Rules The Sensible Rule Changes Required

[Yojimbo]

Personally, I find Richmond unwatchable.

Everyone to there own, I love their intent and drive even though they do not value traditional areas of importance as much
as some teams. They do maximise their players given gifts and beating them requires the mirror and cannot be achieved
without it. We have big ovals and I get tired of watching games played in the phone box, let the players break free and
play on instinct more.

 

[faible]

There needs to be less ambiguous rules, and the rules in place should have a specific goal; protect players from harm and keep the game moving as effectively as possible.

Things like Ruck nominations, the protected zone, east-west, all those bizarre touchy free kicks, do those rules really add to the game?

 

[Yojimbo]

east-west

If the ground runs East-West why do they not say North-South, this blatant compass abuse is an outrage.

 

[Master91]

AFL take note: NRL shows tired players make for a less tiresome game

As the AFL prepares for the return of its season next week, the NRL illustrates increasing player fatigue doesn't have to take away from the attractiveness of its game, writes Richard Hinds.

www.abc.net.au

Interesting take on the NRL rule changes and the effect fatigue has had on the game. I tend to agree, I think reducing interchange drastically to 20-30 a game in the AFL would reduce congestion, the more fatigued players are the more they will hold their positions around the ground. Teams would work out very quickly they couldn't play the game at the pace it's currently played at.

I also think runners have a place in the game. Many sports have a way of communicating between players and coach, they're mic'd up in the NFL, soccer the players are within earshot of the coach generally. Runners are just how we do it in the AFL, it works.

 

[telsor]

There needs to be less ambiguous rules, and the rules in place should have a specific goal; protect players from harm and keep the game moving as effectively as possible.

Things like Ruck nominations, the protected zone, east-west, all those bizarre touchy free kicks, do those rules really add to the game?

The "bizarre touchy free kicks" are generally there so there are "less ambiguous rules".

That means if you see hands on someones back, you pay the free....even if it's not really affecting anything...because allowing the ump to judge the effect would require subjective interpretation and thus ambiguity.

 

[telsor]

AFL take note: NRL shows tired players make for a less tiresome game

As the AFL prepares for the return of its season next week, the NRL illustrates increasing player fatigue doesn't have to take away from the attractiveness of its game, writes Richard Hinds.

www.abc.net.au

Interesting take on the NRL rule changes and the effect fatigue has had on the game. I tend to agree, I think reducing interchange drastically to 20-30 a game in the AFL would reduce congestion, the more fatigued players are the more they will hold their positions around the ground. Teams would work out very quickly they couldn't play the game at the pace it's currently played at.

I also think runners have a place in the game. Many sports have a way of communicating between players and coach, they're mic'd up in the NFL, soccer the players are within earshot of the coach generally. Runners are just how we do it in the AFL, it works.

I think the runners and interchange get worked out together....The more interchanges you have, the less you need a runner and vice versa.

As things stand, runners are pretty much redundant, if the coach wants to talk to someone, you signal them to come off and the coach talks to them directly.
Cut the interchanges to 20-30 a game as you suggest and the runners ar eneeded again, so they can return (although with fairly strict rules to ensure they're nowhere near the ball).

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Everyone to there own...

Exactly. And that's the problem the AFL have.

They don't know what the problem actually is, so how can they fix it?

This is why so many shit, unnecessary, and worthless rules have been introduced over the years.


The NRL were unanimous in what the problem was - so addressing it was relatively simple, and didn't require any actual rule changes to the game.

 

[HTT]

Why it was introduced was Auskick stuff, Ruckman for 100 years never had any issue. Part of the game, well it was once.
But ok let’s agree to not have third man up, who cares who goes fir the ruck knock, why do they need to nominate?

Honestly it should be such a simple rule. One from each team goes up, if there’s three players in the contest, penalise the team with the extra. If there’s two from each team, play on.
I don’t see why it’s needed anyway, especially with the whole ‘stop congestion’ mantra - the third man up is the one that can clear the contest completely.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I also think runners have a place in the game. Many sports have a way of communicating between players and coach, they're mic'd up in the NFL, soccer the players are within earshot of the coach generally. Runners are just how we do it in the AFL, it works.

When Kyrie Irving shot the winning 3-pointer over Steph Curry in the NBA Finals, Curry was asked something along the lines of whether he was disappointed with himself on that play.

He replied that he wasn't. He said he defended it perfectly, but "good offense beats good defense every time".

And therein lies the problem for the AFL.

That is not the case in the AFL. Defence wins.

In all the other 'entertaining' sports such as baseball and the NFL, good offence beats good defence. The reason being, same as basketball, that you get the 1-on-1 opportunity almost every play.

That's been coached out of the AFL.

In my opinion, that's the problem statement right there.

Removing runners is really about reducing the coach's ability to influence the game, and instead put the onus on the players on the ground to work it out. Which of course they wouldn't - so the game would open up and more 1-on-1 scenarios would emerge.

 

[Private Hudson]

The AFL media is ****ing laughable. A completely different sport changes a rule and after one round of play under said rule change, they demand further changes to our game. LEAVE THE ****ING RULES ALONE

 

[footyfan1978]

Undo most of the changes from the last 26 years
/fin

EFA

 

[Yojimbo]

That is not the case in the AFL. Defence wins.

I think in AFL defence is easier to coach and cheaper to recruit and it's the same in most sports, fans or people tend to idolise
who scores Chamberlain, Johnson, Jordan, Bird, Curry in basketball, Ronaldo, Messi, Pele, Maradona in soccer and even our
AFL is the same with Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett senior, Hudson, McKenna and Coleman. Who played skins with Tiger and Phil
the other day two NFL quarter backs, most sports around the world pay homage to the money men. When I played football
a penalty was 15 metres, but smart coaches exploited that so they changed it to 50 metres and so it continues through
time. Maybe rather than replacing the fans with cardboard cut outs they should replace the coaches instead it would save
them a fortune in wall repair products not to mention replacement of the humble telephone.

 

[RunningBounce]

Oh, good. More calls for rule changes. That should fix the problems created by rule changes.

 

[faible]

The "bizarre touchy free kicks" are generally there so there are "less ambiguous rules".

That means if you see hands on someones back, you pay the free....even if it's not really affecting anything...because allowing the ump to judge the effect would require subjective interpretation and thus ambiguity.

I don't mean where there's a strict interpretation of the rule, I mean the east-west, protected zone type things. The more rules they add, the more the umpires are asked to adjudicate, the more room there is for human error and frustration.

I'm not sure whether i'm for or against last touch out of bounds, but I certainly appreciate the lack of ambiguity it creates for umpires and the way it removes repeat stoppages through the midfield. If there's uncertainty over who sent it out of bounds, throw it in.

When Kyrie Irving shot the winning 3-pointer over Steph Curry in the NBA Finals, Curry was asked something along the lines of whether he was disappointed with himself on that play.

He replied that he wasn't. He said he defended it perfectly, but "good offense beats good defense every time".

And therein lies the problem for the AFL.

That is not the case in the AFL. Defence wins.

In all the other 'entertaining' sports such as baseball and the NFL, good offence beats good defence. The reason being, same as basketball, that you get the 1-on-1 opportunity almost every play.

That's been coached out of the AFL.

In my opinion, that's the problem statement right there.

Removing runners is really about reducing the coach's ability to influence the game, and instead put the onus on the players on the ground to work it out. Which of course they wouldn't - so the game would open up and more 1-on-1 scenarios would emerge.

The NBA is a very different game though, there's not really a way to physically shut down a player within the rules. The rules are setup that you can't stop a player from shooting, you can make it difficult for them to get a clean shot, but you can't physically stop them the way you can with a tackle.

AFL and Soccer are much more 360 degree games with flowing play, and typically reliant upon a strong defensive structure. Keep in mind that most years the premier is also one of the highest scoring teams still.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

1 Tick
2 Tick
3 Tick
4 Tick
5 The biggest tick, would immediately lessen congestion.

6. Pay free kicks for incorrect disposal in contests, there are a gazillion times in a game in contests where players have not made legal contact with the ball right in view of the umpire. Would immediately lessen congestion.

And it all just seems commonsense stuff mate.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The NBA is a very different game though, there's not really a way to physically shut down a player within the rules. The rules are setup that you can't stop a player from shooting, you can make it difficult for them to get a clean shot, but you can't physically stop them the way you can with a tackle.

But that's my point. For 100 years full forwards were kicking 100+ a season and a bag of 10 on a day wasn't unusual - because good offence beat good defence the way the game was played.

In my opinion, that's where the game has gone awry.
The hands in the back rule and 20 second shot clock has worked against forwards too. So the AFL haven't helped the cause - but ultimately the coaches worked out how to flip the 'good offense beats good defence' adage on its head.

It wins games clearly, but the game is far less entertaining and intetesting as a resuly.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

But that's my point. For 100 years full forwards were kicking 100+ a season and a bag of 10 on a day wasn't unusual - because good offence beat good defence the way the game was played.

In my opinion, that's where the game has gone awry.
The hands in the back rule and 20 second shot clock has worked against forwards too. So the AFL haven't helped the cause - but ultimately the coaches worked out how to flip the 'good offense beats good defence' adage on its head.

It wins games clearly, but the game is far less entertaining and intetesting as a resuly.

May I ask your opinion on why is how the game looks something supporters these days care about? I just don’t get it. What happened to did we win or lose? I reckon the media need to shut up and stop talking about the look of the game because truthfully no one should care.

 

[faible]

But that's my point. For 100 years full forwards were kicking 100+ a season and a bag of 10 on a day wasn't unusual - because good offence beat good defence the way the game was played.

In my opinion, that's where the game has gone awry.
The hands in the back rule and 20 second shot clock has worked against forwards too. So the AFL haven't helped the cause - but ultimately the coaches worked out how to flip the 'good offense beats good defence' adage on its head.

It wins games clearly, but the game is far less entertaining and intetesting as a resuly.

Eh, some of that is just a byproduct of increasing levels of professionalism, coaches are much better at identifying and stopping a dominant single player, so scoring needs to be shared more between players.

The days of the gorilla FF who never left the 50m arc are gone, and short of putting in strict zones, will never return. Players can cover more ground now through increased levels of fitness, meaning that there's going to be less space, less one-on-one contests and more fatigue.

One thing people forget when talking about introducing more fatigue in to the game (due to decreased rotations) is that players will be less accurate. Many players today are perfectly good, accurate kicks in training, but less-so after running 3-4km per quarter at intensity. Guys like Lockett and Lloyd didn't cover large amounts of territory.

For decades players largely played unstructured football, as coaches got more educated, the sport got more professional and therefore we had more ability to introduce strategic zoning along with increased fitness, the defensive side has drastically improved. This has brought up the concept of role players.

The game itself has changed, even without any rule changes. The problem is the AFL keep introducing rule changes to try to force an outcome, that I'm not sure everyone actually wants, whilst not allowing the game a chance to catch-up. The 6-6-6 change plus the new kick-in rules was meant to increase scoring, but because coaches can't slot a player in behind the ball to slow momentum changes, they made their entire game-plans defensive, so scoring dropped.

Also keep in mind the NBA also receives a lot of criticism for having become a perimeter game, there's a lot more 3pt scoring and a lot less scoring at the rim. Check out the Last Dance and how they talk about Jordan when he's drafted, it was an era of 7ft monsters scoring at the rim, then Jordan brought in a lot more movement and mid-range scoring or scoring through traffic instead of over it, with Curry now the poster-child of perimeter scoring.

Personally I'm mostly concerned with my team winning or losing, and then the next concern is that the game is close. A close, high scoring game can be fantastic, but so can a close scrappy slog.

I'd like to see a review of the rules to minimise the amount of 'technical' type rules and frees, where there's no real impact upon the game for infringing (e.g. east-west, protected zone but nowhere near the player, no nomination in the ruck). And then looking at something like last touch out of bounds (or similar) rules that encourage continually flowing play instead of repeat stoppages. As a byproduct we may have to accept that increased fatigue will come with decreased accuracy.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

May I ask your opinion on why is how the game looks something supporters these days care about? I just don’t get it. What happened to did we win or lose? I reckon the media need to shut up and stop talking about the look of the game because truthfully no one should care.

Fair question.

My view is that the diehards that only care about their team winning, no longer pay the bills.

The AFL need more customers. They know they can only attract them and retain them if the game is entertaining.

Other sports are genuine threats these days.

 

[hawkman]

Umpire throws the ball up or in immediately instead of waiting for ruckmen and get rid of nominations. Simple quick fix that will give players less time to run in and crowd around stoppages. Also any delay in giving the ball back to the umpire (which is usually a tactic to allow a team to set up defensively) is a free kick

Will also shorten quarters as there is less dead time which some in the media will love

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Why wouldn't you just make it illegal to knee a bloke in the back as 3rd man up in a ruck contest, rather than outlawing the entire practice?

It was introduced to identify and reduce blocking around the ruck contest. Remember when we were seeing ruck rovers, often by umpires not currently not in charge of that contest. By designating a ruckman, it removed this feigning by non-ruckmen to take the tap, and only one player per team was henceforth granted the protection to take the knockout. It is actually a very good rule when viewed in this context.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Another fu** up of their own doing.

By giving a shit about a human error, they've blown squillions and created an even bigger problem - their attempts to remove human error has resulted on other humans making the same errors

Agree mate. So simple to rectify too.

If the ball hits the goalpost on the way through the goals, it should be goal.

If the ball hits the behind post or goal post on the way through the behinds, it should be a behind.

If it hits the goalpost and rebounds into play, it's a behind. (i.e. same as now)

If it hits the behind post and rebounds into play, it's out on the full, or throw-in if it bounced first. (i.e. same as now)

 

[hawkman]

It was introduced to identify and reduce blocking around the ruck contest. Remember when we were seeing ruck rovers, often by umpires not currently not in charge of that contest. By designating a ruckman, it removed this feigning by non-ruckmen to take the tap, and only one player per team was henceforth granted the protection to take the knockout. It is actually a very good rule when viewed in this context.

The rule made sense but the side effect of it is that it slows the game down waiting for the nomination process

 

[STFU Donnie]

Man AFL people are dumb.

We've just seen how simple it is to enact change without sweeping changes that compromise the game itself.

The NRL introdcued significant change, without actually changing any rules or introducing any new ones!

Well played.

But to be fair...it's really not that hard.

There are a bunch of alterations or adjustments that could be made in the AFL which would make huge changes - without needing to dream up any shit new rules!


Gerard Whateley was talking about it last night, and I agree with him to a degree.
His jist was along the lines of 'just make the rule changes and don't try to engage everyone and make them all happy - just do it.'

That's completely wrong in the sense that you need to understand what the Problem Statement is. To do that, you generally need input from a bunch of stakeholders.

I believe this is a core problem with the AFL's plight and their approach to the game.

What is the actual problem with the game?

If you ask 10 people down the street what a perfect game of AFL footy is, you'll get a bunch of different answers. So what is it exactly that you're trying to make the game look like? I don't think the AFL know. They're like Homer Simpson designing the car for Herb - they're taking a scattergun approach to it and trying to address all these little problems with changes. The issue there is that most of the changes end up countering other ones, and you don't really know which ones were effective amd which weren't!

They need to first understand exactly what it is they're trying to achieve.

What's the Problem Statement? Then what's the solution?


The 6-6-6 rule is just dog shit. Not becuase it fu**s with the integrity of the game in the sense that it's a major change that basically has introduced zones to AFL footy - but because it didn't work!
It facilitated close finishes and teams rolling the dice to score quickly out of the centre, which was cool - but to my knowledge, that was never the Problem Statement?

So here we are again. Trying to fix the game. Scoring is still low. The game still looks putrid.


But anyway, I digress...

There are three things that need to change, and they aren't new rules and they aren't going to rip out the heart of the game. My personal view is that the rolling maul is a major problem, and the lack of one on one contests is the other. Low scoring doesn't me, and I don't particularly love high scoring shootouts. It's the contest I love, and the art of football on an individual level. Great players are what makes the game entertaining - not 'well drilled teams'.

1) No runners. Let's be honest, coaches wrecked the game. Limit their interference.
Let tired players make decisions on their feet. The art of football will come back, and older players will have more value.

2) Enforce players creeping over the mark. The 'protected zone' is nonsense, it's not the issue. I see probably 10 times each game where a player seemingly doesn't get back off his mark quick enough to take his kick, so he has to reset. It stops the flow. Whereas in reality the opposition player has crept over the mark. It's a ploy, and umpires ignore it for some reason.

3) Enforce Holding the Man/Not in Possession in packs.
You're not allowed to tackle a bloke that doesn't have the ball.
In a pack, only one guy can have it - so WTF are there 5 guys in there? One guy has it, one is tackling him. If anyone tackles or stacks on then they, in 90% of cases, be either tackling a bloke that is not possession, or pushing someone in the back.
For some reason, the umpires allow it. I don't know why. But the 'stacks on' is the main factor in the rolling mail.


There. That's all I've got. Well for now, any way.

Well said. I especially agree with your point number 1. I would also limit (even further) the number of interchanges. As fatigue becomes a factor, then inherent skill and judgement come more to the fore.

 

[iameviljez]

I think you’ve forgotten why that rule was introduced.

Because Mark Blicavs was making Geelong's lack of a good ruckman slightly irrelevant

(And, yes, blocking etc)