Prediction Anti Density, yes or no?

Would the game be better with anti density rules?

  • Yay

    Votes: 25 62.5%
  • Nay

    Votes: 15 37.5%

  • Total voters
    40

Remove this Banner Ad

Sep 17, 2010
5,538
21,283
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Manchester City, AIK, Raiders
,
The game including coaching has become a full-time professional sport.

They come up with new strategies or variation's, there's no need to be reactionary and change the rules at all.

Players are in many ways bigger and better than ever and the football quite frankly in most area's is miles better than when I was young.

People are having a winge about nothing IMO.

These perceived problems will resolve themselves, that last thing we need is more rules and hence more power in the hands of umpires.

The one area they haven't improved is set shots on goal, some of the inaccuracy may be down to the amount of ground they cover.
I reckon you're spot-on with this.

Because of the nature of our sport played by such few people, it was an incredibly naive game tactically for such a long time. It was also a pretty ordinary spectacle looking back on it in the old days. Leigh Matthews made a comment on how he's embarrassed to look at old vision and cringes, he's spot on with that, watch a game from the 60's , it is dreadful and looks nothing like the game it evolved into in the 80s and beyond.

What has happened since the 2000s is the coaches got better and weren't just man managers who would give a bake when needed and moved a few magnets around. Many of them have looked to other sports where tactics are very developed and copied them. You can't stop that, especially in the global world we live in now.

The problem with coaching in Australia is that there aren't enough good ones and it is a "follow-the-leader" industry. Because the majority of coaches aren't talented enough (yet) to create gameplans of their own to suit them and be successful, they just rip off the previous winner. This becomes a real problem if, as we are seeing now, the previous winners play a pressure heavy and unattractive style.... then everyone starts doing it and we get the problems we are seeing this year spectacle wise.

The thing everyone needs to know is the world isn't ending if we have a year or two of relatively unnatractive football... it will pass, it always does. Remember after the Swans Eagles dour era came the amazing Geelong attacking wave, then followed by the Lyon cage dour style then followed by the attacking Clarko possession based footy now followed by the manic pressure Bulldogs and Tigers.... it's pretty easy to see the pattern and realise it will change again before too long.

The good news is that, we are actually organically heading into a direction where fans are demanding more from coaches as we are understanding that they are the main issue here. It is a sign of our sport maturing and in time both fans and the media will question coaches more about negative ugly gameplans. But this is a process that takes time.... it has happened in other sports because they have more coaches/media/everything around them to allow it to happen.

The other bit of good news is organically we will see in the coming years smart coaches realising we can't all "follow-the-leader" and start looking at how certain tactics can counteract certain other tactics more. I see a great future where teams switch tactics from press, to zone, to man-to-man, to different offensive set-ups more often in game and in season and we won't have one game plan dominating too much for too long. The only true visionary we have in the sport at the moment is Clarko, he's a purist that will play his way all the time regardless... we need more of his type but the pool of coaches is shallow so it will take time.

The bad news is though that we have the rulers of our sport that like tinkering with the rules to try and fix things. This is very, very dangerous and leads to the great analogy VDS66 had about a house with too many extensions. Changing a rule, any rule, should be seen as a very serious and dangerous thing to do for a sport. It should never be done lightly and we shouldn't have those in charge being too trigger-happy with this and too reactive to complaints.

I still watch 5-6 games a week and still love it, I love how the sport is evolving year-on-year and see it only getting better with better coaching so maybe I'm not the best person to ask on this but I would be very, very careful with making big changes to fundamental rule changes. I also feel the media hysteria about the game is overblown and becoming a bit of an echo chamber. The AFL need to hold firm now but I doubt they will and who knows what will happen to the game when they keep making changes on the run.
 
Great post.

Like I keep saying... It's coaching strategies that have destroyed the game.
I reckon it’s generous to even call it strategy. Flooding a stoppage or half of the ground isn’t all that tactical it just means you’re scared of losing. Auskick stuff.

I think if you reduce the interchange the players just get fitter which is something that the AFL didn’t see coming when they lowered the interchange. The players are that fit now that they can constantly run up and back which is why they’re able to flood so much. You can stuff around with other rules and give as many free kicks as you like but the only thing that will stop congestion is either starting positions or go down to 16 for each team or less on the field at once. Anything other than that and the coaches will just find a way around it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sep 22, 2010
111
597
AFL Club
St Kilda
Issue that I have is the people on the rules committee don't seem very bright. They don't seem to understand the law of unintended consequences.

For example.

Ban third man up rule around the ground = Ball less likely to be cleared = more congestion.

Then

To combat ruckman wrestling curve riven to nominate (like primary school) = play slows down allowing more players around the ball = more congestion and with no third man up rule to help clear it gets worse as the game goes on.

Also the 30 second countdown clock = players deliberately running down the clock = more players getting back = more congestion.

Get rid of the 30 second rule get, get rid of nominating ruckman and allow third man up again to return the game to some semblance of what it was. Only then talk about possibly changing more rules...

As I mentioned, the ex-players on the rules committee are not bright enough to look at what tactics might be employed to win a game of football when new rules are brought in. They can't see the forest for the trees.
 

atlaser

Cancelled
Jun 21, 2015
652
1,149
AFL Club
St Kilda
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.

Why not go all the way and just have 4 subs? It's only really been ten years with high interchange numbers and things have changed drastically. However I am skeptical of what impact changing the interchanges rules would have. 120 to 90 hasn't seemed to have any radical difference. I think if there was an ever greater emphasis on running power created by the rules, players would be forced to become just endurance athletes, I wouldn't be surprised if blood doping was used.
 

VDS66

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 4, 2011
21,166
55,141
AFL Club
St Kilda
I reckon it’s generous to even call it strategy. Flooding a stoppage or half of the ground isn’t all that tactical it just means you’re scared of losing. Auskick stuff.

I think if you reduce the interchange the players just get fitter which is something that the AFL didn’t see coming when they lowered the interchange. The players are that fit now that they can constantly run up and back which is why they’re able to flood so much. You can stuff around with other rules and give as many free kicks as you like but the only thing that will stop congestion is either starting positions or go down to 16 for each team or less on the field at once. Anything other than that and the coaches will just find a way around it.
I think the old VFA had 16 players and the ground was delineated into thirds.

I do agree about less players.
 
I reckon it’s generous to even call it strategy. Flooding a stoppage or half of the ground isn’t all that tactical it just means you’re scared of losing. Auskick stuff.

I think if you reduce the interchange the players just get fitter which is something that the AFL didn’t see coming when they lowered the interchange. The players are that fit now that they can constantly run up and back which is why they’re able to flood so much. You can stuff around with other rules and give as many free kicks as you like but the only thing that will stop congestion is either starting positions or go down to 16 for each team or less on the field at once. Anything other than that and the coaches will just find a way around it.
The AFLW is played with 16 players and congestion is still a major issue. Congestion is possible because there are always fresh soldiers on the bench that can come on and maintain the defensive zone. If the game is played with no interchange most of the team is forced to play 100% game time and the players will fatigue. The eventual consequence of this fatigue is usually less congestion and a more free flowing game.
 

VDS66

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 4, 2011
21,166
55,141
AFL Club
St Kilda
Are you sure about the zones?
No argument with 16 a side but I cannot recall any zone restrictions.
However, as you’re a much younger laddie I would accept being corrected by the better memory.
Not zones.

Pretty sure they had two lines across the ground... Basically an extension for the front and back centre square lines. Centre square went from wing to wing.

Old boy..
 
The AFLW is played with 16 players and congestion is still a major issue. Congestion is possible because there are always fresh soldiers on the bench that can come on and maintain the defensive zone. If the game is played with no interchange most of the team is forced to play 100% game time and the players will fatigue. The eventual consequence of this fatigue is usually less congestion and a more free flowing game.

Another eventual consequence, acutely, will be more injuries. In the long term, athletes will be favoured over footballers even moreso than now, and we will likely reach a point where we have similar congestion issues but with players that can’t kick and can only really run. Arguably much worse.
 
Another eventual consequence, acutely, will be more injuries. In the long term, athletes will be favoured over footballers even moreso than now, and we will likely reach a point where we have similar congestion issues but with players that can’t kick and can only really run. Arguably much worse.

Re: Injuries
I assume by more injuries you are referring to soft tissue injuries. I have not seen any data showing increased fatigue causes increased soft tissue injuries. Anecdotally, most of my soft tissue injuries occurred either at training or in the the first half of game and not when I was fatigued at the end of a game.
Re:Athletes
Our sport requires athleticism, endurance, speed, skill and courage. The unlimited interchanges was favouring athletes. No interchanges will require a more rounded skill set. Onballers will need to play forward and forwards will need to play on ball. Defenders will need to be in the Carlisle or Harry Taylor mould and be able to play forward when required. Congestion will still happen but it cannot be sustained for the entire game and at some point the game cracks open and a more free flowing game should be the result
 
Last edited:
Re: Injuries
I assume by more injuries you are referring to soft tissue injuries. I have not seen any data showing increased fatigue causes increased soft tissue injuries. Anecdotally, most of my soft tissue injuries occurred either at training or in the the first half of game and not when I was fatigued at the end of a game.
Re:Athletes
Our sport requires athleticism, endurance, speed, skill and courage. The unlimited interchanges was favouring athletes. No interchanges will require a more rounded skill set. Onballers will need to play forward and forwards will need to play on ball. Defenders will need to be in the Carlisle or Harry Taylor mould and be able to play forward when required. Congestion will still happen but it cannot be sustained for the entire game and at some point the game cracks open and a more free flowing game should be the result

Any amount of wear that you put into your body can result in an injury. For example, this paper looks into the effect of loading on soft tissue: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22951277
Soft tissue is most susceptible to damage when experiencing cyclic loading. Football is a game that involves repetitive bouts of sprinting, AKA cyclical loads. IF the current player base was already working to their maximal capacity from a running perspective, then an increase in injury rate would be unlikely since the player's can't "give" any more than what they already are; their only response would be to reduce their output. However, given that these athletes are already in the mindset of pushing themselves to their limits, then I think it is practically a certainty that some (if not most/close to all) players will push themselves further than what they are now.

Coaches would need to restructure game plans and rotations to prevent athletes from playing to their instincts. For example, picture a situation where a ball has been kicked into the forward 50, over the top of the deepest pack which is at the 40m mark. Do you think that forward that needs to go after the ball (and the defender who will attempt to stop him) will be thinking "I better protect my body here, so I won't sprint after this as hard as I can"? Of course not; the player will see the ball, see the opportunity for a goal (or stop a goal, respectively) and get there as fast as humanly possible, like they always have. Now, if the coach's gameplan has been structured to organise rotations amongst the positions to spread the physical load across the team as best as possible, then you might not have any issues since the player may only be as fatigued as he was when interchanges were available. But, if no such accommodations have been made, then the player will exert themselves maximally, and will be facing an increased risk of injury as a result.

Once a player steps onto a field, then they're out of the sports scientist's and medical team's hands. They will push themselves to their limits, and unless there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent fatigue (which would be extremely difficult, I imagine, although I've no coaching history) then this will likely be problematic.


On the topic of athletes, you have a point that this may encourage the selection of 'footballers' over athletes, since their skillset and versatility will not diminish with fatigue. But all the skills in the world won't count for anything if I can have a midfield of athletes that can outwork these players. Even if these 'athletes' can't kick, they won't need to when they can move the ball in possession with the opposition unable to give chase (and the same applies for my team chasing the opposition down when they're in possession). All the footballing skill in the world means nothing if you don't have the ball in the first place, and unfortunately athleticism is the key factor to winning the ball - some scenarios may favour skill, reading the play, strength etc, but the only type of possession that doesn't require athleticism would be going end to end with a series of marks, and that's almost impossible.
 
Any amount of wear that you put into your body can result in an injury. For example, this paper looks into the effect of loading on soft tissue: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22951277
Soft tissue is most susceptible to damage when experiencing cyclic loading. Football is a game that involves repetitive bouts of sprinting, AKA cyclical loads. IF the current player base was already working to their maximal capacity from a running perspective, then an increase in injury rate would be unlikely since the player's can't "give" any more than what they already are; their only response would be to reduce their output. However, given that these athletes are already in the mindset of pushing themselves to their limits, then I think it is practically a certainty that some (if not most/close to all) players will push themselves further than what they are now.

Coaches would need to restructure game plans and rotations to prevent athletes from playing to their instincts. For example, picture a situation where a ball has been kicked into the forward 50, over the top of the deepest pack which is at the 40m mark. Do you think that forward that needs to go after the ball (and the defender who will attempt to stop him) will be thinking "I better protect my body here, so I won't sprint after this as hard as I can"? Of course not; the player will see the ball, see the opportunity for a goal (or stop a goal, respectively) and get there as fast as humanly possible, like they always have. Now, if the coach's gameplan has been structured to organise rotations amongst the positions to spread the physical load across the team as best as possible, then you might not have any issues since the player may only be as fatigued as he was when interchanges were available. But, if no such accommodations have been made, then the player will exert themselves maximally, and will be facing an increased risk of injury as a result.

Once a player steps onto a field, then they're out of the sports scientist's and medical team's hands. They will push themselves to their limits, and unless there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent fatigue (which would be extremely difficult, I imagine, although I've no coaching history) then this will likely be problematic.


On the topic of athletes, you have a point that this may encourage the selection of 'footballers' over athletes, since their skillset and versatility will not diminish with fatigue. But all the skills in the world won't count for anything if I can have a midfield of athletes that can outwork these players. Even if these 'athletes' can't kick, they won't need to when they can move the ball in possession with the opposition unable to give chase (and the same applies for my team chasing the opposition down when they're in possession). All the footballing skill in the world means nothing if you don't have the ball in the first place, and unfortunately athleticism is the key factor to winning the ball - some scenarios may favour skill, reading the play, strength etc, but the only type of possession that doesn't require athleticism would be going end to end with a series of marks, and that's almost impossible.
With all due respect, the study you have cited deals with healing tissues not healthy tissues. A conditioned footballer is fairly resilient. We will probably have to agree to disagree. In the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I believe the AFLW could be used as a testing ground. Reduce the interchange to 20 and see what happens. Assess the impact and make a decision.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

With all due respect, the study you have cited deals with healing tissues not healthy tissues. A conditioned footballer is fairly resilient. We will probably have to agree to disagree. In the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I believe the AFLW could be used as a testing ground. Reduce the interchange to 20 and see what happens. Assess the impact and make a decision.

I’m not sure how, exactly, you’re delineating “healing tissue” and “healthy tissue”. I’ll need you to clarify, because all of the tissue in the study was healthy; as soon as you introduce a significant enough stressor, (e.g moderate-high intensity exercise) the tissue becomes damaged and would thus be a “healing tissue”.
 
I’m not sure how, exactly, you’re delineating “healing tissue” and “healthy tissue”. I’ll need you to clarify, because all of the tissue in the study was healthy; as soon as you introduce a significant enough stressor, (e.g moderate-high intensity exercise) the tissue becomes damaged and would thus be a “healing tissue”.
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure you can support your argument by using an in vitro test using rabbits' medial collateral ligaments. I would assume that most soft tissue injuries in AFL are muscular in nature and most ligament injuries are impact related (ACL probably being the exception).
I suspect the AFL will push forward with starting zones anyway which really makes this discussion a moot point
 
Jan 10, 2011
34,367
57,683
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
Said no because coaches will find a way to exploit so another rule has to come in to fix this rule. At least they are practising but that is without 6 months a planning to find ways.
 
Sep 19, 2011
4,825
6,725
Moorabin
AFL Club
St Kilda
I think the old VFA had 16 players and the ground was delineated into thirds.

I do agree about less players.
This is kinda what i thought. You wana fix conjestion straight away.
Get rid of the flanks. You have fwd/bk line. CHF/B. Wings.
Theres too many players on the field.
3 on the bench and reduce the quaters to 15mins + time on.
Done. Problem solved.
 
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure you can support your argument by using an in vitro test using rabbits' medial collateral ligaments. I would assume that most soft tissue injuries in AFL are muscular in nature and most ligament injuries are impact related (ACL probably being the exception).
I suspect the AFL will push forward with starting zones anyway which really makes this discussion a moot point

You and I both know that there's no ignorance on your half there. It's lazy of me to point to a broader look at collagenous tissue since, you pointed out, ligaments =/= tendons and muscle tissue itself. But for more specific instances:

Fatigued muscle experiences a strain injury (a tear) at the same length that unfatigued muscle does, however the fatigued muscle can absorb less force in the process of reaching the 'injury length'. This means a lower force threshold would be required to place any given fatigued muscle at risk of injury, relative to an unfatigued muscle: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/036354659602400203

Female college gymnasts underwent a trial involving repetitive landings with varying levels of fatigue. It was found that fatigue in the lower limb musculature correlated with decreased control of their landings, placing their ACL and other passive structures at risk: https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/19568192

There was a paper that I read a while ago on long distance runners and how their running gait changes over time as fatigue increases. These athletes were able to make adjustments to their gait which prevented improper biomechanics from being a large risk factor like it was shown to be with the gymnasts. So, on first glance, there could be a possibility for AFL players to make similar adjustments with the right training. It should be noted, however, that running in a straight line at a constant pace on a treadmill is vastly different to explosive movements in AFL games, including jumping, landing, pivoting, going from a stationary position to a sprint (sometimes with lateral movement involved) etc. So the applicability of such techniques would likely be minimal, at best.
 

You and I both know that there's no ignorance on your half there. It's lazy of me to point to a broader look at collagenous tissue since, you pointed out, ligaments =/= tendons and muscle tissue itself. But for more specific instances:

Fatigued muscle experiences a strain injury (a tear) at the same length that unfatigued muscle does, however the fatigued muscle can absorb less force in the process of reaching the 'injury length'. This means a lower force threshold would be required to place any given fatigued muscle at risk of injury, relative to an unfatigued muscle: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/036354659602400203

Female college gymnasts underwent a trial involving repetitive landings with varying levels of fatigue. It was found that fatigue in the lower limb musculature correlated with decreased control of their landings, placing their ACL and other passive structures at risk: https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/19568192

There was a paper that I read a while ago on long distance runners and how their running gait changes over time as fatigue increases. These athletes were able to make adjustments to their gait which prevented improper biomechanics from being a large risk factor like it was shown to be with the gymnasts. So, on first glance, there could be a possibility for AFL players to make similar adjustments with the right training. It should be noted, however, that running in a straight line at a constant pace on a treadmill is vastly different to explosive movements in AFL games, including jumping, landing, pivoting, going from a stationary position to a sprint (sometimes with lateral movement involved) etc. So the applicability of such techniques would likely be minimal, at best.
Good Post. Some interesting abstracts. The AFL keep some pretty detailed injury statistics if you are interested
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-04/injury-survey-hamstrings-top-the-charts-again
 

Baldur

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 23, 2010
18,244
13,253
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
AFL nowadays reminds me of how I used to play when I was about 5. Lots of kids chasing one kid with the ball. By the way being a NSW lad, I was playing league. So something is broken.

Not sure how to fix it, but something that allows key position forwards to lead at the ball, take marks & kick goals, instead of being there to make a contest & get the ball to the ground.
 
Back