The Sham Cup

[LostDoggy]

We can only hope the cancellation of today's Saints vs Bombers game brings us one step closer to getting rid of this comp and extending the home and away season.
How can you have a legit competition with games of different lengths, ridiculous trial rules, only 4 rounds of 18 teams and at unfamiliar locations and grounds? Just to name a few problems.

[Remi Moses]

Couldn't agree more Chops.
Playing games of football still, also now they're having match day training !!
Season should start next week and each team have 2 Byes!

[Ghost Dog]

Am sure the people in country vic disagree with you chops. Love the NAB, getting a look at the new kids, can get front fow seats easy peasy and supergoals are cool. Only thing I hate is when dogs players get injured.

[jazzadogs]

Reports that, if a decision can't be reached between the clubs (St Kilda want the 4 points), they will flip a coin to decide the match.

Shows how much respect the AFL has for the competition.

EDIT: Official AFL Statement (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/129982/default.aspx)

[bornadog]

We can only hope the cancellation of today's Saints vs Bombers game brings us one step closer to getting rid of this comp and extending the home and away season.
How can you have a legit competition with games of different lengths, ridiculous trial rules, only 4 rounds of 18 teams and at unfamiliar locations and grounds? Just to name a few problems.

Post of the year:)

[MrMahatma]

Reports that, if a decision can't be reached between the clubs (St Kilda want the 4 points), they will flip a coin to decide the match.

Shows how much respect the AFL has for the competition.

EDIT: Official AFL Statement (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/129982/default.aspx)

That's pretty outrageous. Toss of a coin...

[LostDoggy]

Am sure the people in country vic disagree with you chops. Love the NAB, getting a look at the new kids, can get front fow seats easy peasy and supergoals are cool. Only thing I hate is when dogs players get injured.

Of course the country people want to see games. Let them have 2 weeks of practice matches. Its the competition that's BS.
If super goals are so good then use them all year.

[LostDoggy]

That's pretty outrageous. Toss of a coin...

Even without the coin toss the the competition is now compromised. How do you work out a percentage given its likely the finalist will be decided by this.


It also slightly compromises the real season by both side have a week off when others played.

[Hotdog60]

I'm with Chops on scrapping this comp and extending the season, as for the tinkering with the rules I wish they would leave things alone.

Nine point goals meh, gimmicky and we don't need it, the AFL talks about a national completion and extending the brand overseas they need to stop playing with the rules and get it sorted so that they stop confusing people who haven't grown up with the game.

I used to enjoy the NAB cup back when it was the night series but now it's just play ground for tampering and confusing players and fans.

[GVGjr]

I don't like some of the rules that we see in the NAB cup but I don't think it's a bad competition leading into the real season. The positives for me is the chance to see players tried in positions they don't normally play and it's also a great chance to see some of the younger guys.
The old practice games were never that great in my opinion.

For those that are criticizing it, did you go to the final (or watch it on TV) and celebrate when we won it?

I'd certainly prefer players getting ready for match conditions via the NAB cup rather just going straight into the season without it.

[GVGjr]

I'm with Chops on scrapping this comp and extending the season, as for the tinkering with the rules I wish they would leave things alone.


They won't extend the season and even if they did, how do players get ready for match conditions without an organised competition as a lead in?

I don't like the gimmicky rules but I suppose they need a point of difference between that and the home and away season. It's also a chance to see if the proposed rules could be carried over into the home and away season.

[Go_Dogs]

I'd certainly prefer players getting ready for match conditions via the NAB cup rather just going straight into the season without it.

Agreed.

The current format also provides the AFL some good revenue, and an opportunity to trial a few things.

Can't see it changing myself.

[MrMahatma]

I'm sure the sponsorship cash will determine the life-span of this cup.

[Desipura]

Extending the home and away games would not sit well with the players. Clubs would just rest their players even more than they currently are.
Imagine how many more dead rubber games there would be ie GWS vs Geelong.
Not to mention games that will get no audience whether at the ground or on tv ie GWS vs
Port Adelaide.
I can see in the future lesser games not even being televised like back in the 70s and 80s.

[Hotdog60]

They won't extend the season and even if they did, how do players get ready for match conditions without an organised competition as a lead in?

I don't like the gimmicky rules but I suppose they need a point of difference between that and the home and away season. It's also a chance to see if the proposed rules could be carried over into the home and away season.

As I said I used to enjoy the night series way back when, I suppose I'm just getting sick and tired of the rule changes more than anything.

[Dazza]

I'm not sure why. But the Nab cup has been horrible this year. More-so than any other year that I can remember.

[GVGjr]

As I said I used to enjoy the night series way back when, I suppose I'm just getting sick and tired of the rule changes more than anything.

And I agree with that and I share everyones frustration with it but it doesn't mean the competition isn't the best lead into the home and away season.

[chef]

Keep it the same(as this year, round robin with a GF at the end) as no one cares about the results any way and it allows the AFL to trial different things. Glorified practice matches are all they are

[jazzadogs]

Keep it the same(as this year, round robin with a GF at the end) as no one cares about the results any way and it allows the AFL to trial different things. Glorified practice matches are all they are
I would keep it the same without the stupid format of Rd 1. No need to have the mini-games, just go straight into two teams playing a full 4 quarters against each other.

[LostDoggy]

I'm sure the sponsorship cash will determine the life-span of this cup.

That's what I believe. I'd be embarrassed to sponsor such a poorly run competition.

[LostDoggy]

For those that are criticizing it, did you go to the final (or watch it on TV) and celebrate when we won it?

Watched on tv. Was happy we won but no different from a H&A win.

[AndrewP6]

For those that are criticizing it, did you go to the final (or watch it on TV) and celebrate when we won it?


Yes, it was the only silverware I've ever seen us win - I'd celebrate a win in a bowls tournament if the Bulldogs were the winners! :) But looking back, it got us nowhere in the season proper.

I wouldn't mind it so much if they stopped tinkering with the rules, and just admitted it is what it is - practise matches.

[LostDoggy]

There is no full team competition used as a lead up in other codes of football, why does afl need to be different?
As for trying players out. The only real way is in a meaningful game. They 1st round of 3 teams wasn't meaningful. Some sides don't take this comp seriously. The country grounds might be dubious and again the trial rules change the way the game is played.

I have no problem with players resting throughout the season. There are dead rubbers now and even more with this comp.

[Bulldog4life]

I would keep it the same without the stupid format of Rd 1. No need to have the mini-games, just go straight into two teams playing a full 4 quarters against each other.

Agree

[GVGjr]

Watched on tv. Was happy we won but no different from a H&A win.

But had your picture taken with the cup from memory?

[GVGjr]

There is no full team competition used as a lead up in other codes of football, why does afl need to be different?


I'd rather Lake (for example) be given a run when there is no H&A points on offer than testing him in the regular season.



As for trying players out. The only real way is in a meaningful game. They 1st round of 3 teams wasn't meaningful. Some sides don't take this comp seriously. The country grounds might be dubious and again the trial rules change the way the game is played.


I disagree. Plenty can be gained by trialling something in the pre-season.

[LostDoggy]

But had your picture taken with the cup from memory?

I got the opportunity. It's silverware we hardly see. Will take but would rather have beaten Collingwood round 1.

[LostDoggy]

I'd rather Lake (for example) be given a run when there is no H&A points on offer than testing him in the regular season.

I disagree. Plenty can be gained by trialling something in the pre-season.

I'm not saying get rid of practice matches. Currently the pre season comp runs for 6 weeks including the intra or rest week makes it 8 weeks which is almost a third of the normal season. Too long for me

[GVGjr]

I'm not saying get rid of practice matches. Currently the pre season comp runs for 6 weeks including the intra or rest week makes it 8 weeks which is almost a third of the normal season. Too long for me

NAB's have a far better intensity than practice games against other clubs ever did. It's also great that it's on TV for the members that can't get there. Players have to abide by the rules or they can get rubbed out and when compared to games I used to see at the old Skinner reserve we are light years ahead of that. It's not perfect in fact it's far from it but it's also far from the sham you are indicating.

[Greystache]

I would keep it the same without the stupid format of Rd 1. No need to have the mini-games, just go straight into two teams playing a full 4 quarters against each other.

Agree with that. I get nothing out of watching the mini-games. The game never gets into a rhythm, halves are over before the game opens up, then they start it all again against another team. Give us 3-4 four quarter games that the clubs treat as a proper hit out and that the fans can get into watching.

[bornadog]

I don't like the gimmicky rules but I suppose they need a point of difference between that and the home and away season. It's also a chance to see if the proposed rules could be carried over into the home and away season.

Why do we need point of difference? Why do we need to see rule changes?

[bornadog]

I would keep it the same without the stupid format of Rd 1. No need to have the mini-games, just go straight into two teams playing a full 4 quarters against each other.

and the normal rules, not the made up trial BS

[LostDoggy]

NAB's have a far better intensity than practice games against other clubs ever did. It's also great that it's on TV for the members that can't get there. Players have to abide by the rules or they can get rubbed out and when compared to games I used to see at the old Skinner reserve we are light years ahead of that. It's not perfect in fact it's far from it but it's also far from the sham you are indicating.

It definetely a sham cos no fault of their own saints can't win it now and the bombers after 2 losses don't really give a stuff.

[Ghost Dog]

and the normal rules, not the made up trial BS

It must be hard for players to adjust at such high speed

[GVGjr]

Why do we need point of difference? Why do we need to see rule changes?

So is it the rules or the fact that it's an organised pre-season competition that you are rejecting?

To me I'd rather they trial some rules in the NAB cup game than the H&A season.
I don't think the scoring should be changed at all and that is why I objected to the super goal when it was first introduced. Other than that though what is the problem from your perspective and why do you think it's a sham?

[GVGjr]

It definetely a sham cos no fault of their own saints can't win it now and the bombers after 2 losses don't really give a stuff.

No different to one day or limited over cricket games being cancelled due to the weather leaving one team SOL.

[bornadog]

why do you think it's a sham?

1. Different rules - confuses everyone - eg 9 point goals, the ruck, interchange, deliberate out of bounce etc etc The only rule I like is you can change up to 7 players at half time which is what a practise match is all about.

2. Experimenting rules - Why do we need to change this great game? What is the point after 100 years of playing the game? Can't we settle and say for once and for all this is the game? It truly is farcical especially when you tell people from overseas and they just scratch their head and say is this a real game. AFL has no credibility outside of AFL.

It was like the kicking backwards rule that was experimented with in the NAB Cup and the VFL, what a joke. I even saw a free paid in an AFL match at the MCG for a player kicking backwards and being told to play on and getting caught. Umpire was confused as was the player who didn't know what happened.

3. The first round - what is the point?

I prefer to have some lead up practise matches up the bush or wherever for players to start getting match fit. I don't agree to extend the season beyond 22 rounds and I hate the top eight for finals, although now there are 18 teams I can live with it.

[LostDoggy]

No different to one day or limited over cricket games being cancelled due to the weather leaving one team SOL.

Saints chances of winning weren't sabotaged by the weather more by the opposition not giving a stuff.

[bornadog]

It definetely a sham cos no fault of their own saints can't win it now and the bombers after 2 losses don't really give a stuff.

Saints should get the full 4 points as Essendon didn't show up.

[bornadog]

No different to one day or limited over cricket games being cancelled due to the weather leaving one team SOL.

Wasn't cancelled due to bad weather. Essendon didn't show up as they chose to fly there instead of getting on a bus. Saints still played an intra club as many locals showed up.

[LostDoggy]

Saints should get the full 4 points as Essendon didn't show up.

It's not like the Saints give a stuff either. So they aren't complaining. Making more of a sham.

[GVGjr]

Saints should get the full 4 points as Essendon didn't show up.

And I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[GVGjr]

It's not like the Saints give a stuff either. So they aren't complaining. Making more of a sham.
Are you sure about that? Watters wants the 4 points.

[AndrewP6]

Are you sure about that? Watters wants the 4 points.

But the club aren't pursuing it:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/129998/default.aspx

[chef]

and the normal rules, not the made up trial BS

They need to trial things somewhere.

[LostDoggy]

Are you sure about that? Watters wants the 4 points.http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/saints-happy-to-move-on-from-essendons-wangaratta-noshow-20120304-1uams.html
Had it been a real game, we wouldn't hear the end of it.

[LostDoggy]

They need to trial things somewhere.

It's an admission that the game has issues then. Don't believe Bartlett's spin how all other codes do it(change rules) too.

[LostDoggy]

Its close 140 years that the game has been going and they are still trialing stuff

[chef]

Its close 140 years that the game has been going and they are still trialing stuff

So you don't like any of the rule changes they have brought in over the last 140 years?

[GVGjr]

But the club aren't pursuing it:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/129998/default.aspx

Unfortunately the AFL signed off the Bombers travel arrangements beforehand which closes the door somewhat for them. I expect on Monday the Saints might ask them to review it again

[LostDoggy]

So you don't like any of the rule changes they have brought in over the last 140 years?
Yes there has been so many so there might be a couple.
The short kick rule in the 1800s.
They harp on all the time about how it's the best game, yet they continually try to change it.

[ledge]

Yes there has been so many so there might be a couple.
The short kick rule in the 1800s.
They harp on all the time about how it's the best game, yet they continually try to change it.

Good point Chops, problem with Aussie rules is too many rules and too many 50/50 rules.

Soccer and cricket are pretty straight forward rules and nowhere near as many.

[AndrewP6]

Just announced on Fox that St Kilda will get the four points due to the Bombres no-show in Wang. Apparently they think the NAB Cup is just as important as the Premiership season. :eek:

[bornadog]

They need to trial things somewhere.

Why do we have to trial anything?

For gods sake people, why do we have to change this game, what is wrong with it?

Watching the game tonight with these ridiculous rules makes it the Sham Cup. Its so frustrating.

[Ghost Dog]

Sham cup??? loved it! I'll watch us beat Carlton any time of the year.

[GVGjr]

Why do we have to trial anything?

For gods sake people, why do we have to change this game, what is wrong with it?

Watching the game tonight with these ridiculous rules makes it the Sham Cup. Its so frustrating.

People said that about the advantage rule they also said the same thing about waiting for the goal umpires to put the flags away before you were allowed to kick in after a point. They also put a line across the centre square after watching two ruckman spend the better part of every game just wrestling and they also put a centre square to open up the middle of the ground rather than having 36 players at the fall of every contest.
They get some right and they get some wrong but you obviously think the game is purring along at a 100%. The NAB cup is where I would prefer the AFL rules committee to try new rules and even if they get a few wrong it's still the right spot to give them a go.

[The Coon Dog]

I guess we should fly to Ballarat a day early, just to be safe! ;)

[bornadog]

People said that about the advantage rule they also said the same thing about waiting for the goal umpires to put the flags away before you were allowed to kick in after a point. They also put a line across the centre square after watching two ruckman spend the better part of every game just wrestling and they also put a centre square to open up the middle of the ground rather than having 36 players at the fall of every contest.

They get some right and they get some wrong but you obviously think the game is purring along at a 100%. The NAB cup is where I would prefer the AFL rules committee to try new rules and even if they get a few wrong it's still the right spot to give them a go.

The only one they got right was the centre square, the rest I am dead against.

No one can answer, whats wrong with the game and we have to continually change things?

[bornadog]

The AFL rules book has 70 plus pages of rules, it is the most over officiated game in the world, no wonder we need so many umpires on the ground.

[GVGjr]

The only one they got right was the centre square, the rest I am dead against.

No one can answer, whats wrong with the game and we have to continually change things?

The game is OK now based on the fact that things like the advantage rule and the line separating the ruckman have worked. It's no longer a constant dour struggle.

I think they are also on a winner with the sub even though I was originally against it.

[LostDoggy]

The game is OK now based on the fact that things like the advantage rule and the line separating the ruckman have worked. It's no longer a constant dour struggle.

I think they are also on a winner with the sub even though I was originally against it.

I'd like to see clubs being able to nominate any player from the emergency bench as the sub. Would make it a lot easier for clubs to manage whilst still having its desired effect (minimising interchange rotations)

[bornadog]

I'd like to see clubs being able to nominate any player from the emergency bench as the sub. Would make it a lot easier for clubs to manage whilst still having its desired effect (minimising interchange rotations)

Why do we need to minimize bench rotations? The whole sub rule is a joke and has added nothing to enhance the game.

[chef]

Why do we have to trial anything?

For gods sake people, why do we have to change this game, what is wrong with it?

Watching the game tonight with these ridiculous rules makes it the Sham Cup. Its so frustrating.

So you don't like the center square or the interchange rule or the 50 meter penalty etc, etc?

I don't mind trialling things as in my opinion they can improve our game and to be honest we have been fidling with it for the last 140 years.

[chef]

Why do we need to minimize bench rotations? The whole sub rule is a joke and has added nothing to enhance the game.

I like it. Happy for it to become 2 & 2 next season as well which looks like happening.

This rule actually takes football back a few decades(I thought this may be one that you would like too bornadog) IMO to where the better players stay on the ground longer and rest in different positions instead of one the bench.

[LostDoggy]

Why do we need to minimize bench rotations? The whole sub rule is a joke and has added nothing to enhance the game.

Because otherwise we are heading towards ice hockey.


I like it. Happy for it to become 2 & 2 next season as well which looks like happening.

This rule actually takes football back a few decades(I thought this may be one that you would like too bornadog) IMO to where the better players stay on the ground longer and rest in different positions instead of one the bench.

Agree. I like the sub rule. I don't think 2 + 2 is right, as the players are just going to suffer more injuries, I mean look at last night, we were totally stuffed at the end. But 3 + 1 is a good thing, and if the club was able to have a few different options available to sub in, so they can replace any player with injury as well as have the fresh legs, it would alleviate most concerns about the rule and would also add a bit more intrigue to each game, e.g. “Who's going to be subbed in?”

[bornadog]

So you don't like the center square or the interchange rule or the 50 meter penalty etc, etc?

I don't mind trialling things as in my opinion they can improve our game and to be honest we have been fidling with it for the last 140 years.

Every time new rules are brought in, the game changes. The Centre square I have already said was a good idea, and the out on the full as well, otherwise the game would have been Rugby like, but the rest of the rules are just put there because of a knee jerk reaction from the AFL. They don't think about the long term consequences. One minute they want the game to be fast and furious, so they change the kick ins after point is scored, they double the boundary umpires to get the ball flowing. Then they tell us because its so fast they have to restrict the interchange bench.

Very little has been improved in the game since the centre square and line across the centre for ruck duels.

Tell me do you like the interpretation of the hands in the back, chopping the arms? Last night Dahlhaus was pinged for nudging a player under the ball and then marking it.

[bornadog]

Because otherwise we are heading towards ice hockey.

Oh please, the four interchange bench was introduced 20 years ago.

The reason these old farts at AFL house change the rules is because they are dreaming of how footy was played in the 1980's so they want to turn the clock back by counteracting the coaches tactics. They want the long kicks, the big pack forming and some one taking a screamer over the top etc. As new coaches come into the game, and bigger and faster players, they bring in new tactics and the game evolves naturally. No rules are going to stop the way the game develops, all the rules do is frustrate the supporters.

[LostDoggy]

Oh please, the four interchange bench was introduced 20 years ago.

The reason these old farts at AFL house change the rules is because they are dreaming of how footy was played in the 1980's so they want to turn the clock back by counteracting the coaches tactics. They want the long kicks, the big pack forming and some one taking a screamer over the top etc. As new coaches come into the game, and bigger and faster players, they bring in new tactics and the game evolves naturally. No rules are going to stop the way the game develops, all the rules do is frustrate the supporters.

Watching the game open up in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters last year says you're wrong buddy. Sorry. The sub did change the way the game was played last year.

[bornadog]

Watching the game open up in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters last year says you're wrong buddy. Sorry. The sub did change the way the game was played last year.

That is just AFL spin to justify their decision.

[Topdog]

Watching the game open up in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters last year says you're wrong buddy. Sorry. The sub did change the way the game was played last year.

It did?? Stats to back it up?

[LostDoggy]

Watching the game open up in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters last year says you're wrong buddy. Sorry. The sub did change the way the game was played last year.

BAD wasn't talking about rule changes not changing the game -- of course it does, that's the problem. I think BAD's point was more that players and teams evolve and will keep evolving and you can't just keep putting more and more rules up to roadblock the evolutions that a committee of conservative dunderheads in AFL House doesn't like.

It's crazy, everytime a coach develops a new approach or game plan KB and his mates think that they need to legislate it out of the game. There IS a better way -- instead of creating rules to cockblock the smartest coach in the game, let the other 17 smartest blokes (coaches) figure out a way to stop him, which may be a slightly slower process, but a lot more exciting and organic.

That's the essence of sport.

[Ghost Dog]

Tom Williams didn't have to dive for that mark last night.
If he had let it go, it would have been his free kick.
Drat! NAB rules could have saved him some bother.

[bornadog]

BAD wasn't talking about rule changes not changing the game -- of course it does, that's the problem. I think BAD's point was more that players and teams evolve and will keep evolving and you can't just keep putting more and more rules up to roadblock the evolutions that a committee of conservative dunderheads in AFL House doesn't like.

It's crazy, everytime a coach develops a new approach or game plan KB and his mates think that they need to legislate it out of the game. There IS a better way -- instead of creating rules to cockblock the smartest coach in the game, let the other 17 smartest blokes (coaches) figure out a way to stop him, which may be a slightly slower process, but a lot more exciting and organic.

That's the essence of sport.

Thanks Lantern, exactly what I was saying. Remember when flooding first came in and the Stupid rules committee wanted to do all sorts of things to counteract it. Stop players Kicking backwards, only allowing so many players in the 50metre arc etc etc. Luckily they weren't that silly, and whats happened, its slowly sorted out by another tactical coach to get around it.

Big Will has come out today and basically said the same thing, leave the bloody game alone.

[LostDoggy]

Just to add to this sham of a competition. Adelaide are on top with games- 2 home games and 1 neutral venue against a side that was terrible in 2011. Last game at aami. WC haven't had to leave the state yet. 2 games and the last game at Pattersons.
We could have had a chance to win this comp too. Next time let's play 2 rounds at Whitten oval and Gws in Broken Hill.
Remember they give out money for this and a sponsor seems to be proud to be associated with it.

[Maddog37]

Great call chops. No equalization payments either..............