Review Malcolm Blight - Last Touch Rule, Interchange Cut, 20m Goal Square

[Grenville]

I still like the idea of a certain amount of players must be inside your half of the ground at all times. They could start with 4 players and see how that goes.

I also like the idea of players are not allowed to enter the centre square until the ball is cleared out of there.

Something definitely has to be done about this adult version of mini league. It would be great if one day we could see the return of one on one battles between players and maybe one day the return of the full forward.

What a day that would be mate! Sadly i think the ship has sailed on that one.

 

[dogs105]

Does the zone not then just move 10m back?

Bigger area to cover

 

[kulak]

I think a big factor is that previously, bad teams would try to have a year like North are having this year.

Now, teams are more cynical about rebuilding and the North situation is rare. Carlton, Brisbane

Does the zone not then just move 10m back?

Additional field area is opened up because more angles are available.

Similar reason a kick from a point kick in is easier to clear than from the defensive pocket, more angles available means more ground for the zone to cover and more potential gaps.

Is it really necessary though? Would depend on whether teams are scoring less from kick ins, don’t have the stats on that to hand...

 

[brucetiki]

Isn’t last touch only penalised when it’s a clean possession?

Essentially. If there's any doubt it'll be thrown in.

 

[dylan123]

Unless you've grown up with it and it's slowly caught up on you without you noticing it's a fairly putrid game to watch. I've taken heaps of visitors from OS to games. None of them like it. So many mangled stoppages one after the other. So many free kicks for things that aren't readily visible to the crowd. It's a bit of a confusing mess for newcomers

I feel like a lot of sports are like that though to be fair, I find a game like NFL super boring to watch but that's probably because I haven't watched enough of it or really understand the rules enough. I'm an NBA fan and play basketball but still get confused by some of the rules at times - I feel like they're probably more clearer to see who was in the right/wrong in replay whereas AFL is a bit more personal feel. I think the more you know about a sport, the more you're able to enjoy the sport - ours isn't really ever going to be one that's huge overseas though and that's fine.

A lot of people seem to think so. The AFL will be getting revenue from TV than they planned. They won’t like that.

“...OzTam ratings figures that said compared to 2017 AFL TV ratings are down 13.9 percent to the end of round 9.”

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-fans-have-the-friday-night-blues-again-20180529-p4zi51.html

Is that the game or the skill of the competition as a whole? We've had very few really good games to watch this year and there wasn't a sudden change in the rules over the past couple of years, probably more the affect of introducing another 2 teams into the competition which has weakened everyone has a result.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Is there really anything so bad about watching the game we currently have?

It’s still an okay spectacle, but I reckon if you asked most fans whether they preferred today’s spectacle, or the 90s, they’d choose the latter.

I was wondering... where would a player like Modra fit in today’s game? We’ve actually lost the traditional leading, high-marking full forward because there are never forwards in front of the ball (except at the centre bounce).

I still reckon this is the single biggest factor in the decline of the spectacle. The game is being played like there’s an offside rule, when there is absolutely no good reason for it to be played that way.

 

[mistylake]

Also a left of field idea.

Get rid of the need to bounce the ball when running with it.

It is literally the only rule designed to slow the game down.

Personally, I love seeing a player stream down the wing bouncing the ball, but I wonder what would happen if it was removed.

Charlie Cameron says

 

[El Doederino]

Protected zone infringement should be a 10m penalty

Rushed behinds should only be where there is a successful deliberate action to change the course of the ball trajectory - i.e. not a behind because the ball brushed past your pinky finger. Will then do away with the third umpire.

Get rid of the 3rd man up rule - and be tougher on blocking or holding at contests.

Cannot kick backwards from a mark/free kick (except in forward 50)

Lighten up the play on rule. Let players take a step to speed up the play and look for open opportunities without playing on.

 

[Redleg Crow]

The 20m goal square is the most interesting idea

 

[El Doederino]

The 20m goal square is the most interesting idea

Has merit

 

[glengowan]

I liked Jenkins idea of needing to have at least two players from each team in the forward and defending 50m arc at all times and also like the idea of having to start with 6 defenders, 6 midfielders and 6 forwards in their zones at the centre bounces. At least that forces some resemblance of the game that once was.

Also, I think there is a bit of over the top carry on about the state of the game and tv audiences dwindling. With Netflix and On Demand shows coming in to almost every household over the last few years all TV ratings were going to take a hit because there is more competition. It would help if they didn't keep on playing Carlton on Friday night though.

 

[baldandbroke]

Blighty's ideas to stop congestion and improve the spectacle of the modern game.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...uch-rule-interchange-cut-20180606-p4zjwt.html

AFL legend Malcolm Blight will propose that the AFL seriously look at the ‘‘last touch’’ out of bounds rule and a reduction in interchange, among other ideas, when he and fellow greats Leigh Matthews and Gerard Healy meet with the AFL over the state of the game.

Blight confirmed he would raise the ‘‘last touch’’ rule and a limit to 60 interchanges, down from 90. Both have been used in the SANFL and Blight believes they would improve the AFL spectacle – which he, Matthews and Healy agree is an issue, due to numbers around the ball. Blight also favours enlarging the goal square to 20 metres, to enable the team kicking in to clear the zone and give the defending team (with the ball) more options to counter-attack.

I like these suggestions.

I've often thought a half circle from point post to point post would be a good replacement for the "goal square".

Another rule I think needs work is holding the ball. Just make it that you have to dispose of it legally once you have had prior opportunity ... instead just trying to handball or kick it.

Finally I'd dump the 3rd man up rule altogether. If anything that helps clear the area.

 

[El Doederino]

I like these suggestions.

I've often thought a half circle from point post to point post would be a good replacement for the "goal square".

Another rule I think needs work is holding the ball. Just make it that you have to dispose of it legally once you have had prior opportunity ... instead just trying to handball or kick it.

Finally I'd dump the 3rd man up rule altogether. If anything that helps clear the area.

Should be like rugby where if you drop the ball in a tackle it’s a foul (but ignoring the knock on factor) Too often the ball is dropped and the rolling scrimmage keeps rolling it along.

If rugby players can hold on to the ball when their big monsters tackle, AFL players can be expected to do the same.

 

[Crowhorse]

Is that the game or the skill of the competition as a whole? We've had very few really good games to watch this year and there wasn't a sudden change in the rules over the past couple of years, probably more the affect of introducing another 2 teams into the competition which has weakened everyone has a result.

The sooner they merge the expansion clubs, the better. This will eliminate say Saints and Bulldogs, North to move to Tassie. Start there, see how the game goes after that.

 

[SugarShane]

Should be like rugby where if you drop the ball in a tackle it’s a foul (but ignoring the knock on factor) Too often the ball is dropped and the rolling scrimmage keeps rolling it along.

If you drop the ball in a tackle and you've had prior opportunity (eg. taken on a tackler, tried a fend off/side step), it should be holding the ball. None of this "ball was knocked free/spilled out" rubbish. If you didn't kick it or handball it, you're done.

 

[cmndstab]

I hate all three of them. I'm not even sure which suggested rule change I hate the most.

Actually, I am. It's the last touch rule, which is an abomination. But the other two are close. There shouldn't be an interchange cap to begin with.

Hey geniuses, newsflash - if you want to reduce the number of players around the ball, you've got to do it directly. Clubs aren't going to stop doing it because of incidental rule changes. They're doing it because it's effective. If you try to stop it with incidental rule changes, there are only two possible outcomes. 1) They adapt to keep doing it anyway, or 2) the rule change is so heavy handed that it ****s up another important facet of the game.

 

[Pea Nut]

Get rid of the goal square and bring back the 25 metre arc I say. Kick out anywhere inside that arc. Could also be used to keep players deep forward like you used to see. And in games where it's belting down with rain and you have poor sods standing there freezing cold just watching from the other end of the ground. Now that's footy !!

 

[dylan123]

It’s still an okay spectacle, but I reckon if you asked most fans whether they preferred today’s spectacle, or the 90s, they’d choose the latter.

Nostalgia always wins.

I was wondering... where would a player like Modra fit in today’s game? We’ve actually lost the traditional leading, high-marking full forward because there are never forwards in front of the ball (except at the centre bounce).

I still reckon this is the single biggest factor in the decline of the spectacle. The game is being played like there’s an offside rule, when there is absolutely no good reason for it to be played that way.

Of course it would be great to get our old school excitement machine full forwards back into the game, certainly something the game has lost. But I guess you compare footy from then to now and the contests/pressure around the ground and the speed it's played at have lifted a huge amount where it can make trying to rewatch some of those old games unattractive, at least compared to what one is used to watching now.

I think the reason all players follow the ball is because you win in numbers, it's why no team leaves a forward at home because if he's sitting in the forward 50 his man is just zoning off him up the ground and when teams try to run it through he should have a pretty good chance of intercepting this or outnumbering a contest which results in it going back where it came whilst the full forward does very little. Which is why we constantly hear people pushing for zones to try combat this.

I'd rather just let the game evolve itself, it will make changes here and there and maybe we'll see a team find a way to work with a stay at home key forward. We've seen taggers go out and slightly come back into fashion this year, hopefully the stay at home forward can one day make its way back. I'd just rather see the natural evolution in the game rather then seeing people adding another 5-10 rules to try combat something they don't like to introduce more problems and change the game we all enjoy watching (for the most part).

 

[dylan123]

Also, in terms of all the rules, I'd love for them to simply them rather then try add extra rules. The holding the ball is a huge one for mine, they could make this so much easier to umpire in my opinion by being so much more strict with it. We see so many players get away with dropping the ball or it being called play on for it being knocked out, I think unless it's a blatant knock out, it's the responsibility of the player who has the ball to protect it, you lose it without disposing of it correctly, that's holding the ball.

I'd love for prior opportunity to get remembered again but yeah...

 

[baldandbroke]

I hate all three of them. I'm not even sure which suggested rule change I hate the most.

Actually, I am. It's the last touch rule, which is an abomination. But the other two are close. There shouldn't be an interchange cap to begin with.

Hey geniuses, newsflash - if you want to reduce the number of players around the ball, you've got to do it directly. Clubs aren't going to stop doing it because of incidental rule changes. They're doing it because it's effective. If you try to stop it with incidental rule changes, there are only two possible outcomes. 1) They adapt to keep doing it anyway, or 2) the rule change is so heavy handed that it ****s up another important facet of the game.

The thing I'm looking for in new rules is the removal of the massive grey area that asks umps to determine what someone is thinking.

The "deliberate" rule is the perfect example. They changed the wording to try and cover this, but the umps still pay it when they think they should.

Holding the ball is another one that requires knowing the intention of the player. The good example of this is the "dive on the ball and it doesn't come out - you're gone" - no matter who is holding it in ... worked really well to stop players diving on the ball and holding it in.

Bring in a half circle from point post to point post. That is the area that opposition players must clear out for kick-in. Add a half circle from goal post to goal post - where the defenders are allowed to deliberately rush the ball no matter what (except on a point kick-in). Make it clear.



If the last disposal rule comes in around the ground, it just clears up the decision making for the umpire.

I agree with you on interchange numbers. Let it go. I'd go 16 on the field and a six man bench - unlimited interchanges.

The third man up rule should just be changed back ... it has added to the congestion problem as far as I can see.

 

[SugarShane]

Also, in terms of all the rules, I'd love for them to simply them rather then try add extra rules. The holding the ball is a huge one for mine, they could make this so much easier to umpire in my opinion by being so much more strict with it. We see so many players get away with dropping the ball or it being called play on for it being knocked out, I think unless it's a blatant knock out, it's the responsibility of the player who has the ball to protect it, you lose it without disposing of it correctly, that's holding the ball.

I'd love for prior opportunity to get remembered again but yeah...

Agree with all of it except the bolded. If someone's had prior and gets tackled and the tackle clearly knocks the ball out, that's HTB for me. The tackle caused the incorrect disposal, reward it.

 

[SaltPeter]

Agree with all of it except the bolded. If someone's had prior and gets tackled and the tackle clearly knocks the ball out, that's HTB for me. The tackle caused the incorrect disposal, reward it.

Its irritating watching players seemingly deliberately dropping the ball at times when tackled and not being penalised under the guise of spilling free

 

[VSTone]

just take the pea out of the umpires whistle.

 

[Anzacpaul]

LEAVE THE ****ING GAME ALONE FFS.

Shows what a joke this industry is when TV viewers can dictate the rules of a sport.

absolute ****ing farce of an organisation

 

[Rave Slave]

Maybe we could allocate the players positions? Like C, WA, WD, GK and GS?

Then to minimise the injuries and slow down the pace of the modern game by introducing a rule I like to call contact. It basically states that once a player has the ball, if they are inappropriately manhandled the play stops and they get a free kick.

Further to that and to maximise forwards being able to do their job only the dedicated GS can shoot for goal and he must be within the forward 50 arc. Other players who are not attackers, shooters, defenders or keepers are not allowed within this arc.

I think these changes will truly revolutionise the game.