News AFL 'war' on congestion

[Essendonia]

So much of this!!!!!

KNOCKED OUT IN A TACKLE MY arse.... the player wasn't strong enough to hold on to the ball so he dropped it.

SHOULD BE INCORRECT DISPOSAL EVERY TIME.

In matches we have struggled in this year, I feel that when we have upped the ante and laid on the pressure to play our way back into the game, this 'decision' or 'non-decision' has significantly cost us. Many times I feel tackles were unrewarded and our players are left heaving, bereft of the ball and completely off-side to a counter-attack. You just have to reward. the. tackle.

 

[Pweter]

I think you'd find a correctly paid holding the ball would also aid in the "war on congestion". There'd be no stacks on the mill after the spillage, instead it'd be a free kick so players are either defending or attacking.

 

[Kong]

I also like how they're concerned with the stacks on trend, yet they're continuing to reward players (often multiple) that pile onto an opponent and hold the ball in.

They're a clever bunch.

 

[Essendonia]

Over-officiating is the name of the game. Should be the AOOL. Embarassed to claim it as my national sport.

 

[kfc1]

So much of this!!!!!

KNOCKED OUT IN A TACKLE MY arse.... the player wasn't strong enough to hold on to the ball so he dropped it.

SHOULD BE INCORRECT DISPOSAL EVERY TIME.

Only if there was prior opportunity, in my opinion.

I think the prior opportunity rule is needed otherwise there's no incentive to win the ball.

 

[laxation]

Only if there was prior opportunity, in my opinion.

I think the prior opportunity rule is needed otherwise there's no incentive to win the ball.

Ok so what we need is this:
1. Incorrect disposal if you get tackled and don't get rid of it;
2. But only if you had prior opportunity.
You know, kind of like every season prior to this one.

This 'no attempt' bullshit is confusing as ****, the biggest grey area ever, changed the game completely AND slows down the game.

Every time this happens I want to throw my chair at the TV/ground:
- player jumps for the ball
- player lands, is tackled immediately - or tackled in the air
- player lands with the ball under him, arms pinned or waving in the air
- tackler holding ball in, pinning arms, stacks on
- free kick for the tackler

WHAT THE ****ING ****

 

[kfc1]

Ok so what we need is this:
1. Incorrect disposal if you get tackled and don't get rid of it;
2. But only if you had prior opportunity.
You know, kind of like every season prior to this one.

Exactly. I don't think it is subconscious conservatism either, I honestly believe this gives us the best balance between rewarding the tackler and rewarding the guy who wins the ball.

I don't actually mind that much the 'dive on the ball and don't make an attempt' free kick, it's just that there has been some terribly incorrect decisions this year related to this rule that make it look bad. I can think of a few guys who have been pinged when they never actually took possession or when they were on their feet etc.

This 'no attempt' bullshit is confusing as ****, the biggest grey area ever, changed the game completely AND slows down the game.

Every time this happens I want to throw my chair at the TV/ground:
- player jumps for the ball
- player lands, is tackled immediately - or tackled in the air
- player lands with the ball under him, arms pinned or waving in the air
- tackler holding ball in, pinning arms, stacks on
- free kick for the tackler

WHAT THE ******* ****

completely agree

 

[Essendonia]

Only if there was prior opportunity, in my opinion.

I think the prior opportunity rule is needed otherwise there's no incentive to win the ball.

Yes. What constitutes 'prior opportunity', though, I have no idea.

 

[kfc1]

Yes. What constitutes 'prior opportunity', though, I have no idea.

Would it be reasonable to say prior opportunity consists of either:

- the player in possession takes 3 or more steps before being tackled
- the player had the opportunity to dispose of the ball but elected to take the tackler on
- the player has his arms free in the tackle but is spun 360 degrees before disposing

?

 

[Kong]

Yes. What constitutes 'prior opportunity', though, I have no idea.

I'd say "common sense" - adjudicating whether or not a player could've kicked or handballed. It's very, very easy to do this.

Though, if they wanted it black and white, they could easily apply a timeframe of (at a guess), a second or two. You don't need anything more than that to dispose of the ball.

 

[laxation]

Yes. What constitutes 'prior opportunity', though.

It's usually fairly obvious. If you try to get around a tackler, but fail or if you go for a little run and get tackled - you had prior.
If you land after grabbing the ball and get tackled right away, that isn't prior. But its been paid this year.

I have no idea.

What are you, an umpire?

 

[Essendonia]

Would it be reasonable to say prior opportunity consists of either:

- the player in possession takes 3 or more steps before being tackled
- the player had the opportunity to dispose of the ball but elected to take the tackler on
- the player has his arms free in the tackle but is spun 360 degrees before disposing

?

Your first suggestion is ambiguous - three steps after gathering a bouncing ball at pace, three steps after extracting from a pack, three steps after standing stationary in a Bowden-esque fashion? I know generally what you mean, though.

Second one is obvious. Easy example is the don't argue that doesn't come off, or trying to shrug a tackle.

The third is vitally important to the fair flow of possession.

I'd say "common sense" - adjudicating whether or not a player could've kicked or handballed. It's very, very easy to do this.

Though, if they wanted it black and white, they could easily apply a timeframe of (at a guess), a second or two. You don't need anything more than that to dispose of the ball.

If I had to have a crack at defining the term so that it could be properly applied by umpires, I would say: A player, having had the benefit of clean possession of the ball and any opportunity to make any meaningful disposal to the advantage of his team, will be liable to concede a free kick if he is tackled, stripped of the ball, or otherwise fails to properly dispose of the ball without having taken advantage of the prior opportunity to make such meaningful disposal to the advantage of his team.

 

[ant555]

All i can say is i said when they decided on the sub it would do stuff all to restrict interchanges and it has not. Stupid rule.
How about give the sub the flick and restrict to 20 interchange per quarter, easy to do and manage given someone already does the interchange numbers and records them as the come on and off.
But the AFL will never admit they went the wrong way and change back

 

[Phone]

• Incorrect disposal when tackled = holding the ball. "Ball was knocked out in the tackle".... should've thought about that before taking the guy on. No clear kick or handball = holding the ball. Wha-la, as close to black and white for this rule as you can get

The flip side to this is that good tackles should get rewarded....and good tackles pin the arms. They don't just smash the arm which ends up knocking the ball out. It's debatable if that's even a tackle. Sure he's made contact, but...and that's the cause behind an awful lot of the cases when he had prior opportunity and he hasn't been pinged

Anyway, reform the no prior opportunity rule. A whole lot of the awful scrums are basically caused by a player getting tackled and having no prior opportunity and the umpire having to stand around for 5-10 seconds as he gives the player a chance to attempt to get rid of the ball. This turns into a bit of a groundhog day situation as then more players crowd around the ball which increases the chance of a player being tackled with no prior opportunity....If you get tackled with no prior opportunity, call a ball up straight away.

The idea of making 6 players start in the forward line, 6 in the back, 4 in the square and 2 on the wing doesn't really evoke strong emotions either way for me.


favour a 2/2 system. seems natural.

 

[Essendonia]

It's usually fairly obvious. If you try to get around a tackler, but fail or if you go for a little run and get tackled - you had prior.
If you land after grabbing the ball and get tackled right away, that isn't prior. But its been paid this year.


What are you, an umpire?[/quote]

 

[Mercurial89]

All i can say is i said when they decided on the sub it would do stuff all to restrict interchanges and it has not. Stupid rule.
How about give the sub the flick and restrict to 20 interchange per quarter, easy to do and manage given someone already does the interchange numbers and records them as the come on and off.
But the AFL will never admit they went the wrong way and change back

Do we really have to change the interchange system at all though? There are other ways to reduce congestion as have been discussed in this thread, as well as getting rid of some of those grey areas. So instead of introducing wholesale rule changes, we can get the same result and reduce the grey areas by targeting the interpretation of a lot of rules.

As to what constitutes holding the ball, id say it has only changed in the last 18months. Before then it was fine, with the occasional howler but overall it was the same as it has been for years.

You see players get caught and 65% of the time everyone literally stops moving because they think yeah that's holding the ball, it has been for the past 10 years Ive played footy at all levels. Then the umpire yells play on and they all have to start moving again, its comical to watch.

 

[Loonerty]

I also like how they're concerned with the stacks on trend, yet they're continuing to reward players (often multiple) that pile onto an opponent and hold the ball in.

They're a clever bunch.

This. The "oh you dragged it in so you're gone" rule encourages stacks on, regardless of whether the player at the bottom dragged the ball in himself or if an opponent dragged it under.
Just stupid.

 

[Phone]

The flip side to this is that good tackles should get rewarded....and good tackles pin the arms. They don't just smash the arm which ends up knocking the ball out. It's debatable if that's even a tackle. Sure he's made contact, but...and that's the cause behind an awful lot of the cases when he had prior opportunity and he hasn't been pinged

To just extend on this, the rule is holding the ball. there is not dropping the ball rule. wisely there's no rule in place that says if a player hits you and the ball pops out, you give away the free-kick. So if a tackle that isn't a completed tackle knocks the ball out, and therefore causes the player to stop holding the ball, it shouldn't be a free kick, should it? he's not holding the ball. you've actually prevented him from holding the ball! you haven't stuck the tackle! you've hit the arms! of course he's not gonna hold onto the ball!

It's a thin line at times, but generally the thing we call dropping the ball gets paid when you grab hold of the player, you remain holding him, and the player is holding the ball at the time, and continues holding the ball after you grab hold of him, and in the end he 'drops' the ball in a desperate attempt to get ball on boot/hand. the thing you guys are talking about is when a player sets off, a player chases him, and basically throws his body at him, and yeah makes contact, but he doesn't really stick the tackle, non does the ball carrier 'stick' with the ball because well you've just smashed his arms. or maybe you've knocked the ball out before you've completed the tackle. whatever, a tackle hasn't been completed. so it's a bit hard to play holding the ball. and rightly so, holding the ball doesn't apply to bumps, and non should it apply to half finished tackles. the onus is on you to complete the tackle with the playing holding the ball.

 

[The Speaker]

You'd think someone at AFL House would read BigFooty from time to time, see what we're saying makes sense, and then see if it's worth implementing.

 

[Mercurial89]

You'd think someone at AFL House would read BigFooty from time to time, see what we're saying makes sense, and then see if it's worth implementing.

What i don't understand is that these conversations are being held by supporters everywhere. And yet the figures the AFL keeps pedaling say that we adore what they are doing and want more changes.

I just really wish there was a way to get the message across that we are sick of the rule changes, and that would make the key stakeholders in the game who don't want these changes, the players, the coaches and the supporters.

 

[yaco55]

Ant555 beat me to the punch - 60 to 80 interchanges per game will reduce congestion around the ball - It will also give the endurance athletes a chance to show their skills.

I like the umpires giving players every chance to dispose of the ball from a pack - Much rather the umpire give the players a few extra seconds, rather than a quick whistle which creates a stoppage - and then rinse and repeat.

 

[Mercurial89]

Ant555 beat me to the punch - 60 to 80 interchanges per game will reduce congestion around the ball - It will also give the endurance athletes a chance to show their skills.

I like the umpires giving players every chance to dispose of the ball from a pack - Much rather the umpire give the players a few extra seconds, rather than a quick whistle which creates a stoppage - and then rinse and repeat.

Did you watch the Sydney/hawks game? The umpire took a ridiculous amount of time to blow the whistle, and the players just stood around in a big scrum. I get letting the play unfold, but it does need to be shortened.

Reducing the interchanges may make the game less congested, it could also slow the game to a crawl, with lots of kicks backward, basically a game of keepings off. Why do we need to change these things? congestion can be fixed through interpretation changes. Why do we want to make the athletes even more fatigued? I suppose people love seeing horrendous skill errors int he back line leading to easy goals? What happens when a team gets injuries? with already restricted interchanges they are going to be buggered.

 

[yaco55]

Did you watch the Sydney/hawks game? The umpire took a ridiculous amount of time to blow the whistle, and the players just stood around in a big scrum. I get letting the play unfold, but it does need to be shortened.

Reducing the interchanges may make the game less congested, it could also slow the game to a crawl, with lots of kicks backward, basically a game of keepings off. Why do we need to change these things? congestion can be fixed through interpretation changes. Why do we want to make the athletes even more fatigued? I suppose people love seeing horrendous skill errors int he back line leading to easy goals? What happens when a team gets injuries? with already restricted interchanges they are going to be buggered.

I don't like to see 100 ball ups per game - Which is what may happen if we introduce a quick whistle.

Obviously fitness staff would re-orientate training to allow for more endurance if interchanges are capped - It will definitely reduce congestion - As players won't have the energy to go from end-to-end. And slowing the game down a touch will give players a better chance to display their skills.

 

[Mercurial89]

Yeah i guess their is arguments both ways, my only problem is we just don't know how it will pan out, so why not hold off on the changes? Mind you it doesn't seem to be as one sided as i assumed

 

[Phone]

i'd rather a ball up than 5-10-15 seconds of rubbish that usually ends up with a ball-up anyway. or a free kick everyone would rather not be paid.