Why did the game devolve into the current dog's breakfast?

[Grongey]

It' that free flowing athleticism that initially draws people to the game, high flying, one-on-one contests and 10 goal full forwards. We are undermining that with these defensive slug-a-thons, orchestrated by career coaches.

We must reduce to 16 player teams, and 20 minute quarters. Wishing for the game to open up, it's no good waiting for the career coaches to direct it, you'll wait forever.

 

[Giant Pete]

Bonus points should be given to teams on the ladder who score 100 points or more.

Give the teams incentive to score big, might generate some change?

It’s a good idea in theory. However grounds like Etihad - especially with roof closed - are more conducive to higher scoring. Therefore teams with Etihad as their home ground have an unfair advantage.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

unless they are quick enough to lead freely to the drop of the ball and outmark the floater from behind

You're very reliant on the delivery, but it's possible.

 

[Upgrayedd]

It's better and more tactical then your feeble mind can comprehend.

OP is the type of fan who wants the super goal added

 

[Boxhead_31]

It's better and more tactical then your feeble mind can comprehend.

OP is the type of fan who wants the super goal added

Please explain it for us oh very smart person

 

[jatz14]

Great point and I hadn’t considered this but think you are right that the ‘No Prior Opportunity’ is having an impact.

In my day you’d often hear yelled out to an umpire during a game ‘perfect tackle’. This was when a player grabbed the ball and was tackled and couldn’t get rid of the ball. I don’t think prior opportunity came into it.

This would be worth trialling. We all want to protect the payer going for the ball but you are right in that payers are adept now in picking up the ball as they move into tackle knowing they won’t be penalised so we get that scrum effect.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What was starting to occur before the prior rule came in was worse.

Question, what happens if the first player to the ball is almost certainly going to be instantly wrapped in a tackle, and there isn't a no prior rule?

You want to see what the modern congested game looks like, with players being heavily coached in the art of not picking the ball up, but waiting to tackle the player that does. Be my guest, but it's not a game I have an interest in watching.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jerry springer]

am i the only one that thinks more fatigue will actually possibly = more congestion?

 

[hawksalltheway]

JUST. PAY. HTB.

 

[KickLongTackleHard]

Every player on the ground is used to defend the space around the ball, where ever it goes around the ground. Whole teams press. Traditional positional set up is long gone in professional footy and more free kicks won't change that.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

What was starting to occur before the prior rule came in was worse.

Question, what happens if the first player to the ball is almost certainly going to be instantly wrapped in a tackle, and there isn't a no prior rule?

You want to see what the modern congested game looks like, with players being heavily coached in the art of not picking the ball up, but waiting to tackle the player that does. Be my guest, but it's not a game I have an interest in watching.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

As I suggested it’s worth a trial. I can’t accuracy predict the effect. I do know now that players can handball with relative impunity to a player in a bad position in traffic who gets collared and no free kick given - and instead the scrum. Maybe it puts more onus on players to kick and clear the zone. But I’m not sure ???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[madmug]

am i the only one that thinks more fatigue will actually possibly = more congestion?

Well the opposite view is that as players fatigue, space opens up, congestion is thus reduced.

 

[mxett]

As I suggested it’s worth a trial. I can’t accuracy predict the effect. I do know now that players can handball with relative impunity to a player in a bad position in traffic who gets collared and no free kick given - and instead the scrum. Maybe it puts more onus on players to kick and clear the zone. But I’m not sure ???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

maybe prior opportunity could include receiving a pass. So when a player intercepts a ball or collects a loose ball they get ample opportunity to dispose of the ball before being penalised. However, if they choose to handpass the ball to a teammate this is considered prior opportunity, and the player is penalised if they do not dispose of the ball legally. You could call it a 'team prior opportunity'

 

[mxett]

Well the opposite view is that as players fatigue, space opens up, congestion is thus reduced.

I agree, however the counter-argument is coaches will begin recruiting players for endurance far before other skills. This current defensive plan has proved so successful at stopping scoring that coaches will work out new ways of congesting play based on team selection. I agree with limiting interchanges but I think more rules require changing to free up play and get back to 1 on 1 football

 

[sherb]

It's really just selective memory. 3 of the top 6 most accurate players in history are current players.

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/accuracy.html

None of the guys you mention are in the top 10. Lockett is 14th, Hudson is 28th - 1 position below Ben Brown.

I wouldn't have picked Percy Jones to feature so highly on that list.

 

[sherb]

Have you seen a rugby league scrum? They are an utter joke that should be eradicated from the game.

True.

A properly executed scrum requires a ball to be fed in to be contested by the hookers. That never happens these days.

 

[Duskfire]

I agree, however the counter-argument is coaches will begin recruiting players for endurance far before other skills. This current defensive plan has proved so successful at stopping scoring that coaches will work out new ways of congesting play based on team selection. I agree with limiting interchanges but I think more rules require changing to free up play and get back to 1 on 1 football

Yup. Everyone will recruit Blicavs type players who can just run all day and doesn’t give a s**t. Also heavy fatigue means poorer skills in the last quarter.

I don’t know, I am still of the opinion that this is just a phase that football is going through and at some point tactics will change. Sydney and eagles during the mid 2000s had a very defensive mindset as well and then Geelong cane along and tore that open. It will happen again

 

[J_Moore]

political correctness.

Oh yeah that’s the stuff, Tef

 

[J_Moore]

The game was tactically primitive and dumb, especially defensively, for an extremely long time. If anything, this logical evolution of the game was long overdue.

I love watching the game in its current format, and enjoy seeing teams excute the defensive side of the game well, and bully their opposition cleanly and within the rules.

Anyway, this is the answer, combined with the increased fitness of the players that lets them execute those tactics.

Old school footy had teams defending lold idiots. It was embarrassingly unsophisticated, and was never going to survive professionalism.

But I don’t disagree that the spectacle suffers a bit because of it.

Honestly reckon 16-a-side would solve most of the issues.

But I would almost accept any rule change that prevented the introduction of player zones. The ability of players to go wherever they want is *the* most important part of the game, imo.

 

[speedpeck23]

AFL is now effectively 22 v 22 , it used to be 18 v 18. The introduction and subsequent exploitation of the interchange has simply meant more players more often at the ball. I'm certainly not advocating AFLX but it was interesting to see some real one on one contests and clear umpiring decisions in the modified game. I'm all for trialling 16v 16 with 6 on interchange in pre season matches.

 

[SAweagle]

Nobody really cares about the footy anymore, the diehard days have gone. Its a money driven product that will get revamped ' REBRANDED ' and sexed up every 12 months until its unrecognisable. Players play for the paycheck and the chance to set their lives up financially, if they win a premiership well thats a bonus.

 

[Doashuey]

To answer the original question, I reckon the professionalism of the game and the rediculous levels of fitness these guys can attain has a lot to do with it.
Bring back durries at half time and Friday night meat trays and piss ups and these blokes won't be too keen to carry out their coach's request for a full field press.

 

[Rohan25]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...e/news-story/6e6a3d38114c1d638e075993bc7079af


AUSTRALIAN football will change next year but the AFL Commission will hold off against radical moves – such as zones – that challenge the game’s heritage.

AFL football boss Steve Hocking’s super “think tank” – that includes Hall of Fame Legends Malcolm Blight and Leigh Matthews – has worked through 35 proposals to deal with the “look of the game” leaving nine on the table at AFL House for serious review.

At least four seem certain to move to the commission room for final approval as the AFL seeks answers to ending concerning congestion on the field:

STARTING positions. This would require three forwards and three defenders inside a new 25-metre arc; three forwards and three defenders between the 50 and 25-metre arcs; and six players in the midfield. These starting positions apply only at the opening bounce in each quarter and at every re-start after a goal. This system will be easier to patrol with the AFL expected to introduce a four-umpire system next season. An umpire would be permanently placed in each forward-50 area.

LAST TOUCH. This concept – punishing players for all kicks across the boundary line, not just those on the full – comes from successful use in the SANFL in the past two seasons. This would reduce congestion with fewer stoppages to read boundary throw-ins.

ENLARGED goalsquare – from its current length of nine metres to possibly 18 and increasing its width from the 6.4 metres between the goal posts to all 19.2 metres across the goalface. This is to give defenders more room for their kick-ins to clear away from the 50-metre arc. In question is how the AFL will then address the current rule that allows a forward who takes a mark inside the goalsquare to have a shot directly in front of the centre of the goal – rather than on an angle from the marking point to the centre point of the goal.

A NEW 25-metre penalty. This would be used by umpires for “minor” offences – such as entering the 10-metre exclusion zone on the mark – and leave the 50-metre penalty for serious breaches.

If all four recommendations are endorsed by the AFL Commission – with an announcement to be made in October – the Australian football field will have two new markings. These will be the new 25-metre arc – and the new goal semi-circle replacing the goalsquare.

“There will be change,” said Blight, one of the five men in Hocking’s think tank that met in Melbourne on Thursday. “I have no doubt there will be change.

“But change that protects the heritage of the game so that is remains our game – not another.”

This rules out Legend Kevin Sheedy’s push for 16-a-side teams on the field – a move that would take two players off each side. Zones – holding players to certain sections of the field for all of the game - also is off the agenda.

Blight, Matthews, Brownlow Medallist Gerard Healy, experienced journalist Mike Sheahan and fellow commentator Gerard Whateley made up Hocking’s think tank.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...e/news-story/6e6a3d38114c1d638e075993bc7079af

 

[blitzer]

Roos in 2005 brought in the beginning of ugly modern football. Its only evolved more since then. From there every year there would be new 'forward presses'. A few teams still bucked the trend like Geelong during their peak years but mostly team defense has won out over exciting football.

 

[market]

Bonus points should be given to teams on the ladder who score 100 points or more.

Give the teams incentive to score big, might generate some change?

As far as i can see, this is the best idea. Leave the rules as they are for the players now and make an incentive for the COACHES to change.

I would rather they gave an extra point if the team wins and they score 20 goals during the match.

No impact to umpires or player etx with a new rule change, just one for the coaches to work out how the heck to get 20 goals on the board during the game.

 

[mick500]

Dunno. But absolute shitfest games on today. Can’t imagine the rating or attendance would be good for the afl today.