State of play

[Geronimo#]

Watching afl 360 and the conversations about congestion.
One thing I agree on is interchange reduction. I was always of the thought 80 each. 20 per quarter and whatever at breaks. Sellers said don't pussy foot around with 120/100 or whatever just cut back to 40. Dramatic change it no change at all he rekons.
My thoughts fwiw are leave the game as is. Cut interchange if they want. But... Every time there is a stoppage/throw in/bounce put all the forwards/defenders back in the forward 50. Not designated players but 6 players from each team must be in each arc. That would make a bit more space. Maybe not the answer but the best I've come up with that's easy to do. Nah that's the answer make it happen!

 

[Damon_3388]

My thoughts fwiw are leave the game as is. Cut interchange if they want. But... Every time there is a stoppage/throw in/bounce put all the forwards/defenders back in the forward 50. Not designated players but 6 players from each team must be in each arc. That would make a bit more space. Maybe not the answer but the best I've come up with that's easy to do. Nah that's the answer make it happen!

Geez, how much would this slow the game down? Can see it causing dispute and argument, or just plain pissing people off, with the delays and how it's adjudicated.

This idea, or restricting interchange in any form, is not going to produce a more entertaining contest, or create or recreate some mythical golden era, and is far more of a bastardisation of the game than the detractors claim the current incarnation of the game to be.

 

[Always Ballin]

Footy was definitely better to watch when it was less congested and more man to man, flowing. Brought value to the Power Forward Full Forwards. I miss a good Fraser Gehrig G-train spectacle. G train vs Rutten or Glass... Wowee. Who remembers in the 05 prelim when G train and Barry Hall crossed paths for a few seconds. Felt like the world was about to explode. Such power.

 

[Kram]

 

[Maddo11]

No change for interchanges is necessary, it all comes down to umpiring for mine.
As soon as the ball stops moving ie: a player is legally tackled without prior opportunity, call a ball up straight away. Less large groups of players rolling around on the ground will bring quicker clearances and more 1 on 1 contests.

no drastic rule changes or restrictions, just blow the whistle more often so there's less time for every player on the ground to get within 20m of the ball

 

[Geronimo#]

Geez, how much would this slow the game down? Can see it causing dispute and argument, or just plain pissing people off, with the delays and how it's adjudicated.

This idea, or restricting interchange in any form, is not going to produce a more entertaining contest, or create or recreate some mythical golden era, and is far more of a bastardisation of the game than the detractors claim the current incarnation of the game to be.

Back when forwards and backs stayed forward and back! Most would tend to stay forward and back rather than running back every time there was a stoppage. Especially if the interchange was at 40. Might end up with a real full forward again.
Ps I loved the G-train

 

[RUNVS]

Watching afl 360 and the conversations about congestion.
One thing I agree on is interchange reduction. I was always of the thought 80 each. 20 per quarter and whatever at breaks. Sellers said don't pussy foot around with 120/100 or whatever just cut back to 40. Dramatic change it no change at all he rekons.
My thoughts fwiw are leave the game as is. Cut interchange if they want. But... Every time there is a stoppage/throw in/bounce put all the forwards/defenders back in the forward 50. Not designated players but 6 players from each team must be in each arc. That would make a bit more space. Maybe not the answer but the best I've come up with that's easy to do. Nah that's the answer make it happen!

I found it an interesting discussion and to be honest I sort of agree with David King which is not something I ever thought I would say. I love AFL but after the 5th stoppage in a row even I start yelling at the TV wanting something to happen.

King suggests playing a free kick against the last team to touch the ball when the ball goes out between the 50 metre arks and I think the idea has merit though I would change it to a deliberate act such as punching the ball over the boundary line during a marking contest, running over the line in play or something like that. If it is an accident and an incidental touch I would not pay the free kick.

 

[Adam Marrett23]

The game is fine if it's left alone and it's umpired correctly and the rules left alone. Watching the Winners game on Fox Footy atm and the umpiring is a thousand times better then what it is now, now umpires don't call the correct free kicks, which causes players to pile in, then they let the ball bobble around to which more players pile in and we get the scrum. They have to do their job correctly and it will go a long way to fixing the game.

 

[Goats]

If you guys just barracked for Hawthorn you'd enjoy watching footy a lot more.

 

[WCErevival]

Footy was definitely better to watch when it was less congested and more man to man, flowing. Brought value to the Power Forward Full Forwards. I miss a good Fraser Gehrig G-train spectacle. G train vs Rutten or Glass... Wowee. Who remembers in the 05 prelim when G train and Barry Hall crossed paths for a few seconds. Felt like the world was about to explode. Such power.

Poor quality. Barry wrestles him briefly then thinks nah this guys actually pretty big.

 

[Always Ballin]

Poor quality. Barry wrestles him briefly then thinks nah this guys actually pretty big.

G train was not to be messed with. Serious power. Probably the GOAT jumper puncher. Perfect technique. Perfect timing. Raw power.

 

[Bardo State]

Game's fine. Efforts to tire players will result in flooding. Instead of 30 players inside 50, you have 25. 15 of which are defenders. Any zoning fundamentally changes the game in a way I don't think many want to see.

 

[Maddog1980]

Change the points for a win from 4 to 6pts if you score over win by more than 6 goals. Or some sort of penalty if the losing team doesn't score more than 6 goals. I don't know what the right mix of incentives or penalties should be however by playing with this type of scenario you actually won't change the game of football itself, just motivate teams to play a more attacking focussed brand of football.

Anyway that's my two cents.

 

[cookie33]

Reducing interchange rotations is brilliant, down to 80 would be perfect. It would force coaches to rest players forward, it would actually have footballers playing in position as coaches try to minimise work loads.

Watching footy atm is hard viewing.

 

[smashbox gill]

I dont see anything wrong with the state of play. I have more of a problem with the rule changes and bandaid solutions that the AFL keeps implementing.

For 100 years there was zero rule changes and the game was amazing, now every year theres new rules. In 10 years the game will be unrecognisable and it will all be at the hands of the AFL.

 

[RUNVS]

Reducing interchange rotations is brilliant, down to 80 would be perfect. It would force coaches to rest players forward, it would actually have footballers playing in position as coaches try to minimise work loads.

Watching footy atm is hard viewing.

It would do nothing for the amount of stoppages. Coaches would have their players slim down so they can run harder and longer.

 

[Geronimo#]

The game is fine if it's left alone and it's umpired correctly and the rules left alone. Watching the Winners game on Fox Footy atm and the umpiring is a thousand times better then what it is now, now umpires don't call the correct free kicks, which causes players to pile in, then they let the ball bobble around to which more players pile in and we get the scrum. They have to do their job correctly and it will go a long way to fixing the game.

I agree. I also think the power has been taken away from the umpires somewhat. A bit like the match review panel in the way that they can't blow the whistle for what they see in regards to their knowladge and experience. It has to be word for word in the book or they get dragged over the coals. And when they go as the book says the same can happen. More power to interpret what they as it happens. If they are no good give me the arse.
Still think the congestion is crap and forwards and backs should be forward and back!

 

[NewMelbournian]

40 interchange. Free kicks for all out of bounds. I think these two measures would go a long way to helping. I want footy looking the way it used to in the 90s.

 

[Kram]

Change the points for a win from 4 to 6pts if you score over win by more than 6 goals. Or some sort of penalty if the losing team doesn't score more than 6 goals. I don't know what the right mix of incentives or penalties should be however by playing with this type of scenario you actually won't change the game of football itself, just motivate teams to play a more attacking focussed brand of football.

Anyway that's my two cents.

Yeah might work if every single AFL game was played at Docklands..

 

[blueiris]

So would the Ruckmen be the only players able to go in the 3 zones if they brought in zoning

 

[cookie33]

It would do nothing for the amount of stoppages. Coaches would have their players slim down so they can run harder and longer.

They are already rake thin... They would end up like jockeys

 

[RUNVS]

They are already rake thin... They would end up like jockeys

They would but it would be the coaches only option as being able to have their players being able to run out games and set up defensively is more important than anything.

 

[Dom PC]

It would do nothing for the amount of stoppages. Coaches would have their players slim down so they can run harder and longer.

More like you wouldn't have players the size of full forwards (e.g. Fyfe) being able to play as a full time midfielder.

 

[kickazz]

For 100 years there was zero rule changes and the game was amazing, now every year theres new rules.

That is because coaching, from a strategy point of view, was very primitive for 100 years.

I agree too many rule changes is not the way to go. Just enforce the current ones for a start.

 

[RUNVS]

That is because coaching, from a strategy point of view, was very primitive for 100 years.

I agree too many rule changes is not the way to go. Just enforce the current ones for a start.

Coaches were almost pointless until the late 1980's.