They have Brad scott?
Rules of the game - How to successfully make the game more open and attacking?
- Thread starter RUNVS
- Start date
- Tagged users None
They have Brad scott?
6 players have to be in front of the ball at every centre bounce:
Just have 2 players in the each team's forward 50 metre arc at all times..
Kick ins have to go further than 25m:
Leave the goal square alone and the rule should be that the kick in must clear the 50 metre arc....Surely they can kick 40 metres?
Players aren't allowed to pick the ball up off the ground (?
WTF?????????????????????
Will the dead rubbers in the last few weeks of the season be used to test the rules package? seems to be the best time. pre season is too late
This right heat is one of the stupidest ideas I have heard although you didn’t come up with it so not having a go at you. Why should a team that wins by 1 point 145-144 be advantaged over a team that wins by 100 points 135-35? Doesn’t make any sense at all. You still need to defend otherwise the game turns into basketball or aflx.
I agree with the though that enforcing the current rules would be a good start. The amount of dropping the ball/throws that are called play-on are ridiculous. I know it can be hard to judge when the balls in about 7 bodies, but they still call play-on when it's clear to see for all. If you drop the ball or don't do a legit handball it's a free kick. Simple, clears the congestion instantly.
I agree with the smaller interchange to a point. I'd need to see evidence but in theory I agree with it, though I understand where it may go wrong. Players might just get tired and create more congestion just for a rest.
I agree with the smaller interchange to a point. I'd need to see evidence but in theory I agree with it, though I understand where it may go wrong. Players might just get tired and create more congestion just for a rest.
Tune in for the last 10 minutes eh?
Get rid of the wing role/make it 16 player teams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_line_(football)
The Victorian Football Association (VFA) abolished the wing role for many years, which sped up play and increased the average team score. However, this was not copied in other leagues.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_line_(football)
The Victorian Football Association (VFA) abolished the wing role for many years, which sped up play and increased the average team score. However, this was not copied in other leagues.[1]
This. People wonder why channel 7 are putting pressure on the afl about this. They want more goals, I wonder why? Why do people think American sports have all their time outs and are so stop start? Advertising $. Basketball is such a boring sport as it’s just back and forth scoring, we don’t want our game to turn into this.
- Feb 25, 2014
- 32,084
- 70,155
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, England, Furies
Or the last minute which goes for over ten minutes anyway!!
shintemaster
Brownlow Medallist
Agree with basically your entire post. There's nothing particularly drastic that needs dealing with IMO. On the above I will say that the only way to know would be to try it. It would be awful if one week umpires paid every single technical free kick they could, but if it was consistent and gradual that would potentially be short term pain. Potentially.
T me the testing of theories in practice, implementing correctly is almost as important as the changes.
Some changes over the past years have been dogs breakfasts.
This also means a mechanism to remove rule where they have made things worse. either now or going forward.
Perfect example. The ruck nomination rule
Some changes over the past years have been dogs breakfasts.
This also means a mechanism to remove rule where they have made things worse. either now or going forward.
Perfect example. The ruck nomination rule
Honestly though most of the problems comes from coaching. The problem with modern coaching is teams are trying to limit how much the opposition scores, as scoring creates momentum and coaches like to control the opposition and the ball. So they put more players behind the ball. This means they score less, meaning they worry more about how much goals they concede, meaning they put in more defensive efforts, and it's just a vicious cycle. None of these solutions will stop two coaches from trying to bottle it up. The same thing happened in soccer which hasn't really undergone that many changes.
How about we forget about outdated positional play and move on to bigger, better things? If you need lots of scoring to be entertained you can watch AFLX.
This might seem weird but going back to 25 minute quarters would allow for more time to score and would probably fatigue teams more meaning more points per minute. Most players can play 25-30 minute quarters pretty easily now.
I honestly think it has always been so, we just look backwards with rose coloured glasses. Eg get a couple of goals up and 'hit the boundary line'
Last edited:
shintemaster
Brownlow Medallist
Yep.
It's a nonsense anyway saying that the problem with the modern game is Coaches and professional teams trying their hardest to find strategies that allow them to win more often than not - no sh*t. That's what they're paid to do.
Yes. Like coaches can put players anywhere and tell them to do anything; they have the most agency to control how the game is played out of anyone. Umpiring may be inconsistent but it was inconsistent even in the high scoring eras, so I don't buy the idea that it's their fault. And the rules committee have always tinkered. You get coaches willing to win 130-120 and you'll see high scoring games. But modern coaches don't want that, they want to control the opposition and control the ball.
- Thread starter
- #68
So the only way to change that is to make it harder for the coaches and the teams to control the ball.
Perhaps a no mark if the ball goes backwards in your teams defensive 50 would help, or no mark full stop if the ball goes backwards.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
It might have been the closest on record but it was miles from the best - this again falls the classic BF fallacy that close equals good. There was plenty of threads around last year lamenting the standard of the game despite the fact the ladder was tight.
Plugger35
The umpires are always right!
- Sep 27, 2008
- 136,770
- 157,782
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Subiaco
Maybe they should focus on fixing the existing rules before bringing in more rules to confuse everyone even more, ie. simplification rather than complication.
Maybe. But I can see unintended consequences. If you can't mark a backwards kick in your backline, it may encourage teams to put more players in defence to help with the transition which has been made harder. It's like how the rushed behind rule has meant the ball is in play longer, and sometimes allows for more goals as defenders panic, but ultimately it's meant teams will flood a lot of defenders back to the goal line to help out, meaning the transition to the forwardline is slower.
Honestly, getting rid of the rushed behind rule ould allow for more higher scoring. It would stop teams from flooding the backline to ensure that there's help to ensure teams don't concede a goal (or use a lot of bodies to fake a handpass to a player close to goal to manufacture a "genuine" rushed behind) or and transition with using as many bodies as possible to ensure they don't concede a goal. It would also allow teams to use the rushed behind to use quick counterattacks, you only need one player to purposely rush a behind, so you can rush it and then launch a counterattack fairly quickly, a la Hawthorn in the 2008 grand final.
It just depends what you want. Some people like the scramble not to concede a rushed behind and like the occasional screwup. Others enjoyed the ability to rush a behind then launch an attack.
For as long as I've been following football (early/mid 90s) the mantra has been defence wins premierships. It's just that the vastly superior fitness of players in the modern, fully-professional game, makes it easier to achieve by getting large numbers to contests.
It's not nonsense at all.
Coaches discovered that defence and tackling wins out. And defence and tackling, in excess, is s**t to watch.
Most sports have become more defensive and structured as they mature. Footy's point of difference, in my opinion, is that it emphasizes skill and risk taking over structure and discipline. That's what makes it good to watch. But that seems to be changing
Clarko was onto this in 2016 - possibly earlier.
Fix up incorrect disposal (no prior - knock the ball on if you have to). Less players will commit to the stoppage as players will keep the ball moving quickly.
Umps to throw it in / throw it up a lot quicker. Get rid of ruck nominations & let anyone go up.
Reduce interchange
Fix up incorrect disposal (no prior - knock the ball on if you have to). Less players will commit to the stoppage as players will keep the ball moving quickly.
Umps to throw it in / throw it up a lot quicker. Get rid of ruck nominations & let anyone go up.
Reduce interchange
