Ending congestion

[Hawk_francais]

I think this is a better idea than AFLX

 

[toottoot]

Or another way is to actually pay incorrect disposal If you loose the ball while being tackled it's an incorrect disposal. There is nothing worse than an umpire calling out lost it in the tackle.
If the player looses the ball isn't it an incorrect disposal

 

[Deelighted]

I think your premise is correct, repeat stoppages cause congestion and the prior opportunity rule plays a large role in this.

I would honestly rather watch the game the way that it is though than remove prior opportunity, I think a game where players constantly soccer it off the ground and tap it on would be less of a spectacle than what we currently have. There is a reason many junior leagues won't allow players to soccer off the ground up to a certain age, it's ugly and it doesn't exhibit the skills that make the game entertaining, in my opinion.

Fixing interpretation of incorrect disposal could at least help, and compromise the game less.

 

[basashi]

“Prior opportunity” is a relatively new concept. It didn’t used to exist. It’s laughable people think the game would be a totally different sport.

Players would always take possession whenever possible because having possession of the ball means a more effective disposal. It’s much easier to kick or handball accurately than it is to tap or soccer the ball.

Watch any passage of play. Players grab the footy constantly and either dispose of it extremely quickly before being wrapped up, or even as they’re being tackled. That’s fine and will continue.

But there’s no doubt there’s instances when players take possession of the ball - usually around stoppages - knowing full well they’ll be mauled to the ground. And the rules protect them.

It’s not good for the game. It causes repeat stoppages which allow players to take a break (offsetting the fatigue the AFL is so intent on creating anyway) and put in place more defensive zones to further slow the game down.

Players shouldn’t have a god-given right to take possession. The key to a flowing game, and everything that everybody wants (higher scoring, a more attractive game) is to keep it moving.

That needs to be the number 1 priority: keep it moving. Not “take possession”. That’s the way the game was designed and what made it what it was. It’s one of the major differences to rugby which is all about protection of the ball.

This obsession with allowing possession and protection of the ball has been the biggest cause of congestion.

Keep it moving... keep it moving... keep it moving

What year was prior opportunity really discussed? was it 95 96ish?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I have no doubt part of the issue is we’ve become obsessed with possession. The ability to “win the ball” is lauded like it never was. Win possession! “Inside mids!”

What differentiated the game and made us all love it was the speed, unpredictability, high marking contests and goals. The athletic feats... not wrestling in a pack like rugby.

Now we’re obsessed with trying to get it back, but not recognising the real issue and true causes.

I wonder if you're stance against taking possession is because Essendon have the worst inside midfield stocks in the league? As previously stated, it's a farcical approach and your justifications nonsensical, therefore I can only assume it is rooted in your distate for the way football is played due to your clubs inability to compete in that facet of the game.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I wonder if you're stance against taking possession is because Essendon have the worst inside midfield stocks in the league? As previously stated, it's a farcical approach and your justifications nonsensical, therefore I can only assume it is rooted in your distate for the way football is played due to your clubs inability to compete in that facet of the game.

Ok, you’re an idiot.

Next

 

[D-N-R]

I used to be against this idea but I've come around to it.

Imagining today's games with players standing around looking at a loose ball won't happen because the game won't look like it does now. And that's the point.

And if the play gets to the point where a ball is locked into a small scrum of players the umpire can come in and bounce it. Have a look at games from the 80s and the ball ups happened really quickly once the ball stopped moving.

Plus it would make htb a million times easier to umpire, fans to understand and to explain to foreigners what the rules actually are.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I used to be against this idea but I've come around to it.

Imagining today's games with players standing around looking at a loose ball won't happen because the game won't look like it does now. And that's the point.

And if the play gets to the point where a ball is locked into a small scrum of players the umpire can come in and bounce it. Have a look at games from the 80s and the ball ups happened really quickly once the ball stopped moving.

Plus it would make htb a million times easier to umpire, fans to understand and to explain to foreigners what the rules actually are.

Correct on all counts.

And again, anybody who thinks it’ll result in players not taking possession?

Watch any game for 10 or 20 minutes. The number of times this would apply is absolutely minimal. Players already grab it, they’re already tackled and they already dispose of it quickly in the tackle. That’s fine. They’re keeping the game moving.

But for repeat stoppage situations where we have an issue with a stack of players jumping on the ball - the rugby situations - it’d fix them.

The aim of the game has to be to keep it moving. That’s what separates it from rugby. That’s what made the game the brilliant spectacle that it is.

The AFL’s other attempts at clearing congestion have been completely misguided.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

What year was prior opportunity really discussed? was it 95 96ish?

1996

Rule changes 1858-2013 - AFL.com.au

web.archive.org

 

[dumb]

So, in congestion, a player grabs the ball and is immediately tackled and is caught for holding the ball?
Not sure that is fair and under your suggestion won’t everybody in a pack situation just sit off the ball and wait for someone else to take possession? Then wrap their arms around them waiting for the free kick?

maybe that depends if they do that flopping dolphin kick thing to a sufficient standard as mentioned earlier. the umpires decree the player 'made an attempt' but the ball was held in by the tackler, in spite of their very best floppy froggy efforts.

 

[sprockets]

I realise Dwayne isn't the most respected commentator but he was saying during the Essendon v Port game that prior opportunity won't be around next year. He was saying it matter-of-factly, like it's a known rule change. Good.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I realise Dwayne isn't the most respected commentator but he was saying during the Essendon v Port game that prior opportunity won't be around next year. He was saying it matter-of-factly, like it's a known rule change. Good.

I’m all for it but surely they have to try it in the pre season first.

But anyway

We want to end congestion... who would’ve ever thought “keep the game moving” would be the answer... ??

 

[DamianBis]

Reducing rotations may reduce congestion. But it'll also make games scrappy. Let's not forget what it was actually like in the 70s. It was scrappy and the skills now are way better.

IMO Prior opportunity is less of a problem than incorrect disposal. The fact that players can just throw the ball as soon as they get tackled rather than give away a free makes the game more congested.

Unless the ball is knocked directly out of hands by the tackler if it drops out in the tackle it's incorrect disposal

While you're at it. Get rid of the ruck nomination rule. It causes every player to set up around the stoppage because we wait the 10 seconds for slow ruckmen to make their way to the contest.

On CPH1831 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[deck]

Can't wait to see a player penalised for winning the footy. The angst and frustration of supporters will be great to hear. All while it achieves nothing as the player with the ball lays on top of it or holds on to the ball while his team pushes numbers back to stop forward movement. On the plus side we will have less stoppages and more sideways and backward kicks. But at least we will have fixed congestion right.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Coming back to this thread... I'm stretching my knowledge of the rules a bit here.

What is the original intention of the ball-up (or throw-up, as is the current AFL rules jargon, seems to more accurately describe the look of the games this weekend though)? It's not defined in the AFL 2019 rules. I believe it's meant to indicate that the ball is in dispute. Much the same as the boundary throw-in, it's an indication that neither team has possession of the ball.

If prior opportunity were to be taken away, under what conditions would we see a ball-up? Would the 'dived on it' style of decision still be interpreted that way, as when the player 'attempts to take possession'.

I really believe that the 6-6-6 rule change has been a failure, it has made no visible difference to the flow of games, overall scoring etc. It has only meant to umpires have one more bloody thing to do. If the AFL really wants to make the game more offensive, then they need to take away every teams number 1 defensive strategy, i.e. numbers around the ball, lock it in. As yes, pay incorrect disposal as the free-kick that's stated in the rules.

 

[JohnZ]

The prior opportunity/knocked out in the tackle rule has brought the game to its knees. If two players get to the same ball, it's a ball up, otherwise the player:
1) Legally disposed of the ball and it's play on or/
2) Illegally disposed of the ball and it's a free kick.

The way it was adjudicated in the 90s was fine, why it got changed is beyond me.

 

[Hawk_francais]

The prior opportunity/knocked out in the tackle rule has brought the game to its knees. If two players get to the same ball, it's a ball up, otherwise the player:
1) Legally disposed of the ball and it's play on or/
2) Illegally disposed of the ball and it's a free kick.

The way it was adjudicated in the 90s was fine, why it got changed is beyond me.

I'll throw a man from my own team under the bus here. When the Hawks are defending a lead late in the match, I always see Liam Shiels at least once or twice grab the hit-out and run directly into an opponent, he just wants to chew down the clock and give his team more time to set up behind the stoppage. The coaches love it, and it's alarm bells for the game.

A ball up should only happen when no player has possession, that is, when the two sides both have a fair claim to the ball. It happens a few times every game. With that rule change we would see the ball being whisked away from the contest as fast as possible, which is exactly what the AFL want, and in the process eliminates some of the most subjective and difficult umpiring decisions. If a player has possession the ball and cannot dispose of it, it's a free kick against.

 

[sprockets]

Coming back to this thread... I'm stretching my knowledge of the rules a bit here.

What is the original intention of the ball-up (or throw-up, as is the current AFL rules jargon, seems to more accurately describe the look of the games this weekend though)? It's not defined in the AFL 2019 rules. I believe it's meant to indicate that the ball is in dispute. Much the same as the boundary throw-in, it's an indication that neither team has possession of the ball.

If prior opportunity were to be taken away, under what conditions would we see a ball-up? Would the 'dived on it' style of decision still be interpreted that way, as when the player 'attempts to take possession'.

I really believe that the 6-6-6 rule change has been a failure, it has made no visible difference to the flow of games, overall scoring etc. It has only meant to umpires have one more bloody thing to do. If the AFL really wants to make the game more offensive, then they need to take away every teams number 1 defensive strategy, i.e. numbers around the ball, lock it in. As yes, pay incorrect disposal as the free-kick that's stated in the rules.

If someone dived on the ball and is tackled it'd be a free against, same as it is now.

 

[Hawk_francais]

You'd have a situation where a group of players are all standing around looking at the ball with no one willing to pick it up

Exactly right, and exactly wrong. It would reduce the incentive for teams to have a large group of players around the ball in the first place. Having extra bodies around simply makes it more difficult for the player taking possession to get the ball away. And if only one team tries to lock it in, they risk being a) caught in possession or b) killed on the spread with free players everywhere.

Teams would instruct only their best ball-winners and tacklers to follow the ball and have everyone else out of the way and trying to receive the ball in space.

Sounds almost like how football is supposed to be, right?

 

[deanc]

Exactly right, and exactly wrong. It would reduce the incentive for teams to have a large group of players around the ball in the first place. Having extra bodies around simply makes it more difficult for the player taking possession to get the ball away. And if only one team tries to lock it in, they risk being a) caught in possession or b) killed on the spread with free players everywhere.

Teams would instruct only their best ball-winners and tacklers to follow the ball and have everyone else out of the way and trying to receive the ball in space.

Sounds almost like how football is supposed to be, right?

Related, what if there was a rule to remove gang tackles at stoppages?

I was talking with Dan Harford earlier this year about the development of the women's game and specifically issues they have with congestion which is one of main reasons for low scores in the AFLW.
While this may not interest some, there are a few points he made including a trial rule they are considering which could also be adopted for the men's game.

According to his observations the women's ball movement is stifled due to to three reasons.
The first and most obvious is the majority of players have little playing experience in the game. Secondly, as a consequence to the first reason, most of the players don't yet have the skills or the understanding of what's required for efficient ball movement.

The last reason was simple but intriguing. All the women, specifically the new players are often overly keen to be involved in a match and general play anytime the ball is near them.
As a consequence, he says, you'll often see 2 or 3 women either all trying to tackle the one player or gain possession of the ball at stoppages. The frequency of the old 'stacks on the mill' he says is stifling the movement of the ball thereby reducing scoring opportunities while restricting the development and spectacle of the women's game.

Now, while experience and skill will take time to develop (for most AFLW players) a proposed rule to reduce the amount of players being involved in stoppages and particularly tackles is simply 'not to allow any more than one tackling player per ball carrying player.'
The proposed rule, he said, will only be applicable at stoppages, i.e. when the ball is either thrown in from the boundary or thrown up during play on the ground.

Perhaps this is something the AFL could introduce and trial during the JLT pre-season matches..?

 

[Topkent]

“Prior opportunity” is a relatively new concept. It didn’t used to exist. It’s laughable people think the game would be a totally different sport.

Players would always take possession whenever possible because having possession of the ball means a more effective disposal. It’s much easier to kick or handball accurately than it is to tap or soccer the ball.

Watch any passage of play. Players grab the footy constantly and either dispose of it extremely quickly before being wrapped up, or even as they’re being tackled. That’s fine and will continue.

But there’s no doubt there’s instances when players take possession of the ball - usually around stoppages - knowing full well they’ll be mauled to the ground. And the rules protect them.

It’s not good for the game. It causes repeat stoppages which allow players to take a break (offsetting the fatigue the AFL is so intent on creating anyway) and put in place more defensive zones to further slow the game down.

Players shouldn’t have a god-given right to take possession. The key to a flowing game, and everything that everybody wants (higher scoring, a more attractive game) is to keep it moving.

That needs to be the number 1 priority: keep it moving. Not “take possession”. That’s the way the game was designed and what made it what it was. It’s one of the major differences to rugby which is all about protection of the ball.

This obsession with allowing possession and protection of the ball has been the biggest cause of congestion.

Keep it moving... keep it moving... keep it moving

You don't understand what you are saying. You are rewarding defensive tactics then so coaches will double down on teaching tackling and pressing and just ignore kicking. It'll be way more important to stick a tackle than it will be to handball and kick well especially if you devolve the game back to wet weather footy in the dry where people just hack it forward all the time.

 

[sprockets]

You don't understand what you are saying. You are rewarding defensive tactics then so coaches will double down on teaching tackling and pressing and just ignore kicking. It'll be way more important to stick a tackle than it will be to handball and kick well especially if you devolve the game back to wet weather footy in the dry where people just hack it forward all the time.

With due respect, the game's about kicking a higher score than the opposition. If you don't get the ball you can't do that and it's why the priority will always be the ball. The aim of tackling should be to get the ball from the opposition, it should never be about 'stopping' them, but with the current rules it often (usually) is, and is what you would call "defensive tactics". How often do you see the ball 'pinned' to a player? Far too much!

 

[Topkent]

With due respect, the game's about kicking a higher score than the opposition. If you don't get the ball you can't do that and it's why the priority will always be the ball. The aim of tackling should be to get the ball from the opposition, it should never be about 'stopping' them, but with the current rules it often (usually) is, and is what you would call "defensive tactics". How often do you see the ball 'pinned' to a player? Far too much!

Right and the higher score can be 1-0 if they want.
The more you reward defensive play the more it will be practiced and trained

 

[Hawk_francais]

You don't understand what you are saying. You are rewarding defensive tactics then so coaches will double down on teaching tackling and pressing and just ignore kicking. It'll be way more important to stick a tackle than it will be to handball and kick well especially if you devolve the game back to wet weather footy in the dry where people just hack it forward all the time.

You've just described modern footy. Get it forward, lock it in.

OP is talking about taking away the opportunity to lock it in. Therefore winning the footy and possessing it through clean hand and foot skills is the only way to keep the ball in your attacking zone. The game isn't supposed to revolve around ball-ups.

 

[Topkent]

You've just described modern footy. Get it forward, lock it in.

OP is talking about taking away the opportunity to lock it in. Therefore winning the footy and possessing it through clean hand and foot skills is the only way to keep the ball in your attacking zone. The game isn't supposed to revolve around ball-ups.

No s**t Sherlock
If you reward every single tackle then teams will focus even heavier on tackling in the forward half.