Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion - Part 3

[Jimmae]

Seems my autocorrect knows more women that I do!

And it seems my grammar wasn't up to par to execute my joke in its fuller context.

 

[thylacine60]

don't go blaming her.......

 

[Teagueeee15]

The exact same comments were put out there when T20/Big Bash were introduced.Now 50 overs cricket is in the gun,times change. There is so much going on these days,people want fast entertainment.It will work now just except it.

I think AFLX is more likely to fizzle like Fast4 Tennis has. Just because something is shorter, doesn’t necessarily make it better. 20/20 Cricket works so well because it cuts out the 30 boring overs in the middle where the batting team consolidated their innings ahead of slogging it in the final 10 overs.

Footy doesn’t have a consolidation phase in the middle and The AFL tried shortened Footy as part of the pre season earlier this decade with the three teams playing shortened games at the one venue and people didn’t like it.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

F

I think AFLX is more likely to fizzle like Fast4 Tennis has. Just because something is shorter, doesn’t necessarily make it better. 20/20 Cricket works so well because it cuts out the 30 boring overs in the middle where the batting team consolidated their innings ahead of slogging it in the final 10 overs.

Footy doesn’t have a consolidation phase in the middle and The AFL tried shortened Footy as part of the pre season earlier this decade with the three teams playing shortened games at the one venue and people didn’t like it.

Fair call but change is inevitable whether it be AFLX or something else.

 

[BuxbaumBixby]

I think AFLX is more likely to fizzle like Fast4 Tennis has. Just because something is shorter, doesn’t necessarily make it better. 20/20 Cricket works so well because it cuts out the 30 boring overs in the middle where the batting team consolidated their innings ahead of slogging it in the final 10 overs.

Footy doesn’t have a consolidation phase in the middle and The AFL tried shortened Footy as part of the pre season earlier this decade with the three teams playing shortened games at the one venue and people didn’t like it.

I don't necessarily think that the target market is here in Australia. This has a lot to do with trying to come up with a format that works on a rectangular field - of which there is an abundance of around the world. AND - it's also trying to come up with a format that can get a game over and done with in under 60 minutes (the participation rates of long form sports around the globe have been dying a slow death as people get busier .... there's a correlation between reduced participation rates in long-form sports - cricket golf etc - with real structural changes to society - started when both parents were expected to work full time, we were all convinced that we should go into debt up to our eyeballs to buy stuff, and as a result we significantly reduced the amount of disposable leisure time in the family unit etc)

 

[LanceRomance]

I think AFLX is more likely to fizzle like Fast4 Tennis has. Just because something is shorter, doesn’t necessarily make it better. 20/20 Cricket works so well because it cuts out the 30 boring overs in the middle where the batting team consolidated their innings ahead of slogging it in the final 10 overs.

Footy doesn’t have a consolidation phase in the middle and The AFL tried shortened Footy as part of the pre season earlier this decade with the three teams playing shortened games at the one venue and people didn’t like it.

I thought they did end up shortening the games?

 

[Jeremias]

But is it any tougher than what they do at training? It’s supposed to be more free-flowing and fast, so I thought it wouldn’t be that bad from an injury point of view (less contact and more bruise-free). The players are going to be having plenty of tough contact in training I would think.

I'd think things are more controlled at training than in a competitive environment against another club, regardless of what the rules allow.

So who plays?

As per the real stuff, there has to be a balance between youth and experience.

It's inevitable some younger guys will get a run, but I don't think we need to go all-out and have all our best young kids take the field.

To me that seems an unnecessary risk.

I see where your coming from and it's a genuine concern. Long term if people take to it, which if it's entertaining/family orientated they will, we could end up with a cricket model. Best short term teams and long.

Being a Scorchers (best team thanks Langer)member from day dot if AflX can replicate this watch out

If AFLX is a success then yes, we'll need to adjust accordingly and take things more seriously.

For now though I don't think we need to be a trail-blazer for the 'sport' which could easily fizzle out.

Let clubs that need the attention like North Melbourne be the leaders here.

 

[Captain Cripps]

I liked what danger said
Extend the season so every team plays each team twice
I’d imagine if lists can be bigger you’d be able to rest players throughout course of season and manage the likelihood of a grave players in and b grade players in depending on which team they were playing, even though the margins have closed up in recent years

 

[Gethelred]

I don't necessarily think that the target market is here in Australia. This has a lot to do with trying to come up with a format that works on a rectangular field - of which there is an abundance of around the world. AND - it's also trying to come up with a format that can get a game over and done with in under 60 minutes (the participation rates of long form sports around the globe have been dying a slow death as people get busier .... there's a correlation between reduced participation rates in long-form sports - cricket golf etc - with real structural changes to society - started when both parents were expected to work full time, we were all convinced that we should go into debt up to our eyeballs to buy stuff, and as a result we significantly reduced the amount of disposable leisure time in the family unit etc)

Not disagreeing - yet - but could you direct me to the evidence for the slow death of long-form sport?

Cricket's participation is way up here ATM, as far as I know. I know nothing about golf.

 

[DangerousD]

I liked what danger said
Extend the season so every team plays each team twice
I’d imagine if lists can be bigger you’d be able to rest players throughout course of season and manage the likelihood of a grave players in and b grade players in depending on which team they were playing, even though the margins have closed up in recent years

Its tough as it diminishes the quality of the football. More B-C-D grade players getting games. It also leaves open the possibility of teams picking and choosing when to pick a good side to maximise points. This happens a lot in Soccer which is the same as tanking.

I want more games but 34 rounds is huge. Wasn't part of his plan to shorten matches as well? This could help get another 2-4 games which would help even up the draw.

 

[BuxbaumBixby]

Not disagreeing - yet - but could you direct me to the evidence for the slow death of long-form sport?

Cricket's participation is way up here ATM, as far as I know. I know nothing about golf.

You can challenge or disagree with me at whatever time you like - don't feel like you have to delay it.

My comment was based on a long conversation I had with a friend over a couple of beers who used to be 2IC at the Sports Commission - and one of the things he was responsible for was looking at the sustainability of amateur sport.

I'll have a dig around because there is a published study on this, but what he said - from a very academic standpoint - made a lot of sense. He had statistics showing that there was a noticeable decline in participation rates of most sports that required > 60 minutes commitment at any one time. This started through the 60's 70's and 80's and aligned with major changes to the family unit (broad statement but single parents and mum's working full time were stated as key changes and factors in the capacity for families to commit to sports that lasted long periods of time).

Cricket participation is up or steady - because of 20/20 cricket (a shortened version of the game). There is very little long form cricket played any more at club level unless you play in the top couple of grades. Most 50 over cricket at club level is now 45 or 40 over cricket. Many comps have dumped '2 day' games. New golf courses are being designed where every 6th hole takes you back to the clubhouse. One of the highest growth sports in Europe is Futsal where the game is over and done with in 50 minutes .... all isolated statements designed to support my narrative, but indicators of the way traditional sports are innovating to address change.

 

[ferrisb]

I don't necessarily think that the target market is here in Australia. This has a lot to do with trying to come up with a format that works on a rectangular field - of which there is an abundance of around the world. AND - it's also trying to come up with a format that can get a game over and done with in under 60 minutes (the participation rates of long form sports around the globe have been dying a slow death as people get busier .... there's a correlation between reduced participation rates in long-form sports - cricket golf etc - with real structural changes to society - started when both parents were expected to work full time, we were all convinced that we should go into debt up to our eyeballs to buy stuff, and as a result we significantly reduced the amount of disposable leisure time in the family unit etc)

Oh the places AFL will go, Buxbaum.....

 

[TerryWallet]

To me it seems obvious that AFLX is seen as the gateway for the AFL Commission to market and sell their product overseas. As Bixby pointed out earlier.

There are zero grounds available overseas to play 18 a side AFL on. 18 a side AFL is also too confusing for overseas markets to get their heads around. So they currently can't sell their product overseas. AFLX, with 7 a side and on a small rectangular pitch is their opening to the world for their product.

If WE like it, that's a bonus.

As for the Industry(players, coaches, managers, commentators etc), AFLX is just another component to their ever growing pay packets to them. You sign up, you do, you earn.

 

[DangerousD]

On the AFLX.

Is anyone else concerned that the AFL will just use AFLX to push through rule/playing changes in to the main season?

It worries me that the AFL seem interested in quick fix easy options to combat congestion like removing two players from the field and i hope AFLX want be used as a vehicle to drive agendas and increase the sports global appeal. This is purely to make more money and does not serve the clubs at all.

 

[Aphrodite]

Cricket discussion belongs in the Blue Room.

Thanks guys!

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

Itshappening.gif



Fairly sure SOS owns that domain name...

 

[The Smoking Gun]

On the AFLX.

Is anyone else concerned that the AFL will just use AFLX to push through rule/playing changes in to the main season?

It worries me that the AFL seem interested in quick fix easy options to combat congestion like removing two players from the field and i hope AFLX want be used as a vehicle to drive agendas and increase the sports global appeal. This is purely to make more money and does not serve the clubs at all.

I share similar concerns over most rule changes or re-interpretations mainly because they don't consider the full ramifications of the changes they introduce. If they're serious about reducing congestion here's a few things they could do without changing the fundamentals of the game:

1. Get rid of the 10m protected zone around the man-on-the-mark. The opposition player that used to stand 5m off the player with the ball to prevent them from playing on now goes down the field to clog up space and add to the congestion surrounding the next possession in play.
2. Get rid of nominating the ruckmen. By the time the umpire's got himself sorted for the ball-up it's allowed other players from further afield to clog up any escape routes from the stoppage.
3. Bring back 3rd man up in the ruck contests. 1 more player in the air means 1 less player competing at ground level.
4. Leave interchange numbers where they are. Reducing them further is not the answer. Anyone who grew up watching footy in the 70s & 80s will tell you from around the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter until the final siren players would fall all over the ball (and each other) making no attempt to move the ball on or tackle their opponent. They were simply too buggered. They'd be stax-on-the-mill, looking at the ump and pleading for a free. It was a blight on the game and one of the chief reasons interchange was adopted in the first place.
5. The AFL need to decide as to whether they're going to adopt or outlaw the throw as a genuine means of disposal. I see a lot slaps, scoops, shovels, throws and blatant rugby passes, but they sure as hell ain't handballs. I'd go so far as to say 1 in 4 "handballs" are in fact throws and if you could view every angle available on each handball that figure could well be as much as 1 in 3. That means that anywhere between 75 to 100 disposals, classed as handballs per game, are illegal. Pay the free for incorrect disposal and you'll quickly reduce congestion. If I can see it 50-60m away in the stands then you can't tell me 3 flogs, masquerading as umpires, not 10m from the action can't see it.
6. Get rid of prior opportunity. Give a player 2 seconds to dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot when tackled or penalise him. This swinging a player round 360 or 720 degrees and then disposing of the ball with a throw without penalty is bullshit. 2 seconds no more. Pay the free and reduce congestion.
7. Where a player is tackled and the ball is knocked out of the player's possession by the force of that tackle then reward the tackler for forcing the incorrect disposal. Pay the free, get the ball moving and reduce the congestion.

The AFL has plenty of options within its existing framework to reduce congestion without altering the fabric of the game by messing with interchange, changing the rules every 5 minutes or introducing more radical ideas, such as zones.

 

[BlueGum]

I share similar concerns over most rule changes or re-interpretations mainly because they don't consider the full ramifications of the changes they introduce. If they're serious about reducing congestion here's a few things they could do without changing the fundamentals of the game:

1. Get rid of the 10m protected zone around the man-on-the-mark. The opposition player that used to stand 5m off the player with the ball to prevent them from playing on now goes down the field to clog up space and add to the congestion surrounding the next possession in play.
2. Get rid of nominating the ruckmen. By the time the umpire's got himself sorted for the ball-up it's allowed other players from further afield to clog up any escape routes from the stoppage.
3. Bring back 3rd man up in the ruck contests. 1 more player in the air means 1 less player competing at ground level.
4. Leave interchange numbers where they are. Reducing them further is not the answer. Anyone who grew up watching footy in the 70s & 80s will tell you from around the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter until the final siren players would fall all over the ball (and each other) making no attempt to move the ball on or tackle their opponent. They were simply too buggered. They'd be stax-on-the-mill, looking at the ump and pleading for a free. It was a blight on the game and one of the chief reasons interchange was adopted in the first place.
5. The AFL need to decide as to whether they're going to adopt or outlaw the throw as a genuine means of disposal. I see a lot slaps, scoops, shovels, throws and blatant rugby passes, but they sure as hell ain't handballs. I'd go so far as to say 1 in 4 "handballs" are in fact throws and if you could view every angle available on each handball that figure could well be as much as 1 in 3. That means that anywhere between 75 to 100 disposals, classed as handballs per game, are illegal. Pay the free for incorrect disposal and you'll quickly reduce congestion. If I can see it 50-60m away in the stands then you can't tell me 3 flogs, masquerading as umpires, not 10m from the action can't see it.
6. Get rid of prior opportunity. Give a player 2 seconds to dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot when tackled or penalise him. This swinging a player round 360 or 720 degrees and then disposing of the ball with a throw without penalty is bullshit. 2 seconds no more. Pay the free and reduce congestion.
7. Where a player is tackled and the ball is knocked out of the player's possession by the force of that tackle then reward the tackler for forcing the incorrect disposal. Pay the free, get the ball moving and reduce the congestion.

The AFL has plenty of options within its existing framework to reduce congestion without altering the fabric of the game by messing with interchange, changing the rules every 5 minutes or introducing more radical ideas, such as zones.

No. 5 pretty please. Good thinking TSG

 

[BlueRenaissance]

I'm looking forward to AFLX for a different reason. The change of footballer stereo types since the last 90s has been extreme. A lot of the guys now playing have the body types for rugby (Wines/Cripps etc.). There is still a place for the skinny I know but on average, everyone has got bigger and wider/broader.

They have been trying to slow down the stoppages in recent years which has been great. The late 90s saw such a free fllowing fast game with one out contests. With more professionalism, a lot of this excitement was lost. The power fwds of that generation were famous. The power fwds of this generation are doube/tripple teamed and there are only a few revered names.

Trialling AFLX could illustrate the that speed/flowing movement and 1 on 1 contests inside 50 is where that extra level of excitement is at. I don't care about which market this is destined to attract...I see it as an illustrator of more exciting contests that decide a game. Fast, furious...one on one everywhere. Not 3 v 1 in a defensive 50 arc. When everyone sees this is where the excitement is at, they can fine tune the AFL product a little more to bring back a famous FF into our lives!

 

[Funk]

Fair enough, but I have a question: who's Kim, and what are they fitting into themselves?

Kim Dotcom?

 

[Magruder]

I share similar concerns over most rule changes or re-interpretations mainly because they don't consider the full ramifications of the changes they introduce. If they're serious about reducing congestion here's a few things they could do without changing the fundamentals of the game:

1. Get rid of the 10m protected zone around the man-on-the-mark. The opposition player that used to stand 5m off the player with the ball to prevent them from playing on now goes down the field to clog up space and add to the congestion surrounding the next possession in play.
2. Get rid of nominating the ruckmen. By the time the umpire's got himself sorted for the ball-up it's allowed other players from further afield to clog up any escape routes from the stoppage.
3. Bring back 3rd man up in the ruck contests. 1 more player in the air means 1 less player competing at ground level.
4. Leave interchange numbers where they are. Reducing them further is not the answer. Anyone who grew up watching footy in the 70s & 80s will tell you from around the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter until the final siren players would fall all over the ball (and each other) making no attempt to move the ball on or tackle their opponent. They were simply too buggered. They'd be stax-on-the-mill, looking at the ump and pleading for a free. It was a blight on the game and one of the chief reasons interchange was adopted in the first place.
5. The AFL need to decide as to whether they're going to adopt or outlaw the throw as a genuine means of disposal. I see a lot slaps, scoops, shovels, throws and blatant rugby passes, but they sure as hell ain't handballs. I'd go so far as to say 1 in 4 "handballs" are in fact throws and if you could view every angle available on each handball that figure could well be as much as 1 in 3. That means that anywhere between 75 to 100 disposals, classed as handballs per game, are illegal. Pay the free for incorrect disposal and you'll quickly reduce congestion. If I can see it 50-60m away in the stands then you can't tell me 3 flogs, masquerading as umpires, not 10m from the action can't see it.
6. Get rid of prior opportunity. Give a player 2 seconds to dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot when tackled or penalise him. This swinging a player round 360 or 720 degrees and then disposing of the ball with a throw without penalty is bullshit. 2 seconds no more. Pay the free and reduce congestion.
7. Where a player is tackled and the ball is knocked out of the player's possession by the force of that tackle then reward the tackler for forcing the incorrect disposal. Pay the free, get the ball moving and reduce the congestion.

The AFL has plenty of options within its existing framework to reduce congestion without altering the fabric of the game by messing with interchange, changing the rules every 5 minutes or introducing more radical ideas, such as zones.

No. 5 pretty please. Good thinking TSG

#7 has a lot of merit.

 

[ShanDog]

#7 has a lot of merit.

Yep agreed, good call The Smoking Gun. It's pretty easy to adjudicate and would reduce stoppages a little. The only question is what that would do to tackling, particularly if it doesn't need prior opportunity to have passed for the free to be paid. Could result in a number of things like players aiming to tackle the hand and arms more, which could end up with a lot of high contact frees instead since players with the ball tend to raise the arms a lot instinctively now.

 

[TooBlue14]

I share similar concerns over most rule changes or re-interpretations mainly because they don't consider the full ramifications of the changes they introduce. If they're serious about reducing congestion here's a few things they could do without changing the fundamentals of the game:

1. Get rid of the 10m protected zone around the man-on-the-mark. The opposition player that used to stand 5m off the player with the ball to prevent them from playing on now goes down the field to clog up space and add to the congestion surrounding the next possession in play.
2. Get rid of nominating the ruckmen. By the time the umpire's got himself sorted for the ball-up it's allowed other players from further afield to clog up any escape routes from the stoppage.
3. Bring back 3rd man up in the ruck contests. 1 more player in the air means 1 less player competing at ground level.
4. Leave interchange numbers where they are. Reducing them further is not the answer. Anyone who grew up watching footy in the 70s & 80s will tell you from around the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter until the final siren players would fall all over the ball (and each other) making no attempt to move the ball on or tackle their opponent. They were simply too buggered. They'd be stax-on-the-mill, looking at the ump and pleading for a free. It was a blight on the game and one of the chief reasons interchange was adopted in the first place.
5. The AFL need to decide as to whether they're going to adopt or outlaw the throw as a genuine means of disposal. I see a lot slaps, scoops, shovels, throws and blatant rugby passes, but they sure as hell ain't handballs. I'd go so far as to say 1 in 4 "handballs" are in fact throws and if you could view every angle available on each handball that figure could well be as much as 1 in 3. That means that anywhere between 75 to 100 disposals, classed as handballs per game, are illegal. Pay the free for incorrect disposal and you'll quickly reduce congestion. If I can see it 50-60m away in the stands then you can't tell me 3 flogs, masquerading as umpires, not 10m from the action can't see it.
6. Get rid of prior opportunity. Give a player 2 seconds to dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot when tackled or penalise him. This swinging a player round 360 or 720 degrees and then disposing of the ball with a throw without penalty is bullshit. 2 seconds no more. Pay the free and reduce congestion.
7. Where a player is tackled and the ball is knocked out of the player's possession by the force of that tackle then reward the tackler for forcing the incorrect disposal. Pay the free, get the ball moving and reduce the congestion.

The AFL has plenty of options within its existing framework to reduce congestion without altering the fabric of the game by messing with interchange, changing the rules every 5 minutes or introducing more radical ideas, such as zones.

No 5 and 7 we would benefit from tremendously with our gameplan. We are one of only a few teams that kick more often and tackle players that lose the ball in the act. I’m sick to death of watching teams like west coast dogs and Melb get away with throws and incorrect disposal. A huge blight on the game.

 

[Gethelred]

I share similar concerns over most rule changes or re-interpretations mainly because they don't consider the full ramifications of the changes they introduce. If they're serious about reducing congestion here's a few things they could do without changing the fundamentals of the game:

1. Get rid of the 10m protected zone around the man-on-the-mark. The opposition player that used to stand 5m off the player with the ball to prevent them from playing on now goes down the field to clog up space and add to the congestion surrounding the next possession in play.
2. Get rid of nominating the ruckmen. By the time the umpire's got himself sorted for the ball-up it's allowed other players from further afield to clog up any escape routes from the stoppage.
3. Bring back 3rd man up in the ruck contests. 1 more player in the air means 1 less player competing at ground level.
4. Leave interchange numbers where they are. Reducing them further is not the answer. Anyone who grew up watching footy in the 70s & 80s will tell you from around the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter until the final siren players would fall all over the ball (and each other) making no attempt to move the ball on or tackle their opponent. They were simply too buggered. They'd be stax-on-the-mill, looking at the ump and pleading for a free. It was a blight on the game and one of the chief reasons interchange was adopted in the first place.
5. The AFL need to decide as to whether they're going to adopt or outlaw the throw as a genuine means of disposal. I see a lot slaps, scoops, shovels, throws and blatant rugby passes, but they sure as hell ain't handballs. I'd go so far as to say 1 in 4 "handballs" are in fact throws and if you could view every angle available on each handball that figure could well be as much as 1 in 3. That means that anywhere between 75 to 100 disposals, classed as handballs per game, are illegal. Pay the free for incorrect disposal and you'll quickly reduce congestion. If I can see it 50-60m away in the stands then you can't tell me 3 flogs, masquerading as umpires, not 10m from the action can't see it.
6. Get rid of prior opportunity. Give a player 2 seconds to dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot when tackled or penalise him. This swinging a player round 360 or 720 degrees and then disposing of the ball with a throw without penalty is bullshit. 2 seconds no more. Pay the free and reduce congestion.
7. Where a player is tackled and the ball is knocked out of the player's possession by the force of that tackle then reward the tackler for forcing the incorrect disposal. Pay the free, get the ball moving and reduce the congestion.

The AFL has plenty of options within its existing framework to reduce congestion without altering the fabric of the game by messing with interchange, changing the rules every 5 minutes or introducing more radical ideas, such as zones.

I've been saying 5-7 for years. This is what is ruining the game, more than anything else, because it creates situations which are harder and harder to umpire - due to the greater congestion - and subjective rules based not on an umpire's view but their opinion - prior opportunity? How long's a piece of string?

Enforce the traditional rules, and all of a sudden you've again got positions for all body types, which is the biggest drawing card for the AFL. Not only can anyone play it, but everyone has a position and a place at the top level, no matter their body type; contrast that to now, where you're either tall and quick or you're taller and athletic.

It'd make things harder for the Dangerfields, the Martins, and the Kennedys of the world, though. They rely on the flick pass, more than a lot of others. And knowing umpiring, they'll ping Cripps more than once because they couldn't see a definitive handpass in real time.

 

[DangerousD]

I share similar concerns over most rule changes or re-interpretations mainly because they don't consider the full ramifications of the changes they introduce. If they're serious about reducing congestion here's a few things they could do without changing the fundamentals of the game:

1. Get rid of the 10m protected zone around the man-on-the-mark. The opposition player that used to stand 5m off the player with the ball to prevent them from playing on now goes down the field to clog up space and add to the congestion surrounding the next possession in play.
2. Get rid of nominating the ruckmen. By the time the umpire's got himself sorted for the ball-up it's allowed other players from further afield to clog up any escape routes from the stoppage.
3. Bring back 3rd man up in the ruck contests. 1 more player in the air means 1 less player competing at ground level.
4. Leave interchange numbers where they are. Reducing them further is not the answer. Anyone who grew up watching footy in the 70s & 80s will tell you from around the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter until the final siren players would fall all over the ball (and each other) making no attempt to move the ball on or tackle their opponent. They were simply too buggered. They'd be stax-on-the-mill, looking at the ump and pleading for a free. It was a blight on the game and one of the chief reasons interchange was adopted in the first place.
5. The AFL need to decide as to whether they're going to adopt or outlaw the throw as a genuine means of disposal. I see a lot slaps, scoops, shovels, throws and blatant rugby passes, but they sure as hell ain't handballs. I'd go so far as to say 1 in 4 "handballs" are in fact throws and if you could view every angle available on each handball that figure could well be as much as 1 in 3. That means that anywhere between 75 to 100 disposals, classed as handballs per game, are illegal. Pay the free for incorrect disposal and you'll quickly reduce congestion. If I can see it 50-60m away in the stands then you can't tell me 3 flogs, masquerading as umpires, not 10m from the action can't see it.
6. Get rid of prior opportunity. Give a player 2 seconds to dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot when tackled or penalise him. This swinging a player round 360 or 720 degrees and then disposing of the ball with a throw without penalty is bullshit. 2 seconds no more. Pay the free and reduce congestion.
7. Where a player is tackled and the ball is knocked out of the player's possession by the force of that tackle then reward the tackler for forcing the incorrect disposal. Pay the free, get the ball moving and reduce the congestion.

The AFL has plenty of options within its existing framework to reduce congestion without altering the fabric of the game by messing with interchange, changing the rules every 5 minutes or introducing more radical ideas, such as zones.

Agree on your last few posts regarding paying more frees to free up the game, disagree however on the interchange and your first few points.

I don’t want to see zones but without a decrease in the interchange I’m not sure how you can get coaches to stop having 18 players around the ball.

In regards to the third man up, it’s tough, I want to see ruckman protected in the game and always have a place, not rendered obsolete due to any trends or tactics.