2 man bench 2 umpires?

[desertsaint]

Modern AFL is changing rapidly to a game many bemoan is akin to basketball - we see a game played by athletes who run all day, prefer a handball to a kick, and focus on keeping possession and flooding the opposition. The AFL has allowed this to happen by simply looking to basketball annd other sports in a bid to tweak the negatives of this evolution of the game.
As an example -basketball fans began to lose interest in the sport due to the sameness of every game and the highlight on defensive tactics. The powers that be reacted over the years by adding the no back pass over the halfway line, adding the 3 point basket, cutting time in the key, and a shotclock.

In footy we have the same problems and already the AFL are looking at similar solutions trialled in the NAB - the 9 point goal and no mark off a backward kick. They even added freak rebounds (how is a more accurate kick not allowed to score even a point?) which showed how little appreciation they had for fairness and commonsense.

Now we have the problem of 100 plus interchanges per side - can you name another game that allows so many unlimited interchanges? And off course it has raised another problem in the sydney v roos game (also in a NAB game)

My solution - go back to a 2 man bench and two umpires.

First off - the umpires change would limit the number of different interpretations we see on every rule. It would also mean that the quality of the umpire pool would increase. The game would not be two fast for them due to the other rule change.
If we limit the bench it would mean teams need to pace themselves and this 'pack herd' type of footy would soon be seen as unplayable - players simply wouldn't have the stamina to run that hard all day without a break. The result - more long kicks to contests - more one-on-one duels.

Instead of these two simple changes we're likely to see more 'band aid' measures which are a blight on the game - e.g the above examples, as well as likely interchange restrictions (great - more officiating needed), yet another field umpire, and worst of all - the field (and players) divided into zones -ala netball (before you laugh it's already happened in the centre square!).

If we look at soccer - the game has evolved into a much quicker and more skillful game - but one man still controls it, and the substitution system has remained.

[ausfatcat]

what about maybe as you say a two man bench with two emergencie players on the bench that can only go on if a player is injured for the match and the player injured can't come back on at all.

[Bernard Shakey]

My suggestion would be a 6 man bench, but no interchange, only substitution.

That would slow the game down and make it more of a one on one contest.

[St.Kenny]

Some excellent suggestions here which I have agreed with and spouted for a number of years.

Footy 'scribes' have never addressed this key point that more umpires mean more 'disparity' between in decision making.

If we only had 2 umpires there would be less 'silly' frees for a bit of 'niggle' behind the play. Just look at last Fridays game between Carlton/West Coast to see how 'comical' it can become. The AFL opened a can of worms introducing a 'Turd Umpire' who floats around the ground like an overzealous parking inspector looking for minor infringements allowing him to impose himself on the game, show of his flurescent pijamas and essentially stiffle the free flowing nature of the game.

[plugger66]

I have an idea. Footy over the last 2 years has been the best for many years excluding how we play and Sydney. Why dont we leave it alone then. How's that for an idea.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Now we have the problem of 100 plus interchanges per side - can you name another game that allows so many unlimited interchanges? And off course it has raised another problem in the sydney v roos game (also in a NAB game)

NHL - Ice Hockey.

I don't see what all the fuss is about with interchanges. It's a mountain out of a molehill.

The problem in the Sydney v Roos game is that the rules surrounding too many men on the field are archaic. Technically, if I remember right Sydney should have forfeited the game, but only if the Roos captain noticed and demanded a head count (Sydney would also have been required to give up 3 head of their finest cattle, and supply enough whalefat to light the oil lamps of the Kangaroos players for the rest of the season)... and because the rule's archaic, the AFL whacked down a fine instead.

Rules like that obviously need updating. But by land large, leave the game alone. Now this rumour of a 3 minute notification of an interchange... Which would be officious overstep in an effort to litigate trough the backdoor because of the misguided notion that the game used to be better, and it's a rulechange that can turn the clock back.

Express the past with nostalgia, but just enjoy the present and let's leave the rules alone wherever we possibly can.

[fonz_#15]

I have an idea. Footy over the last 2 years has been the best for many years excluding how we play and Sydney. Why dont we leave it alone then. How's that for an idea.

that is a bad idea, because football is not anywhere near as good as it once was.

[plugger66]

I have an idea. Footy over the last 2 years has been the best for many years excluding how we play and Sydney. Why dont we leave it alone then. How's that for an idea.

that is a bad idea, because football is not anywhere near as good as it once was.

Funny how commentators and footy reporters are saying the opposite whereas a few years ago they were saying footy was crap.

[st.byron]

Some excellent suggestions here which I have agreed with and spouted for a number of years.

Footy 'scribes' have never addressed this key point that more umpires mean more 'disparity' between in decision making.

If we only had 2 umpires there would be less 'silly' frees for a bit of 'niggle' behind the play. Just look at last Fridays game between Carlton/West Coast to see how 'comical' it can become. The AFL opened a can of worms introducing a 'Turd Umpire' who floats around the ground like an overzealous parking inspector looking for minor infringements allowing him to impose himself on the game, show of his flurescent pijamas and essentially stiffle the free flowing nature of the game.

What a load of piffle. Two umpires would be no chance of keeping up with the game and people advocating two umpires would be amongst those crying 'bias', 'unfair', as soon as frees were missed behind play or because the umps couldn't keep up. Your rhetoric about parking inspectors looking for minor infringements is crap. All umpires umpire to the same rules. The third one isn't on a mission separate from the other two.
Regarding the OP, I agree that limits on interchanges would help slow the game a little, but it's the interpretations of rules that has changed the most. Less umpires wouldn't mean different interpretations of the rules. I agree there are too many tiggy touchwood frees in the game now, but one less umpire isn't going to change it. Responsiblity lies with the AFL who have managed hard physicality out of the game to some extent. They've done it to compete with soccer but it has made the game less exciting from my POV.

[St.Kenny]

Someone hasnt been following the game of late. Think ya need your eyes checked mate. Must be the Indian Ocean see breeze that fdoes it !










1