While I actually agree with the sentiment of MBs post (too much change too fast without any idea of the consequence), his examples above I'd like to use to illustrate the opposite.meher baba wrote:. Lots of other changes have not been for the better IMO: eg, the unlimited interchange (which has brought us the flood and many other unwelcome innovations), the quick kick in after the behind is scored (which has eliminated a lot of contested marks), the new interpretation of holding the ball (which frequently penalises the player who is brave enough to go after the contested balll), etc.
Firstly, I do not understand the link people make between flooding and the unlimited interchange. Flooding and defensive football do not inherently demand fresh/fit players. It's the offense that beats these floods that demands it, and the transition game.
Without the interchange you'd likely still see flooding. What you'd miss is the specialist players. Key Forward, ruckmen... the less interchanges, the more of an advantage to be able to run for 4 quarters.
The maxim in North American sport is that "offense wins games, defense wins championships". As AFL made the transition to a highly paid full time pro sport, flooding was always going to rear it's head. The essence is that the team moves as a whole, and the main thing that comes down to is drilling. The sooner that the AFL accepts this and stops trying to legislate against percentage football, the sooner the rules change slows down and the AFL stops frustrating fans.
The rushed behind rule is a case in point. It's being exploited sooner than most because it's actually playing into the hands of 2 of the top 3 teams from '08, and the Saints make it 3 with the plan they've come out with... because teams can't rush a behind, hurry it in and move quickly upfield, the teams that don't underman their forward lines find advantage - Geelong and the 'Dogs were already regularly in this setup. Team forward pressure rather than chase pressure becomes key... the likely eventual outcome will be tighter forward zones than we've ever seen. The intent was to stop teams from rushing behinds to retain ball control forced by the 3/4 press putting on pressure, but effectively I believe in the long run the rule will demand numbers forward and back and simply swifter transition as a team through the zones.
Given time, coaches will answer all strategic initiatives on their own... but the rules committee justifies it's existence by not giving that time. Instead of planning to deconstruct another teams plan, it's a race to exploit each new change.
