Prediction Anti Density, yes or no?

[Human Person]

Discuss. I like the idea, congestion has been frustrating to watch, but is there a better way to open the game up?

Pros: Could make the game more watchable, lead to higher scores and let the best players excel.

Cons: limits strategies coaches can use, developing teams could suffer worse blowouts, finals could be decided after a free kick from someone accidentally standing in the wrong spot.

 

[gringo2011]

I don't like rules changing constantly. They all just find new ways to work around what ever they bring in anyway.

 

[Mowman]

I say yes only because I'm finding it hard to watch a whole game the last couple of years

 

[hayes]

Didn’t like the idea at the start but there’s been too many 3 goals to 2 halftime scores to not do anything about it. 36 players in almost one third of the ground is not football, has to come in.

 

[Keg on legs]

Yes for me if it helps open up the game and make paddy unstoppable

 

[mightymalaka]

Don't like agreeing with that stubborn old wart KB, but i reckon he's on the money here.
Simple solution without resorting to arteficial rule changes,Zones etc.

Just drop the interchange rotations to 50 max.

 

[triggering bro]

Reduce interchanges & 80% of the game will look like the last 15 minutes of matches. It’ll open up play & make it more of a spectacle.

 

[triggering bro]

Don't like agreeing with that stubborn old wart KB, but i reckon he's on the money here.
Simple solution without resorting to arteficial rule changes,Zones etc.

Just drop the interchange rotations to 50 max.

Spot on.

 

[VDS66]

Yes but would need 4 boundary umpires to also monitor.

Last thing we need is for the game to stop for a VAR.

Better alternatives might be old fashioned reserves on bench or limiting interchange with 6 on bench.

 

[VDS66]

Reduce interchanges & 80% of the game will look like the last 15 minutes of matches. It’ll open up play & make it more of a spectacle.

The other idea is to determine the ladder position based on scores kicked instead of percentage.

 

[triggering bro]

The other idea is to determine the ladder position based on scores kicked instead of percentage.

I wouldn’t mind at least moving from ‘percentage’ to ‘for & against’. Encourages teams to pile on goals & win big instead of keeping teams to low scores & playing less offensively.

 

[Sir Skid]

The other idea is to determine the ladder position based on scores kicked instead of percentage.

Radical but interesting. Sure would change the dynamic to be more attacking wouldn't it.

FWIW, I bloody hate rule changes to the game but something has to give.
The spectacle now is just not what it used to be and is far more scrappy as a result.
Its very hard to watch a game now and that wasn't the case years ago.

 

[Yawkey way]

I hear Australian rules is the greatest game in the world blah, blah so often.

If that's the case why is it that we constantly need change the rules.

Watch a couple of weeks of bruise free high scoring games and people will complain about that.

I'd like to see umpires with less power to influence the game not more.

 

[VDS66]

I wouldn’t mind at least moving from ‘percentage’ to ‘for & against’. Encourages teams to pile on goals & win big instead of keeping teams to low scores & playing less offensively.

Something similar to soccer.

Change the incentive IMO.

No need to then change rules or add to them.

Umps struggle as it is.

 

[VDS66]

Radical but interesting. Sure would change the dynamic to be more attacking wouldn't it.

FWIW, I bloody hate rule changes to the game but something has to give.
The spectacle now is just not what it used to be and is far more scrappy as a result.
Its very hard to watch a game now and that wasn't the case years ago.

You need a much simpler solution.

Another option is to reward 9 point goals.

 

[Sir Skid]

Why do I so badly want to recruit the Filipino Basketball coach?
#didispellitright?

 

[VDS66]

I hear Australian rules is the greatest game in the world blah, blah so often.

If that's the case why is it that we constantly need change the rules.

Watch a couple of weeks of bruise free high scoring games and people will complain about that.

I'd like to see umpires with less power to influence the game not more.

The only game in the world where you can still win by missing more goals...

 

[Sab22]

Less soft free kicks and stupid goal reviews.

 

[St_Laz]

Umpires to get stricter on holding the ball. And faster turn around on ball ups/throw ins. No waiting for 2 ruckman to nominate. Keep game moving to limit time for players to get to the contest.
I like the bigger (longer, 18m?) goal square idea too. Get kick ins going to the centre circle to spread the field.

 

[St Kilda Death]

No interchange (as we know it).
Make the players run out the quarter.
Gut run for 30 mins or rest in a pocket.

Squad of 30 (inc. A back up ruck)
As many changes as you like in between quarters.
Can sub in players during quarter for injury.

 

[George]

I wouldn’t mind at least moving from ‘percentage’ to ‘for & against’. Encourages teams to pile on goals & win big instead of keeping teams to low scores & playing less offensively.

Isn't that what percentage is?

 

[triggering bro]

Isn't that what percentage is?

Nah it’s different.

Example 1
Team A: 100 = 200%
Team B: 50 = 50%

Example 2
Team C: 150 = 187.5%
Team D: 80 = 53.3%

Ladder
1. Team A
2. Team C
3. Etc

Even know Team C won by a larger margin, Team A is ahead of them on the ladder because of greater percentage. If we went to a ‘for & against’ Team C would be ahead of Team A. ‘For & against’ Would encourage bigger scores & bigger margins...hopefully.

 

[George]

Nah it’s different.

Example 1
Team A: 100 = 200%
Team B: 50 = 50%

Example 2
Team C: 150 = 187.5%
Team D: 80 = 53.3%

Ladder
1. Team A
2. Team C
3. Etc

Even know Team C won by a larger margin, Team A is ahead of them on the ladder because of greater percentage. If we went to a ‘for & against’ Team C would be ahead of Team A. ‘For & against’ Would encourage bigger scores & bigger margins...hopefully.

Oh I see what you mean. Yeah not a bad idea. Higher scores should be the aim and AFL should incentivise it. Coaches will adjust accordingly (play a more attacking style) and the game will naturally open up. I don't really agree with rule changes or interchange caps etc, just make it worthwhile to score more. Maybe 4 points for a win and 1 extra point per 100 points scored or something. Anything really.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

Yes for me if it helps open up the game and make paddy unstoppable

When the recruiters only want to draft 190 cm running machines…

When the selectors only want to select 190 cm running machines…

When the game is a congested wrestle of one team of 190 cm running machines vs another team of 190 cm running machines…

…then I say it’s time to do something about it.

People of my era grew up loving a sport where people of all shapes and sizes could, subject to desire and ability, have a career in Aussie Rules. It set our game apart. It made it interesting and it made it watchable. Now players all have to fit a certain profile. It reminds me of the silhouette cars they now use in V8 Supercars. Sure it makes for an even competition but it also makes it, IMO, bland. Footballers of the future are becoming the human equivalent of these samemobiles

It annoys the crap out of me when people say Paddy’s not suited to modern football. That statement may be correct but it just tells me how far the game has changed.

I don’t have the answers but I would support any moves that would slow the game down a tad, promote the high mark and the one on one contests.

And in this era of diversity, I would support any moves the AFL might make that would allow for a diversity of body shapes, sizes and speed.

 

[triggering bro]

Oh I see what you mean. Yeah not a bad idea. Higher scores should be the aim and AFL should incentivise it. Coaches will adjust accordingly (play a more attacking style) and the game will naturally open up. I don't really agree with rule changes or interchange caps etc, just make it worthwhile to score more. Maybe 4 points for a win and 1 extra point per 100 points scored or something. Anything really.

Any change that doesn’t impact on field umpires decision making is good. That’s why I like the capped interchange (can be monitored by off field umpire) & changes like for & against instead of percentage.