I'd rather it be tweaked every year than wholesale changes made every few years.
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
Can anyone who watched the first Swans NAB match (live or tv) tell me if there were any 50 metre penalties given for breach of the new 10-metre protection zone? I gather there were a couple (more?) free kicks for deliberate out-of-bounds. Was there any noticeable overall impact on the game that you think was attributable to these new rules? I appreciate it's a bit hard to judge based on one game but still ........
The only one of the rule changes that affects this perception of which you speak is the one about slam tackles, which is a welcome rule change. Any effective rule change that helps protect the head should be lauded. This is nothing to do with a "nanny state", an overused catch-all expression that says little and really grinds my gears, but rather an important and responsible rule change by the AFL to ensure risks of concussion are minimised where possible.
Today's a draft of your epitaph
You know what?, I had a whole thing typed out, but close to the end I decided that this is a sex, religion, politics type thing, so there is no point in perpetuating the argument.
You're 100% right.
- - - Updated - - -
Nope.
Things change too fast, and need to be reeled in.
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
I also agree wholeheartedly with the rule changes that bear upon head-high contact, but there have been many others that are not so easily justified, and above all I object to the apparent compulsion on the part of the AFL to change something every year.
How refreshing to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the indiscriminate use of the term "nanny state"! It's ironic how it's become a Right-wing catchphrase, given that it was coined by Noam Chomsky as a way of describing the cosy relationship between governments and large corporations.
You're right.
Hold on... that term backs up what most here are accusing the AFL of.
Over sanitising the game by way of interpreting what society deems as being appropriate.
Rule tweaks etc
I simply used the term as a reference to society as a whole, and a reason why the AFL make those changes.
Happy for someone to come out and explain why the rule tweaks are supposedly bad.
I accept the society we live in and acknowledge that the AFL is adhering to certain safety expectations.
That covers some of the rule changes.
The rest are to provide a more exciting game, and I am happy with that.
- - - Updated - - -
You are implying that I run around shouting "nanny state" from the rooftops.
Weird.
It was used in a context...
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
I recall only one 50 metre penalty for the protection zone breach but it looked like the Port player was within 5 metres which would have been the old rule.
The deliberate out of bounds rule I found confusing...
- Port was penalised when I thought it was the tackle that forced him to kick it in that direction.
- a swans player punched the ball towards the boundary line through a group of players and was penalised.
- Then the umpires became confused when a Port player was coming out of our forward line and he shanked the kick and it went straight over the boundary line. The umpire paid it deliberate but then the other umpire overruled and said it was a shank kick so it ended up being a throw in.
Bookmarks