Does the very existence of Rules of the Game Committee almost require them to propose changes? There seem to be few, if any, compelling reasons for most of the changes proposed this week.
We suggested at the time of the Riewoldt and Kerr hamstrings that there would be an impetus for revision of interchange provisions in the wake of those injuries. Prescient again!
Without access to data, it’s hard to comment on how current interchange rules may or may not contribute to injuries, although it is crystal clear that teams losing players, in the first half particularly, are significantly disadvantaged as a result.
Another consideration is the extent to which current interchange practices have advantaged some players. We wonder, for instance, whether Dane Swan would have risen to such prominence without constant interchange?
Our preference is for a cap that takes the game back a couple of years. Eighty seems to AussieRulesBlog to be a reasonable number. Then let coaches use them as they will. A cap reduces the impact of losing players substantially, while allowing coaches flexibility.
In terms of game length, there were changes to how time-on was applied in about 2006, when quarters were reduced from twenty-five minutes to twenty. Clearly the effect of the changes to time-on was too great. Why can we not just wind back that part of the 2006 change? Instead, the Committee proposes to play with the length of quarters again! This is, frankly, the most ill-considered of the proposals.
AussieRulesBlog has already identified a number of problems with advantage rule application. We can’t see how the inequities are undone by allowing players to initiate advantage. Players must still make an assumption about the foregoing free kick, leading, as sure as spring follows winter, to a spate of dodgy 50-metre penalties. Another nonsense proposal. the whole advantage situation needs to be rethought rather than tinkered with.
We are very unsure about empowering boundary umpires to pay free kicks. The game is inconsistent enough as it is with three separate interpretations on the field already: why would we add another four interpretations?
We are pretty comfortable with free kicking the player who drags the ball under an opponent in an attempt to get a free kick. Big tick for this one!
We are also quite comfortable with the onus of responsibility for high contact in shepherding to be with the shepherder. Another tick!
Frankly, the proposed changes to the scoring system seem to be a spoiler to take some heat off the more contentious of the other proposals. This one is complete and utter nonsense.
Finally, AussieRulesBlog asks why the committee did not seek to deal with the biggest single blight on the game at the present moment — the 50-metre penalty.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment