Opinion 2018 Non-Crows Discussion - Part 3: Everybody Hurts by R.E.M is our new club theme song

[Scorpus]

Teams dont use a mid to be the spare defender, they use a forward. If they use a midfielder that would be a stupid idea as midfielders are too valuable in their role to be sacrificed down back.

But if the starting positions required you to start two wings, 3 mids in the middle plus a ruck they couldn’t do this anyway.

Next objection?

If they are forcing a six-six-six configuration then you'd park whoever you want as the 7th defender right on D50. That would be one of the two "wings". Then you would park whoever you want in the midfield on that wing right on the F50 as a "forward". As soon as the ball is bounced there's a quick swap and you're right back into a 5-6-7 configuration.

We've already seen players starting on the back of the square can run through the center circle as the ruckman taps the ball. In effect you're just doing that with a wing from slightly further out.

Starting zones wouldn't prevent clubs from playing spare players in defence. Even at the end of the game you'd play your two wings on D50 and have them flood back, then get your two (or more) forwards to start in the center F50 line and run into the square

 

[Runnin Blue]

I asked this previously, without response. In last weekend's match, Gawn's technique at centre bounces was to jump and straight-arm fend off the oppo ruckman with one arm, while providing silver-service palming to his midfield with the other. All credit to him for being able to do this, but is it legal?? Anyone?

According to the Laws of the Game, a ruckman cannot block their opponent with a straight arm that inhibits him from contesting the ball.

‘Max Tax’: Melbourne ruckman opens up on rule confusion

 

[cmndstab]

That's the whole idea... Stretch the ground and decrease congestion because players will stay closer to their positions

But hang on, the argument that was made was that it would only have an impact at the stoppages themselves.

Now you're (correctly) saying that what it would actually lead to would be players just choosing not to leave the 50m zone because a stoppage could happen at any time. So in other words, it would have a much large impact than just at the stoppages themselves.

It's an idea that simply cannot work without demanding that players stay in their area at all times. It can't be implemented by half. The AFL has to decide whether they want to actually zone the field off netball style, or not. If they're not willing to go all in, then they shouldn't do it at all because it'll be a disaster.

 

[Scorpus]

The easiest way to stop rolling mauls is:

1. If you have possession of the ball and do not dispose of it legally, it is a free kick against. ANY drops or throws are paid as 'incorrect disposal'. If it was knocked out in the tackle, that's an incorrect disposal against the player in possession of the ball, and a free kick against.

...and that's it. No zones required. Simply adjudicating the rules correctly would stop players forming massive packs to jump on consecutive loose balls and knocks out of tackles.

If the umpires have to pay 150 free kicks a match while teams adjust, so be it

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I don't know if anyone would be able to dig this up but I'd be interested to see what % of centre bounces after a goal result in a secondary ball up compared to the % of stoppages (ball ups and throw ins) around the ground that do. I'd assume the around the ground stuff would be way higher as you can get more players there.

 

[Shaz2012]

I don’t know why they have to change the rules at all. I like watching footy. I don’t get the problem.

But for those that don’t like it any more. If the problem is congestion I wonder if reducing the number of players to 16 would be better than introducing netball rules.

I am not saying I want to reduce the numbers to 16. But compared to zones, I wonder if same rules, fewer players would be better.

 

[Pea Nut]

The easiest way to stop rolling mauls is:

1. If you have possession of the ball and do not dispose of it legally, it is a free kick against. ANY drops or throws are paid as 'incorrect disposal'. If it was knocked out in the tackle, that's an incorrect disposal against the player in possession of the ball, and a free kick against.

...and that's it. No zones required. Simply adjudicating the rules correctly would stop players forming massive packs to jump on consecutive loose balls and knocks out of tackles.

If the umpires have to pay 150 free kicks a match while teams adjust, so be it

The problem with that on several levels is the games philosophy of 'protect the guy trying to win the footy'. Suddenly you would have players deliberately trying to be second to the footy to lay a tackle to either hold the ball in and win the free kick, or have the ball spill free in the tackle and win the free kick. Which is much easier to do than win clean possession and dispose of cleanly to a teammate. You can't suddenly start incentivizing players to not win the footy. It goes against the fabric of the game and would leave us with an even bigger problem than we currently already have.

 

[Geoffa32]

The easiest way to stop rolling mauls is:

1. If you have possession of the ball and do not dispose of it legally, it is a free kick against. ANY drops or throws are paid as 'incorrect disposal'. If it was knocked out in the tackle, that's an incorrect disposal against the player in possession of the ball, and a free kick against.

...and that's it. No zones required. Simply adjudicating the rules correctly would stop players forming massive packs to jump on consecutive loose balls and knocks out of tackles.

If the umpires have to pay 150 free kicks a match while teams adjust, so be it

Will stop dangerous tackles as well.

I reckon most guys hang on longer in the tackle due to the umpires delay in making any decision.


I personally think congestion is not an issue. Only when you watch two teams that thrive on it, ie Port V Freo.

Richmond thrive on defensive pressure but still play a free flowing attacking game.

There is a difference between defence with bulk numbers (pure congestion) and attacking defensive pressure.

Port, Freo, Melbourne, Bulldogs, Carlton, and to an extent Gold Coast are the teams who thrive the most on ultra defensive congestion and games involving them or even worse when they play together are hard to watch.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[jenny61_99]

Saw this on the Paer board.... would love to see the full list.

 

[Truck25]

The easiest way to stop rolling mauls is:

1. If you have possession of the ball and do not dispose of it legally, it is a free kick against. ANY drops or throws are paid as 'incorrect disposal'. If it was knocked out in the tackle, that's an incorrect disposal against the player in possession of the ball, and a free kick against.

...and that's it. No zones required. Simply adjudicating the rules correctly would stop players forming massive packs to jump on consecutive loose balls and knocks out of tackles.

If the umpires have to pay 150 free kicks a match while teams adjust, so be it

This! it would also stop the Hawk and Cats "spillage" that goes 5 meters to the feet of a team mate.

 

[Mego Red]

You’ve exaggerated to try and prove your point which in itself exposes a flaw in your thinking.

Now let’s assume the ball is won out of the middle with starting positions, it’s kicked forward and it’s directed to a one on one contest, great result. The forward wins it, the ball moves forward, or the defender wins it, he moves the ball towards his goal, no one wins the contest, instead of 13 players around the contest you might have 4-6 max as the players are spread out.

Now let’s assume the balls kicked to the wing, two players compete. Same theory applies, if it’s a contest you don’t have two packs of 13 moving towards the ball because players are too spread out.

Currently teams play one spare down back, do you think if they have starting positions that teams will move a forward into defence when there is a break in play? I don’t, they will tire of doing this pretty quickly as it will be messy.

Starting positions after a goal isn’t going to solve all the congestion but it will help. I don’t understand what the negative is if it helps for part of the game, what has the game lost except for a pack of players at either end of the ground and teams setting up defensively after a goal.

No, my thinking is accurate.

At the bounce, you have players 10m from the edge of the square.

A kick happens. All players in the defensive 50 push up, and the mids push forward to where the kick happened. There's a ball up. All players are within 60m of the contest.

What you've proposed is, for all intents and purposes, exactly what happens now. You have players starting in each 50 after a goal.

You might get one more player pushing forward or back, but they all start outside the square and they all push to the contest.

Sorry, but this is an idea that solves nothing.

 

[Mego Red]

What about only allowing six players within 10m of a ballup? Force players to spread from a stoppage?

We only allow a limited amount at each bounce after a goal.

 

[thirtytwo]

The problem with that on several levels is the games philosophy of 'protect the guy trying to win the footy'. Suddenly you would have players deliberately trying to be second to the footy to lay a tackle to either hold the ball in and win the free kick, or have the ball spill free in the tackle and win the free kick. Which is much easier to do than win clean possession and dispose of cleanly to a teammate. You can't suddenly start incentivizing players to not win the footy. It goes against the fabric of the game and would leave us with an even bigger problem than we currently already have.

The problem with zones is that it’s not football.

No one would be advocating that umpires pull out free kicks that aren’t there just to lessen congestion, but we have rules now that are not being adjudicated correctly that can help lessen numbers around the ball. How many times does the game become a rolling maul because the umpires allow players to take possession and then incorrectly dispose another player does the same and another until finally a ball up is called.
The afl has wanted to see the ball in continual motion as a way of speeding up the game, they have given players every oppurtunity to keep the ball in motion by giving them time in tackles to move the ball on. Rather than get a htb called against the players now just drop it and umpires are not calling them on it.
The ball is in motion but it’s predominantly bouncing around the feet of players as more and more come in to try and lock the ball in and gain a stoppage.
All it’s doing by not calling the frees is contributing to congestion.

Call the free kicks particularly incorrect disposal immediately when it’s there, you will have no congestion around the ball instead you get spread from away from the congestion and far more chance for 1 on 1 contests.
Once coaches realise that there is more chance of a free being called at a contest tactics will change and defensive zones will not be able to be positioned so high on the ground.

 

[Iron]

View attachment 529348

Saw this on the Paer board.... would love to see the full list.

Honestly a bit surprised that 11/18 clubs have won a final in the last 3 years.

Pretty big sign the equalisation is working.

 

[pjcrows]

I see North are in the running for another "big fish".

Polec. Ha. Didn't they offer Pittard something stupid a couple of years back too?

 

[Elite Crow]

If they are forcing a six-six-six configuration then you'd park whoever you want as the 7th defender right on D50. That would be one of the two "wings". Then you would park whoever you want in the midfield on that wing right on the F50 as a "forward". As soon as the ball is bounced there's a quick swap and you're right back into a 5-6-7 configuration.

We've already seen players starting on the back of the square can run through the center circle as the ruckman taps the ball. In effect you're just doing that with a wing from slightly further out.

Starting zones wouldn't prevent clubs from playing spare players in defence. Even at the end of the game you'd play your two wings on D50 and have them flood back, then get your two (or more) forwards to start in the center F50 line and run into the square

What if you can’t park whoever you want on D50? The mids start in the middle and the wings must start on the wings.

 

[thirtytwo]

What if you can’t park whoever you want on D50? The mids start in the middle and the wings must start on the wings.

Do they have to wear bibs too?

 

[Elite Crow]

No, my thinking is accurate.

At the bounce, you have players 10m from the edge of the square.

A kick happens. All players in the defensive 50 push up, and the mids push forward to where the kick happened. There's a ball up. All players are within 60m of the contest.

What you've proposed is, for all intents and purposes, exactly what happens now. You have players starting in each 50 after a goal.

You might get one more player pushing forward or back, but they all start outside the square and they all push to the contest.

Sorry, but this is an idea that solves nothing.

How do you know you have players starting 10M from the edge of the square? If that’s not their starting position you don’t.

The players aren’t Usain Bolt, if there is a quick kick out of the middle and it goes to the forward pocket say and it’s not one by either player, then you are only going to have maybe another 4 players reach that contest instead of 13 as it stands now. Sure if no one wins it then eventually a pack will form, but if someone does win it there is no need for the pack to converge.

At the moment what happens now is all the players in the 50 are in one pack, there is no space. I suggest you watch it this weekend, I presume you’re going to the game?

I really don’t understand what the harm is by having starting positions.

 

[Elite Crow]

Do they have to wear bibs too?

Are they sloppy eaters?

 

[Elite Crow]

What about only allowing six players within 10m of a ballup? Force players to spread from a stoppage?

We only allow a limited amount at each bounce after a goal.

Nightmare to police and would be a farce watching umps count how many players are there, shooing players away and will slow the game down.

 

[chazwazza]

‘Max Tax’: Melbourne ruckman opens up on rule confusion

I can see a Buddy “It’s his natural arc” exception to the rule here.

 

[Jars458]

Is this weird? Port have released a clip commentating their 11 wins, are they not expecting to add to their tally?

We can but hope. Unfortunately they will win 2 or three more

 

[StonesThrow]

I don't know if anyone would be able to dig this up but I'd be interested to see what % of centre bounces after a goal result in a secondary ball up compared to the % of stoppages (ball ups and throw ins) around the ground that do. I'd assume the around the ground stuff would be way higher as you can get more players there.

Good idea.

 

[StonesThrow]

The easiest way to stop rolling mauls is:

1. If you have possession of the ball and do not dispose of it legally, it is a free kick against. ANY drops or throws are paid as 'incorrect disposal'. If it was knocked out in the tackle, that's an incorrect disposal against the player in possession of the ball, and a free kick against.

...and that's it. No zones required. Simply adjudicating the rules correctly would stop players forming massive packs to jump on consecutive loose balls and knocks out of tackles.

If the umpires have to pay 150 free kicks a match while teams adjust, so be it

I agree that throws and drops should always be paid, but not if the ball is knocked out. The threat of getting paid holding the ball against will become too great imo and will make players think twice about taking possession in some circumstances.

I also don't see what the big deal is with trying to 'fix the game'. Football always evolves due to new tactics. Reactions create new tactics which create new problems. I'd wait a season or two to see how/if it changes. It was only last year where football was seen as exciting and high scoring. Any rule changes should be minor.

Hide the bottom 4 from prime time TV slots and I doubt we'd be talking about this as much.

 

[hugecannon]

The easiest way to stop rolling mauls is:

1. If you have possession of the ball and do not dispose of it legally, it is a free kick against. ANY drops or throws are paid as 'incorrect disposal'. If it was knocked out in the tackle, that's an incorrect disposal against the player in possession of the ball, and a free kick against.

...and that's it. No zones required. Simply adjudicating the rules correctly would stop players forming massive packs to jump on consecutive loose balls and knocks out of tackles.

If the umpires have to pay 150 free kicks a match while teams adjust, so be it

Or when one player tackles someone and a third player comes in to tackle and hold the ball in, punish the third player in with a free kick against them, similar to the third man up ruck rule, this would help reduce congestion as there’d be less mauls around the ground.