westozfalcon wrote:I’d like to see a rule wherein a team must have at least 1 player within its attacking 50-metre arc at ALL times. There would be a linesman at each end to monitor it. If a team breaches the rule, a flag goes up and the other side gets a penalty shot on goal from the top of the goal square.
How the Fxxx would this fix anything?
We'd have more off side type reviews than soccer does.
Stop the rule changes because the coaches will work out ways to work it to their advantage. Time for drastic change.
It would mean there is always someone to kick to in the forward line so sides don't have to hold up the ball and wait for players to run forward.
But think about it. That player can't 'lead out' across the 50 metre arc. So if he's inside 50, he could be standing on the permiter of the 50 and not allowed to go out? Like a GS in netball. Then if he does, we have to make sure someone crosses the line so we have one in each third of the ground. Again, another rule brought in causing MORE confusion. I just don't see footy being footy if it goes in that direction.
daysofourlives wrote:Ive said it before the only time the game is unpredictable is at a centre bounce and for the ensuing lets sy 30 seconds to a minute. We need to replicate that for a majority of the game. Once that minute passes all clubs are able to set up defensively and it becomes a boring mess of 36 players around the football. Im all for whatever it takes. Buckleys argument that we will be waiting for players to get back in zones is flawed. How bout as a coach you leave your players in the zone, if you dont want to do that then you force the hand of the rule makers to make a zone that certain players cant leave and we dont want that. The coaches should shut their mouths, they are the reson we are in this predicament. Too many coaches in the game, restricting that would help. Ive been taking notice of assistant coaches when they speak after games on radio etc and all they talk about is defence, when they lose its all about letting the opposition score too freely, its a mindset and a blighht on the game. I used to think reducing rotations would help but given the mindset of coaches i dont think it will. They will just instruct the players to play keepings off and kick backwards and maintain possesion. Im all for shorter games but only if they extgend the season to 34 matches. Shofrter games equal play more often, you might play on a Monday and then a FRiday and back up the next Wednesday like a basketball draw, still fit the season in, inthe same time frame. Less training more playing, im sure the players would love it. Have your bigger drawing games on weekends and your suns v carlton type game on a tuesday night. Maximiose your crowds on a weekend and who cares if theres 5 people at a game during the week. I know the idea is out there but it could work
Wubbsy i understand a Sydney fan you have a very different interpretation of whats exciting football. To 90% of fans the Sydney way is what has got us into this mess. If it wasnt for Geelong and Hawthorn over the last 10 years we wouldve reached this point long ago.
Wow. Well said. Don't mind the 34 match season idea either.
Why don’t we just play all year round
Comprehension not a strong point for you Wubbsy, i said play the 34 games in the same time frame we do now. Im not surprised, you only see the Swans, the rest of us see whats best for the game and the damage the Swans have done to the brand over the last 15 years. I perfer the type of damage you did to the brand in the early 90s
Mo I see every one. Hence why I don’t think we need to make changes. If anything we should take away some of the crap rules they’ve added.
Hawks are/were a very defensive side too. But they weren’t boring. I love watching the tigers play now. Exciting. But set up really well. Very good defensive side. And when the swans are lplaying their best the move the ball by hand and foot really well
tigerpie wrote:Way off the mark increasing games. Its too bloody expensive to go to the footy now! I'm more inclined to leave the game to sort itself out.
THats why i said leave the games that will be well supported on weekends, play your Collingwood vs Freo type game on a tuesday night purely for television. Free entry, turn up if you want. Not sure if we are big enough for this type situation though. Just putting the idea out there. I know for a fact alot of players would be happy with a 34 game season, less game time and games more often and less pre season. you would have to increase the number of nterchange players though so that clubs would still play their stars every game otherwise when you played Gold CVoast and Carlton the stars would be rested. With increased interchange numbers in a game like last night youd put Dusty on ice at half time but at least he played
Supercoach Spring Racing Champion 2019 Spargo's Good Friday Cup Champion 2020
Some very valid points. In the WC game on the weekend, BT went on and on and on about it. The 5mins why Honeychurch was being stretched off, he whinged about all of WC players in the Bulldogs Forward half. Bartel and Peter Bell where explaining to him that the game had stopped for 5mins and there was 35secs left to go in the quarter. Bartel and Bell were excellent, they asked BT numerous Times during the rant what he would change and he didn’t even know. Bartel and Bell ended up shutting him down, explaining if guys like him were in charge we would end up with rules like the ruck and Encroaching the mark rule which almost all fans and players hate.
I have a solution to get the game high scoring again that doesn’t include zones.
Reward a team who scores 100 points win lose or draw a bonus point.
Bulldogs 111 beat Geelong 108
Bulldogs get 5 points Cats get 1 point.
As a league these are the games you want more of so reward the teams involved.
So far Melbourne have scored 100 points 12 times Collingwood and Richmond 11 times West coast Geelong 6 Adelaide hawks kangaroos 5 Sydney Freo 4 Essendon port bulldogs saints lions 3 Giants 2 Suns 1 Carlton 0
We have had 5 games this year that both teams have scored over 100 points 3 of those games were in round 15. 2 at etihad - Essendon vs kangaroos Geelong vs bulldogs both round 15 2 at the g - hawks vs cats round 2 saints vs Melbourne round 15 1 Gabba - Lions vs Collingwood round 7.
Simple.
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
UK Fan wrote:I have a solution to get the game high scoring again that doesn’t include zones.
Reward a team who scores 100 points win lose or draw a bonus point.
Bulldogs 111 beat Geelong 108
Bulldogs get 5 points Cats get 1 point.
As a league these are the games you want more of so reward the teams involved.
So far Melbourne have scored 100 points 12 times Collingwood and Richmond 11 times West coast Geelong 6 Adelaide hawks kangaroos 5 Sydney Freo 4 Essendon port bulldogs saints lions 3 Giants 2 Suns 1 Carlton 0
We have had 5 games this year that both teams have scored over 100 points 3 of those games were in round 15. 2 at etihad - Essendon vs kangaroos Geelong vs bulldogs both round 15 2 at the g - hawks vs cats round 2 saints vs Melbourne round 15 1 Gabba - Lions vs Collingwood round 7.
Simple.
I dont mind it, the nay sayeeeeeeeeers will say the teams at ethiad haaaave an advantage. What a load of crap, if you go by that list 9 out of the top 10 dont call ethiad home, maybe its a disadvantage at Ethiad
Supercoach Spring Racing Champion 2019 Spargo's Good Friday Cup Champion 2020
valleys07 wrote:Whilst it is a good idea in theory, how do you account for the variables, for example:
- Queensland sides are at a disadvantage at the beginning of the season due to monsoonal conditions making it impossible to score 100 points.
- Teams who play their home games at Etihad getting a perceived unfair advantage. There would have to be an even distribution of games there.
No different to fixtures being completely uneven to start, no different to copping a bottom side on a shithouse winters day when your looking for a percentage booster.
Sides who don’t attempt to play attacking footy won’t get the 100 points regardless of where the game is played at.
Could you imagine the last game of the minor round, 8th and 9th locked on points playing different opposition with the bonus point potentially being the decider. Would make for a couple of cracking attacking games.
valleys07 wrote:Whilst it is a good idea in theory, how do you account for the variables, for example:
- Queensland sides are at a disadvantage at the beginning of the season due to monsoonal conditions making it impossible to score 100 points.
- Teams who play their home games at Etihad getting a perceived unfair advantage. There would have to be an even distribution of games there.
It’s just how it is. Super Rugby is played across several countries and continents all with varying weather and conditions.
Agreed, but is there a bonus point structure in place for reaching a certain number of points per game?
Adds more unevenness to an already uneven competition.
Agree on the positives though, would certainly make for more entertaining contests.
They have scraped the BP’s for tries scored in total now but they give 1 BP for losing by less than 7 and 1 BP for scoring 3 or more tries more than the opponent
valleys07 wrote:Whilst it is a good idea in theory, how do you account for the variables, for example:
- Queensland sides are at a disadvantage at the beginning of the season due to monsoonal conditions making it impossible to score 100 points.
- Teams who play their home games at Etihad getting a perceived unfair advantage. There would have to be an even distribution of games there.
It’s just how it is. Super Rugby is played across several countries and continents all with varying weather and conditions.
Agreed, but is there a bonus point structure in place for reaching a certain number of points per game?
Adds more unevenness to an already uneven competition.
Agree on the positives though, would certainly make for more entertaining contests.
They have scraped the BP’s for tries scored in total now but they give 1 BP for losing by less than 7 and 1 BP for scoring 3 or more tries more than the opponent
Jim likes it because Essendon play at Ethiad 18 times a year
Jim05 wrote:[quote="valleys07"]Whilst it is a good idea in theory, how do you account for the variables, for example:
- Queensland sides are at a disadvantage at the beginning of the season due to monsoonal conditions making it impossible to score 100 points.
- Teams who play their home games at Etihad getting a perceived unfair advantage. There would have to be an even distribution of games there.
It’s just how it is. Super Rugby is played across several countries and continents all with varying weather and conditions.
Agreed, but is there a bonus point structure in place for reaching a certain number of points per game?
Adds more unevenness to an already uneven competition.
Agree on the positives though, would certainly make for more entertaining contests.
They have scraped the BP’s for tries scored in total now but they give 1 BP for losing by less than 7 and 1 BP for scoring 3 or more tries more than the opponent
Jim likes it because Essendon play at Ethiad 18 times a year [/quote] 8 and 8 split between the MCG and Etihad for us this year. It’s also somewhat of a myth that Etihad has higher scores as the narrower ground enables sides to defend it better.
