Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: A Change in the Wind

  1. #1
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast NSW, Costa Lantana
    Posts
    6,889

    A Change in the Wind

    This article from The Age says the Swans have been part of a quiet bit of AFL research on undoing congestion in the game. The questions seem to be whether the number of players onfield is reduced or whether players should be restricted by zones (or perhaps both). I think it's a step in the right direction.

    AFL's secret trials have the potential to revolutionise the game
    He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

  2. #2
    It's Goodes to cheer!! ScottH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Master of the house, keeper of the zoo
    Posts
    23,665
    Blog Entries
    2
    Something needs to change.

  3. #3
    McVeigh for Brownlow Site Admin RogueSwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Coffs Harbour - home of Swans summer camp
    Posts
    4,587
    I don't like the idea of zones. You would never see length of the field goal again, ala Lewis Jetta. Also, I do love it when I see a defender, who hardly ever kicks a goal, get one through the big sticks.
    If, as the articles indicates that a certain number players have to return to inside 50 isn't that slowing the game down? Would there be a time limit? What if one player has just gone for a hard run a can't do another sprint back into position? Does a teammate have to take his spot? How is that determine? Club captain? Maybe they need markers on the sideline like in NFL to force numbers back but not all the way to inside the 50m arc?
    Whatever they do they have to make it black and white, the umpires shouldn't have to try and read intent in another rule.
    "Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017

  4. #4
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Interesting.

    The AFLW competition is to be played with only 16 a team on the field (and a slightly smaller ball). When they announced that for the exhibition match played in the bye round before the finals last year, my reaction was to think it was being condescending to the women. But watching the match on TV (they played without the wing positions) I was impressed at how open and flowing the game was.

    So there might be merit in this. Certainly the congested scrums we often see now is not a good look.

    I think I would prefer a reduction in player numbers to a zone structure. I understand that the VFA played 16-a-side from 1959 until 1992 (from a Wikipedia reference).

  5. #5

    Swans used in 'trial' for possible new rules

    Read an article the other day saying that St. Kilda, Geelong and Swans were used to trial possible new rule changes. They are looking at 16 a side and zoning to ease congestion in the middle.

    It was very hush hush and the clubs were told not to 'leak' it.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RogueSwan View Post
    I don't like the idea of zones. You would never see length of the field goal again, ala Lewis Jetta. Also, I do love it when I see a defender, who hardly ever kicks a goal, get one through the big sticks.
    Ahhh the memories of Rod Carter kicking his first & only goal

  7. #7
    Perhaps the AFL realise the harsh treatment they gave us over Buddy & are trying to make amends? 2 less players on field = 2 less players needed on the list = more cap space if the caps remain the same = Bud's contract takes up less proportion of our cap. No wonder the Laws of the Game committee wanted to keep it under wraps. Once Gil the Dill and $#!+$patrick get wind of it, they'll sack the RotG Committee!

  8. #8
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,800
    Zones is a nonsense idea in my opinion that would rob a lot what makes our game great from it - in particular a lot of the different styles of play that are possible by having 18 players that can go anywhere and do anything. A big no on that one, would fundamentally change the game for the worse in my opinion.

    A reduction in the number of players might help with congestion, but I still think before they do that they should reduce the number of interchanges significantly further from where it is now - or even reduce the number of the bench (unlikely I know). That, coupled with some proper umpiring where they start pinging every player that drops the ball or incorrectly disposes of the ball in the ruckus and suddenly you might find the game will open up a fair bit, especially as games go on.
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO