Dealing with congestion

[shaqsuns]

I said the proponents for a further interchange cut need to prove from this seasons figures and anectodal evidence how the current cut has worked. If the congestion is happening, then theres an argument to say it hasn't worked.

An argument that it needs to be cut further to work without even an indication in any form whatsoever the current cut has worked is just impractical ideology

What would you suggest we do to spread the players out?

 

[ziad]

Umpire properly and let the game go - its a contest and that is the aim.
If umpires pay the first free most congestion is eased.

 

[Pessimistic]

What would you suggest we do to spread the players out?

I had no problem with the entertainment cats v hawks. There's always been s**t games and thre always will

Best part of our sport is no offside or kept to a minimum

 

[shaqsuns]

Robert Walls floated an idea this morning on Hungry for sport where there would be 6 subs instead of interchange where once a player is subbed off he cant come back on, To me this make a lot of sense because the more fatigued the players are during the game the more they would naturally spread out. Imagine if we had this lower tier competition called the VFL that we could trail new ideas and rules.

 

[Pessimistic]

Cant see any evidence that capping interchanges has made the slightest difference

 

[shaqsuns]

Cant see any evidence that capping interchanges has made the slightest difference

It's because they did a soft cap of 120 to 90 before 07 teams were lucky to make 60 changes a game then it skyrocketed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pessimistic]

It's because they did a soft cap of 120 to 90 before 07 teams were lucky to make 60 changes a game then it skyrocketed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ch7 used to update all the interchanges

So you are saying there's no onus to prove anything just lower it to 60 or so?
Then 30 when there's no more evidence of fixing congestion?

 

[Uneik]

O

What if you banned the handpass? That would force players to kick out of congestion and it would be like the 1960s again.

Or implement a rule whereby there can only be 3 handballs at any one time.

And current 15 metre 'chip' becomes a minimum of at least 20-25 metres

 

[Uneik]

The simplest and easiest way to stop congestion would be 1. Blow the whistle as soon as there's more than 3 blokes in a tackle (assuming no free kick) and 2. actually pay Deliberate out of bounds more than once every month.

Re #1 - Better still make it that only one person can make a tackle.

 

[Uneik]

Maybe a backward kick could be deemed play on, would ease congestion, stop running down the clock (time wasting) and promote and encourage the positive, playmaking attributes of our game.
If the congestion issue is not addressed, our game will suffer further and become nothing more than a poor mans version of rugby.
The rot has to stop!

Agree, backward kicks should be deemed play on.

 

[Uneik]

What about adding incentives. Four points for the win, an extra four points one for each quarter won. would shake up the predictability a the end of the season too

From memory I think the O & M league tried it in the 70's (Pre-season), but I don't think it was an additional 1-2 points for each quarter won.

 

[Uneik]

Robert Walls floated an idea this morning on Hungry for sport where there would be 6 subs instead of interchange where once a player is subbed off he cant come back on, To me this make a lot of sense because the more fatigued the players are during the game the more they would naturally spread out. Imagine if we had this lower tier competition called the VFL that we could trail new ideas and rules.

Reminds me of the 60's, no interchange, only reserves. When a player had left the field he could not return, obviously he would have been so injured he could not play. Resting applied mainly to rucks and rovers who rested in forward line.

 

[Pessimistic]

Absolutely certain the 'make them tired' crowd would be the first to complain about s**t skills if they actually got their wish

They are longingly harking to an era when the object was to get 3 goals up then 'hit the boundary line'

 

[The_Todd07]

When someone gets tackled we currently have umpires circling the pack like a sheepdog, desperate to pay HTB in dramatic fashion and get their moment in the spotlight.
While this is happening you've got one team actively trying to hold the ball in to get a free, while the other is trying to fling it out (never legally mind you)
If the ball does come slightly loose it all starts again but by now there's been time for another 10 players to enter the area

All we need is when someone is tackled, the umpires just needs to quickly decide
1. It's the tackle legal?
2. If so was there prior opportunity?
If there's no free kick from those IMMEDIATELY call for a ball up, run over, demand the ball and throw it straight up.

No sheepdogging
Free kick against if you waste time giving the ball to the umpire
No waiting for ruckmen to nominate or in some cases wait for them to run 30m to the contest

Same with throw ins, just get the ball and hurl it in

The congestion can't happen if there's no time for everyone to get to the contest

 

[Registered User]

Sam Newman's idea of not letting outside players into the centre square after post-goal ball-up until the ball is cleared is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If the ball isn't cleared immediately, the outside players will be running up and down along the lines looking ridiculous. Imagine if the ball is bobbling near the line, still inside the square, the outside players will be teetering and balancing on the line, pushing with their opponents. What if the ball bobbles around in a virtual circle inside the square?

The outer players would be running around the outside of the square like they're doing some sort of training drill.

It's so stupid I'm struggling to put it into words.

I've got a much better idea, but still only for centre bounces (so it may make little difference, however): make the centre square HEAPS bigger, even if it means going over the 50m lines

 

[Registered User]

Another reasonable idea I heard on the radio last year is putting the interchange benches on different sides of the ground.
I haven't thought this one through, so...

 

[Pessimistic]

Each team gets four benches and gates. One each wing and one each pocket.

Coach can seat the four players in any combination on any bench.

But. If a player goes off in the defence, one can run on from any gate. It’s be like a player running the length of the field in a couple of seconds (if one is indeed there)

 

[kickazz]

Each team gets four benches and gates. One each wing and one each pocket.

Coach can seat the four players in any combination on any bench.

But. If a player goes off in the defence, one can run on from any gate. It’s be like a player running the length of the field in a couple of seconds (if one is indeed there)

Like Pacman?

 

[yebiga]

Integrity of the game and ease of umpiring should be the objective

This

Extend point kickout rule around the ground - no touch - free kick - no need for crazy intent interpretation.

No prior at all - never was there for a 100 years. Watch them adapt - punch, kick into clear area - watch teams place players on the outside in dangerous position. The prior rewards unskilled tough strong bbeasts to create stoppages. It allows the most skilled to negates by brute strength

Stoppages - quick ball up - no third man up - no nomination - up to each team to send only one into the Ruck around the ground.

Interchange simplified and limited - you get removed in a quarter there is no coming back until the next quarter. Injuries are covered. Maximum 4 during any quarter. Interchanges become significant strategic decisions.

 

[Pessimistic]

How easy would it be to nail all this on the ruck nomination rule?

Too easy

 

[footyfan1978]

Interchange simplified and limited - you get removed in a quarter there is no coming back until the next quarter. Injuries are covered. Maximum 4 during any quarter. Interchanges become significant strategic decisions.

Could accept that. Love interchanges when strategic.
Rotations hate with a passion. Biggest blight on game.

 

[yebiga]

Could accept that. Love interchanges when strategic.
Rotations hate with a passion. Biggest blight on game.

The beauty of this is that a couple of early injuries to one team does give the opposition such a huge advantage

 

[footyfan1978]

The game is now a congested unsightly mess, looking similar to what it did on a wet, windy day in the sixties. Unless the AFL deals with this, the prospects for the game are poor.
The culprits are the coaches. They want to control play, and numbers around the ball is their answer.
The tool that lets them do this is the interchange. Players are able to run very fast to clog up play, and get a rest before they have to do it again.
If the coaches can't be made to give up repeated interchanges as a tactical tool rather than the injury management tool it was introduced as, then the AFL will have to change rules to spread the players out.
To minimize the lines on the field, but maximize their effect, I suggest that the following is considered.
1. Extend the end lines of the centre square to the boundary.
2. Require each team to have a fixed number of players within the section of the field with the goals whenever there is a bounce or boundary throw in. 6 each would be good. Fewer might work.
3. Boundary umpires act as line judges for this.
4. If a team transgresses (not enough players in its end zone, be they attackers or defenders), then the bounce or throw in is moved to the square extension that favours their opposition. No free kicks involved, just loss of territory.
5. Outside of stoppages, players may be wherever they like.
6. No particular players have to be in the end zones, only a minimum number.

The future of the game is under threat from within. The solution above may not be the answer, but something drastic is required or defensive tactics will strangle the game as a spectacle. Fewer players is probably not the solution, as they will still all be clustered wherever the ball is.
Copyright Cleomenes

ha ha. Like the copyright part from 3 years ago.

 

[PowerForGood]

There are so many rule suggestions addressing the symptoms and not the cause.

Getting fitter has enabled teams to tackle far more often and clog up the game.

Please AFL Please. Reward and protect the ball winner not the tackler. I thought it would be obvious that the only way the ball can be moved quicker is by the player with the ball.
- only one tackler allowed.
- get rid of "dropping the ball" in the tackle and only pay incorrect disposal for obvious throws. Eg Bulldogs 2016
- pay all free kicks for head high and in the back when tackling on the ground
- pay all free kicks when not letting a player go when ball has been disposed esp when on the ground - this is called holding the man. (sexist terminology alert)

The above means by rewarding possession you have to defend by being closer to your opponent before the ball comes close. More one on ones. More pressure on the next player on the chain of possession rather than flooding the contest.

Of course there will be problems and tactics to exploit something ive not thought of.

 

[RobbieGray17]

25m arcs now. This is embarrassing.

Coaches will simply adapt