Do you enjoy footy more or less than +10 years ago?

[chal_5]

I'd like to get some feedback on wether anyone enjoy's footy more or less than what they did +10 years ago and why...
Try to eliminate the factor of your teams performance.

[Beaussie]

Having my team make 2 consecutive grand finals and winning one I'd have to say yes. Constant rule changes pushed by the AFL are however starting to worry me about the future of the game.

[SBR]

Enjoying football about the same to 10+ years ago, well considering the Crows got their two premierships in 97/98 helps. But our game has grown, however, I agree BA.. rule changes are a big worry.

[Grim Reaper]

The game has gone soft and little girly teams like the Adelaide Cows have attracted the types of supporters who dine on lobster and chardonnay and drive Range Rovers.

This is a team that has that little wanker Lyteon Puckeitt and the home and Away bimbo as it number one members....am sure Andy Mcleod and his missus love that...lol

This had made the game become pathetic when these type of 'supporters' jump on the bandwagon!

[chal_5]

I agree with Grimreaper, it is softer, when compared with rugby it's like a girls game now, it wasn't 10+ years ago.

To Baussie and SBR, can't you try eliminating the factor of your team's performance? Eg. How about games where your team is not playing, are these games less interesting/exiting than 10+ years ago?

I do understand your concern with rule changes as the rules and regulations are what define the game and therefore it's relevance to us as a contest.

I do have copies of the last 2 annual Rule Change Rationales from the past two years (Nov 05 and Nov 06) issued by the AFL. They may be still on the afl.com website but they're quite hard to find if they are still there. I can upload them to a free upload server if anyone likes? Let me know.
They are very very interesting reports because they basically give in detail the reationale behind there rule/regulation changes. They address various features of the game even going right back to the 1960's.

To some up the reports, from their statistical data and surveys they have created 2 main objectives a Primary and a Secondary as follows;

Primary Focus: Trend from the current condensed interrupted style of game back to a more continuous less condesed style of game.

Secondary Focus: Re-introduce favoured and traditional features of the game (such as more longer kicking, more contested marks, more one on one contests around ground and players to play in the more traditional postitions). Instead of the many non-contested marks and general non-contested football from goal to goal line.

Their theory to acheive those objectives is to make rule changes that "break apart" the current condensed nature of players that surround the ball during most part game. Hence trending the game "back" to a point where players are playing in more traditional postitions more often during the game.

They say that changing rules to make the game more continous will achieve this because they have a data finding that player density around the ball is directly correlated with continuosity of game time. So the more density the less continuous and vice-versa.

The theory is that by achieving or helping to achieve the Primary Focus (of more continuous style of game via less player density), the Secondary Focus (of longer kicking, more contested marking etc) will be helped to achieve.

Examples of rule changes and trials to help achieve the primary and therfore secondary objectieves have been interchange/runner message limitation trials, no mark for kick backwards trial in vfl and preseason, quicker throw-ins/ball-ups in 2006 and no waiting for flags in 2006).

I don't dispute with most of their data findings or objectives but I do dispute with their theory to achieve those objectives. Their data finding that player density around the ball is directly correlated with continuosity of game time something I don't believe is true. I do beleive they are correlated but not directly.
ie. I do agree that game time continuosity is decreased from player density around ball, but not vice-versa.

I believe player density depends on the amount of long kicking which depends on the relative abiltiy to maintain possession and move it forward via short-kicking and hanballing. And this depends on the possiblity of turnover (ability of the other team to gain possession) from a team who is short-kicking/handballing in comparison to the possiblity of turnover from a team who is long-kicking/hanballing.
(Pretty simple really).

Q. The question is what do you change to get a team to WANT to kick longer more often?

Q. Well given the history of long kicking and it's decrease why not address and modify the root cause of this decrease?
(Rather than modifying things that aren't the actual cause?)

Q. What could be the root cause or root causes?
A.Some say because players are faster, fitter, stronger.
B.Some say because players/coaches are smarter.
C.Some say because of recent rule changes.

I say neither of these. Obviously it can't be C because the rule changes have been to address the problem. So the problem was there before the changes. It could be A or B but only if it means the team in possession has benifited more from A and B.
So this would apply only to the skills that differ between being in possession and not in possession. ie. Tackling vs braking tackles, sheperding, spoiling, bumping, short-kicking and handballing. Skills in common with both team in and not in possession such as running and jumping are favoured equally.
If the differing skills such as the ones mentioned above are favoured unequally due to increased player physical and mental capabilities with respect to team in and team not in possesssion, then answers A and B may have some slight truth.

Short kicking/marking can not be significantly improved enough OVER Long Kicking/marking from A or B to cause this occurrance of such high usage of short kicking. Anything that improves one will generally improve the other. So this theory would be "pulling strings" (so to speak).

The reason for this dilemma is the nature of the ball .
I can go further but I'll wait to see if anyone's interested.

[Beaussie]

To Baussie and SBR, can't you try eliminating the factor of your team's performance? Eg. How about games where your team is not playing, are these games less interesting/exiting than 10+ years ago?

No not at all, I just love footy. That said some encounters between my team and the Saints in recent years have been difficult to watch with all the flooding by both teams.

To some up the reports, from their statistical data and surveys they have created 2 main objectives a Primary and a Secondary as follows;

Primary Focus: Trend from the current condensed interrupted style of game back to a more continuous less condesed style of game.

Secondary Focus: Re-introduce favoured and traditional features of the game (such as more longer kicking, more contested marks, more one on one contests around ground and players to play in the more traditional postitions). Instead of the many non-contested marks and general non-contested football from goal to goal line.

I tend to agree with the focus and the objectives you've summarised. For example the quick kick in (not having to wait for goal umpire flags) and the quick throw ins to maintain continuity.

Their theory to acheive those objectives is to make rule changes that "break apart" the current condensed nature of players that surround the ball during most part game. Hence trending the game "back" to a point where players are playing in more traditional postitions more often during the game.

They say that changing rules to make the game more continous will achieve this because they have a data finding that player density around the ball is directly correlated with continuosity of game time. So the more density the less continuous and vice-versa.

The theory is that by achieving or helping to achieve the Primary Focus (of more continuous style of game via less player density), the Secondary Focus (of longer kicking, more contested marking etc) will be helped to achieve.

Examples of rule changes and trials to help achieve the primary and therfore secondary objectieves have been interchange/runner message limitation trials, no mark for kick backwards trial in vfl and preseason, quicker throw-ins/ball-ups in 2006 and no waiting for flags in 2006).

I don't dispute with most of their data findings or objectives but I do dispute with their theory to achieve those objectives. Their data finding that player density around the ball is directly correlated with continuosity of game time something I don't believe is true. I do beleive they are correlated but not directly.
ie. I do agree that game time continuosity is decreased from player density around ball, but not vice-versa.

I believe player density depends on the amount of long kicking which depends on the relative abiltiy to maintain possession and move it forward via short-kicking and hanballing. And this depends on the possiblity of turnover (ability of the other team to gain possession) from a team who is short-kicking/handballing in comparison to the possiblity of turnover from a team who is long-kicking/hanballing.
(Pretty simple really).

True. I guess thinking about it more now, for me I have not really been all too concerned with changes that have already been put in play. That said, some changes for instance the 30 second shot clock don't appear to always be enforced. The recent announcement about proposed changes to the interpetation of a push in the back is what really concerns me. Sounds weak if you ask me. When was the last time you watched a game where a player at some stage didn't have his hands on the back of an opponent?

The AFL says umpires will crack down next season on players putting their hands on the backs of opponents, immediately awarding a free-kick even if the player is only trying to steady himself.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=66581

All that said, it's good to see the AFL is asking for feedback from the fans on rule changes such as:

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to help prevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&s ... eid=302747

I wouldn't mind seeing 3 points awarded for a rushed behind. Thoughts?

[Grim Reaper]

No, I hated football 10 years ago as that is when the Cows won the Grand Final, even though it was the year to force called Port Power came into the competition.