Dealing with congestion

[greatwhiteshark]

What Clarkson was actually saying is to pay the free kicks according to the law and remove the interpretation. Just like it always was. While initially there may be a huge number of free kicks the coaches will quickly tell there players to adjust and stop infringing. Paying the free kicks is the only thing that gets the ball moving in another direction. There is over 50 free kicks every game not paid according to the rules of the game. Constant infringements of head high contact, incorrect disposal, holding the man are happening time after time without penalty. Penalise the infringement and the players and coaches will quickly know how costly it will be if they keep doing it and will change the way they do things.
Bloody so simple.

 

[Procrastinator35]

What Clarkson was actually saying is to pay the free kicks according to the law and remove the interpretation. Just like it always was. While initially there may be a huge number of free kicks the coaches will quickly tell there players to adjust and stop infringing. Paying the free kicks is the only thing that gets the ball moving in another direction. There is over 50 free kicks every game not paid according to the rules of the game. Constant infringements of head high contact, incorrect disposal, holding the man are happening time after time without penalty. Penalise the infringement and the players and coaches will quickly know how costly it will be if they keep doing it and will change the way they do things.
Bloody so simple.

 

[Pottering]

the learned gentleman on the couch canvases a catalogue of solutions to this plague of stoppages but not the freakin obvious.

arent the stoppages around the ground caused by players who are caught in possession?
Introducing Zones or reduced rotations may have some indirect bearing but even in centre square bounces we have secondary, tertiary or a fourth stoppages.

So Gerard and friends if you are going to discuss stoppages around the ground please at least identify the cause - player caught in possession.

Let's discuss how and why players are being caught In possession in increasing numbers. Perhaps then we might reach some understanding and maybe even some solution before we completely destroy the game with netball zones.

What should happen when a player is caught in possession? How do. We reduce this occurrence? This is the only path to reducing the current increase of stoppages and the ugly football it encourages.

Once you identify cause and effect correctly remarkable solutions open up to otherwise stubborn or insolvable issues. Imagine if a player caught in possession is penalized. But a player in possession who is tackled to the ground is likely to spill the ball and play on is called - Then these tackles designed to hurt would disappear altogether. Sending more and more players to stoppage would become problematic as either a free kick or a quick outage is guaranteed to occur.

The player in possession who is unable or refuses to dispose of the ball is our problem.
Adjudicating when this is deliberate or accidental is not only a fools errand - it's just wrong and invites a range of negative consequences : higher Impact tackles, favouring strength over skills, favouring inside football, permitting more time for teams to flood back, encourages searching for the boundary, stronger and stronger midfielders are required to tackle stronger and stronger bodies. - causing higher impact collisions.

but imagine how much easier this game would be to umpire - of course we don't want that

I agree that it is the player getting pinned with the ball that is the major cause, obviously, but don't forget out of bounds.

How to decrease the player caught in possession? One solution might be to only allow a player to be tackled by one another player? Many ball ups come from stacks on the mill, sometimes a teammate of the player caught in possession piles on top simply to aid his teammate not getting pinged for holding the ball. If only a single completed tackle is allowed then it is much harder for the tackled player to pretend he can't get a disposal away. A single tackler would know he's a better chance to a free in his favour and the tackled player knows he has to get rid of it lest he give away a free (I estimate about 10% of tackles are ball and all and no chance to dispose of the ball). It's not the same but ice hockey has the 3rd man in rule where 2 blokes can punch each other but anyone else who joins in immediately is penalised. Same logic for tackles?

 

[Skoob]

Good to see there are some like minded souls around. Blow the bloody whistle.
While I largely agree with yebiga, completely eliminating "prior" might be a step too far. At stoppages I agree, but in more open play, a player can take possession unaware a tackler is in his blind spot. I wouldn't want to see a player penalised because the ball falls in his lap or a team mate has dished of a handball to them under pressure. Instinct tells players to grab the ball.
Instead, as Clarkson said, pay the frees that are there. Apply the rules properly, that already exist. Penalise non-"genuine attempts".

What Clarkson was actually saying is to pay the free kicks according to the law and remove the interpretation. Just like it always was. While initially there may be a huge number of free kicks the coaches will quickly tell there players to adjust and stop infringing. Paying the free kicks is the only thing that gets the ball moving in another direction. There is over 50 free kicks every game not paid according to the rules of the game. Constant infringements of head high contact, incorrect disposal, holding the man are happening time after time without penalty. Penalise the infringement and the players and coaches will quickly know how costly it will be if they keep doing it and will change the way they do things.
Bloody so simple.

Again I agree in principle, aside from the bolded. Not sure he actually said that, but more easily fix the interpretation. The rules written demand interpretation;

A Player is in possession of the football if, in the opinion of the
field Umpire:

Where the field Umpire is satisfied

given a reasonable opportunity to

has had a prior opportunity

These are all open to interpretation, but it is up to the AFL/rules committee/umpire department to direct or better define how they are to be interpreted.

Simply, the first step is to properly police the rules that are already there. The whole mentality of "letting it go" in regard to blowing the whistle is really one that people think less umpire interference will allow games to flow. Sometimes it does, but we are seeing now that in most cases it doesn't.

What should also be reminded to those running the game;

15.1 INTERPRETATION
15.1.1 Spirit and Intention of Awarding Free Kicks
It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall
be awarded to:
(a) ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner;
(b) provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of
the football their sole objective, every opportunity to
obtain possession;
(c) protect Players from sustaining injury; and
(d) a Player who executes a Correct Tackle which results
in an opponent failing to dispose of the football in
accordance with these Laws.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I hope they listen to Clarkson rather than David King.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I hope they listen to Clarkson rather than David King.

You know as well as I do they won't listen to anyone!!!!

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You know as well as I do they won't listen to anyone!!!!

They'll listen to that stupid old *******, KB

 

[yebiga]

Good to see there are some like minded souls around. Blow the bloody whistle.
While I largely agree with yebiga, completely eliminating "prior" might be a step too far. At stoppages I agree, but in more open play, a player can take possession unaware a tackler is in his blind spot. I wouldn't want to see a player penalised because the ball falls in his lap or a team mate has dished of a handball to them under pressure. Instinct tells players to grab the ball.
Instead, as Clarkson said, pay the frees that are there. Apply the rules properly, that already exist. Penalise non-"genuine attempts".

Again I agree in principle, aside from the bolded. Not sure he actually said that, but more easily fix the interpretation. The rules written demand interpretation;




These are all open to interpretation, but it is up to the AFL/rules committee/umpire department to direct or better define how they are to be interpreted.

Simply, the first step is to properly police the rules that are already there. The whole mentality of "letting it go" in regard to blowing the whistle is really one that people think less umpire interference will allow games to flow. Sometimes it does, but we are seeing now that in most cases it doesn't.

What should also be reminded to those running the game;

If a free is called each time a player is caught in possession - unAble to release the ball - you will be amazed how quickly players will adapt. You can be sure that after a single to round it would become a rare occurrence - players tackled with the ball would all suddenly fumble it and release it so quickly hoping to draw a free for being tackled without the ball

after 3-4 rounds I guarantee you will be lucky to see a single player caught in possession across a whole round of AFL
Suddenly everyone will develop butter fingers

This will become the topic of a different type of frustration but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages hands down
Stoppages will plummet, and the game will favor skill, evasiveness and quick thinkers over brute strength. Sling tackles would disappear instantly as tacklers would not risk dislodging a ball trapped into their opponent or being off their feet when the ball invariably comes loose.

 

[Skoob]

If a free is called each time a player is caught in possession - unAble to release the ball - you will be amazed how quickly players will adapt. You can be sure that after a single to round it would become a rare occurrence - players tackled with the ball would all suddenly fumble it and release it so quickly hoping to draw a free for being tackled without the ball

after 3-4 rounds I guarantee you will be lucky to see a single player caught in possession across a whole round of AFL
Suddenly everyone will develop butter fingers

This will become the topic of a different type of frustration but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages hands down
Stoppages will plummet, and the game will favor skill, evasiveness and quick thinkers over brute strength. Sling tackles would disappear instantly as tacklers would not risk dislodging a ball trapped into their opponent or being off their feet when the ball invariably comes loose.

I know what you're saying, but if you take possession, then fumbling/dropping/releasing becomes incorrect disposal. The ability to play on from a dropped/knocked out ball is dependent on prior opportunity. I say keep prior, make it less opportunity (more immediate), be more strict on genuine attempt.
At the same time, pay in the back and holding properly. 3 things to police properly, without even changing a rule. It doesn't get any easier than that.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

If a free is called each time a player is caught in possession - unAble to release the ball - you will be amazed how quickly players will adapt. You can be sure that after a single to round it would become a rare occurrence - players tackled with the ball would all suddenly fumble it and release it so quickly hoping to draw a free for being tackled without the ball

after 3-4 rounds I guarantee you will be lucky to see a single player caught in possession across a whole round of AFL
Suddenly everyone will develop butter fingers

This will become the topic of a different type of frustration but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages hands down
Stoppages will plummet, and the game will favor skill, evasiveness and quick thinkers over brute strength. Sling tackles would disappear instantly as tacklers would not risk dislodging a ball trapped into their opponent or being off their feet when the ball invariably comes loose.

It is not just the holding the ball rule that is the problem though, high contact is now rife throughout a game without penalty and holding the man has been for years now without penalty. It has to be sorted out.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I know what you're saying, but if you take possession, then fumbling/dropping/releasing becomes incorrect disposal. The ability to play on from a dropped/knocked out ball is dependent on prior opportunity. I say keep prior, make it less opportunity (more immediate), be more strict on genuine attempt.
At the same time, pay in the back and holding properly. 3 things to police properly, without even changing a rule. It doesn't get any easier than that.

I agree, you must be given prior opportunity to dispose of the ball, if caught without prior and ball is held in then throw it up immeditely. But if you do lose the ball and have not kicked or handballed it then that is incorrect disposal and a free should be awarded.

 

[yebiga]

I know what you're saying, but if you take possession, then fumbling/dropping/releasing becomes incorrect disposal. The ability to play on from a dropped/knocked out ball is dependent on prior opportunity. I say keep prior, make it less opportunity (more immediate), be more strict on genuine attempt.
At the same time, pay in the back and holding properly. 3 things to police properly, without even changing a rule. It doesn't get any easier than that.

Not really
Prior opportunity was always there but not in its current perversity
A player who is instantly tackled can and could release the ball - it is deemed as being knocked or stripped in the tackle
A player who has had an opportunity to dispose of the ball is not given the grace of releasing or not correctly disposing

But any player unable to release at all is penalized regardless of opportunity as the truth is they did not need to take possession
And as I said you will find they will all will release

 

[Skoob]

I guess yebiga , you could distinguish between contested and uncontested possessions. My concern is a player receiving the ball being automatically having to dispose correctly, without any chance to do so. If he is blindsided, you have to give him a chance or benefit of doubt.
You could treat contested possessions like a ruck contest (because you know you're a 98% chance of being caught). A ruckman who takes possession is considered to have had prior, because he should have tapped it. In a contested situation, you know there is a tackler beside/behind you, and that knowlege becomes your prior opportunity.

 

[yebiga]

It is not just the holding the ball rule that is the problem though, high contact is now rife throughout a game without penalty and holding the man has been for years now without penalty. It has to be sorted out.

I am not disputing the high contact but it muddies the water
Congestion is caused by deliberate use of the current prior intrepretation which enables players to not release and create another stoppage over and over

 

[yebiga]

I guess yebiga , you could distinguish between contested and uncontested possessions. My concern is a player receiving the ball being automatically having to dispose correctly, without any chance to do so. If he is blindsided, you have to give him a chance or benefit of doubt.
You could treat contested possessions like a ruck contest (because you know you're a 98% chance of being caught). A ruckman who takes possession is considered to have had prior, because he should have tapped it. In a contested situation, you know there is a tackler beside/behind you, and that knowlege becomes your prior opportunity.

Yes this is the concern - it's perceived as harsh if you penalize a guy who is caught instantly
But if he is given the benefit of it being knocked out in the tackle it mitigates the harshness and moves the game on

 

[Skoob]

Not really
Prior opportunity was always there but not in its current perversity
A player who is instantly tackled can and could release the ball - it is deemed as being knocked or stripped in the tackle
A player who has had an opportunity to dispose of the ball is not given the grace of releasing or not correctly disposing

But any player unable to release at all is penalized regardless of opportunity as the truth is they did not need to take possession
And as I said you will find they will all will release

Hmm, fair enough, I read past your

unAble to release the ball

stipulation, which is the differentiation.
Still, I'd rather just see the rules applied as they a written as a starting point, and HTB along with 'in the back' and holding, would go a long way to fixing congested without even amending the rule book.

 

[Skoob]

I am not disputing the high contact but it muddies the water
Congestion is caused by deliberate use of the current prior intrepretation which enables players to not release and create another stoppage over and over

To be fair, whilst I agree with what you say is the 'cause', policing the rules in general will reduce congestion.

 

[ziad]

What Clarkson was actually saying is to pay the free kicks according to the law and remove the interpretation. Just like it always was. While initially there may be a huge number of free kicks the coaches will quickly tell there players to adjust and stop infringing. Paying the free kicks is the only thing that gets the ball moving in another direction. There is over 50 free kicks every game not paid according to the rules of the game. Constant infringements of head high contact, incorrect disposal, holding the man are happening time after time without penalty. Penalise the infringement and the players and coaches will quickly know how costly it will be if they keep doing it and will change the way they do things.
Bloody so simple.

so spot on it is embarrasing

 

[eaglespremiers]

 

[yebiga]

Sports today on 3aw last night was canvassing a range of revolutionary options - every crazy idea - except the penalizing the player who actually causes the stoppage

When football was at its best in 1980s we did penalize the player unable to dispose of the ball

Why oh why are so many afraid of making this clear cut? It's like the afl loves loading umpires with subjective decisions

Genuine attempt is genuinely insane
Players will genuinely attempt to advantage themselves and their team that is all
We laugh at soccer players diving - well our game is more laughable when we accept a player can grab the ball under any circumstance be caught and the ball trapped and then if he mimics an epileptic fit we say - good show have a ball up

And instead of dealing with this plague directly we discuss zones, interchanges, time resets, distance the ball is kicked for a mark, boundary throwins - in short everything but the issue itself because what poor player didn't have a chance!!!

Even in rugby union the ball carrier must release when grounded but in afl if the player fakes a seizure he is not penalized

 

[Hardhat11]

Leave the game alone

Hawks and Eagles are flying and winning

Teams know they need to score to win

Zones I hear....so if you had 3 players inside fifty and three in defensive 50

That means you would 12 players in between the arc on each side ...so 24 players between the two fifty meter arcs ....that's. 24 players in 60-70 meter area depending which ground you're at ......in effect we would see more congestion in the middle part of the ground ...which would result in less inside fifties

Zones ......no way

Leave the game alone ......freo, west coast , swans and HAKWS fans are t complaining are they ..IS THE PEOPLE FROM LOSIMG TEAMS

 

[Pea Nut]

Leave the game alone ......freo, west coast , swans and HAKWS fans are t complaining are they ..IS THE PEOPLE FROM LOSIMG TEAMS

It is not that at all. The talk about the state of the game refers to attracting new fans to the sport, or increasing the viewing of matches by "neutral" fans, in games which their team is not playing.

 

[Hardhat11]

It is not that at all. The talk about the state of the game refers to attracting new fans to the sport, or increasing the viewing of matches by "neutral" fans, in games which their team is not playing.

Neutral fans come and go ......even a game that has ten goals v 9 goals is better than 2-1 in soccer .....

Sorry

Of you change something it then has contagion effect somewhere else

Lower the subs ...sure I reckon fifty ...creates fatigue ...but then you could argue creating fatigued players will mean more congestion and more missed shots

More missed shots means more kick ins ...which means more congestion

You're dammed if you do dammed if you don't ......

So leave the game to evolve ...crowds are down because people buy Foxtel ....Foxtel is what hundred bucks a month .....to take a family to the footy it's close to hundred bucks ....4 tickets, 4 pies, 4 chips, drinks and trains or buses ......no change from a hundred bucks

Congestion is there yup .....but let the game and coaches evolve it naturally

One rule I would like to see trialled though ....

If a player is on the ground only one person from the opposition can tackle him .....this actually gives the ball a chance to release ....I would like that trialled

 

[Pea Nut]

Neutral fans come and go ......even a game that has ten goals v 9 goals is better than 2-1 in soccer .....

Sorry

Of you change something it then has contagion effect somewhere else

Lower the subs ...sure I reckon fifty ...creates fatigue ...but then you could argue creating fatigued players will mean more congestion and more missed shots

More missed shots means more kick ins ...which means more congestion

You're dammed if you do dammed if you don't ......

So leave the game to evolve ...crowds are down because people buy Foxtel ....Foxtel is what hundred bucks a month .....to take a family to the footy it's close to hundred bucks ....4 tickets, 4 pies, 4 chips, drinks and trains or buses ......no change from a hundred bucks

Congestion is there yup .....but let the game and coaches evolve it naturally

One rule I would like to see trialled though ....

If a player is on the ground only one person from the opposition can tackle him .....this actually gives the ball a chance to release ....I would like that trialled

I completely agree with you original post, but was just clarifying the last line in your post, and that it isn't fans of losing teams that are complaining. I think it should be allowed to evolve, and am horrified that anyone would even mention bringing in something as drastic as "zones".

 

[yebiga]

it is too late to say leave the game alone as the changes have already been made and it's impossible to understand the decisions being made around congested areas. Umpires are just plucking decisions out of the air.

We have a prior opportunity rule which at least 3 times a game is ignored
Players aren't suppose to dive on the ball and not get it out but it happens all the times
The third man up in the ruck is farcical as umpires again pluck something from left field
We simply need some clarity around congestion areas and we have nothing like it