Flooding: Fine teams that offend?

BHPIE · Post by **BHPIE** » Wed May 18, 2005 3:42 pm

I agree Joel, i dont like the footy we are getting either,...IMO the crows are the worst to watch,..... my solution to the problem would be to cut 4 teams, or through mergers ,...reduce the league to 12 teams,... in this way ,teams would be more skilled, reducing the need for flooding, and a higher standard of play.

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Wed May 18, 2005 3:56 pm

That'd never happen though, and it would do alot of harm to the competition, due to lost revenue etc.

Lone Ranger · Post by **Lone Ranger** » Wed May 18, 2005 4:11 pm

I actually hate people discussing "flooding" without describing what they mean. I have read posts where people talked about a team "flooding" by having 7 defenders. The other extreme is all 36 players in one half of the ground. That happens but is extremely rare. So just what sort of "flooding" are we trying to stop?

Clokey · Post by **Clokey** » Wed May 18, 2005 4:16 pm

Less teams? No way. If anything I'd love to see Southport as a new team.

Culprit · Post by **Culprit** » Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 pm

South Port Saints has been registered as a trade name of the AFL

It will go to 16 players a team on the ground at a time. It won't stop flooding but it will force teams to kick longer.

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Wed May 18, 2005 5:04 pm

The flood where most of the players from both teams are in the forward 50 of the team attacking.

Post by **Cam** » Wed May 18, 2005 5:53 pm

16 players will only work if they don't make it 6 on the bench.

BHPIE · Post by **BHPIE** » Wed May 18, 2005 6:39 pm

Joel, the lost revenue would be made up from not having to bail out basket cases like the dogs and roos,..but at the very least the league should be reduced to 14.

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Wed May 18, 2005 6:49 pm

It's not that black and white mate. I would go into it but I really can't be bothered.

Culprit · Post by **Culprit** » Thu May 19, 2005 7:37 am

Cam wrote:16 players will only work if they don't make it 6 on the bench.

I was going with 10 on ten on the bench, we may get through a game with 16 fit players then.

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Thu May 19, 2005 10:13 am

I completely understand that Steve.

Perhaps the least the AFL should so is tell clubs that this is not the sort of football that will allow the game to grow. If the clubs won't take the advice, then so be it, but it will be their own downfall.

Post by **David** » Thu May 19, 2005 12:25 pm

I don't really agree Joel, I'm already sick of the AFL making new rules to change the direction the game is heading in. Flooding should be considered a valid tactic, just like for example tagging of star opposition players is. I believe you can have an exciting game where each side only kicks 7 or 8 goals, with no spectacular marks, nothing but a tough tense contest. Some of the best non-Collingwood games I have seen have involved Sydney, and that is no coincidence, because I like their style of play a lot of the time. Besides, coaches will find ways to get around flooding anyway, it will only force teams to play smarter football to get around it.

BHPIE · Post by **BHPIE** » Thu May 19, 2005 2:13 pm

Steve, the umpiring standard was a lot better as well, with only2 umpires, plus 20 to 30 years ago there was only 12 to 14 teams.
We need 1 more rule change though,..get rid of the rules commitee.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Flooding: Fine teams that offend?