Prediction Anti Density, yes or no?

[Saintos The ITK]

If anything make it so your back and fwd six can’t cross half way but really I don’t want to see any changes.

 

[George]

Any change that doesn’t impact on field umpires decision making is good. That’s why I like the capped interchange (can be monitored by off field umpire) & changes like for & against instead of percentage.

Yep I would hate for them to change basic fundamentals of the game or anything to do with why the game is as unique as it is.

 

[Strahany]

Two of the biggest proposed changes are to force structures onto teams (X number of players in the forward 50 at each bounce) or to limit/scrap interchanges. I can see why they're floated, but the reality is that these are addressing only the 'result' of the issue, not the issue itself.

Sure, we could force players to stay inside the forward 50, but finding the exact number will be tricky; too many and you'll have teams just bombing it forward like the 80's and earlier because there's no link up play, but too few and the congestion will remain.
Limiting interchanges (or removing them altogether in favour of substitutions) is much worse, from my perspective. People assume that congestion will relieve itself due to players being tired and unable to make it to the contest, but players are already gut running within the first quarter. These are elite athletes who have the mental fortitude to push themselves to the extreme, so if anyone thinks that they won't continue to do that then you're mistaken. Injuries will likely go up due to the extra wear on players, and something like substitutions would do little to mitigate this (not to mention removing players from a game altogether which never worked well in the recent 1 man substitution era).

You need to address the problem itself, which I haven't seen addressed in the media. From my perspective, the issue can be boiled down to one thing; the holding the ball ruling. As it stands, congestion comes about due to the ball becoming stagnant, either because of a stoppage or because of a period of play involving the ball carrier being tackled, the ball spilled (rinse, wash, repeat) until a free kick or a stoppage occurs. When the ball isn't moving (or moving minimally) players have the opportunity to come to the ball, and in fact they actively choose to do so because they're trying to swoop on a spilling ball from a tackle, or hold it in to create the stoppage.

So how do we fix it? Simple.

Change the holding the ball rule to achieve two things; reduce the amount of time the ball is moving minimally/not at all (AKA periods of play where there are multiple tackles and ball spills, and/or stoppages), and remove subjectivity from the ruling. As it stands, stoppages are most often created when a player is tackled and ball is pinned to them, or the player feigns an attempt to dispose it because they're aiming for the stoppage (sometimes with the help of a teammate to hold it in). The minimal ball movement is a result of a chain of tackle after tackles. So, we just have to address these areas.

The new ruling that I propose is as follows:
> Eliminate the concept of prior opportunity.
> If a player is tackled with the ball pinned to them and can't get it out, or choses not to dispose of it, then that's holding the ball
> If a player manages to get the ball out (with anything except a throw; dropping/spilling is allowed) then it's play on.

Why these rules?
> Firstly, eliminating prior opportunity almost completely eliminates subjectivity in this ruling. Some will remain due to having to determine an arbitrary amount of time before an umpire calls 'holding the ball' on a player being tackled, but the massive grey area of prior opportunity is removed. This is great added bonus IMO since holding the ball rulings are always a point of contention no matter how many times the AFL tries to toy with the rule (e.g diving on the ball rule)
> Secondly, there is still a large element of skill involved since there is a direct way to win a free kick - pin the ball. This rewards good play.
> Thirdly, ball ups will be altogether eliminated or minimised (e.g used in the same way that they throw the ball back in if it went out on the full from a pack and they couldn't determine what team it came off) since every current ball up situation would be a free kick.
> Lastly, this disincentives swarming around the ball, since players will no longer try to help their teammate hold onto the ball in a tackle (since that would give away a free kick) but also because players know that the ball carrier's prime objective would be to spill the ball ASAP when getting tackled (not try to hold it in) and that if the ball isn't spilled, then it will be a free kick to one of the teams, so they need to get into their offensive/defensive structures and not be stuck next to the ball. This will mean that the players who used to be around the ball will be spread out for link passes, which means that the players who used to be the link pass will be further down ground for a link or to chop off an opposition kick, which means the players that were in that further down the ground (usually the KPF's and KPD's) will likely be in/near the forward 50 since they're not needed up the ground and because they know a ball will come their way at any moment due to the extra flow.

Congestion is severely reduced, player spread is encouraged, stoppages are severely reduced, the game will be more free flowing, higher scores will be possible, and there is less subjectivity in umpiring calls - positives all around.

I see two main objections to this proposal, but I don't think they stand up to much criticism.
1) "Too many free kicks". This objection is quite right in pointing out that if all the tackles in today's game where a player can't release the ball would result in a free kick, then the count would go through the roof. However, the game would change (out of necessity) in response to these rules, to mean less tackles. This is achieved due to punishing players and teammates that trap the ball when being tackled (this is quite common) as well as the reduced congestion (secondary to incentivising spread as a result of more ball movement) meaning that there are less players around the ball to lay a tackle in the first place. So, yes, more tackles will result in a free kick, but the total number of tackles that end in a ball up (now a free kick) would be severely decreased.

2) "Don't change tradition". This objection will always pop up when proposing a drastic change, but the reality is that the holding the ball rule does not gel well with the rest of the game. As players have become better athletes and game plans have shifted to playing to a dimensional structure across the field as opposed to on an opponent, tackling has skyrocketed and exposed this large issue. The AFL can either accept that this one rule is the biggest problem and address it, or they can try to mess around with a half dozen other changes and hope they all work well together and achieve the desired result. It makes more sense to change this one rule even if it is 'tradition', and the reality is that if the game was played like this when the rules were initially invented, then the holding the ball rule would never have existed as it does - they would've seen how problematic it is (as we are) and altered it.

 

[austinnn]

Don't like agreeing with that stubborn old wart KB, but i reckon he's on the money here.
Simple solution without resorting to arteficial rule changes,Zones etc.

Just drop the interchange rotations to 50 max.

Reduce interchanges & 80% of the game will look like the last 15 minutes of matches. It’ll open up play & make it more of a spectacle.

Counterpoint: won't limited interchange encourage recruiters to prioritise athletic stamina over footballing ability/nous?

 

[austinnn]

I hear Australian rules is the greatest game in the world blah, blah so often.

If that's the case why is it that we constantly need change the rules.

Watch a couple of weeks of bruise free high scoring games and people will complain about that.

I'd like to see umpires with less power to influence the game not more.

One thing that i really don't like about AFL is the number of times the umpire blows the whistle and stops the game. It's got limited flow and this won't help.

Interchange limits are more appropriate, but as I just said, will promote gut running over ability. At least our current team would be in the top 4 in that scenario!

 

[PoppedCorn]

If anything make it so your back and fwd six can’t cross half way but really I don’t want to see any changes.

Yeah I could just put up with that i reckon, but seriously limit the rotations first and see what happens

Stupid afl

 

[SaintLuko]

Spot on.

It's interesting because I'm strong that reducing interchange will do the opposite because you'll see sides create ways to conserve energy throughout the game instead, particularly younger sides that aren't as fit. That means more kick to kick and rolling mauls to create stoppages to get a break. You'll probably see more injuries too as players are exhausted.

How much of an improvement was the last round or two? Cant be a coincidence that the players had a week off to freshen up. Maybe we should bring a second bye during the year for teams instead

 

[austinnn]

Two of the biggest proposed changes are to force structures onto teams (X number of players in the forward 50 at each bounce) or to limit/scrap interchanges. I can see why they're floated, but the reality is that these are addressing only the 'result' of the issue, not the issue itself.

Sure, we could force players to stay inside the forward 50, but finding the exact number will be tricky; too many and you'll have teams just bombing it forward like the 80's and earlier because there's no link up play, but too few and the congestion will remain.
Limiting interchanges (or removing them altogether in favour of substitutions) is much worse, from my perspective. People assume that congestion will relieve itself due to players being tired and unable to make it to the contest, but players are already gut running within the first quarter. These are elite athletes who have the mental fortitude to push themselves to the extreme, so if anyone thinks that they won't continue to do that then you're mistaken. Injuries will likely go up due to the extra wear on players, and something like substitutions would do little to mitigate this (not to mention removing players from a game altogether which never worked well in the recent 1 man substitution era).

You need to address the problem itself, which I haven't seen addressed in the media. From my perspective, the issue can be boiled down to one thing; the holding the ball ruling. As it stands, congestion comes about due to the ball becoming stagnant, either because of a stoppage or because of a period of play involving the ball carrier being tackled, the ball spilled (rinse, wash, repeat) until a free kick or a stoppage occurs. When the ball isn't moving (or moving minimally) players have the opportunity to come to the ball, and in fact they actively choose to do so because they're trying to swoop on a spilling ball from a tackle, or hold it in to create the stoppage.

So how do we fix it? Simple.

Change the holding the ball rule to achieve two things; reduce the amount of time the ball is moving minimally/not at all (AKA periods of play where there are multiple tackles and ball spills, and/or stoppages), and remove subjectivity from the ruling. As it stands, stoppages are most often created when a player is tackled and ball is pinned to them, or the player feigns an attempt to dispose it because they're aiming for the stoppage (sometimes with the help of a teammate to hold it in). The minimal ball movement is a result of a chain of tackle after tackles. So, we just have to address these areas.

The new ruling that I propose is as follows:
> Eliminate the concept of prior opportunity.
> If a player is tackled with the ball pinned to them and can't get it out, or choses not to dispose of it, then that's holding the ball
> If a player manages to get the ball out (with anything except a throw; dropping/spilling is allowed) then it's play on.

Why these rules?
> Firstly, eliminating prior opportunity almost completely eliminates subjectivity in this ruling. Some will remain due to having to determine an arbitrary amount of time before an umpire calls 'holding the ball' on a player being tackled, but the massive grey area of prior opportunity is removed. This is great added bonus IMO since holding the ball rulings are always a point of contention no matter how many times the AFL tries to toy with the rule (e.g diving on the ball rule)
> Secondly, there is still a large element of skill involved since there is a direct way to win a free kick - pin the ball. This rewards good play.
> Thirdly, ball ups will be altogether eliminated or minimised (e.g used in the same way that they throw the ball back in if it went out on the full from a pack and they couldn't determine what team it came off) since every current ball up situation would be a free kick.
> Lastly, this disincentives swarming around the ball, since players will no longer try to help their teammate hold onto the ball in a tackle (since that would give away a free kick) but also because players know that the ball carrier's prime objective would be to spill the ball ASAP when getting tackled (not try to hold it in) and that if the ball isn't spilled, then it will be a free kick to one of the teams, so they need to get into their offensive/defensive structures and not be stuck next to the ball. This will mean that the players who used to be around the ball will be spread out for link passes, which means that the players who used to be the link pass will be further down ground for a link or to chop off an opposition kick, which means the players that were in that further down the ground (usually the KPF's and KPD's) will likely be in/near the forward 50 since they're not needed up the ground and because they know a ball will come their way at any moment due to the extra flow.

Congestion is severely reduced, player spread is encouraged, stoppages are severely reduced, the game will be more free flowing, higher scores will be possible, and there is less subjectivity in umpiring calls - positives all around.

I see two main objections to this proposal, but I don't think they stand up to much criticism.
1) "Too many free kicks". This objection is quite right in pointing out that if all the tackles in today's game where a player can't release the ball would result in a free kick, then the count would go through the roof. However, the game would change (out of necessity) in response to these rules, to mean less tackles. This is achieved due to punishing players and teammates that trap the ball when being tackled (this is quite common) as well as the reduced congestion (secondary to incentivising spread as a result of more ball movement) meaning that there are less players around the ball to lay a tackle in the first place. So, yes, more tackles will result in a free kick, but the total number of tackles that end in a ball up (now a free kick) would be severely decreased.

2) "Don't change tradition". This objection will always pop up when proposing a drastic change, but the reality is that the holding the ball rule does not gel well with the rest of the game. As players have become better athletes and game plans have shifted to playing to a dimensional structure across the field as opposed to on an opponent, tackling has skyrocketed and exposed this large issue. The AFL can either accept that this one rule is the biggest problem and address it, or they can try to mess around with a half dozen other changes and hope they all work well together and achieve the desired result. It makes more sense to change this one rule even if it is 'tradition', and the reality is that if the game was played like this when the rules were initially invented, then the holding the ball rule would never have existed as it does - they would've seen how problematic it is (as we are) and altered it.

Great points!

Getting caught with the ball should be inescapable, the players look weak like diving soccer players when they are pretending to not be able to get the ball out to escape punishment. Rewards the tackler, encourages fast and clever ball disposal though, so we may see more players using boundary as a sanctuary. Maybe if you remove the OOF distinction and make it like soccer where any team that kick the ball out automatically gives the opposition a free kick from that spot.

 

[Yawkey way]

When the recruiters only want to draft 190 cm running machines…

When the selectors only want to select 190 cm running machines…

When the game is a congested wrestle of one team of 190 cm running machines vs another team of 190 cm running machines…

…then I say it’s time to do something about it.

People of my era grew up loving a sport where people of all shapes and sizes could, subject to desire and ability, have a career in Aussie Rules. It set our game apart. It made it interesting and it made it watchable. Now players all have to fit a certain profile. It reminds me of the silhouette cars they now use in V8 Supercars. Sure it makes for an even competition but it also makes it, IMO, bland. Footballers of the future are becoming the human equivalent of these samemobiles

It annoys the crap out of me when people say Paddy’s not suited to modern football. That statement may be correct but it just tells me how far the game has changed.

I don’t have the answers but I would support any moves that would slow the game down a tad, promote the high mark and the one on one contests.

And in this era of diversity, I would support any moves the AFL might make that would allow for a diversity of body shapes, sizes and speed.

The problem is that I would argue screwing with rules and interpretations is what caused this.

Has anybody actually read a rule book.

 

[VDS66]

Two of the biggest proposed changes are to force structures onto teams (X number of players in the forward 50 at each bounce) or to limit/scrap interchanges. I can see why they're floated, but the reality is that these are addressing only the 'result' of the issue, not the issue itself.

Sure, we could force players to stay inside the forward 50, but finding the exact number will be tricky; too many and you'll have teams just bombing it forward like the 80's and earlier because there's no link up play, but too few and the congestion will remain.
Limiting interchanges (or removing them altogether in favour of substitutions) is much worse, from my perspective. People assume that congestion will relieve itself due to players being tired and unable to make it to the contest, but players are already gut running within the first quarter. These are elite athletes who have the mental fortitude to push themselves to the extreme, so if anyone thinks that they won't continue to do that then you're mistaken. Injuries will likely go up due to the extra wear on players, and something like substitutions would do little to mitigate this (not to mention removing players from a game altogether which never worked well in the recent 1 man substitution era).

You need to address the problem itself, which I haven't seen addressed in the media. From my perspective, the issue can be boiled down to one thing; the holding the ball ruling. As it stands, congestion comes about due to the ball becoming stagnant, either because of a stoppage or because of a period of play involving the ball carrier being tackled, the ball spilled (rinse, wash, repeat) until a free kick or a stoppage occurs. When the ball isn't moving (or moving minimally) players have the opportunity to come to the ball, and in fact they actively choose to do so because they're trying to swoop on a spilling ball from a tackle, or hold it in to create the stoppage.

So how do we fix it? Simple.

Change the holding the ball rule to achieve two things; reduce the amount of time the ball is moving minimally/not at all (AKA periods of play where there are multiple tackles and ball spills, and/or stoppages), and remove subjectivity from the ruling. As it stands, stoppages are most often created when a player is tackled and ball is pinned to them, or the player feigns an attempt to dispose it because they're aiming for the stoppage (sometimes with the help of a teammate to hold it in). The minimal ball movement is a result of a chain of tackle after tackles. So, we just have to address these areas.

The new ruling that I propose is as follows:
> Eliminate the concept of prior opportunity.
> If a player is tackled with the ball pinned to them and can't get it out, or choses not to dispose of it, then that's holding the ball
> If a player manages to get the ball out (with anything except a throw; dropping/spilling is allowed) then it's play on.

Why these rules?
> Firstly, eliminating prior opportunity almost completely eliminates subjectivity in this ruling. Some will remain due to having to determine an arbitrary amount of time before an umpire calls 'holding the ball' on a player being tackled, but the massive grey area of prior opportunity is removed. This is great added bonus IMO since holding the ball rulings are always a point of contention no matter how many times the AFL tries to toy with the rule (e.g diving on the ball rule)
> Secondly, there is still a large element of skill involved since there is a direct way to win a free kick - pin the ball. This rewards good play.
> Thirdly, ball ups will be altogether eliminated or minimised (e.g used in the same way that they throw the ball back in if it went out on the full from a pack and they couldn't determine what team it came off) since every current ball up situation would be a free kick.
> Lastly, this disincentives swarming around the ball, since players will no longer try to help their teammate hold onto the ball in a tackle (since that would give away a free kick) but also because players know that the ball carrier's prime objective would be to spill the ball ASAP when getting tackled (not try to hold it in) and that if the ball isn't spilled, then it will be a free kick to one of the teams, so they need to get into their offensive/defensive structures and not be stuck next to the ball. This will mean that the players who used to be around the ball will be spread out for link passes, which means that the players who used to be the link pass will be further down ground for a link or to chop off an opposition kick, which means the players that were in that further down the ground (usually the KPF's and KPD's) will likely be in/near the forward 50 since they're not needed up the ground and because they know a ball will come their way at any moment due to the extra flow.

Congestion is severely reduced, player spread is encouraged, stoppages are severely reduced, the game will be more free flowing, higher scores will be possible, and there is less subjectivity in umpiring calls - positives all around.

I see two main objections to this proposal, but I don't think they stand up to much criticism.
1) "Too many free kicks". This objection is quite right in pointing out that if all the tackles in today's game where a player can't release the ball would result in a free kick, then the count would go through the roof. However, the game would change (out of necessity) in response to these rules, to mean less tackles. This is achieved due to punishing players and teammates that trap the ball when being tackled (this is quite common) as well as the reduced congestion (secondary to incentivising spread as a result of more ball movement) meaning that there are less players around the ball to lay a tackle in the first place. So, yes, more tackles will result in a free kick, but the total number of tackles that end in a ball up (now a free kick) would be severely decreased.

2) "Don't change tradition". This objection will always pop up when proposing a drastic change, but the reality is that the holding the ball rule does not gel well with the rest of the game. As players have become better athletes and game plans have shifted to playing to a dimensional structure across the field as opposed to on an opponent, tackling has skyrocketed and exposed this large issue. The AFL can either accept that this one rule is the biggest problem and address it, or they can try to mess around with a half dozen other changes and hope they all work well together and achieve the desired result. It makes more sense to change this one rule even if it is 'tradition', and the reality is that if the game was played like this when the rules were initially invented, then the holding the ball rule would never have existed as it does - they would've seen how problematic it is (as we are) and altered it.

Great idea but it won't stop flooding or 36 players inside 50 at any given time.

 

[VDS66]

One thing that i really don't like about AFL is the number of times the umpire blows the whistle and stops the game. It's got limited flow and this won't help.

Interchange limits are more appropriate, but as I just said, will promote gut running over ability. At least our current team would be in the top 4 in that scenario!

Congestion and umpires are two separate issues IMO.

The blight on the game has come about from coaches adopting a defence first, attack second approach as the means to winning.

Very soccer like.

 

[Yawkey way]

For what it's worth I have seen more than a few great players, teams and games.

Played under a variety of rule interpretations and changes, I even remember no square or out of bounds on the full.

IMO the game hasn't become any more exciting and is less inclusive, now favouring athletes over footballers.

The game was never broken so why change it.

 

[mightymalaka]

Congestion and umpires are two separate issues IMO.

The blight on the game has come about from coaches adopting a defence first, attack second approach as the means to winning.

Very soccer like.

Very Italian soccer like! Just like their tanks. Only go in reverse!........

 

[VDS66]

The problem is that I would argue screwing with rules and interpretations is what caused this.

Has anybody actually read a rule book.

Sort of...

The AFL are so eager to make sure the game is played a certain way to make it attractive to an overseas audience, that you are correct.

However, part of the problem is also coaches looming for a new way to win and get an edge. They are now looking at other codes to gain an edge.

Hence basketball zones etc etc.

 

[StCicatriz]

the defencive pressure game plans and the structure to support that has destroyed the games and made them unwatchable. too many players are coached on defence first and foremost.

i'm all for anti density

i just really want to see the return of the 100 goal a season player

 

[Marlo]

Great idea but it won't stop flooding or 36 players inside 50 at any given time.

Absolutely love the idea of taking away subjectivity in holding the ball. Taking away all scrappy disposal. Rewarding ripping tackles.

But yeah, starting positions is the quickest guarantee to attractive high scoring footy. That means it's absolutely happening.

 

[sunny3193]

I’ve been privileged to see football progress through five styles.
This latest iteration is definitely the worst.
Anything that can get rid of the abomination that is the full pressure game will be of benefit.

 

[Yawkey way]

Sort of...

The AFL are so eager to make sure the game is played a certain way to make it attractive to an overseas audience, that you are correct.

However, part of the problem is also coaches looming for a new way to win and get an edge. They are now looking at other codes to gain an edge.

Hence basketball zones etc etc.

Their deluded, it's good for 5 minutes of check this out sometime after midnight.

The rest of the world has soccer and their own home grown games, NFL, gaelic, union, league etc.

Probably more people playing and watching Frisbee.

 

[Strahany]

Great idea but it won't stop flooding or 36 players inside 50 at any given time.

Why won't it?

First we have to understand why we've seen games where all 36 players can be inside the 50. Typically, the offensive team wants numbers in there so they have players around the contest at ball ups; so long as they try to get their hands on the ball, they can either get it to a teammate or get tackled and reset at the ball up. For the defensive players, they flood the area because they want to make it as difficult as possible for the offensive team to run a play, but also because the likelihood of a ball being shot out towards their goal is highly unlikely with the way the game is played. This ties back to the offensive team flooding the forward 50 because they know they don't have to worry too much about a rebound due to the congestion.

But what about under my proposed rule changes?
Well, the offensive team won't want to flood the forwardline because the conversion of ball ups into free kicks means that aiming to play stoppage after stoppage until they execute a play isn't possible. Therefore, they are incentivised to leave space in the forward 50 for freer ball movement. In response to the freer movement, the defensive team will not entirely flood the 50 because a natural side effect of said increased ball movement is a greater likelihood of a rebound attack, therefore they will want players set up down the ground. This swings back to the offensive team, because they will need to 'spend manpower' down the ground to match up on the opposition to defend against the (high) possibility of a rebounding attack.

The great thing about this rule change is that the AFL isn't mandating a netball-esque zoning structure to force player spread. Instead, the players are electively spreading because its the best thing to do from a game plan perspective. Players will move to where the ball is, and where it is likely to go; players don't just arbitrarily decide to centre around the ball.
In the past, players weren't huddled around the ball because that's not where the ball was (or was likely to go) - they were down field because old football was largely a game of kick to kick.
Currently, the ball is unlikely to go anywhere anytime fast (for the reasons i described in my initial post), so therefore there is no reason for players not to be centred around the ball. Although its a different result to older football, the reason for players being where they are in the modern game is the exact same reason why they positioned themselves as they did in the past.

This rule change means that, because the ball movement is much more free flowing, there is a greater likelihood of either a clearance from the play or from a Free Kick. Therefore, just like how players currently huddle around the ball because thats where it is most likely to go in today's game, the rule change will mean that players will be more spread out due to increased contest clearances and increased free kicks from contests, as detailed in my example above.

 

[VDS66]

I’ve been privileged to see football progress through five styles.
This latest iteration is definitely the worst.
Anything that can get rid of the abomination that is the full pressure game will be of benefit.

What was it like when they wore 3/4 pants?

 

[aussierulesrules]

I'm really looking forward to seeing what the game's like if both teams have to have a certain number inside each 50 at centre bounces and stoppages.

It's been the case in the U18 Champs for years and that looks fine to me.

The only thing I might miss is if it means we get to see less of the likes of Gresh flying off the back of the centre square at centre bounces like he did last week, because he has to be inside 50.

Other than that, pretty much all for seeing it.

Reckon some teams may already be starting to play that way in preparation for next year and it might be why we had those awesome high-scoring games last weekend.

Plus it will likely really help us, given we've built our list in more of a traditional way (with Paddy. Bruce, Skunk and Battle) and Richo is of that sort of mindset.

 

[Strahany]

I'm really looking forward to seeing what the game's like if both teams have to have a certain number inside each 50 at centre bounces and stoppages.

It's been the case in the U18 Champs for years and that looks fine to me.

The only thing I might miss is if it means we get to see less of the likes of Gresh flying off the back of the centre square at centre bounces like he did last week, because he has to be inside 50.

Other than that, pretty much all for seeing it.

Reckon some teams may already be starting to play that way in preparation for next year and it might be why we had those awesome high-scoring games last weekend.

Plus it will likely really help us, given we've built our list in more of a traditional way and Richo is of that sort of mindset.

The thing that I really hate about force positioning is that it stifles creativity. Rules in sport, just like laws in Government, should stipulate what you cannot do. They should never tell you what to do; it seems like a minor difference, but in reality it is huge.

Forcing teams to have X number of players in any given portion(s) of the ground means that you're severely limiting game plan approaches. One good thing about this sport is that we've seen countless different styles of play over the years due to the blank canvas that the lax ruleset affords. As soon as you introduced a rule that mandates particular behaviour (as opposed to an exclusionary rule) then everything will become far more vanilla. Depending on how severe the restrictions are, coaches could become almost completely irrelevant, since the sameness of the game plans and structures means it largely comes down to player skills.

I agree with the belief that getting the players to spread will achieve a desirable result, but this is not the way to do it. Changing the rules such that players choose to spread is infinitely superior, IMO.

 

[VDS66]

The

Absolutely love the idea of taking away subjectivity in holding the ball. Taking away all scrappy disposal. Rewarding ripping tackles.

But yeah, starting positions is the quickest guarantee to attractive high scoring footy. That means it's absolutely happening.

only problemI see here is that players will go for the tackle at all costs, which would create congestion. Or maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Derec]

I hear Australian rules is the greatest game in the world blah, blah so often.

If that's the case why is it that we constantly need change the rules.

Watch a couple of weeks of bruise free high scoring games and people will complain about that.

I'd like to see umpires with less power to influence the game not more.

So you're happy with 30 people around every stoppage?

Why not bring back throw ins for out of bounds on the full then? Why not bring back the 15m penalty? How about 2 subs a game without interchange?

 

[VDS66]

The thing that I really hate about force positioning is that it stifles creativity. Rules in sport, just like laws in Government, should stipulate what you cannot do. They should never tell you what to do; it seems like a minor difference, but in reality it is huge.

Forcing teams to have X number of players in any given portion(s) of the ground means that you're severely limiting game plan approaches. One good thing about this sport is that we've seen countless different styles of play over the years due to the blank canvas that the lax ruleset affords. As soon as you introduced a rule that mandates particular behaviour (as opposed to an exclusionary rule) then everything will become far more vanilla. Depending on how severe the restrictions are, coaches could become almost completely irrelevant, since the sameness of the game plans and structures means it largely comes down to player skills.

I agree with the belief that getting the players to spread will achieve a desirable result, but this is not the way to do it. Changing the rules such that players choose to spread is infinitely superior, IMO.

That's why I like the percentage removal concept. It doesn't change rules. It encourages coaches to attack more.

We can talk about this all day, but the fact is that coaches now have a defence first approach to winning.

It used to be confined to finals but we are now seeing it every week.