KB must be stopped

[LostDoggy]

This guy (Kevin Bartlett) has way too much say on the game. I think he was top 10 in a recent most influential AFL powerbrokers list.

Latest is he wants 8 subs and no interchange! Hey lets go back to 1970 and just add a few more subs. Prompted by Kevin Sheedy's thoughts on too much flooding, rotations and the congestion style of the game.

Change for change sake? He believes in 'checks and balances for the game' but no matter what he says no other football code has so many major changes in such a short time.

I have little doubt next year it will start and we will see 2 interchange/2 subs.

Is there any foresight in the rule changers at all? They went down the interchange path over 40 years back and now they say its wrong! What they don't understand is the rule changes have been the catalyst for turning the game into what we have today.

In the end the game is really ruled by the tactics and the coaches/players will eventually overcome the restrictions and play the game the way they want it to be played. Be it 'ugly' or 'pretty'.

[Sockeye Salmon]

There are officially more registered journos with the AFL than there are registered players.

To get heard or read each journo has to out-do the previous one resulting in more and more ludicrous suggestions.


The issue is the AFL are too stupid to tell which ones are reasonable and which ones are ludicrous.

[LostDoggy]

I like this thread because it puts a name to the problem. When I used to fight cases at VCAT or the like it was very easy to get into the habit of thinking of your opponents as a bloc or an organisation. I'm guilty of it here as well, as I tend to think of the enemy as "AFL HQ" or some such.

The reality is that individuals sit behind the organisational facade and have influence. The key to influencing institutions etc., no matter how big or powerful they are, is to have influence with certain key people in those places (you know, "key stakeholders", in corporate speak). I've seen whole federal budget policy decisions made (impacting LITERALLY several billion dollars of taxpayer money) based simply on various relationships that lobbyists (good and bad) have with various ministers, or on a quirk of a person's personal history etc.

So if we want to fight the AFL, let's name names rather than letting them get away with hiding behind organisational or committee facades. Demetriou, KB, Adrian Anderson et al.

[Maddog37]

Something needs to be done to stop so many numbers at the ball though.

[LostDoggy]

Something needs to be done to stop so many numbers at the ball though.

Why is rule changes mentioned as the only way to fix it?
Even in a couple of our game we have been beaten by sides standing back from stoppage.
Let the game evolve itself.

[chef]

Something needs to be done to stop so many numbers at the ball though.

It's something that we just need to get used to for the time being, as unless we are going to have netball type zones it's going to be impossible to stop.

I think it's amazing how much the game has evolved in the last 10 years and have heard people like Bob Murphy say it's a different game to the one they got drafted into.

[chef]

Why is rule changes mentioned as the only way fix it?
Even in a couple of our game we have been beaten by sides standing back from stoppage.
Let the game evolve itself.

This.

Every time someone comes up with something to revolutionise footy it's only 6 months until someone else picks apart and renders it obsolete.

[Happy Days]

"I'm shit, and I know I'm shit, but so are you, and at least I didn't go pick one" - The Beard to Jack Watts

[azabob]

"I'm shit, and I know I'm shit, but so are you, and at least I didn't go pick one" - The Beard to Jack Watts

Happy Days stop taking threads off track.... ;)

[Remi Moses]

Can Bartlett take himself and his Zimmer frame into a nursing home now!

[bornadog]

I think most posters know my feelings on this issue. Agree with OP, get rid of these old farts like KB who have no idea.

[SonofScray]

Totally agree. KB needs to be shot. Along with the rest of his mates on the Rules committee. They've stunk things up enough.

That being said, if they limited changes and discussions to interchange rules only, I'd have a less violent view of what needs to happen to people like KB. Don't mind the trialling and tinkering of things like no, of subs/bench players and length of games... to a point. Just don't tinker with skills of the game.

[LostDoggy]

You know, I have a mixed view of KB personally. There are things about him that I really like; and he's a pretty decent bloke from all reports.

Someone just needs to tell him that the secret to fixing a complex system is not to add more complexity to it, which is a natural reaction -- most people, when a complex system fails, add more systems to it, but this generally just increases the variables and unintended consequences (the systems analysts amongst us will call it second-order effects).

Competitive sports have a built-in contingency plan: the coaches and players, who will generally find ways to evolve a game to beat any dominant system, which means that extremes are very unlikely to last very long. A game like soccer understands this implicitly -- apart from two major changes to the offside law over the last 150 years, it's resisted the temptation to change too much, so within its own logical limits, it has swung from extremes of attacking football to defensive football, but neither extreme has lasted very long.

We just need to trust the spirit of the game to the practitioners and pressure from the viewers, not to some abstract committee with some utopian, nostalgic view of how a particular sport should be played.

[jeemak]

You know, I have a mixed view of KB personally. There are things about him that I really like; and he's a pretty decent bloke from all reports.

Someone just needs to tell him that the secret to fixing a complex system is not to add more complexity to it, which is a natural reaction -- most people, when a complex system fails, add more systems to it, but this generally just increases the variables and unintended consequences (the systems analysts amongst us will call it second-order effects).

Competitive sports have a built-in contingency plan: the coaches and players, who will generally find ways to evolve a game to beat any dominant system, which means that extremes are very unlikely to last very long. A game like soccer understands this implicitly -- apart from two major changes to the offside law over the last 150 years, it's resisted the temptation to change too much, so within its own logical limits, it has swung from extremes of attacking football to defensive football, but neither extreme has lasted very long.

We just need to trust the spirit of the game to the practitioners and pressure from the viewers, not to some abstract committee with some utopian, nostalgic view of how a particular sport should be played.

I like your last point about trusting the spirit of the game, though I have one issue that I'd like to discuss with you.

At which stage does professionalism interfere with the capacity of the spirit of the game to reamain true? The common mantra these days is that coaches and players will always find a way to exploit the rules of the game, and test the boundaries of what the umpires are prepared to call on match day.

How does the AFL combat this, without actually imposing rules and regulation on a yearly basis?

For mine, I think the current issues with the overbearing officiating and management of the game can be separated into the philosophical and actual aspects.

Philosophical - Congestion, flooding, fatigue causing injuries, general aesthetics

Actual - Constitution of free kicks, protection of players in contests including intent


It seems that some rule interpretations have been recently designed to alter the philosophical aspects of the game, for instance, the current holding the ball decisions that rely on a player making an "attempt" to get the ball free from a contest if taking possession especially whilst on their knees. This rule has been very confusing and inconsistent this year, and it is clear that it hasn't been drawn on the basis of the spirit of the game, or fairness rather, from a need to keep the game moving.

On the other hand, you have the rewarding of free kicks to players that duck heads and dive head first into a stationary players knees. Those actions are clearly against the spirit of the game, and something the AFL needs to legislate out of the game. Another one, is the penalising of the player who gets to the ball first, though not being able to be rid of it.


The AFL, if concerned with the spirit of the game, should carefully manage the intent of players in actual contests, and ensure the rules are designed to limit injury and unfair advantage.

The strategic side of the game should be left to the coaches, the players, and the powers of eveolution that seemed to have benefited other similar codes on a global basis across hundreds of years.

That's a considerable rant, I hope it makes some sense.......

[Mantis]

I just see it as KB making outlandish statements so that his sports program has content for a few days.

[LostDoggy]

The AFL, if concerned with the spirit of the game, should carefully manage the intent of players in actual contests, and ensure the rules are designed to limit injury and unfair advantage.

The strategic side of the game should be left to the coaches, the players, and the powers of eveolution that seemed to have benefited other similar codes on a global basis across hundreds of years.

That's a considerable rant, I hope it makes some sense.......

It was a great post jeemak. I see where you're coming from in terms of separating the 'duty of care' parts of the game from the strategic/aesthetic (what you've called the philosophical).

I do understand from the AFL's perspective that it's hard to separate them -- one of the points raised in this discussion about substitutes was that the speed of the game was linked to player well-being. The NFL in the US have also been also looking at ways to protect the head after a spate of studies showing the link between concussion as part of the sport and early onset dementia, depression and suicides.

I think you've identified the problem beautifully -- if the AFL can just stick to 'duty of care' type adjustments I think we would generally be fine with it. It's when they use the duty of care card as an excuse to tamper with the aesthetics of the game which pisses the average punter off. For example, even with the 'speed of the game' argument, the AFL and KB very quickly then go to how they it also reduces 'congestion', which is not a duty of care issue. And there's no duty of care issue with the hands in the back rule -- it was just adding complexity to an already complex system: the number of 'interpretations' and technical crap umpires have to keep in mind every year are voluminous, from all reports (umps on here can confirm, I'm sure). A high-speed, high-risk, 360 degree sport needs less complexity, not more.

[jeemak]

I just see it as KB making outlandish statements so that his sports program has content for a few days.

Very good observation, much like a lot of the commentary on football programs is designed to sell the following days papers.

[jeemak]

KB also needs to realise that while tiring out entire teams of players might result in decreased congestion, the side-effect will be coaches employing flooding tactics to limit scoring and rely on slow precise movement from defense until a team can bomb into their foward 50m. Most coaches are conservative, and tend towards a defensive mindset.

The game has gone beyond KB from a strategic and tactical perspective (I actually wonder if he really understood tactics/strategy at all, anyway), and he doesn't understand that any changse you make to the game will open up other areas he won't be happy with, and that coaches will employ tactics throughout a game to work around them.

[westdog54]

Why is rule changes mentioned as the only way to fix it?
Even in a couple of our game we have been beaten by sides standing back from stoppage.
Let the game evolve itself.

Here's the bit I don't get...

KB says that the game is becoming more like Rugby, and that the solution is to restrict or eliminate interchange.

Hate to break it to you Kev, but Union doesn't have an interchange and in League you are restricted to 12 interchanges a match.

Epic KB fail on this one.

[Mofra]

Let the game evolve itself.
It seems having no rule changes woudl be the most radical solution of all.

When was the last year we had no rule changes (and I'd class a masisve change in interpretation as a rule change)?

[Happy Days]

Happy Days stop taking threads off track.... ;)

Ironic that it's a sledge too :o

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I can't stand listening to this moron talk about the game.

He's my most hated figure in the AFL. Year after year, he comes up with BS ideas to fix the problem he started 12 months earlier.

I like SEN, but simply cannot listen to it when he's on.

[LostDoggy]

I can't stand listening to this moron talk about the game.

He's my most hated figure in the AFL. Year after year, he comes up with BS ideas to fix the problem he started 12 months earlier.

I like SEN, but simply cannot listen to it when he's on.

Agree but he is more listenable than Shane Harfwit especially when Rita the right wing neo-nazi is on. Tony Schbecki(?spelling) is a quarter wit.

[Ghost Dog]

I like this thread. I know that all coaches are meeting soon with concerns about the interchange situation. All the rule changes and fiddling with the game ruins its integrity IMO.
My biggest pet peeve is the interchange line infringement rule. Step over a little bit of lime and you give away a free kick. It's so disproportionate to the offense, but then again, perhaps reflects the general nanny state we live in to a degree.

[Remi Moses]

Agree but he is more listenable than Shane Harfwit especially when Rita the right wing neo-nazi is on. Tony Schbecki(?spelling) is a quarter wit.

Chops, Get it right it's jackboot Rita . Schubecci is hopeless, Harford's a non event.
They took a stab in the dark with the 3 and 1 trying to reduce the interchange.It will be another guess if they go 2 and 2. The only way they can stop the massive amounts of interchanges is to cap it. Just leave it alone, pleeeease!

[jeemak]

Agree but he is more listenable than Shane Harfwit especially when Rita the right wing neo-nazi is on. Tony Schbecki(?spelling) is a quarter wit.

Mate, I can't think of anything worse than listening to Rita, seriously. As far as I'm concerned she is the epitomy of "take a dump anywhere it suits me" social commentary, and it completely disgusts me that there is an audience out there for it.

Sure, I respect the fact she's on the radio for a reason, afterall, if there wasn't listeners she wouldn't be there, but just like the channel seven commentary team, I can't for the life of me figure out who she appeals to, and why.

[Hotdog60]

It was a great post jeemak. I see where you're coming from in terms of separating the 'duty of care' parts of the game from the strategic/aesthetic (what you've called the philosophical).

I do understand from the AFL's perspective that it's hard to separate them -- one of the points raised in this discussion about substitutes was that the speed of the game was linked to player well-being. The NFL in the US have also been also looking at ways to protect the head after a spate of studies showing the link between concussion as part of the sport and early onset dementia, depression and suicides.

I think you've identified the problem beautifully -- if the AFL can just stick to 'duty of care' type adjustments I think we would generally be fine with it. It's when they use the duty of care card as an excuse to tamper with the aesthetics of the game which pisses the average punter off. For example, even with the 'speed of the game' argument, the AFL and KB very quickly then go to how they it also reduces 'congestion', which is not a duty of care issue. And there's no duty of care issue with the hands in the back rule -- it was just adding complexity to an already complex system: the number of 'interpretations' and technical crap umpires have to keep in mind every year are voluminous, from all reports (umps on here can confirm, I'm sure). A high-speed, high-risk, 360 degree sport needs less complexity, not more.

It's quite interesting this highlighted bit. The AFL is the problem of their current design, since the early 80's they have trying to make the game quicker and have been stuffing around with the rules to speed things up.
Now the game is quicker they are now trying to slow it down. If they had left well enough alone how would the game progressed over the years.

[MrMahatma]

Isn't he saying the bench was put in place initially so injured blokes/poor performers could be replaced. Remember the term "being dragged"? It's now being used to rotate and refresh. 4 subs (or 8) would, I guess, be similar in practice to what the bench was intended in principle...

I agree it should've been left alone all along. I've no doubt they'll continue to tinker. You can't have a rules of the game committee without it changing the rules. Otherwise they'd have no job...

[bornadog]

Another old fool that needs to be stopped:

Sheedy wants rules to clear stoppages (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sheedy-wants-rules-to-clear-stoppages-20120612-2089n.html)

Bring on netball style zones:mad::mad:

[LostDoggy]

The issue is that the AFL is more concerned with TV ratings and match day takings than the “integrity” of the game. “Ugly” football = worse ratings and less people at the match.

They couldn't give a stuff about player welfare.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Coaches should have no credibility on rules issues as they are all ruled by self-interest.

[LostDoggy]

Coaches should have no credibility on rules issues as they are all ruled by self-interest.
But coaches as a group have more credibility than the has beens or the never were afl committee.

[bornadog]

But coaches as a group have more credibility than the has beens or the never were afl committee.

Sheedy is an old fool and should not be allowed to coach. The coaches association said the other day they were putting together a united view on the interchange etc and then he comes out with this tripe. I have no respect for Sheedy, and what SS said, relates to him.

[Greystache]

A great day for football

AFL Legend Kevin Bartlett stands down from his position on the Laws of the Game Committee (http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/afl-legend-kevin-bartlett-stands-down-from-his-position-on-the-laws-of-the-game-committee/story-fndv7pj3-1226844807359)

OUTSPOKEN AFL legend Kevin Bartlett will no longer sit on the Laws of the Game Committee after announcing his resignation today.

Bartlett proved one of the most controversial figures on the committee, often using his SEN 1116 radio program to defend rule changes.

Under Bartlett’s watch, the Laws of the Game Committee was responsible for contentious rules including hands in the back and sliding — forceful contact below the knees.

It’s understood Bartlett thought the ‘time was right’ to step away.

Bartlett is one of four changes including Jeff Gieschen, Rowan Sawers and Peter Schwab, who resigned due to his role with the Brisbane Lions.

New umpires’ boss Wayne Campbell joins the Laws of the Game Committee along with ex-West Coast coach John Worsfold and Michael Christian.

Laws Committee chairman, AFL football operations manager, Mark Evans welcomed the new arrivals.

“Our game relies on the experience and wisdom of many different views to consider the future direction of our game,” he said in a statement.

[Greystache]

Football has taken a big step forward with this announcement. Bartlett is a relic desperately trying to stay relevant in the game, he should've been gone 5 years ago.

[bulldogtragic]

Football has taken a big step forward with this announcement. Bartlett is a relic desperately trying to stay relevant in the game, he should've been gone 5 years ago.

For a fleeting second I thought Chops was back!

But ditto for all you said.

[bornadog]

Football has taken a big step forward with this announcement. Bartlett is a relic desperately trying to stay relevant in the game, he should've been gone 5 years ago.

He has tried to change the rules to make the game resemble something like the 70s and 80s. What he doesn't realise is the human body has changed dramatically, being faster , taller and stronger and on top of this coaching tactics and analysis of the game changed the face of football.

Good ridance

[jeemak]

He has tried to change the rules to make the game resemble something like the 70s and 80s. What he doesn't realise is the human body has changed dramatically, being faster , taller and stronger and on top of this coaching tactics and analysis of the game changed the face of football.

Good ridance


Good point.

What he also doesn't get is that any effort to tire players out will eventually result in coaches placing numbers behind the ball and the game turning into kick to kick, where eventually a more skillful side will from time to time find a way through a maze of players sitting in their offensive zone.

Most of the rule changes I can think of have had an equal opposite effect in player behaviour causing just as much damage to the game (and themselves) as the issue originally intended to be curtailed.

Good riddance, indeed.

[Remi Moses]

Thank god he has gone.
Thought the umpiring was good on the NAB cup games I saw.

[GVGjr]

I think his work on reducing IC rotations has some merit. I think they could eventually reduce it to 20 per quarter which would slow the game down substantially. I don't like the idea of the sub but understand why they do it. I'd like to see that removed if they could.

[Remi Moses]

If you bring in a rule for continuous play, then why advocate there is "to many interchanges"?
Listening to him on SEN contradict himself.
You'd imagine if play is in motion continually players are going to be exhausted and need to be interchanged.
He was moaning about coaches picking up tactics from other sports and implementing them.
Welcome to the modern world

[Remi Moses]

He has tried to change the rules to make the game resemble something like the 70s and 80s. What he doesn't realise is the human body has changed dramatically, being faster , taller and stronger and on top of this coaching tactics and analysis of the game changed the face of football.

Good ridance
He keeps talking about fans wanting the Duels we saw in the 70's , 80's and 90's.
I just want to see my team win games.

[Twodogs]

I think KB and the Rules Of The Games committee has been really good. The game is a far better spectacle than it was 3-4 years ago. Not so much wrestling in marking contests, not so much flooding.

If we can get i/c rotations down and get back to players matching up and having opponents they are responsible for it will be even better.

[bornadog]

I think KB and the Rules Of The Games committee has been really good. The game is a far better spectacle than it was 3-4 years ago. Not so much wrestling in marking contests, not so much flooding.

If we can get i/c rotations down and get back to players matching up and having opponents they are responsible for it will be even better.

I think football is really ugly now compared to the early 2000. The other day I was watching us play Geelong in 2005, where Skipper kicked 5 and Griffen gave Ablett a merry dance. The game was fast and furious and enjoyable to watch.

We don't need to continually tinker with this great game of ours . The game is continually evolving and all the rule changes do is make it go another way again.

[comrade]

One game between 2 young, free wheeling teams is not representative of what the game style of the code as a whole was in 2005.

Wasn't that the year that Sydney grinded its way to a flag playing 'boring' football according to Andy D?

[BornInDroopSt'54]

One game between 2 young, free wheeling teams is not representative of what the game style of the code as a whole was in 2005.

Wasn't that the year that Sydney grinded its way to a flag playing 'boring' football according to Andy D?
Agreed, and I think that was the Geelong Bulldogs game was branded as the fastest ever, Geelong had adapted and eventually bettered our playing style. Demetriou saw Sydney's boring yet successful style as such a threat to the AFL that he publicly lambasted it.

[LostDoggy]

I think KB and the Rules Of The Games committee has been really good. The game is a far better spectacle than it was 3-4 years ago. Not so much wrestling in marking contests, not so much flooding.

If we can get i/c rotations down and get back to players matching up and having opponents they are responsible for it will be even better.
I think that would happen naturally, over the course of time. When teams are so incredibly focused on zones and presses and the like, one day a coach will work out a game style based on man to man football that counters it all.