Ending congestion

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Hawk_francais said:
I think you're finding it difficult to imagine a version of the game where players hold their positions.
Click to expand...
I think you are waffling on about nonsense. I hate modern footy but the suggestion to get rid of prior is a stupid one
 
Hawk_francais said:
Yes, for reasons that you don’t seem to be able to articulate. Move along.
Click to expand...
Already articulated them previously in the thread, understand that my take you a couple days to back an read so I'll be around when your done
 
sprockets said:
Which means players will focus more heavily on getting rid of the ball before being tackled.
Click to expand...
Sprockets mate you can't interfere with every players god-given right to be tackled. Each player should have freedom to take possession, get tackled while holding the ball, do a 360 and fall to the ground on top of the ball whilst punching their opponents arm. It's a much more graceful solution.

In all seriousness, most of the opposition here is from people who just can't imagine a version of the game where defence and attack is carried out through field position, rather than in relation to stoppages.
 
Topkent said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope, I know exactly what I’m saying.

It’s not about rewarding defensiveness, it’s about ending congestion by penalising those who lock the ball in without hope of moving it on.

That was always the difference with our game. If you were caught with the ball and didn’t immediately get rid of it, you lost it. That’s not the case any more.

We’ve allowed this situation to develop where players can take possession or just dive on the ball, make no attempt to get rid of it, and there’s no penalty.

And it repeats itself over and over, because the outcome is now a ball-up.

Which pauses the game and allows more players to get to the stoppage, lock it up and force yet another stoppage.

It’s rugby.

There is no greater contributor to the congestion that we are apparently trying to get rid of.

Just bring back the unique part of our game... if you’re tackled with the ball and don’t get rid of it, you lose it.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Nope, I know exactly what I’m saying.

It’s not about rewarding defensiveness, it’s about ending congestion by penalising those who lock the ball in without hope of moving it on.

That was always the difference with our game. If you were caught with the ball and didn’t immediately get rid of it, you lost it. That’s not the case any more.

We’ve allowed this situation to develop where players can take possession or just dive on the ball, make no attempt to get rid of it, and there’s no penalty.

And it repeats itself over and over, because the outcome is now a ball-up.

Which pauses the game and allows more players to get to the stoppage, lock it up and force yet another stoppage.

It’s rugby.

There is no greater contributor to the congestion that we are apparently trying to get rid of.

Just bring back the unique part of our game... if you’re tackled with the ball and don’t get rid of it, you lose it.
Click to expand...
You can hear how glowingly coaches talk about the ability of their players to cause a stoppage. From a kick-in, from a kick down the line, from an inside 50. A stoppage is a positive result because it just slows everything down and gives them time to set up. A stoppage was just a way to decide a ball in-dispute. If you read Mitch Robinsons article about wingers it’s quite revealing about how much the modern game-plan revolves around maximising damage to stoppage wins & mitigating damage to stoppage losses.

I feel like you’re on the money about ending congestion, but it might be too radical for clubs and players to actually accept. It’s a huge change.
 
Hawk_francais said:
You can hear how glowingly coaches talk about the ability of their players to cause a stoppage. From a kick-in, from a kick down the line, from an inside 50. A stoppage is a positive result because it just slows everything down and gives them time to set up. A stoppage was just a way to decide a ball in-dispute. If you read Mitch Robinsons article about wingers it’s quite revealing about how much the modern game-plan revolves around maximising damage to stoppage wins & mitigating damage to stoppage losses.

I feel like you’re on the money about ending congestion, but it might be too radical for clubs and players to actually accept. It’s a huge change.
Click to expand...

Correct on all counts.
 
The biggest contributor is huge amount of interchange allowing more fit recharged players around the ball who can hold the ball up, the umpires wasting time and allowing more players to get to the stoppage before throwing the ball up - we need less rules not more.

I would also look into a ball that is easier to handle in the wet or greasy conditions although to be fair this is not as much of a concern as in days gone by.

the more rules you make - the more rules you need to make, but seeing the AFL has hundreds of snouts in the trough, employees feel the need to justify their salary and existence and will come up with plenty of ways to stay attached to the teat so this wont stop, it's exactly like the public service.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Les Malone said:
The biggest contributor is huge amount of interchange allowing more fit recharged players around the ball who can hold the ball up, the umpires wasting time and allowing more players to get to the stoppage before throwing the ball up - we need less rules not more.

I would also look into a ball that is easier to handle in the wet or greasy conditions although to be fair this is not as much of a concern as in days gone by.

the more rules you make - the more rules you need to make, but seeing the AFL has hundreds of snouts in the trough, employees feel the need to justify their salary and existence and will come up with plenty of ways to stay attached to the teat so this wont stop, it's exactly like the public service.
Click to expand...
An interesting point about umpires waiting for players to get to the stoppage. When did it come in that umpires had to wait for ruckmen to get to the contest before balling it up? One of them was waiting for a ruckman (Grundy?) to tie his damn shoelaces a couple of weeks ago. And before that another waited for the ruckman to jog in from the goal square 40 metres away.
 
Les Malone said:
The biggest contributor is huge amount of interchange allowing more fit recharged players around the ball who can hold the ball up, the umpires wasting time and allowing more players to get to the stoppage before throwing the ball up - we need less rules not more.

I would also look into a ball that is easier to handle in the wet or greasy conditions although to be fair this is not as much of a concern as in days gone by.

the more rules you make - the more rules you need to make, but seeing the AFL has hundreds of snouts in the trough, employees feel the need to justify their salary and existence and will come up with plenty of ways to stay attached to the teat so this wont stop, it's exactly like the public service.
Click to expand...

The constant focus on interchange is misguided. I mean reducing it won’t hurt, but the core issue is more basic.

What made AF different is it HAD to keep moving. It didn’t stop with a tackle. Either it was an illegal tackle, which was a free kick... or the player got rid of it in the tackle, so it was play on... or it was holding the ball, which was a free kick.

That’s what’s changed.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
The constant focus on interchange is misguided. I mean reducing it won’t hurt, but the core issue is more basic.

What made AF different is it HAD to keep moving. It didn’t stop with a tackle. Either it was an illegal tackle, which was a free kick... or the player got rid of it in the tackle, so it was play on... or it was holding the ball, which was a free kick.

That’s what’s changed.
Click to expand...
Exactly, but all too simple for people to comprehend in the modern age of over-complexity.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
The constant focus on interchange is misguided. I mean reducing it won’t hurt, but the core issue is more basic.

What made AF different is it HAD to keep moving. It didn’t stop with a tackle. Either it was an illegal tackle, which was a free kick... or the player got rid of it in the tackle, so it was play on... or it was holding the ball, which was a free kick.

That’s what’s changed.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention tackles, tackles create congestion.

Have a look at a game from the the 1980's or 1990's and look at the lack of tackles.

Look at this graph, https://afltables.com/afl/stats/yearly.html

In 1990 there were 7,768 tackles for the year with 14 teams

In 2018 there were 26,852 tackles for the year with 18 teams ( in 2016 there were nearly 29,000 tackles)

The % rise is incredible and IMO not actually positive for the aesthetics of the game.

Recharged players make tackles stick, that is related directly to I/C numbers IMO.

I don't watch footy to see 140 tackles per game, i don't like the importance that has been placed on it by coaches and i also don't like its (now) importance at junior level, if i want to see hundreds of tackles i can watch rugby.
 
An easy way to reduce congestion (won't be a magic fix) is to simply throw the ball up and in straight away. Get rid of nominations and just make it a rule if a team has 2 go up they get penalised. At the moment the umpires wait until everyone has made it to the drop of the ball.

Go back to penalising any player for delaying the game by holding onto a player once they have taken the mark or got a free kick. If you in any way impede the player its 50. You see players being held up long enough for everyone to flood back.
 
Les Malone said:
Now that you mention tackles, tackles create congestion.

Have a look at a game from the the 1980's or 1990's and look at the lack of tackles.

Look at this graph, https://afltables.com/afl/stats/yearly.html

In 1990 there were 7,768 tackles for the year with 14 teams

In 2018 there were 26,852 tackles for the year with 18 teams ( in 2016 there were nearly 29,000 tackles)

The % rise is incredible and IMO not actually positive for the aesthetics of the game.

Recharged players make tackles stick, that is related directly to I/C numbers IMO.

I don't watch footy to see 140 tackles per game, i don't like the importance that has been placed on it by coaches and i also don't like its (now) importance at junior level, if i want to see hundreds of tackles i can watch rugby.
Click to expand...

It’s because there’s a pack around the ball and it gets locked in, every “tackle” causing a repeat stoppage. On and on it goes.

If they apply the rules the way they used to, almost all tackles result in a movement of play:

- free kick for illegal tackle, or;
- ball is disposed in the tackle, or;
- free kick for holding the ball

Not now. Ball up, tap down, tackle to ground, no prior, ball up, tap down, tackle to ground, no prior, ball up...
 
Mentioned this before but I think a team prior opportunity is the best way as it would solve congestion issues overnight.

So right now player A has the ball. He handballs it to his teammate, Player B, who is immediately tackled. Under the current system player B did not have enough time to dispose of the ball so it is a ball up.

Under team prior opportunity though as soon as Player A handballs the ball the entire team loses prior opportunity, as Player A took that opportunity by handballing it. As a result, if player B takes the ball and is tackled immediately it is a free kick against.

The idea being that it would stop player A from seeing a teammate who is going to be tackled immediately if he takes the ball, and player A still passing it to him. It would mean in congestion players will be much more likely to try and kick the ball out of packs rather than doing a lot of little handballs that often result in more ball ups.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
It’s because there’s a pack around the ball and it gets locked in, every “tackle” causing a repeat stoppage. On and on it goes.

If they apply the rules the way they used to, almost all tackles result in a movement of play:

- free kick for illegal tackle, or;
- ball is disposed in the tackle, or;
- free kick for holding the ball

Not now. Ball up, tap down, tackle to ground, no prior, ball up, tap down, tackle to ground, no prior, ball up...
Click to expand...


Yes but i would argue they are only able to get around the ball constantly because of I/C, also at every other level of football interchange is not policed and you can have as many interchanges as you want, i imagine because to police it you would need a whole new set of umpires!! WAFL colts footy in Perth you have unlimited i/c and 6 blokes on the bench, but weirdly the AFL (WAFL) has bought in a rule where every team must have 3 pairs of players in their defensive of offensive 50 at all times, this rule was bought in so recruiters can actually see some real football in open space.

So in effect they are admitting defeat and trying to reverse unlimited I/C by creating zones.
 
I remember when one of my kids was playing year 10 football, 18 on the ground and were allowed 8 on the bench, after every goal his side would change 8 players.

How can you not have a congested game when 8 new fit pumped up players get on the ground and follow the ball, of course the game grinds to a tacklethon and ballups which in turn sucks more players to the ball.

You control I/C and the play spreads out regardless of the rules.
 
RUNVS said:
Mentioned this before but I think a team prior opportunity is the best way as it would solve congestion issues overnight.

So right now player A has the ball. He handballs it to his teammate, Player B, who is immediately tackled. Under the current system player B did not have enough time to dispose of the ball so it is a ball up.

Under team prior opportunity though as soon as Player A handballs the ball the entire team loses prior opportunity, as Player A took that opportunity by handballing it. As a result, if player B takes the ball and is tackled immediately it is a free kick against.

The idea being that it would stop player A from seeing a teammate who is going to be tackled immediately if he takes the ball, and player A still passing it to him. It would mean in congestion players will be much more likely to try and kick the ball out of packs rather than doing a lot of little handballs that often result in more ball ups.
Click to expand...
They also need to put an end to someone whose teammate was tackled coming in and tackling the tackler, thereby making sure the ball doesn't come out. How was that ever allowed?
 
DamianBis said:
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
Click to expand...
The football skills are not now "way better" at all. The athletic skills may be better, but if I want to watch marathon runners I'll go to my local track meet.

And the modern game, with its constant interchange players running around like hamsters on acid creating 'congestion' (hitherto a medical term) does not permit the players to execute whatever kicking skills they may possess, in any event. Just like rugby, where kicking skills are secondary.

Agree with your other points.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Rules Holding the ball. Eliminate prior opportunity. Penalty. Clear congestion.
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
terrybull
terrybull

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top