The two simple rule changes that will fix footy

[Dirty_banchez]

Bring back thuggery. There would be less mauling if players were allowed to play dirty.

Dirty hits have decreased, and mauling has increased. That is absolutely causation.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Allow 3rd man up and throw it up straight away. Stop wasting time asking who the rucks are.
That’s the big difference.

Nice try Mr. Blicavs.

 

[Coops93]

I'd like to see the 2 players from each team in attack/defence rule. Not sure how you'd implement it though as the sight of two players standing on the 50m arc with the ball only 2 metres outside the arc with no-one else around would be ridiculous.

Perhaps something like a 10 seconds in/out rule or some such.

Edit just read the OP, now realise my point is irrelevant lol.

As for OP, 32-40 ints yes, prob 40, and no the out of bounds rule. I think that's an awful rule

 

[Duskfire]

Don’t change rules; just use more common sense and let the game evolve. Tactics change. Things will must likely open up as the season progresses as well.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Restricting Interchange: Unless it is drastic, coaches will just draft more athletes to compensate. You have to reduce by so far as to break the tactic. My suggestion would be to reduce it to 28 (4 x 7), with teams naming squads of 25 (7 bench players) and changing from "interchange" to "substitution". (Unlimited changes at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 time). No need to count, just seven blokes on the bench who can come on, and seven who 'rest' the remainder of the quarter. re-introduces the tactical nature of the bench.

Out-of-bounds, throw-in, ball-ups, etc. No waiting. If the ball goes out of bounds, the first person to the boundary line receives possession (boundary umpires are now ball-boys and carry a football with them at all times). If opponents arrive together, it's a throw-in. If a ball-up is called, the umpire throws it up as soon as he receives the ball.

If a player wants to have a shot, they must signal their intent (point at the goal-posts) and the time-clock stops. Otherwise 15 seconds as if anywhere else on the field. Once they signal, play and clock stops and umpire puts them on the correct line - no playing on until the umpire is ready. (Player can still play on as now or take their shot. '30 seconds' rule no longer affects game-clock).

Oh yeah, one really important one. Whistle only to STOP play. Instead call "Advantage" for any infringement, only whistle to bring play back if no advantage is taken.

 

[twiggy4PM]

The SANFL has a last touch free kick rule. At first I hated it but it is not a bad idea.

Only applies to kicks or handballs that go OOB without being touched not balls that spill free in tackles, are punches or squirt out of packs. Only change I would make is that if a player could pick up the ball but lets it roll out without making an effort to do so or shepherds another player away from the ball then the ball is thrown in.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Reduce the number of players on the ground. In 120 years players fitness levels have increased exponentially yet the oval remains the same size therefore players are now able to cover more ground. Reduce the numbers to anywhere between 12 and 15 a side and play should open up a bit.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Suggestion 1 will conspire against teams like Carlton that are trying to get games into kids. I believe it will increase the gap between the current top teams and bottom teams. A senior player with more pre-seasons in the legs will “out-stay” a more talented younger player.

Suggestion 2 has been tried in the pre-season and hasn’t worked overly well. You’ll get players waiting for the ball to roll out under its own momentum rather than risk trying to pick it up; others will dwell on opponents and attempt to bundle them over the line.

I’m not opposed to changes per se, but we need to be very careful. This ain’t some social experiment like Victoria under the Left.

 

[Kirkswan]

1. A significant reduction in the interchange
Lower it to 32. That sounds extreme but that is still more than it has been for most of AFL history. That's 8 per quarter, or turning your bench over completely twice every quarter. If you must I'd compromise and go as high as 40, but there is no reason to have more than 10 interchanges per quarter. The game survived and thrived and grew into the billion dollar industry it is now without mass interchange and it would thrive if we went back to how we played for most of the last century.

It comes down to what style of footy you prefer. The current midfield obsessed game where nearly everybody is a midfielder, where at times almost every player on the field is within a kick of the ball. The players shouldn't have enough energy to constantly follow the ball to every corner of the ground from the start of the match until the end.

Changing this brings us back to the old fashioned style. Having a sea of players around the ball is not possible and one on one match ups between forwards and backs become more important because we actually have forwards and backs instead of what is often now just 1 forward, 1 back, and 16 players churning and rotating through midfield roles.

This gives more of a role to the Buddy Franklins and Alex Rances of the game and less to the Tom Mitchells. That is a good thing in my opinion. I hate the inflation in disposals some players have gotten, it is undeserved, it is not a pleasant fad, and we would be better off without it.

2. All out of bounds should be a free kick against the team that last touched the ball.
I cannot stand the charade as a thousand times a game a player pretends he is trying to keep the ball in even as he deliberately takes it out. Make all out of bounds an automatic free and you take one judgement call out of the hands of the umpires, they won't have to try and mind read any more and it will be a fairer game. And then we'd see what players look like when they really do try and keep the ball in every time.

This would also help reduce congestion and speed the game up as we don't have to waste time throwing the ball in. Teams would look to take quick their free quickly and the game would also be better for it.

TLDR: Drastically reduce interchange and give free kicks for all out of bounds to make the game reach its potential.

There is no going back... the game has moved on, and we need to move with it.

Imo you can't significantly (or even slightly) reduce the interchanges as the players association will not allow it due to the physical stress then faced by the players. This year it feels like the league as a whole has had significantly more injuries to established performers than ever before (may just be my perception). You would expect that established players would have completed the appropriate preparation and know their own bodies well enough, that the numbers wouldn't fluctuate very much. It would also reduce the ability to bring through young players as you would need them play full minutes. If anything, I think it likely that the interchange would be increased.

If all out of bounds is a free kick to the opposition, you would simply swap from players 'pretending' to keep it in to players kicking it, hitting it, passing it into the backs, legs, heads etc of the opposition to obtain possession.

I think a lot of the hype about the way the game is being played this year is due to the number of established players out at the moment. As soon as you introduce a new rule to 'control' the game, a coaching team will come up with a strategy to work around it and/or use it (or misuse it) to advantage.

Let the game evolve... stop changing all the rules and just let it settle for a year or two and see what happens then. Without doubt, a coaching group some where will come up with a strategy to deal with the congestion and there will be something new to whinge about.

 

[Obeanie1]

Hows this for something different.

Award a team that score over 100 points in a game a bonus point.

Teams are actually encorraged to score more to get an extra point. That means they focus less on defense and more on scoring.

Certainly would shake up the ladder a bit. And coaches like Ross Lyon.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Award a team that score over 100 points in a game a bonus point.

Completely unworkable (and your team and mine are managing 100 most weeks).

The roof is closed at Etihad and it’s pissing down across town at the MCG. One pair of teams has a massive advantage.

Some grounds like Etihad and the Gabba routinely produce scores 5-10 points higher than others. There’d be nothing stopping, say, Adelaide Oval being reduced in size in a bid to secure home finals and $$. It’s not a level playing field.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Restricting Interchange: Unless it is drastic, coaches will just draft more athletes to compensate. You have to reduce by so far as to break the tactic. My suggestion would be to reduce it to 28 (4 x 7), with teams naming squads of 25 (7 bench players) and changing from "interchange" to "substitution". (Unlimited changes at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 time). No need to count, just seven blokes on the bench who can come on, and seven who 'rest' the remainder of the quarter. re-introduces the tactical nature of the bench.
.

I don't think you can break the tactic even by drastic measures like that. isaac smith said he'd be happy with no interchanges. while it may have been a bit tongue in cheek it's no surprise a comment like that was made by one of the games best runners.

 

[Wallaby]

1. Yes, to removing all interchange. We played the game for nearly 100 years without interchange - we brought it in, and I still fail to see what benefit it provided, but I can list ad nauseam the negatives it introduced- so remove it, and go back to the original game.

2. Our game has always had 'out of bounds' is a neutral situation - that's just been the rule. There was an introduction of OOF, which penalised a basic skill error. Most of the argument about the out of bounds rule comes from the fact that we have a 'deliberate' rule - in the past, this was never paid (except, traditionally, in the last 2 minutes of a close game against your team - about twice per season at best). Now we are in a period where we are emphasising the 'deliberate' aspect. I don't like it, and I don't think we need it. I don't mind if a player deliberately puts the ball out of bounds. All he is doing is negating the contest and creating a neutral situation - no advantage to his side. Why do we let players make a spoil in a marking contest? - that's just a deliberate, defensive tactic that creates a neutral situation - should we make all players go for a mark in every contest?

Changing the out of bounds rule is a significant change to the traditional way the game is played. I don't see a need for it.

If you want, still penalise 'skill errors' out-of-bounds - ie - kicks OOF, handballs out on the full, ruck knockouts out on full.

 

[Square Peg]

bit out of left field this but how about umpiring to the laws of the game, the game is littered with head high contact and incorrect disposals. Pay the free kicks and pay them quickly and the congestion disappears.

The game has become congested because of the AFL’s need to let the game flow. It doesn’t flow it gets congested. Umpire to the rules and it will change very quickly.

Indeed
In the "halcyon days" of the 70's and 80's that many pine over, it was common for there to be up to 100 free kicks per game. Any infringement, no matter how minor, was paid. In those days the elite athletes were no better than today's. John Platten was said to run nearly half a marathon every week. But there was less congestion because there were more rapid umpire decisions, less ridiculous ignoring of infringements with the misguided aim of "letting the game flow", and more kicks to one on ones around the ground.
If you really want to reverse the trend of modern football, umpire a game like it was 1980

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I know this is drastic but could we simply remove a few players from the field to free up the congestion? In my opinion having 30 guys around the ball is the single worst thing about modern footy. Would the game still work with 15 or 16 players on the field instead of 18? I know it's a crazy sounding idea but I'm so damn tired of congested, scrappy footy.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Indeed
In the "halcyon days" of the 70's and 80's that many pine over, it was common for there to be up to 100 free kicks per game. Any infringement, no matter how minor, was paid. In those days the elite athletes were no better than today's. John Platten was said to run nearly half a marathon every week. But there was less congestion because there were more rapid umpire decisions, less ridiculous ignoring of infringements with the misguided aim of "letting the game flow", and more kicks to one on ones around the ground.
If you really want to reverse the trend of modern football, umpire a game like it was 1980

The thing is by paying all the free kicks yes there will be a spike in numbers but only temporarily, coaches will quickly instruct their players to stop breaking the rules and it will come down again.
Two things I have never said or even heard leaving a game of footy.
1) gee there seemed to be a lot of interchange today
2) wow there seemed to be a lot of free kicks today.

 

[H2F]

We need some sort of way to stop the demand on running players have to do. Do that and you’ll see real stars drafted again. It’s by far the biggest blight on the game.

We have players all across the league who have no skills but can run. It’s destroying footy.

 

[tony__montana]

number 1) 100% yes
number 2) yes but but with conditions - cant have a shot at goal from it. Would really like to see this rule tried, think it would change the game for the better

 

[Square Peg]

The thing is by paying all the free kicks yes there will be a spike in numbers but only temporarily, coaches will quickly instruct their players to stop breaking the rules and it will come down again.
Two things I have never said or even heard leaving a game of footy.
1) gee there seemed to be a lot of interchange today
2) wow there seemed to be a lot of free kicks today.

I don't think you can have it both ways - no point fantasising that if you implement this solution coaches and players will suddenly be able to adapt better than a Barassi or Kennedy team and we'll have some nirvana of open football but still only 20 frees a game. I'd still support it as the best solution, but it will come with the cost of many many more frees if the game is umpired strictly according to the rules.

 

[Gold Member]

No no no.

How about we actually correctly police the rules we already have like incorrect disposals being a free kick against.
We can facilitate this by getting rid of that horrible crutch the umpires rely on to avoid stopping the game because the stupid AFL wants the game to have "continuous flow".

Guy get tackled & drops the ball, umpire says "knocked free in the tackle".
Wrong, there are only 3 possibilities, kick, handpass or incorrect disposal.

Bang, congestion fixed.

 

[dumb]

the ruck nomination is the most glaring rule in need of fixing. it's reduced a ball-up to school yard footy. probably the easiest to fix as well. so obvious and easy that even commentators mention it constantly. it will eventually go the way of the sub player.
forget the whole nomination process, throw the ball up, and then worry if there's more than 1 player per team contesting. we've got the farcical situation of frees being awarded for lack of nomination. only one team nominates and the other team isn't allowed to contest the ball up but do it anyway.

 

[Billy ray]

Allow 3rd man up and throw it up straight away. Stop wasting time asking who the rucks are.
That’s the big difference.

And dont waste another 2 seconds on top of that signalling that you are going to be running backwards. We all know it.

Stupid umpires

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

2 Players from each side in the 50's at all times plus interchange reduction should do it.

I'd go as far as to say 3 forwards in the arc. You could position one on each boundary 50m line and one in the square. The one in the square can lead up the corridor because it will be wide open. Or the flanker can lead across to the corridor or back to the square.

Imagine a situation where the ball is bombed from half back, with 16 players from each team behind the ball, and you have two forwards and two defenders jostling on the edge of the fifty waiting for the ball to roll over the line because they're not allowed to leave the 50m arc. Would be farcical.

It starts to get a bit complicated, but I think once a team has rebounded out of defensive 50, you could allow 1, 2 or all of the forwards to then lead out of the forward 50 to create an option.

Not saying it needs to be changed, but I can see some positives in it and it can be made to work.

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

And dont waste another 2 seconds on top of that signalling that you are going to be running backwards. We all know it.

Stupid umpires

Absolutely correct. The time wasted telling players the umpire is going to back out after the ball up is redundant.
-Remove the backwards signal
-Remove the nomination of ruckman. If a third man goes up pay the free
-make the umpire just get the game started quickly so numbers cant get to the stoppage

Pay the frees for incorrect disposal, this reduces stoppages.


On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[basashi]

Does the theory of reducing interchange actually work? Players probably end up pushing themselves even more, rewarding endurance over skills.

Considering how much teams kick towards the boundary line, players will be even more spent with way less stoppages, non stop running back and forth. Stoppages gives them a breather and a chance to set up. No more emphasis on recovery.

You will get a lot more tired, sloppy, low skilled play. More skill errors. More lethargic defenders taking three steps and bombing to a pack. Fewer spectacular breakaways. More sloppy rolling packs forming.