Wednesday, August 11, 2010

AFL proposes changes to Laws of the Game

Its that time of the year for Adrian Anderson and co to puff up their chests and muck around with our great game. So I thought I would cast a Fang eye over the proposals.

1. Restricting interchange by one of the following methods:
(a) Three interchange players and one substitute player
(b) Two interchange players and two substitute players
(c) Cap of 80 interchanges per match (including changes at breaks)

Fang says (cool I'm talking about myself in the third person): If there was to be a change, I think option (a) is the best. I thought I was keen on capping, but I don't really believe the AFL BS about injuries happening more due to the speed of the game. I would think that if you have players that are exhausted playing they are more likely to do soft tissue injuries. But heck, I'm no Dr. Fang.
I'm undecided about substitutes because I see examples all the time where a team overcomes the adversity of being a man (Pies v Geelong) or 2 (Hawks v Geelong in the 08 GF) down.
OK. I'm actually making a call. No change!

2. Length of game: adjust the timing of quarters to keep the average length between 29-30 minutes

Fang says: Why? Who cares if a game is a tiny bit longer. This is pure BS and Fang won't be happy if it gets through.

3. Advantage rule: player not umpire decides if there is an advantage (as per 2010 NAB Cup trial)

Fang says: YES! I love the idea of making players more responsible for their actions and choices instead of counting on the umpire to fix their bad decisions. It also means the umpires can no longer be involved in those contentious, ambiguous decisions like calling the ball back when the was no advantage.

4. Boundary umpires pay free kicks for holding and high contact at stoppages (as per 2010 NAB Cup trial)

Fang says: Damn straight! This is a really good idea, because I'm sick of seeing dominant mids being groped, grappled and held in contests. Bump, block and corral, but don't grab them. This will mean that more angles are seen. Big thumbs up.

5. Free kick against player who drags ball under opponent (as per 2010 NAB Cup trial)

Fang says: Absolutely! Ping the little mongrels that try and sneak a free. This is no different to diving in my book.

6. Rough conduct (shepherd): make consistent with head down over the ball rule so that a player who shepherds is guilty of a reportable offence if he makes forceful contact to the head or neck, unless the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the shepherding player

Fang says: Yep. If you are going to make the head sacrosanct, do it properly. And whilst their at it work out what head high contact means at the match review panel. What is David Hille, the friggen golden child?

7. Scoring system: If a ball hits the posts inside the goal-scoring area and goes through, it remains a goal. If a ball hits the posts inside the point-scoring area and goes through, it remains a point

Fang says: Whilst most of the other ideas seem at least thought out, this is just a reactive piece of AFL BS tacked on because some goal umpires made a couple of bad calls. DON'T MESS WITH ONE THING THAT DIFFERENTIATES OUR GAME FROM ANYTHING ELSE. Idiots...

For the full article go:

1 comment:

  1. Wow Fang is baring his .... well Fangs!! Quite sadly though I agree with you on most of these points. The interchange will affect the Pies too cos they use it brilliantly but if they go to 3 bench and 1 sub won't they just rotate 3 players more than before and the sub raises an issue when Cloke marks 25 out straight in front game on the line, fakes an injury and Jack Anthony comes on to kick the goal!!!

    Don't shorten the game when have you ever thought gee that quarter went too long!!! I was getting bored!! Apart from a Saints game.

    What is the Advantage rule anyway? I don't get it. Anything to clear this up and make it uniform is good in my book.

    4 and 5 just make sense. and David Hille must be Mark Fraser bum chum. He is blessed and as for the MRP? Can we please get somekind of description as to why some players get off and some don't. I think we are all pretty happy with the loading and weeks given for suspension (apart from Baker's) but what are the parameters that players escape from the MRP. Is it force? Is it eye for eye? No one knows???

    And the post thing is just them being silly. 3 bad goal umpiring decisions all at once. Even if you ahve goal line technology or two umpires there's still going to be issues.