Opinion State of the game

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Some numbers would definitely make for a clearer analysis. Games certainly look more open in second halves, but could be deceptive.

I reckon there's also a mindset change.

One team is losing at half time - they throw caution to the wind after the break. Have to kick goals to get back into it, play on at all costs, pull the trigger up the middle, fewer numbers behind the footy.

That in turn creates more chances for the other team.

 

[ruscy002]

I reckon there's also a mindset change.

One team is losing at half time - they throw caution to the wind after the break. Have to kick goals to get back into it, play on at all costs, pull the trigger up the middle, fewer numbers behind the footy.

That in turn creates more chances for the other team.

Offer up first innings points for a half time lead?

 

[Brenton Davy]

Replacing percentage with points for advantages teams that play a lot of games at Etihad in perfect conditions.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Having said that, a percentage system that rewarded attack rather than defence would change the way coaches approached their game plans

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Offer up first innings points for a half time lead?

Four points for winning the game, plus one point on offer for each quarter

Like indoor cricket

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Is percentage that big a motivator?

The saying that "defence wins premierships" is surely the mindset. Coaches seem to like the control that comes with a defensive game.

 

[ruscy002]

Four points for winning the game, plus one point on offer for each quarter

Like indoor cricket

Think we've saved the AFL

 

[Archie87]

Why would having zones mean wearing bibs? If the zones were half the ground each say, all it means is that footballers just need to concentrate on how many teammates are in one half and make sure they have enough that part of the ground. It doesn't need to be a certain player. All that matters is the numbers in each zone are as per the rules. Simple really.

 

[ruscy002]

Is percentage that big a motivator?

The saying that "defence wins premierships" is surely the mindset. Coaches seem to like the control that comes with a defensive game.

Can you miss the finals because you play defensive footy? If you're on equal points, it's likely that the more defensive team finishes higher.

Change that. Formulate percentage so that it favours attack without discounting defense. Make coaches/clubs uncomfortable with the notion that they could finish lower because they played boring defensive football.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Why would having zones mean wearing bibs? If the zones were half the ground each say, all it means is that footballers just need to concentrate on how many teammates are in one half and make sure they have enough that part of the ground. It doesn't need to be a certain player. All that matters is the numbers in each zone are as per the rules. Simple really.

Yep that's true.

There is already a zone used with every centre bounce. So it is not a completely foreign concept.

The key is for it to be simple. You don't want umpires/players to be busy counting people.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Can you miss the finals because you play defensive footy? If you're on equal points, it's likely that the more defensive team finishes higher.

Change that. Formulate percentage so that it favours attack without discounting defense. Make coaches/clubs uncomfortable with the notion that they could finish lower because they played boring defensive football.

But that's only in the case of a tie on premiership points.

Percentage seems to be an afterthought to most coaches now. Would that change?

 

[FR0GGY]

Yep that's true.

There is already a zone used with every centre bounce. So it is not a completely foreign concept.

The key is for it to be simple. You don't want umpires/players to be busy counting people.

Simple solution, make the field magnetic like the prison on face off. Lockem down if they go outside their designated area.

 

[ruscy002]

But that's only in the case of a tie on premiership points.

Percentage seems to be an afterthought to most coaches now. Would that change?

You could ask the question without doing any harm to the game, as opposed to taking a giant leap of faith with zones or some other major change to how the game is played.

 

[The Karma Bus]

I also like the idea of a certain number of players keeping within a certain area..
This won't sort itself out, it's been around too long I think and the coaches love it..

That will reduce congestion and lead to one of the best things about our game, delivery into a reasonably open forward line and great contests..
Those forward line mechanics were one of the best things about games from a few years back, it was exciting football that put people on edge..

Would enjoy watching the ball going long to Tex with Betts and a few others around the place..

 

[BigLefty]

Exactly why I believe the ladder should reward scoring in addition to winning.

4 points for a win, 1 bonus point for a score over 100? Losing team still gets a bonus point if they score 100+

Replacing percentage with points for advantages teams that play a lot of games at Etihad in perfect conditions.

This would certainly create inequities in the draw. I'm not sure the game is ready for a compromised draw
Seriously though, it is an issue, I'm not sure of the solution.

whatever changes are made. FFS please, just test them for a season in the VFL, analyse the results, then decide if it should be introduced.

Years ago now the IRB had a whole season of reviewed rules tested in the NSW Rugby Union league. Then they ditched some that didn't work. Those that did work were still not introduced to the game worldwide. Then the used those successful rules in the Super Rugby championship and TriNations series for a full year at the top professional level before considering them for full international implementation.

That should be the process for how a rule should be changed. Not a bunch of numpties sitting around thinking something is a good idea.

 

[ruscy002]

But that's only in the case of a tie on premiership points.

Percentage seems to be an afterthought to most coaches now. Would that change?

To expand, I came up with a percentage formula which put Sydney out of the top 4 in 2006. That leaves a club having to explain to its supporters and the general football public that it missed out on a premiership opportunity (because you can only win a flag from the top 4) because of the brand of football that they play.

That would be enormous, and would only have to happen once for the wheels to turn in the right direction.

 

[Mattrox]

The problem with changing the rules is that coaches exploit flaws in the rules.

When a coach of a highly skilled team comes up with a playing style that beats a fwd press it will die.

If the umps paid dropping the ball frees, it would open the game up too. No stoppage, just a free, which requires players to spread.

Pay frees in front of goals too. A goal = a centre bounce and less congestion. I hate that one type of free is paid in the backline, but umps are too chicken s**t to pay it up forward for fear of influencing the game.

 

[BigLefty]

Just watch Collingwood and Essendon on Chooseday Night Footy on FOXTEL now and you can see that the incessant tinkering with the game has completely changed it, and it's not for the better. Comparing the skills from the two eras to one another you can see that the obsession with athletes who can run non-stop all day has lowered the skill level beyond belief.

I agree that the style of footy played 15-20 years ago was more entertaining than it is now.

However it's dangerous to use the games replayed today as an example. These are only replayed because they were of a good standard and entertaining. If it weren't, it wouldnt be voted in, or kept in the archives for future use.

 

[Allefgib]

The problem with changing the rules is that coaches exploit flaws in the rules.

When a coach of a highly skilled team comes up with a playing style that beats a fwd press it will die.

If the umps paid dropping the ball frees, it would open the game up too. No stoppage, just a free, which requires players to spread.

Pay frees in front of goals too. A goal = a centre bounce and less congestion. I hate that one type of free is paid in the backline, but umps are too chicken s**t to pay it up forward for fear of influencing the game.

Paying more frees at stoppages probably is a good route to consider. Tinkers with the game less - aside from interpretations I guess.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I don't see why we can't have a series of 'tiebreakers' like the NFL use.

I would start with head to head.

 

[Mattrox]

Paying more frees at stoppages probably is a good route to consider. Tinkers with the game less - aside from interpretations I guess.

The tackler needs to be rewarded more for HTB, especially when the ball is dislodged during the tackle. Not only does a quick whistle disperse the congestion it rewards the tackle, there by discouraging the bump. kill 2 stones with the same bird.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Slow the game down. Could start by reverting the kick in rule where you had to wait for the umpires flag.

 

[ruscy002]

Paying more frees at stoppages probably is a good route to consider. Tinkers with the game less - aside from interpretations I guess.

Allow for one ball up at a stoppage. If another stoppage is forced, then a free kick is awarded to the defending team, that way the only team being defensive is in fact the defensive team, and you can never have more than two ball ups in a row.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Just leave it alone.

Stop trying to artificially manufacture an attractive game. It's a competition. Let the best strategy and skill win. If that's not pretty, so be it.

 

[mistylake]

Maybe save this photo, then edit it in Paint? Then save the paint file and upload it here?

View attachment 52803

Is this what you mean?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yep that's it