think I'd argue with much he says (even if I don't particularly like the way he says it). This quote in particular strikes me as one of the most insightful resumes of the Swan's game plan:

"There's no denying that the 2005 Swans weren't the prettiest team. But they won a premiership by adhering to two fundamentals. One, they would not kick the ball to contests if they could help it; two, they sought to restrict the opposition's uncontested ball, forcing their opponent to kick to contests.

While they created plenty of ball-ups, they also ensured that the opposition didn't get easy kicks. If Sydney itself was unattractive, its tactics would eventually force the opposition to play better, riskier footy, to kick long and get numbers to the fall, to play on, etc."

Some good comments also on the failure of the new rule changes/interpretations to address the "real" issues.

[NMWBloods]

I think a key aim is to increase the flow and number of goals kicked, which is what the public like to see, and decrease the number of stoppages which is boring.

The objective is okay, the execution, as typical for the AFL, was poor.

The game is now too reliant on possessions and keeping control. The days are gone when teams would kick to a contest. That is simply an evolution (an unfortunate one IMO) of the game and I don't think the existing rule changes address it.


Edit: just read the article above and I think it's spot on.

[Legs Akimbo]

Thanks Giant. I think that article said with much greater eloquence what I was trying to say.

It just staggers me that most (I think it was most) people were saying prior to the season that the rule changes were a terrible idea, yet the the AFL administration pressed on regardless.

Unfortunately, I think it reflects something rotten in the current management at AFL house. I go back to the incident in the final last year where Demetriou kicked out a journalist from an AFL event (he had been paid to MC the event, but the AFL) because he didn't like his criticism in a previous media article.

A few years back I lived in Malvern and worked in the Melbourne CBD. Each morning I caught the trail to Richmond station with my daughter who was in childcare in East Melbourne, and we walked across the MCG carpark. Quite often I would cross paths with Wayne Jackson and without fail he would say hello and smile. Became a bit of a ritual. Little things like that make a difference in how we perceive people. In my view, Jackson did a magnificent job in his tenure as CEO and in some ways we as fans were spoiled by his quiet competence. Even Ross Oakley for all his scheming ways and the attemot to kill the Bulldogs was an effective administrator and did a reasonable job in expanding the competition at a difficult time. He took the league to a place where it had to go, but did not necessarily want to go. In hindsight, he and the Directors of the time acted with foresight, if not always great skill.

I get the sense that Vlad is an arrogant incompetent and that his sidekick Anderson is a proponent of spin and propaganda of the worst sort. Neither has a paricularly impressive CV (recall Jaskon was formerly CEO of was it Lion Nathan?). I think Demetriou in particular has lost sight of the 'real world' outside of AFL house and I think Anderson lacks true insight into the nature of the game. Being a lawyer, he is probably quite adept at playing around with the rules.

I fear for the competition with these two in charge, but I have a feeling their inept management will come under increasing scrutiny over the next few years.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
The first round turns into a possession uberfest because not suprisingly, clubs play keepings off.

Perhaps Andy should lead a breakaway league called the Australian Keepings Off League? Perhaps the fat-controller is trying to appeal to those parents who think Auskick/Australian Rules is too rough?

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
The game resembles soccer with players running from one end of the field to the other.

Some others suggest Gaelic is the model, certainly they want to remove the more physical elements but keep the scoring high. But I think they're aiming at tuning the game into basketball, why else start playing football on an indoor stadium?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
I don't understand how Demetriou and Anderson can do this and get away with it without some more serious ramifications. Most people (evidently including at least three coaches and quite a few commentators) feel it is horrible to watch. D&A just say it's what the fans want, but is it and how would they know anyway?

In all seriousness they don't care, nor do the players or clubs really, like most corporate entities their focus is on their profit horizon, which thanks to the TV rights is looking great. So what if the game loses fans, they'll have taken the money and run long before the crunch ever comes.

It could however be interesting to see what happens if the "these rules are #$%, hands off our game" chorus gets really vocal.

[Legs Akimbo]

I wonder what is in Vllad's performance contract for his bonus.

- Crowd numbers > getting lower
- Customer satisfaction > by the sounds of it, getting lower
- TV ratings (?)
- Revenue - fat and juicy from 7 and 9 stoush
- Sydney not make grand final

You are right, probably doesn't give a @@@@@.

To continue my rumination, I think the best team to watch were North Melbourne during their Halcyon 90's and Geelong around the same time. They were high scoring teams because they moved the ball quick AND they beat the team at the man on man contest.

Wonderful to watch