Opinion AFL: The Spectacle

[Kernel Kurtz]

I couldn't agree more. I can't think of a way to make netball style zones work. Full forwards shouldn't be limited to playing within a 50 metre arc - imagine being denied the excitement of the long bomb after a mark taken outside 50 - Browny would have lost half his goals! And what if the person is competing for the footy at the edge of the zone - is he expected to stop competing as soon as the ball falls outside his area?

Coaches and players will call for a gradual reduction of interchanges. But I think the game needs to be shocked. If we continue to drop the cap by a few interchanges every year, we'll retain the status quo. Players will simply get fitter to account for the slight increase in running. A massive reduction on interchange numbers will see the game shift markedly in terms of strategy and tactics and, to be honest, that is not a bad thing.

What he said. Shock therapy otherwise I agree they will try and adapt the present tactics, with little change to the flood, etc.

 

[POBT]

I've had a theory for a while now that in most professional sports, the improvement in athleticism, strength, endurance and technology has meant that the playing surface has become too small.

Unless you increase the playing surface (difficult in most circumstances), then you should decrease the number of players. After all, the issue in footy is that players are able to get to more contests, more quickly. Hence, congestion. If you decrease the number of players, you not only increase the distance a player has to cover to get to a contest but you also increase the average distance between players which means you are less likely to have full forwards trying to find space in a forward line packed with defenders.

A 16 v 16 contest will look a lot more like 90s and early 00s footy IMO.

 

[weevil]

I couldn't agree more. I can't think of a way to make netball style zones work. Full forwards shouldn't be limited to playing within a 50 metre arc - imagine being denied the excitement of the long bomb after a mark taken outside 50 - Browny would have lost half his goals! And what if the person is competing for the footy at the edge of the zone - is he expected to stop competing as soon as the ball falls outside his area?

I can see someone taking mark of the year only to have it reversed because a linesmen is holding up an offside flag on the boundary line.

Or how about a pack of players all heading at breakneck speed for the ball only to suddenly realise that they are going to go over the line, so they all suddenly pull up on tippy toes as the ball settles on the ground just out of their reach. A sole player from the other 'zone' then runs up, and casually picks up the ball while pulling faces at the pack of players because they are not allowed to cross the line.

...Yeah can't see how that would change the nature of our game very much. Sounds like a great idea

 

[SizeMatters]

I've had a theory for a while now that in most professional sports, the improvement in athleticism, strength, endurance and technology has meant that the playing surface has become too small.

Unless you increase the playing surface (difficult in most circumstances), then you should decrease the number of players. After all, the issue in footy is that players are able to get to more contests, more quickly. Hence, congestion. If you decrease the number of players, you not only increase the distance a player has to cover to get to a contest but you also increase the average distance between players which means you are less likely to have full forwards trying to find space in a forward line packed with defenders.

A 16 v 16 contest will look a lot more like 90s and early 00s footy IMO.

Reminds me of soccer...when the rules of the game were wrote up the average height of a goalie was 5ft4 they are now 6ft3 and a hell of a lot more athletic.

 

[karix]

Reminds me of soccer...when the rules of the game were wrote up the average height of a goalie was 5ft4 they are now 6ft3 and a hell of a lot more athletic.

And most professional soccer players are now professional actors as well. I've also noticed unlike most other professional sports, that in soccer the skill of the player is still more valuable (by quite some margin) than his fitness.

 

[Ray Button]

I can see someone taking mark of the year only to have it reversed because a linesmen is holding up an offside flag on the boundary line.

Or how about a pack of players all heading at breakneck speed for the ball only to suddenly realise that they are going to go over the line, so they all suddenly pull up on tippy toes as the ball settles on the ground just out of their reach. A sole player from the other 'zone' then runs up, and casually picks up the ball while pulling faces at the pack of players because they are not allowed to cross the line.

...Yeah can't see how that would change the nature of our game very much. Sounds like a great idea

In fairness to those proposing zoning, I think the intent is to restrict players to certain areas at stoppages ie once the ball is back in play they would be free to go anywhere. We already have zoning at centre bounces. Having said that, I'm still not in favour of zoning or reducing the number of players.

It seems to me that the majority of observers do correlate the massive number of interchanges with increased on-field congestion, so the solution should be simple. It only remains for the AFL powers to have the balls to back down on something they've promoted and allowed to develop in recent years.

 

[Skoob]

I was becoming concerned with what the game was starting to look like at least 13 years ago. My opinions on points 3 and 5 remain unchanged.

Great post(s).
I wonder if we can ask Dan26 how this is working out this year. It was funny to read these comments considering comments made during games this year by the likes of Richo & BT.

Common-sense umpiring is the way to go. Pay the free if it is having a direct impact on the play.

So called common sense umpiring is unfair, illegal and contrary to the spirit of the game, and is responsible for the messy congestion we have now, worse than ever.

 

[Skoob]

Everyone seems to recognise that the game is at an all time low of entertainment value, most even pinpoint the problem as being the ridiculous congestion and

the rugby-style mauls that seem to be the biggest problem
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...to-its-cost-20140424-zqyv3.html#ixzz2zqq7a5eb

,
however, not many commentators of the game are making the link between this and the non-umpiring of games. Indeed, in the above linked article from Wayne Carey, it is pondered

Have we implemented too many new rules?

But then poses a solution to be more..

Of all the ideas that could better the brand of footy we’re witnessing, changing the minimum distance that a kick must travel in order to be marked could just be the answer.

Are football writers intimidated or warned to leave umpiring alone, lest they have access to information restricted. Like the umpires themselves, they will point out the really obvious infringements, but seem to let way too much go.

In other news, it seems the umpiring department aren't too concerned about matters until they are publicly raised.

Campbell addressed Lyon’s specific criticism of how the push had been umpired, saying: ‘‘Ross brought up the push in the back – well, we did put that in a coaching session on Monday, so we were aware that we’ve missed some pushes in the back, and that’s probably been across a couple of weeks, so that’s been something that’s been raised.’’
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ts-mistakes-20140424-zqz0e.html#ixzz2zqtxPi4k

Is there any doubt that they will be all over this, this weekend? As is often the case, when something is highlighted, we see the "rule" of the week come into play.
In response to that article, Grant Thomas had this to say:

Bravo.
I hope someone with a voice soon points out the general lack of free kicks and how that affects congestion or at least questions the apparent death of 'Holding The Ball'.

 

[Dylan12]

Field Marshal: scoring in the AFL this season has hit lows not seen since 1968

SCORING in AFL games has plummeted to its lowest level since 1968. The startling statistic goes to the heart of football’s image problem and provides ammunition to those who say the game is in trouble. The league’s 18 clubs are hacking their way to an average 85.6 points a game — the lowest return since ‘68, the year before the out of bounds on the full rule came in and scoring soared.

Brisbane’s 68.5 points a game is lower than in any season in the club’s history.

GROUND ZERO
Goals drying up in 2014
Brisbane
Averaging 68.5 points a game — lowest in club history

 

[jackess]

Was it 3 out of 18 sides scored triple figures on the weekend? I have nothing to back it up but I reckon it used to be closer to about 1 in 2 sides scoring 100. Considering there weren't any wet games this was interesting. I think most games should average between 180 and 200 points for both sides combined.

 

[POBT]

I just want to unpack something I've seen a bit recently - the notion that paying more free kicks (well, to be more accurate, to pay the free kicks that are there) will lead to a reduction in congestion.

Often, when a free kick is paid, particularly in the contest, I see the defensive team simply being given opportunity to set up better. By the time the infringed player has picked himself off the ground and maybe had the ball delivered back to him, every opposition player in the vicinity (bar the man on the mark) has rushed back to find some space to guard. It is pretty regular that I see a free kick cause a slight detriment to the team which is supposedly being awarded (which seems counter productive).

On the face of it, would it be possible that paying more free kicks will simply enable defensive structures to be set up more effectively, more often? And, if that is the case, is a free kick actually that much of a penalty to the opposition, in this age of slingshot footy?

 

[western royboy]

I just want to unpack something I've seen a bit recently - the notion that paying more free kicks (well, to be more accurate, to pay the free kicks that are there) will lead to a reduction in congestion.

Often, when a free kick is paid, particularly in the contest, I see the defensive team simply being given opportunity to set up better. By the time the infringed player has picked himself off the ground and maybe had the ball delivered back to him, every opposition player in the vicinity (bar the man on the mark) has rushed back to find some space to guard. It is pretty regular that I see a free kick cause a slight detriment to the team which is supposedly being awarded (which seems counter productive).

On the face of it, would it be possible that paying more free kicks will simply enable defensive structures to be set up more effectively, more often? And, if that is the case, is a free kick actually that much of a penalty to the opposition, in this age of slingshot footy?

The same thing happened in the 70's / 80's - so the 15 metre penalty was introduced, but because it wasn't much of a penalty, players were coached to infringe it, so it became 50 metres and there in possibly lies the answer.

 

[Skoob]

I just want to unpack something I've seen a bit recently - the notion that paying more free kicks (well, to be more accurate, to pay the free kicks that are there) will lead to a reduction in congestion.

Often, when a free kick is paid, particularly in the contest, I see the defensive team simply being given opportunity to set up better. By the time the infringed player has picked himself off the ground and maybe had the ball delivered back to him, every opposition player in the vicinity (bar the man on the mark) has rushed back to find some space to guard. It is pretty regular that I see a free kick cause a slight detriment to the team which is supposedly being awarded (which seems counter productive).

On the face of it, would it be possible that paying more free kicks will simply enable defensive structures to be set up more effectively, more often? And, if that is the case, is a free kick actually that much of a penalty to the opposition, in this age of slingshot footy?

There is no doubt that can very often be the case, that a free kick isn't necessarily the advantage it should be, but a clear awarded possession will still be better than having to scrap it out. By not paying the free kick, cheats (or clumsy hacks) are being rewarded instead.
The other thing that happens now is the ball gets stuck under the hands and bodies and a ball up is called. I don't even know where I would look for stats, but there is a good number of ball ups that don't result in a clearance and so with numbers around the ball, in they all go again and the ball is once again in dispute.

 

[luthor]

I'm sick and bloody well tired of a the player who is trying to get the ball being set upon by a pack of four, five , six or even more other guys(half of which are often his own team-mates) whose sole objective is to kill the movement of said ball away from these marauding packs.

I would dearly love to see a "holding the ball in" rule brought in.

That is the umps are given one clear and simple directive:

If a player from either side is deemed to have their hand or hands on the ball with the sole intent of preventing its release by the player in possession, then it's a free kick against that player for holding the ball in.

Betcha that would soon fix the problem.

 

[Skoob]

I'm sick and bloody well tired of a the player who is trying to get the ball being set upon by a pack of four, five , six or even more other guys(half of which are often his own team-mates) whose sole objective is to kill the movement of said ball away from these marauding packs.

I would dearly love to see a "holding the ball in" rule brought in.

That is the umps are given one clear and simple directive:

If a player from either side is deemed to have their hand or hands on the ball with the sole intent of preventing its release by the player in possession, then it's a free kick against that player for holding the ball in.

Betcha that would soon fix the problem.

Soo, ban tackling in football?

 

[POBT]

There is no doubt that can very often be the case, that a free kick isn't necessarily the advantage it should be, but a clear awarded possession will still be better than having to scrap it out.

Yes but is it to the benefit of a more open and attractive game? The advantage of the ball being in dispute is that sides need to prepare for both the loss and gaining of possession, which increases the uncertainty and restricts the options available to bottle up space.

The other thing that happens now is the ball gets stuck under the hands and bodies and a ball up is called. I don't even know where I would look for stats, but there is a good number of ball ups that don't result in a clearance and so with numbers around the ball, in they all go again and the ball is once again in dispute.

This is a very valid point as every stoppage repeat just increases congestion.

One area where the proper observance of free kicks would be an advantage is in marking contests. Taking away the run at the footy of the key forward really frustrates me. Every player in the vicinity should have equal opportunity to launch at the marking contest. I really don't blocking even if it is technically within the rules.

 

[Skoob]

Yes but is it to the benefit of a more open and attractive game? The advantage of the ball being in dispute is that sides need to prepare for both the loss and gaining of possession, which increases the uncertainty and restricts the options available to bottle up space.



This is a very valid point as every stoppage repeat just increases congestion.

One area where the proper observance of free kicks would be an advantage is in marking contests. Taking away the run at the footy of the key forward really frustrates me. Every player in the vicinity should have equal opportunity to launch at the marking contest. I really don't blocking even if it is technically within the rules.

Yeah, I see the opposite happening. Where you perceive teams setting up off the ball in readiness for a clearance, I see 3 or 4 bodies on the ground, another 4 standing over their shoulders waiting to grab the loose ball, another half dozen or so within metres waiting for the handball. My suggestion is that as soon as possession is awarded to one player, everybody spreads for the kick. This is amplified when the ball is in dispute toward either end (as opposed to the middle of the ground. IF the free kick is awarded to the team in defense, then what was an empty half of the ground suddenly has players streaming back into it.
Of course not all situations are the same, but where the real frustration and discussion is being generated from is the prolonged, really heavy congestion as opposed to the self-resolved disputes where a clearance is made relatively quickly.

 

[POBT]

Of course not all situations are the same, but where the real frustration and discussion is being generated from is the prolonged, really heavy congestion as opposed to the self-resolved disputes where a clearance is made relatively quickly.

Let's assume this is true. So isn't the issue then not so much what happens when they get to a contest but rather the fact that they get there in the first place? Shouldn't the mechanism/adjustment that needs to be made relate to the congestion forming at all? Players and coaches evolve. If the rules get policed more stringently, I see two things potentially happening: (a) players just become more adept at playing within the rules - not a bad thing per se but won't necessarily solve congestion; (b) teams becoming more adept at responding to a free against, such that they use it as an advantage, in order to set up defensively.

By the way, I'm not saying your view is wrong. But, to me, there is a leap required between "pay the free kicks" and "a less congested game" that I don't think is convincingly made just yet. As I say, the connection may be there but the evidence hasn't convinced me to this point.

 

[Skoob]

Let's assume this is true. So isn't the issue then not so much what happens when they get to a contest but rather the fact that they get there in the first place? Shouldn't the mechanism/adjustment that needs to be made relate to the congestion forming at all? Players and coaches evolve. If the rules get policed more stringently, I see two things potentially happening: (a) players just become more adept at playing within the rules - not a bad thing per se but won't necessarily solve congestion; (b) teams becoming more adept at responding to a free against, such that they use it as an advantage, in order to set up defensively.

By the way, I'm not saying your view is wrong. But, to me, there is a leap required between "pay the free kicks" and "a less congested game" that I don't think is convincingly made just yet. As I say, the connection may be there but the evidence hasn't convinced me to this point.

Ah, you're looking to solve the cause, whereas I'm looking to treat the symptom. (Maybe). I believe the congestion, (the heavy, tedious drawn out congestion) is simply due to the normal congestion being allowed to build and grow. What I'm looking to do is break up that congestion as opposed to stopping it in the first place. Unfortunately, coaching, gameplans and style have created congestion, and to be honest I haven't devoted any thought to combat that. Mine was more a step toward breaking that congestion up. Having said that, I still think that if a free is awarded rather than a neutral ball up then we should see more spread instead of a seagull s**t fight that we now see.
I think teams would already be working defensively in the case where the opposition has the ball. That should be the basics of football. the team that has the ball spreads and the team that doesn't, has to split up to cover those players.

Not sure that free kicks will solve everything (clearly they won't if there is no free to give), but I do think it would be far better than letting it go and congestion just be allowed to grow like mould on the game.

 

[karix]

I would dearly love to see a "holding the ball in" rule brought in.

I thought they bought this in a year or two ago and it's just never been enforced, in the AFL at least.

I've seen it called a couple of times in suburban footy.

 

[western royboy]

I went to two games on the weekend - Saturday & Sunday

Same Venue - Same Start Time - Same Atmospheric Conditions

To say that they were worlds apart in standard and as a spectacle is a massive understatement. Collingwood ve Eagles was played at a frenetic pace, skills were good, marking was exceptional and there were some sharp goals. Mistakes were crucial and several key moments one the day for Collingwood. The ball flowed freely, there was space because of the speed and precision of the ball movement and players remained in their respective areas as a result. Easily in the top 10 games I have seen live.

Last night was the polar opposite, mistake riddled, poor ball usage and flow, most of the players spent within one half of the ground for most of the game, no high marks and few goals and plenty of regulation set shot misses that ultimately cost Adelaide the game. It is possibly the worst game that I have seen as a spectacle taking into consideration the conditions (which were perfect).

On a very limited sample size I would say that Collingwood / West Coast are a very definite rung or two above Carlton and Adelaide.

If Carlton supporters think they are a top 8 side - they are delusional. Swap coaches and you swap the result. Malthouse is as cunning as an outhouse rat and his canniness alows his sides to stay in the contest when others might get blown out. We can beat them on Saturday night because they are wounded and they are coming off two six day breaks, but one thinks Mick might have Leppa's measure in the tactical stuff (as you would expect). The game last night was played on Mick's terms and that's a large part of why they won.

It was disgraceful to watch, very little of the pure footy witnessed the night before.

 

[Mavlions1961]

I went to two games on the weekend - Saturday & Sunday

Same Venue - Same Start Time - Same Atmospheric Conditions

To say that they were worlds apart in standard and as a spectacle is a massive understatement. Collingwood ve Eagles was played at a frenetic pace, skills were good, marking was exceptional and there were some sharp goals. Mistakes were crucial and several key moments one the day for Collingwood. The ball flowed freely, there was space because of the speed and precision of the ball movement and players remained in their respective areas as a result. Easily in the top 10 games I have seen live.

Last night was the polar opposite, mistake riddled, poor ball usage and flow, most of the players spent within one half of the ground for most of the game, no high marks and few goals and plenty of regulation set shot misses that ultimately cost Adelaide the game. It is possibly the worst game that I have seen as a spectacle taking into consideration the conditions (which were perfect).

On a very limited sample size I would say that Collingwood / West Coast are a very definite rung or two above Carlton and Adelaide.

If Carlton supporters think they are a top 8 side - they are delusional. Swap coaches and you swap the result. Malthouse is as cunning as an outhouse rat and his canniness alows his sides to stay in the contest when others might get blown out. We can beat them on Saturday night because they are wounded and they are coming off two six day breaks, but one thinks Mick might have Leppa's measure in the tactical stuff (as you would expect). The game last night was played on Mick's terms and that's a large part of why they won.

It was disgraceful to watch, very little of the pure footy witnessed the night before.

Great read WRB, It didn't surprise me at all to read your take on Malthouse, I suppose that is why they are paying him a motza. The old saying 4 points is 4 points, no matter how you get them.

 

[brizrider]

Prior to the 1950's, basketball in the U.S used to often have games with scores like 30-20 where a lot of play was just boring, pass it around type stuff. One owner decided that the games that held the audience's interest typically had both teams scoring 80 or more points. He did the math: each team needed to take an average 60 shots per game to achieve this type of score. 60 shots per game x 2 teams = 120 total shots per game, One game = 48 minutes = 2880 seconds, 2880 seconds per game / 120 shots and you get the result of a 24 second shot clock. There were a couple of added rule changes like not being able to take the ball back past the half way once it had gone forward that complemented this.

I don't exactly know what the answer is for AFL but the approach probably needs to be the same: start with what makes for an enjoyable game that holds the interest of fans (purists and casual) and see if something can be done to achieve it. The beauty of the shot clock is that it didn't try to put brakes on the relentless push towards players being fitter, stronger, taller etc. They also didn't ignore the technical nature of the rules to 'speed up the game' or make it 'more open'. They just asked players to get on with it and it actually punished them for not being good enough to get a scoring opportunity off in time.

Some of AFL's current problems are also scoring related. The games of 200 points (not scored mostly by one team) are a pretty exciting memory of my youth but don't seem to happen much these days. There are too many blow-outs where the game is pretty much done by half time. We can't allow reckless physical damage to players but we still want a contest of some sort befitting a contact sport. As I said, I don't know all the answers but I think that enforcing the current rules is a start. In an age where players are fitter and more skilled than ever, allowing them to get away with incorrectly disposing the ball seems to be weak. It's also part of the 'contest' that is now rightfully restricted in terms of the brutally nasty stuff but which should be promoted when it's within the rules. Perhaps the zone at the stoppages is worth a try, reduced interchanges and maybe even a basketball style 'move it forward or lose it' type rule is worth trying.