Prediction Anti Density, yes or no?

[Derec]

It's interesting because I'm strong that reducing interchange will do the opposite because you'll see sides create ways to conserve energy throughout the game instead, particularly younger sides that aren't as fit. That means more kick to kick and rolling mauls to create stoppages to get a break. You'll probably see more injuries too as players are exhausted.

How much of an improvement was the last round or two? Cant be a coincidence that the players had a week off to freshen up. Maybe we should bring a second bye during the year for teams instead

Humble reminder: AFL used to allow 2 subs and NO interchange. That didn't stop games from being entertaining.

If anything, limiting the interchange will encourage teams to pick up versatile players who can rest forward or back.

 

[gringo2011]

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

I hate that, it doesn't allow for outdoor games in Darwin rain etc.

 

[Sainttony]

Two of the biggest proposed changes are to force structures onto teams (X number of players in the forward 50 at each bounce) or to limit/scrap interchanges. I can see why they're floated, but the reality is that these are addressing only the 'result' of the issue, not the issue itself.

Sure, we could force players to stay inside the forward 50, but finding the exact number will be tricky; too many and you'll have teams just bombing it forward like the 80's and earlier because there's no link up play, but too few and the congestion will remain.
Limiting interchanges (or removing them altogether in favour of substitutions) is much worse, from my perspective. People assume that congestion will relieve itself due to players being tired and unable to make it to the contest, but players are already gut running within the first quarter. These are elite athletes who have the mental fortitude to push themselves to the extreme, so if anyone thinks that they won't continue to do that then you're mistaken. Injuries will likely go up due to the extra wear on players, and something like substitutions would do little to mitigate this (not to mention removing players from a game altogether which never worked well in the recent 1 man substitution era).

You need to address the problem itself, which I haven't seen addressed in the media. From my perspective, the issue can be boiled down to one thing; the holding the ball ruling. As it stands, congestion comes about due to the ball becoming stagnant, either because of a stoppage or because of a period of play involving the ball carrier being tackled, the ball spilled (rinse, wash, repeat) until a free kick or a stoppage occurs. When the ball isn't moving (or moving minimally) players have the opportunity to come to the ball, and in fact they actively choose to do so because they're trying to swoop on a spilling ball from a tackle, or hold it in to create the stoppage.

So how do we fix it? Simple.

Change the holding the ball rule to achieve two things; reduce the amount of time the ball is moving minimally/not at all (AKA periods of play where there are multiple tackles and ball spills, and/or stoppages), and remove subjectivity from the ruling. As it stands, stoppages are most often created when a player is tackled and ball is pinned to them, or the player feigns an attempt to dispose it because they're aiming for the stoppage (sometimes with the help of a teammate to hold it in). The minimal ball movement is a result of a chain of tackle after tackles. So, we just have to address these areas.

The new ruling that I propose is as follows:
> Eliminate the concept of prior opportunity.
> If a player is tackled with the ball pinned to them and can't get it out, or choses not to dispose of it, then that's holding the ball
> If a player manages to get the ball out (with anything except a throw; dropping/spilling is allowed) then it's play on.

Why these rules?
> Firstly, eliminating prior opportunity almost completely eliminates subjectivity in this ruling. Some will remain due to having to determine an arbitrary amount of time before an umpire calls 'holding the ball' on a player being tackled, but the massive grey area of prior opportunity is removed. This is great added bonus IMO since holding the ball rulings are always a point of contention no matter how many times the AFL tries to toy with the rule (e.g diving on the ball rule)
> Secondly, there is still a large element of skill involved since there is a direct way to win a free kick - pin the ball. This rewards good play.
> Thirdly, ball ups will be altogether eliminated or minimised (e.g used in the same way that they throw the ball back in if it went out on the full from a pack and they couldn't determine what team it came off) since every current ball up situation would be a free kick.
> Lastly, this disincentives swarming around the ball, since players will no longer try to help their teammate hold onto the ball in a tackle (since that would give away a free kick) but also because players know that the ball carrier's prime objective would be to spill the ball ASAP when getting tackled (not try to hold it in) and that if the ball isn't spilled, then it will be a free kick to one of the teams, so they need to get into their offensive/defensive structures and not be stuck next to the ball. This will mean that the players who used to be around the ball will be spread out for link passes, which means that the players who used to be the link pass will be further down ground for a link or to chop off an opposition kick, which means the players that were in that further down the ground (usually the KPF's and KPD's) will likely be in/near the forward 50 since they're not needed up the ground and because they know a ball will come their way at any moment due to the extra flow.

Congestion is severely reduced, player spread is encouraged, stoppages are severely reduced, the game will be more free flowing, higher scores will be possible, and there is less subjectivity in umpiring calls - positives all around.

I see two main objections to this proposal, but I don't think they stand up to much criticism.
1) "Too many free kicks". This objection is quite right in pointing out that if all the tackles in today's game where a player can't release the ball would result in a free kick, then the count would go through the roof. However, the game would change (out of necessity) in response to these rules, to mean less tackles. This is achieved due to punishing players and teammates that trap the ball when being tackled (this is quite common) as well as the reduced congestion (secondary to incentivising spread as a result of more ball movement) meaning that there are less players around the ball to lay a tackle in the first place. So, yes, more tackles will result in a free kick, but the total number of tackles that end in a ball up (now a free kick) would be severely decreased.

2) "Don't change tradition". This objection will always pop up when proposing a drastic change, but the reality is that the holding the ball rule does not gel well with the rest of the game. As players have become better athletes and game plans have shifted to playing to a dimensional structure across the field as opposed to on an opponent, tackling has skyrocketed and exposed this large issue. The AFL can either accept that this one rule is the biggest problem and address it, or they can try to mess around with a half dozen other changes and hope they all work well together and achieve the desired result. It makes more sense to change this one rule even if it is 'tradition', and the reality is that if the game was played like this when the rules were initially invented, then the holding the ball rule would never have existed as it does - they would've seen how problematic it is (as we are) and altered it.

One thing I would add to this is that if the tackler holds the ball in whilst tackling then he forfeits the right to a free kick.

What this does is keep the ball moving more often, encourages perfect tackling and removes the did he do enough to try and get the ball away.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sunny3193]

What was it like when they wore 3/4 pants?

Before my time young fella.
However if you’re talking flares and polyester shirts with airplane wings as collars, I’m your man.

Seriously:

The Five Styles of Footy:

1: Traditional: Mark and Kick (pre 1970)
2: Handball Happy (post 1970 GF)
3: Athletes Away (1994 to 2004) - the introduction of the third interchange, the reduction in game time, and growing importance of athletic prowess over traditional footballing skills.
4: Semi Press (2005 to 2015) - the Paul Roos Swans, Ross Lyon Saints and Malthouse Magpies.
5: Full Press (2016 to current) - Bulldogs and Tigers full swarm.

Plus the various sub groups.

1-4, I can live with.
5 is garbage.

 

[StCicatriz]

Pretty good summation!!!

Before my time young fella.
However if you’re talking flares and polyester shirts with airplane wings as collars, I’m your man.

Seriously:

The Five Styles of Footy:

1: Traditional: Mark and Kick (pre 1970)
2: Handball Happy (post 1970 GF)
3: Athletes Away (1994 to 2004) - the introduction of the third interchange, the reduction in game time, and growing importance of athletic prowess over traditional footballing skills.
4: Semi Press (2005 to 2015) - the Paul Roos Swans, Ross Lyon Saints and Malthouse Magpies.
5: Full Press (2016 to current) - Bulldogs and Tigers full swarm.

Plus the various sub groups.

1-4, I can live with.
5 is garbage.

 

[Strahany]

One thing I would add to this is that if the tackler holds the ball in whilst tackling then he forfeits the right to a free kick.

What this does is keep the ball moving more often, encourages perfect tackling and removes the did he do enough to try and get the ball away.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I considered that, but the problem is that it introduces a completely new form of subjectivity, which is arguably even more difficult to adjudicate than prior opportunity. It would be extremely difficult to see who is holding it in amongst a pack of players.

Whilst my proposed rule of “ball doesn’t come out = free kick” prevents continuous flow, the free kick arguably generates more flow. For example, if umpires could correctly adjudicate as to whether or not the tackler held the ball in and thus call a ball up instead of a free kick, it just further slows the game down. Sure, a free kick stops the game as well, but you can play on or at the very least gain 50m from a kick, rather than a ball up leaving the ball where it is.

On a side note, I think the opposite should be the case anyway - the tackler should be awarded for pinning the ball in. In the current game, a perfect tackle to win a holding the ball decision involves pinning the arm to prevent a disposal without knocking the ball out in the process. It’s simple in theory but difficult enough to execute that it isn’t too easy. I think that pinning the ball to a player is almost equally difficult since, in my proposition, dropping/spilling the ball is play on. The only easy free kicks may come from a player tackling front on and trying to smother and pin the ball with their body against the other player so they can’t even drop it.

 

[BigPowerForward]

Humble reminder: AFL used to allow 2 subs and NO interchange. That didn't stop games from being entertaining.

If anything, limiting the interchange will encourage teams to pick up versatile players who can rest forward or back.

Spot on Derec. The interchange was introduced because when a team had 3 injuries they had to try and finish a game with 17 players or put injured players back on the ground. The interchange worked well in the 90s when there was 10 -20 interchanges but then coaches started to use it tactically and the mess we have now is the result. Why not just have 4-6 reserves. Only if a player needs to be assessed for concussion can they be interchanged. Otherwise once you are off... you are off. This way we will get to see Dangerfield and Fyfe resting at FF. I remember watching Sidebottom kick 10 goals in TAC GF. Most of these on ballers can kick goals but they don't get an opportunity to spend enough time forward
The adult Auskick we now play is rubbish. So much so that I can only watch Stkilda games.Disclaimer: Bris v Coll was a good game. Right now I am watching Melbourne Storm instead of Sydney v Geelong. The greatest things in our game used to be high marks and lots of goals. We need to bring those things back. A bag of goals used to be 10 goals. Now everyone gets excited if some kent kicks 5 goals. Hell I used to go home disappointed if Plugger only kicked 5 goals.
You might say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one and I hope one day you will join us and someone will kick a ton.

 

[sunny3193]

You might say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one and I hope one day you will join us and someone will kick a ton.

John Lennon Mk II

 

[VDS66]

Spot on Derec. The interchange was introduced because when a team had 3 injuries they had to try and finish a game with 17 players or put injured players back on the ground. The interchange worked well in the 90s when there was 10 -20 interchanges but then coaches started to use it tactically and the mess we have now is the result. Why not just have 4-6 reserves. Only if a player needs to be assessed for concussion can they be interchanged. Otherwise once you are off... you are off. This way we will get to see Dangerfield and Fyfe resting at FF. I remember watching Sidebottom kick 10 goals in TAC GF. Most of these on ballers can kick goals but they don't get an opportunity to spend enough time forward
The adult Auskick we now play is rubbish. So much so that I can only watch Stkilda games.Disclaimer: Bris v Coll was a good game. Right now I am watching Melbourne Storm instead of Sydney v Geelong. The greatest things in our game used to be high marks and lots of goals. We need to bring those things back. A bag of goals used to be 10 goals. Now everyone gets excited if some kent kicks 5 goals. Hell I used to go home disappointed if Plugger only kicked 5 goals.
You might say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one and I hope one day you will join us and someone will kick a ton.

Great post.

Like I keep saying... It's coaching strategies that have destroyed the game.

 

[BigPowerForward]

Great post.

Like I keep saying... It's coaching strategies that have destroyed the game.

Agree
Need to find a balance somehow. Too many rule changes in the past 20 years and coaches value defence above offence.The game needs to be higher scoring or people will be less interested in watching . Other than Saints games, I honestly prefer to watch rugby 7s because it is fast paced and free flowing. Our game needs to be more free flowing or it will just continue to be a stoppage fest and rolling mauls instead of the great spectacle it should be.

 

[BigPowerForward]

John Lennon Mk II

John Lemon would better describe an old, sour, cranky campaigner like me!

 

[pebblesofsand]

The thing that I really hate about force positioning is that it stifles creativity. Rules in sport, just like laws in Government, should stipulate what you cannot do. They should never tell you what to do; it seems like a minor difference, but in reality it is huge.

Forcing teams to have X number of players in any given portion(s) of the ground means that you're severely limiting game plan approaches. One good thing about this sport is that we've seen countless different styles of play over the years due to the blank canvas that the lax ruleset affords. As soon as you introduced a rule that mandates particular behaviour (as opposed to an exclusionary rule) then everything will become far more vanilla. Depending on how severe the restrictions are, coaches could become almost completely irrelevant, since the sameness of the game plans and structures means it largely comes down to player skills.

I agree with the belief that getting the players to spread will achieve a desirable result, but this is not the way to do it. Changing the rules such that players choose to spread is infinitely superior, IMO.

The rule would be that each side CANNOT have more than 3 players inside the arc. That forces the coaches to be creative.

That said I'd rather go to extremely limited interchange numbers - say 6 a quarter and some rule tweaks. Hate the third man in at a stoppage - reminds me of under 10's.

And before anyone says "What about the injuries" Well that's a bit like saying we should reduce the marathon to 20KM because its too hard on runners.

A marathon runner trains and runs knowing its going to be 42 km - AFL players would need to train and play expecting 30 mins on the field before a break.

 

[Yawkey way]

Great post.

Like I keep saying... It's coaching strategies that have destroyed the game.

,
The game including coaching has become a full-time professional sport.

They come up with new strategies or variation's, there's no need to be reactionary and change the rules at all.

Players are in many ways bigger and better than ever and the football quite frankly in most area's is miles better than when I was young.

People are having a winge about nothing IMO.

These perceived problems will resolve themselves, that last thing we need is more rules and hence more power in the hands of umpires.

The one area they haven't improved is set shots on goal, some of the inaccuracy may be down to the amount of ground they cover.

 

[VDS66]

,
The game including coaching has become a full-time professional sport.

They come up with new strategies or variation's, there's no need to be reactionary and change the rules at all.

Players are in many ways bigger and better than ever and the football quite frankly in most area's is miles better than when I was young.

People are having a winge about nothing IMO.

These perceived problems will resolve themselves, that last thing we need is more rules and hence more power in the hands of umpires.

The one area they haven't improved is set shots on goal, some of the inaccuracy may be down to the amount of ground they cover.

Cannot think of another season where I haven't been bothered to watch a full game on TV apart from ours. It's an appalling spectacle and something needs to give IMO.

 

[Gangnam Saint]

Definitely lead to a focus on one-on-one contested ballwinners.
Something we have a distinct lack of.

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

 

[Dr Spaceman]

If that guy's density, then I'm definitely anti!

 

[Yawkey way]

Cannot think of another season where I haven't been bothered to watch a full game on TV apart from ours. It's an appalling spectacle and something needs to give IMO.

Maybe, but I've been like that for years.

I watch a quarter here a half there, maybe its technology and choice.

I mean it really is a crazy game, massive grounds, inexplicable rules and huge numbers of basic skill errors.

I love the saints and get pumped when we win, if we folded I wouldn't follow afl any closer than a look at the scores watch an occasional game and the GF.

 

[RobbieMuir]

Sort of...

The AFL are so eager to make sure the game is played a certain way to make it attractive to an overseas audience, that you are correct.

However, part of the problem is also coaches looming for a new way to win and get an edge. They are now looking at other codes to gain an edge.

Hence basketball zones etc etc.

I was sitting in a bar in Kerikeri in northern New Zealand one afternoon talking to a few locals about sport in general and one of the blokes asked me about AFL.

He said, “Now let me get this straight. You have 36 players on the ground at any one time and they can run anywhere on the ground they want to.”

“Yes,” I said, taking a mouthful of Red Lion beer.

“That’s ridiculous!” he said.

“Why don’t you watch a full game one day,” I said. “ You’ll probably love it.”

“I have watched a game and I just don’t get it,” he said. “I don’t understand the rules and I can’t tell what the @#$% is going on. And I’m a sports lover. I really get into almost any sport.”


That, to me, is the problem for people overseas having a look at our great game. Unless they understand the rules it looks totally confusing to them.


I really hope that the AFL isn’t basing any decisions whatsoever on how the game might look to overseas viewers. They just need to make it the best spectacle for Australians in the short to medium term. Encouraging fast-flowing, high-scoring games is the way to go.


Whatever they decide let’s hope they get it right.

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

Cannot think of another season where I haven't been bothered to watch a full game on TV apart from ours. It's an appalling spectacle and something needs to give IMO.

Yeah i gotta admit i have struggled big time this year watching games. Probably started creeping in last season.
I guess some interest drops when your own team is struggling but i really struggle to watch any other teams games now.
I used to watch every friday night game religiously no matter who was playing but not anymore.
I follow the NRL just as much as AFL and nowdays i find i watch League games most friday and Sat nights if im home .
But i still always watch StKildas games .
When you get a high scoring entertaining game like Saints Vs Dees & Dogs V Cats last weekend it stands out so much from the usual boring, low score, chip it backwards type tripe we seem to get most teams serving up nowdays.
I think Carltank having all those Friday night games killed it off for me.

 

[DGontheQT]

Missus tells me I'm dense , so no.

 

[Sainttony]

I considered that, but the problem is that it introduces a completely new form of subjectivity, which is arguably even more difficult to adjudicate than prior opportunity. It would be extremely difficult to see who is holding it in amongst a pack of players.

Whilst my proposed rule of “ball doesn’t come out = free kick” prevents continuous flow, the free kick arguably generates more flow. For example, if umpires could correctly adjudicate as to whether or not the tackler held the ball in and thus call a ball up instead of a free kick, it just further slows the game down. Sure, a free kick stops the game as well, but you can play on or at the very least gain 50m from a kick, rather than a ball up leaving the ball where it is.

On a side note, I think the opposite should be the case anyway - the tackler should be awarded for pinning the ball in. In the current game, a perfect tackle to win a holding the ball decision involves pinning the arm to prevent a disposal without knocking the ball out in the process. It’s simple in theory but difficult enough to execute that it isn’t too easy. I think that pinning the ball to a player is almost equally difficult since, in my proposition, dropping/spilling the ball is play on. The only easy free kicks may come from a player tackling front on and trying to smother and pin the ball with their body against the other player so they can’t even drop it.

I thought that the tackler would be trying to avoid the ball and even if he did tackle front on has an obligation to move away from the ball and the all carrier in theory would be able to dispose of it.

I do agree that it would be difficult to umpire with a pack falling on the ball so yes a ball up.

My view is that the rolling pack needs to change and to do this zones won’t help. Still leaves 24 players who can collect around the ball. What I would prefer is to take interchange down to 6 a quarter, let the mids have one break each quarter. Congestion would slow as the quarter went on.

All good ideas but they have to be trialled.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ScrappyDo]

The talk is, that a reduction in interchanges

Counterpoint: won't limited interchange encourage recruiters to prioritise athletic stamina over footballing ability/nous?

By the same token it would put a premium on skill by encouraging 1 on 1 contests. Well worth a look imo.

 

[VDS66]

The game reminds of a house and AFL have made lots of s**t extensions over the years.

In the end you end up with a dog's breakfast of a house. Lots of rooms but ugly at the same time.

I'm.sure you've seen the type... Different floor surfaces uneven ceiling heights.

IMO rather than making it up on the run, they need to step back and determine what sort of game they want. Then rebuild it around that vision.

Need to simplify the game and rules because we currently have a virtual beauracracy of umpiring.

In terms of congestion, I'm not sure what the answer is. Very hard to manage because ball ups are all over the ground, so can't have a set number of players around the throw. Bad enough with the ruck nomination.

Get rid of the 15 metre kick rule. Make it if a team chips it around then after 3 knowcks 5hey have to go forward and clear it.

 

[sunny3193]

I was sitting in a bar in Kerikeri in northern New Zealand one afternoon talking to a few locals about sport in general and one of the blokes asked me about AFL.

He said, “Now let me get this straight. You have 36 players on the ground at any one time and they can run anywhere on the ground they want to.”

“Yes,” I said, taking a mouthful of Red Lion beer.

“That’s ridiculous!” he said.

“Why don’t you watch a full game one day,” I said. “ You’ll probably love it.”

“I have watched a game and I just don’t get it,” he said. “I don’t understand the rules and I can’t tell what the @#$% is going on. And I’m a sports lover. I really get into almost any sport.”


That, to me, is the problem for people overseas having a look at our great game. Unless they understand the rules it looks totally confusing to them.


I really hope that the AFL isn’t basing any decisions whatsoever on how the game might look to overseas viewers. They just need to make it the best spectacle for Australians in the short to medium term. Encouraging fast-flowing, high-scoring games is the way to go.


Whatever they decide let’s hope they get it right.

Didn’t they have any Tui up there bro?