AFL looking to trial rule changes in-season

[dlanod]

That's probably the crux of where we differ. I am resistant to bringing in "entertainment" for the sake of entertaining, as opposed to changes to make the game better or safer. More "entertaining" doesn't equal "better". As you pointed out, there are options (which I have banged on about for years, such as blowing the bloody whistle) to address the same issues that also diminish the entertainment factor.

I think this is the key part where we disagree - I'm looking at it from the opposite perspective, as I think the key is to make the game "better" and then "more entertaining" will follow. The ultimate aim is still entertainment, but the path to get there isn't necessarily strippers on the halfway line or chook raffles at the door. Swann wasn't saying we needed entertainment for entertainment's sake - just that it should be "more entertaining". That can simply be done by improving the on-field spectacle, as seen by our resurgence this year, except at a competition-wide level.

Given the repeated laments on how to bring footy back to what it used to be (whether reduced interchanges, subs, or hacky approaches like zones) I think people agree that footy used to be more entertaining and the aim is to get back there.

FWIW blowing the whistle isn't inherently going to diminish the entertainment factor. The knock on free kicks used to be that it made the game stop-start. We're way past that now, with the game stop-start because of the congestion and scragging. Adding double the free kicks isn't going to affect the average punter's perception of the game because we're already past the point where it'd be noticeable. Instead it would most likely reduce the congestion and hence number of stoppages, and actually result in the game being more entertaining.

 

[Skoob]

I think this is the key part where we disagree - I'm looking at it from the opposite perspective, as I think the key is to make the game "better" and then "more entertaining" will follow. The ultimate aim is still entertainment, but the path to get there isn't necessarily strippers on the halfway line or chook raffles at the door. Swann wasn't saying we needed entertainment for entertainment's sake - just that it should be "more entertaining". That can simply be done by improving the on-field spectacle, as seen by our resurgence this year, except at a competition-wide level.

Given the repeated laments on how to bring footy back to what it used to be (whether reduced interchanges, subs, or hacky approaches like zones) I think people agree that footy used to be more entertaining and the aim is to get back there.

FWIW blowing the whistle isn't inherently going to diminish the entertainment factor. The knock on free kicks used to be that it made the game stop-start. We're way past that now, with the game stop-start because of the congestion and scragging. Adding double the free kicks isn't going to affect the average punter's perception of the game because we're already past the point where it'd be noticeable. Instead it would most likely reduce the congestion and hence number of stoppages, and actually result in the game being more entertaining.

This brings us back to the original, which I didn't address very well while getting tied up in the semantics of industry. Again I'll qualify this with "IIRC" the context and issue I had with Swann's comment was that it was in direct response to talk of trialling rules in real games, as was raised in the OP. Entertainment industry or not, the message I got from Swann was that "we" would be open to the the idea of us essentially prostituting ourselves for the whimsy of the AFL management. Trialling different rules in regular season games makes a mockery of the game. Just my perception.

 

[M Malice]

Rohan Connolly on SEN- All they have to do is ball it up quicker at stoppages. The umpires stand around stoppages hovering over a tackled player who has had no prior and is being bear hugged expecting him to "make a genuine attempt", giving time for more and more players to gather around the stoppage.

He said he has watched footage of 90s footy and without exception if a player was tackled without prior and was unable to get rid of the ball the umpire bounced the ball immediately. Very rarely more than 3 players were involved in any sort of ruck forming.

 

[jackess]

Rohan Connolly on SEN- All they have to do is ball it up quicker at stoppages. The umpires stand around stoppages hovering over a tackled player who has had no prior and is being bear hugged expecting him to "make a genuine attempt", giving time for more and more players to gather around the stoppage.

He said he has watched footage of 90s footy and without exception if a player was tackled without prior and was unable to get rid of the ball the umpire bounced the ball immediately. Very rarely more than 3 players were involved in any sort of ruck forming.

Might bring back the old style ruck rover

 

[M Malice]

Might bring back the old style ruck rover

McCluggage, Berry or Rayner?

Players should also be allowed to kick in from a point as soon as they are ready, no waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flags or grab a ball from a bag.

 

[jackess]

McCluggage, Berry or Rayner?

Players should also be allowed to kick in from a point as soon as they are ready, no waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flags or grab a ball from a bag.

Berry might be able to take a few ruck contests

 

[dlanod]

Players should also be allowed to kick in from a point as soon as they are ready, no waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flags or grab a ball from a bag.

They can and have been able to for quite a while. The delay is getting a ball - either out of the crowd, or out of the bag, because trials of "kicking in without a ball" weren't very successful.

 

[M Malice]

Berry might be able to take a few ruck contests

I've only been following the game since around 2000, I may have miss understood what a ruck rover was, isn't it just a midfielder who follows the ruckman all over the ground??

 

[jackess]

I've only been following the game since around 2000, I may have miss understood what a ruck rover was, isn't it just a midfielder who follows the ruckman all over the ground??

I believe they used to have to do some rucking for the reason Rohan Connelly states. If they ball it up straight away the ruckman can't get to every contest .

 

[joshhem]

Rohan Connolly on SEN- All they have to do is ball it up quicker at stoppages. The umpires stand around stoppages hovering over a tackled player who has had no prior and is being bear hugged expecting him to "make a genuine attempt", giving time for more and more players to gather around the stoppage.

He said he has watched footage of 90s footy and without exception if a player was tackled without prior and was unable to get rid of the ball the umpire bounced the ball immediately. Very rarely more than 3 players were involved in any sort of ruck forming.

This will end the resurgence of the ruckman. The rucks are a key part of the structures today because the play waits for them to get there. Once that's gone I think we'll see more and more teams take the Geelong approach and use a tall mid in the ruck contests instead.

 

[M Malice]

They can and have been able to for quite a while. The delay is getting a ball - either out of the crowd, or out of the bag, because trials of "kicking in without a ball" weren't very successful.

IIRC I've seen players with a ball going for a quick kick in and the umpire stops them and tells them they have to grab a ball out of the bag behind the goals. Most of the time the player just dunks the ball he already has in and out of the bag and then kicks in, giving the defense an extra few seconds to set up.

Were my eyes deceiving me?

 

[jackess]

This will end the resurgence of the ruckman. The rucks are a key part of the structures today because the play waits for them to get there. Once that's gone I think we'll see more and more teams take the Geelong approach and use a tall mid in the ruck contests instead.

Blicavs will be in his element.

IIRC Cutler and Allison rucked in the AFLX so they could be options .

 

[dlanod]

IIRC I've seen players with a ball going for a quick kick in and the umpire stops them and tells them they have to grab a ball out of the bag behind the goals. Most of the time the player just dunks the ball he already has in and out of the bag and then kicks in, giving the defense an extra few seconds to set up.

Were my eyes deceiving me?

I don't know what you saw, but the AFL site's comment is:

Removal of the requirement of a player kicking in after the scoring of a behind to wait until the goal umpire completes waving the flag. The kick-in can occur as soon as the goal umpire signals the score as a behind.

http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rule-changes-18582013

 

[M Malice]

I don't know what you saw, but the AFL site's comment is:

Removal of the requirement of a player kicking in after the scoring of a behind to wait until the goal umpire completes waving the flag. The kick-in can occur as soon as the goal umpire signals the score as a behind.

http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rule-changes-18582013

Thanks, my memory must be playing tricks on me, I was sure I had seen what I described happen. Oh well, I was wrong.....again, I'll shall retreat to my little corner of the world.

 

[Skoob]

Thanks, my memory must be playing tricks on me, I was sure I had seen what I described happen. Oh well, I was wrong.....again, I'll shall retreat to my little corner of the world.

They don't have to wait for the flag to be waved, however, a player can't take a replacement ball from the bucket until the umpire has signalled a behind.
What you've seen is the player having to put the ball back, because he's taken it too early. They have to put it back, but obviously by the time that is enforced, the point has then been signalled. So they have to put it back and can then get it back out. Obviously you don't even let go of the ball, just placing it in and taking it out in the one motion.
The idea is to penalise the team taking the kick in for getting ahead of themselves. Grabbing the ball early is pre-emptive for a quick attack. Making them put it back kills the time they illegally saved.

 

[Dalions]

They don't have to wait for the flag to be waved, however, a player can't take a replacement ball from the bucket until the umpire has signalled a behind.
What you've seen is the player having to put the ball back, because he's taken it too early. They have to put it back, but obviously by the time that is enforced, the point has then been signalled. So they have to put it back and can then get it back out. Obviously you don't even let go of the ball, just placing it in and taking it out in the one motion.
The idea is to penalise the team taking the kick in for getting ahead of themselves. Grabbing the ball early is pre-emptive for a quick attack. Making them put it back kills the time they illegally saved.

If they want quick ball movement to help with congestion than why have stupid finicky rules like that?

So basically it’s ok for the umps to play on if the players aren’t ready, but its not ok for the players to play on when the umps aren’t ready.

 

[notliondown]

To me the methodology of this idea is really the crux of it.

We are in the entertainment industry. And when I went to my first live game (vs Hawthorn 1999) I was stunned as to how many women and children were there at a footy game. Given our ladder position at the time I was actually a bit lost as to why it was such a family outing, but stoked at the same time. I was hooked. And to succeed we have to appeal to all ages, all interest levels and make the event worth the second look.

So, the idea of making the spectacle better so we put more bums on seats is always a good one.

But - and it's a big one - AFL HQ have become knee jerk, tokenistic, and fixated on short term "issues" that they see as suddenly important - simply because of current ratings and crowd numbers.

In doing so they ignore the obvious. Things like the draw, Friday night fixturing, the dilution of talent with expansion clubs, inconsistent MRP and on field umpiring as a few examples. All things under HQ control - and yet the state of the game is the clubs and coaches fault.

The game was arguably in a worse state when Roos and Lyons were at the height of their coaching prowess. And as that era proved the clubs and coaches will again exploit and manipulate the rules as best they can to gain advantage. The outcome of any suggested changes as a result? Who knows... it time the spectacle might be worse.

Selectively choosing games to validate their argument is folly. As is choosing others to say the game is in a great state. Both are statistically pointless. But what it does prove is that the average game is, well, average. Just like it always has been. Great games are great and s**t games are s**t. Nothing new here.

I'm certainly not one to suggest we need to be rooted in tradition just because. But to over react sets a dangerous precedent. And to make changes that immediately affect the main game - influential games or not - before trails away from the spotlight to proof a change is madness. There is simply no need. The state of the game itself is not that bad.

The management of those "things" around it however, is appalling. And it's that part of the game that I can't remember being worse.

 

[M Malice]

To me the methodology of this idea is really the crux of it.

We are in the entertainment industry. And when I went to my first live game (vs Hawthorn 1999) I was stunned as to how many women and children were there at a footy game. Given our ladder position at the time I was actually a bit lost as to why it was such a family outing, but stoked at the same time. I was hooked. And to succeed we have to appeal to all ages, all interest levels and make the event worth the second look.

So, the idea of making the spectacle better so we put more bums on seats is always a good one.

But - and it's a big one - AFL HQ have become knee jerk, tokenistic, and fixated on short term "issues" that they see as suddenly important - simply because of current ratings and crowd numbers.

In doing so they ignore the obvious. Things like the draw, Friday night fixturing, the dilution of talent with expansion clubs, inconsistent MRP and on field umpiring as a few examples. All things under HQ control - and yet the state of the game is the clubs and coaches fault.

The game was arguably in a worse state when Roos and Lyons were at the height of their coaching prowess. And as that era proved the clubs and coaches will again exploit and manipulate the rules as best they can to gain advantage. The outcome of any suggested changes as a result? Who knows... it time the spectacle might be worse.

Selectively choosing games to validate their argument is folly. As is choosing others to say the game is in a great state. Both are statistically pointless. But what it does prove is that the average game is, well, average. Just like it always has been. Great games are great and s**t games are s**t. Nothing new here.

I'm certainly not one to suggest we need to be rooted in tradition just because. But to over react sets a dangerous precedent. And to make changes that immediately affect the main game - influential games or not - before trails away from the spotlight to proof a change is madness. There is simply no need. The state of the game itself is not that bad.

The management of those "things" around it however, is appalling. And it's that part of the game that I can't remember being worse.

You must have been hooked around the same time as I was, went out of curiosity to a few games late 99 and early 2000, went to the Vossy long bomb goal v the Pies. What struck me was how much better it was live compared to on TV. I went from a Broncos season ticket holder to a Lions member and season ticket holder pretty quickly, picked a pretty good time to hop on the bandwagon.

 

[Viceregal]

So has whatever the problem was that was supposed to be fixed by not officiating incorrect disposal correctly still an issue?
Did it ever work?
Is there a reason why it wouldn't work now to do it strictly by the rules?
Is there a way to make it so that as few as possible decisions are left to the subjective opinion of the umpires?

Now *there* is something I would be happy to see trialled during the season - a game of AFL played and officiated by the rules of the game!

 

[Skoob]

So has whatever the problem was that was supposed to be fixed by not officiating incorrect disposal correctly still an issue?
Did it ever work?
Is there a reason why it wouldn't work now to do it strictly by the rules?
Is there a way to make it so that as few as possible decisions are left to the subjective opinion of the umpires?

Now *there* is something I would be happy to see trialled during the season - a game of AFL played and officiated by the rules of the game!

Incorrect disposal is just one victim of the "let it go" set, who get excited by a game that just constantly flows. Admittedly a flowing game is more fun and exciting, but it comes at the expense of fairness. At different stages, someone decides that "that" breach of the rules isn't "that" bad. From there you have the situation where umpires have to decide which breaches of the rules are bad enough to penalise. Then you have thousands screaming about the free paid against their player, but similar let go (often by a different umpire) for a player of the opposing team. It's tough on players, tough on umpires and tough on spectators/fans. It's an unworkable model that they then try to rectify with new interpretations of other rules to compensate. It is only natural that when it is a rule is being softly enforced, coaches and players will exploit that weakness in umpiring and push the boundaries.

To go back to stricter enforcement will only upset the shallow thinkers who prefer something like incorrect disposal be ignored in favour of quicker and continuous ball movement. They want action, not play to stop for a free kick. It's a fine line. They're trying to have their cake and eat it

 

[Mr Ripper]

Game needs fewer, less-ambiguous rules, more stringently enforced.

 

[Skoob]

Game needs fewer, less-ambiguous rules, more stringently enforced.

Whilst this is true, I fear it would make little difference. We see plenty (like, a real lot) of "obvious" frees ignored. The issue is policy, not difficulty of the rules. Coupled with what we perceive as incompetence, the result is horrendous. Far be it from me to defend umpires for bad decisions, but it is no wonder they have howlers when they're instructed to officiate, contrary to the rules and spirit of the game. The poor bastards are confused. Some get a feel for what is required, while others are baffled as to what's going on.
They all need to listen to Harry's lecture.

Edit: Mr Ripper I've lost it, but if you have the link to Harry's talk, you ought to post it here.