Three players in the ARC at all times....

[JackFlash]

In between all of the comedic banter sometimes the 'Footy Show' let's something slip that actually comes to fruition down the track. Newman talking about the cure for congestion mentioned the new ARC rule that i myself have been advocating on here for sometime. This was slightly different however : "Each team must have 3 players in their forward 50 ARC at each bounce no matter where the bounce is taken!"
My idea was to have 1 player from each side in the forward 50 at all times during the game which would spill over to two players incase of infringement. Penalty for non compliance a free kick at the fifty metre line dead in front.
The "Footy Show" have got wind of something at the AFL and i suspect we are going to see a radical rule change implemented before next season.
My other idea is to have the Interchange benches on opposite sides of the ground, why are they so close together anyway? It's chaos down there, cut them to 80 rotations and put the teams on the opposite sides of the oval. Thoughts?

 

[Kram]

Zones, like netball?

 

[Spongebob]

No

Just no.

Australian Rules is characterized by being a 360 degree, no off-side, no zones games.

It is the very fundamental nature of the game.

 

[Noctorniquet]

Just let the game be AFL, strategies will evolve and ebb and flow like they always have and this cycle of congestion will pass when a coach figures out how to break through it with a game plan.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

* no. It's not netball ffs. Ideas like this are ruining the game.

 

[Procrastinator35]

No

Just no.

Australian Rules is characterized by being a 360 degree, no off-side, no zones games.

It is the very fundamental nature of the game.

Only 4 inside the square at the first bounce?

 

[JackFlash]

I don't mind having 1 player stationed in the ARC at all times, i just don't see how they can police 3 players down there at every bounce all over the ground?.

As for the interchange, i wonder how much of the game is actually played on that side of the ground?

 

[JackFlash]

Leave the ******* game alone.

NO, that ones a cop out these days, the game visually has a problem and it needs to be sorted. You just can't bounce the ball and then have a 36 player free for all and that's effectively what it is in 2015.

 

[seanoff]

People realise the centre diamond and then the square was introduced specifically to ease congestion. The sqaure was extended to further make the centre bounce 4 on 4.

Radical rule changes are not new.

And they have to try something. Many games are almost unwatchable rolling ball up fests.

I'm all for anything that returns the game to a more open contest.

And the coaches if they have a view they should be actively ignored.

 

[TiggerMan22]

Theoretically what happens if the ball gets bombed out from a kick in and bounces towards the other 50 and then stops a few meters before entering it.
Would you have the players on the edge of the 50 not being able to get the ball 2m in front of them? And then have to wait for their team to come down the field to get it.
Do they have to just have their feet in the 50? So they try to reach for it while keeping their feet in it. What happens if their opponent then pushes them over the line?
If they lead up for the mark can they not leave the 50? You could have players running for a mark just to try to stop on the 50 when they realize the ball is dropping short.
This are just a few of the stupid scenarios I see happening if this is brought in.

 

[Milux]

I actually dont mind modern footy. It might be just me though.

 

[pazza]

Why not every player has a set position..each player has an opponent in a set position...and have 18 one-on-one contests. Would improve skills.

 

[The Real JG]

Some Johnny Worsford Zoneball.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Theoretically what happens if the ball gets bombed out from a kick in and bounces towards the other 50 and then stops a few meters before entering it.
Would you have the players on the edge of the 50 not being able to get the ball 2m in front of them? And then have to wait for their team to come down the field to get it.
Do they have to just have their feet in the 50? So they try to reach for it while keeping their feet in it. What happens if their opponent then pushes them over the line?
If they lead up for the mark can they not leave the 50? You could have players running for a mark just to try to stop on the 50 when they realize the ball is dropping short.
This are just a few of the stupid scenarios I see happening if this is brought in.

Yep, logistical nightmare.

 

[melbournemartin]

The limit I'd be happy with would be a very minor zone restriction at the centre bounce or kickin. For example:

- Centre bounce: 1 player from each team in each goal square
- Kick in: 2 players from each team in the opposite arc

I wouldn't like to bring in either change, but if we went down that route I'd consider those acceptable.

 

[Taylor]

Do you really want a team to give away an offside free kick, 200m from the ball giving a goal to the opposition? If one of your forwards steps a foot outside the fifty you gift a goal to the opposition.

All because players are fitter now, watch for the really fit clubs to push hard into space covering zones rather than one-on-one formations in finals.

 

[MKMatty]

No.

The cure for congestion is is less interchanges per game and the removal of a player off the bench.

reduce the amount of fresh players on the ground = less defensive minded game styles which will ultimately push teams to play a more flowing and attacking style of footy.

 

[Taylor]

If you think fewer interchange and positional restrictions are good for attacking football remember that soccer has both and rarely has more than four goals a game scored.

 

[pazza]

If you think fewer interchange and positional restrictions are good for attacking football remember that soccer has both and rarely has more than four goals a game scored.

However, the scoring in the 1970's and 1980's was greater because of both.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Just let the game be AFL, strategies will evolve and ebb and flow like they always have and this cycle of congestion will pass when a coach figures out how to break through it with a game plan.

What congestion? Eagles bulldogs game? None. Crows Brisbane game, none?

The eagles are a great example of moving the ball quickly, exciting footy to beat congestion.

 

[Taylor]

However, the scoring in the 1970's and 1980's was greater because of both.

I'm not convinced those playing in that era were the world class athletes we have now.

I would love to see an ineffective player in the current era out run those in the past.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

They should give each teams captain an oversized chalk stick before the game. They have to run around outlining zones for their team, paddocks style. Once that's done the game can start, with no players allowed in the opposition zones.
There will be no annoying tackling or spoiling of marks to slow the game down, it should be a very high scoring affair.

 

[Agent93]

If you think fewer interchange and positional restrictions are good for attacking football remember that soccer has both and rarely has more than four goals a game scored.

Also has an offside rule.

 

[The Swert]

I'm not convinced those playing in that era were the world class athletes we have now.

So there's the answer then. We need more fat slobs playing, they create more attractive football.

Seriously though, the issue of congestion is mostly due to the more intense tackling and disputed scrimmages that result in more ball-ups around the ground. These repeat ball-ups drew players to them and slow the game down.

The focus needs to be removing scrimmages and ball-ups. Maybe we need more free kicks paid in packs to get the ball moving. Perhaps no third tackler over the top? Perhaps no grabbing the ball unless you're on your feet? Perhaps only two designated ruckmen can contest the ball-up?

 

[Suma Magic]

What does ARC stand for?