Analysis Congestion Rule Changes - A general discussion

[JJHunter]

Bevo has warned against some of the proposed rule changes drastically changing the game...
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-14/make-cosmetic-changes-bevos-call-for-caution

I think most people have alot of opinions about what may "fix" the game.
Apparently the AFL have put a line through numerous suggestions ie 16 man a side - so no point discussing those and others that wont be introduced. It would seem they are going down the path of

- lengthening the goal square allowing kick ins to clear fifty and force defensive zone back
- last "disposal" out of bounds - much like ALFW
- starting positions are centre bounces
- tightening rotation numbers

Blow outs ?
I've been thinking about all and my biggest concern is blow outs. This year there is a fair divide between the best and the worst - I can only think that the divide will extend and margins may be even greater. If poorer teams are good at locking it in, and thats taken away more offensive sides will be able to clear it easier and score easier. If scoring is easier - my guess is margins will extend - how far who knows.

Starting positions?
I also reckon while on the surface starting positions at centre bounces is a little "meh".. but its going to impact the game - imagine in close games - you wont be able to start numbers behind the ball. you hit the lead with 2 minutes to go and the centre bounce become crucial. We wont see players all sprinting behind the ball anymore.

Lengthening goals square..
On the surface its great for kick outs to get the ball back into the middle - but will they ban kicking to yourself from kick in considering you might be able to run to defensive 30m and launch beyond the centre. And if its going to help solve congestion why doesn't players that kick to themselves now and run to where the new square will be help.
And at a very basic level lengthening the square might encourage more deeper kicks going into attack also - as marking inside the square means a shot straight infront.

So I certainly know where Bevo is coming from. Even the smallest change can have severe impacts and change the game forever.

Be interested in other opinions - specific to these measures that it would appear will be introduced

 

[footscray1973]

Slightly off topic, but rather than goal reviews, a quick onfield flogging of umpires that make inconsistent decisions would enhance the game. It would take not much more time than a goal review, just a few simple lashes. And to save money, I’d do it for just a nominal fee...

Imagine how much better the game would be as a spectacle!

 

[footscray1973]

On a serious note, I understand the concept of lengthening the square, but it’s just too fundamental a change - when was the last time, if ever, the goalsquare dimensions changed?

 

[lachy]

Pretty simple really, get rid of most of the umpiring interpretations brought in under Gieschen.

If pinned straight away a quick ball up don't wait for an enternity for the players to move the ball on

If the player had time pay incorrect disposal every time unless there is correct disposal

If you want to leave the no third man rule don't wait to nominate just throw it up frer kick against the team who first had 2 up

Those 3 alone leave no time to set up large structures around stoppages

Further reduce rotations to 8 per quarter but do not include breaks. Fatigue opens the game up and will ensure a structure up forward particularly after qtr time

Do no more than that and you will go along way to solving the issues without stuffing the integrity of the game.

Too many snouts in the troff trying to justify their jobs

 

[VitalDread]

No defenders in the forward 50 when playing against Western Bulldogs

 

[Norm De Guerre]

3rd man up.

 

[Yojimbo]

The direction the game has taken is destroying the tall forward, I was a
little surprised last week when I heard who the main targets were for
Collingwood with Jaidyn Stephenson the target 15 times almost twice
that of Mason Cox who was 8 times. The way teams are scoring has
been the standout change to me along with where the teams choose
to send their high half forwards either to the stoppage or running off
the half back flank. I doubt they can fix it as what ever they do it
will always favour certain teams with the list profiles to take the
advantage of the rule change. I would try locking four sets of players
from each team behind CHF & CHB and define them with coloured
arm bands which can be swapped in game for rotations.

So it would be good if I had some basic computer skills and could
draw this scenario for you too see.

8 x Players: (CHF) Centre Square (CHB) 8 x Players:

Those 8 Players at each end must hold their positions which has the
effect of diluting kick in zones and presses and freeing up the maul
of congestion around the ground. The other players are free to roam
around the full length of the ground. The coaches may be forced to
fill in the rest of the ground being unable to put a full press into
practice.

 

[dergert]

Keep it the way it is. Our game is farcical, what other sport introduces significant new rules every week and year?

 

[jdz101]

Last touch out of bounds is going to be a nightmare considering the amount of importance on late game free kicks in close contests and the amount of hands/smothers/deflections in the contest.

Good luck umpiring that one.

 

[Tommycash]

It is pretty funny to note that most of the changes they have brought in to fight congestion seem to have contributed to it. Elimination of third man up has saved the position of ruckmen, but meant the chances of a clean clearance are dramatically reduced.

Needing to nominate a ruck leads to delays in stoppages, meaning more players can gather around and lock the ball down.

Reducing bench rotations has had no positive impact as far as I can see. It just means you have more midfielders rotating through the forward line to have a rest, but with far less forward craft comes far less scoring. It also is one of the main reasons that ruck men were in jeopardy in the first place.

Not enough thought goes into the changes. The mid-season hawks trial is an example of this. If you want to change rules, the pre-season is the time to try it. Semi-competitive and enough of a sample size to examine the results. Ultimately means changes will be slower and fewer, but at least they will more considered.

 

[Sharkey66]

Last touch out of bounds is going to be a nightmare considering the amount of importance on late game free kicks in close contests and the amount of hands/smothers/deflections in the contest.

Good luck umpiring that one.

I believe the rule is last possession out of bounds not last touch.

 

[JJHunter]

On a serious note, I understand the concept of lengthening the square, but it’s just too fundamental a change - when was the last time, if ever, the goalsquare dimensions changed?

1897

 

[JJHunter]

Last touch out of bounds is going to be a nightmare considering the amount of importance on late game free kicks in close contests and the amount of hands/smothers/deflections in the contest.

Good luck umpiring that one.

Its last disposal - like AFLW if you have ever watched a womens game. It doesnt work too badly - no kicking to touch effectively inside your own fifity.

 

[JJHunter]

Pretty simple really, get rid of most of the umpiring interpretations brought in under Gieschen.

If pinned straight away a quick ball up don't wait for an enternity for the players to move the ball on

If the player had time pay incorrect disposal every time unless there is correct disposal

If you want to leave the no third man rule don't wait to nominate just throw it up frer kick against the team who first had 2 up

Those 3 alone leave no time to set up large structures around stoppages

Further reduce rotations to 8 per quarter but do not include breaks. Fatigue opens the game up and will ensure a structure up forward particularly after qtr time

Do no more than that and you will go along way to solving the issues without stuffing the integrity of the game.

Too many snouts in the troff trying to justify their jobs

Thats not likely at this point - but what are your thoughts about the measures they will introduce ?

 

[jdz101]

I believe the rule is last possession out of bounds not last touch.

Malcolm blight kept going on about it calling it "last touch"...last possession is much better for sure.

 

[MrChristo]

It is pretty funny to note that most of the changes they have brought in to fight congestion seem to have contributed to it. Elimination of third man up has saved the position of ruckmen, but meant the chances of a clean clearance are dramatically reduced.

Needing to nominate a ruck leads to delays in stoppages, meaning more players can gather around and lock the ball down.

Reducing bench rotations has had no positive impact as far as I can see. It just means you have more midfielders rotating through the forward line to have a rest, but with far less forward craft comes far less scoring. It also is one of the main reasons that ruck men were in jeopardy in the first place.

Not enough thought goes into the changes. The mid-season hawks trial is an example of this. If you want to change rules, the pre-season is the time to try it. Semi-competitive and enough of a sample size to examine the results. Ultimately means changes will be slower and fewer, but at least they will more considered.

Agree with it all.

This is the point that most people (including the "experts" who'll have the final say) all miss...

...I'd go so far as to say it'll have a negative impact.

More fatigue may 'open the game up' (although I'm still not entirely convinced), but it definitely contributes to a drop off in skills.
More terrible goal kicking. More terrible field kicking...which will result in more turnovers, which will result in more teams playing more players behind the ball to protect against that... Which in the extreme will make the game very much rugby/soccer style with teams running in waves, leaving the forward line open and hoping for fast break scores, while again, leaving numbers behind just in case.
More missed targets means more stoppages.

Long term the 'obvious' solution becomes to recruit better 'athletes' with better endurance... And the cycle is complete.


One of the very few things I've ever agreed with Paul Roos about is that a very real factor in play here is simple talent dilution. Too many teams. With lists that are too young.
Think it was on The Couch a few weeks back, but he said that when he arrived at Fitzroy, him and Pert were the only teenagers!! Compare that to teams today. (And of course, we're prime examples).
He also said (and I happy to take him on his word) that when he arrived at Sydney there were [younger] players there who wouldn't have got a game for the Fitzroy under 19's in his time.
Now, maybe a bit hyperbolic, but I think his point is valid. There are too many teams. There are too many people on each list who just aren't up to AFL standard (as we want it!) for one reason or another. The old school U19's/Reserves/Seniors was infinitely better at preparing young players for AFL games than the current 'system'.
The standard of State Leagues is arguably at an all time low.

These are all massive issues, but there is exactly 0% chance of the AFL ever admitting they were wrong in expanding (and so cutting back) and they also seem unwilling to focus more on the lower levels to try to improve the base.

Anyway, just a long winded way of saying that any rule changes will be a superficial/short term fix at best...and given previous knee jerk rule changes in the last 20 years have led us to this exact point, that should also be telling us (and the people in charge!) something.

 

[cecil]

I would argue the lopsidedness of games if more a result of player power/free agency than any rules. Very few developing teams can bring in good players to bridge the gap. That's compounded by two new teams meaning there are a lot more kids on lists now, and they struggle to compete. The correlation between avg games played in teams and ladder position is stark. North aren't good, they just have a stack of 29 year olds.

How about:
* Lists of 40, with a 4 player rookie list which is for 22yo+'s only on one year contracts too. That would somewhat alleviate the need to increase the draft age, and would give greater significance to the second-tier leagues as there are 72 players to be picked up from there every year. Could also have 2 category 2 rookie's for players from multicultural backgrounds. All teams must have these 6 players.

* Draft pick lottery for bottom 10 teams, as well as end of second round priority pick for teams who have had less than 12 wins every two years.

Then smaller rule changes:
*No nomination for ruck contests, team with a 3rd man up is penalised.
*Minimum of one player from each team in each 50 at all times = 4 less players away from congestion, as well as the reward of more 1 on 1s.

I honestly think those 4 changes would be enough to make the game a lot more open.

 

[StringyDog]

Nominating rucks is the worst rule, whoever suggest it should be banned from afl ranks forever.

Such an obvious fix though no nomination or waiting for ruckman to get into position, ball up or throw in straight away if more than 1 from same team contests ruck free kick, less time to setup and get players around stoppages.

 

[Yojimbo]

Nominating rucks is the worst rule, whoever suggest it should be banned from afl ranks forever.

Such an obvious fix though no nomination or waiting for ruckman to get into position, ball up or throw in straight away if more than 1 from same team contests ruck free kick, less time to setup and get players around stoppages.

What if two players from each team contest the ruck and arrive simultaneously who gets the free kick then ?

 

[lachy]

Thats not likely at this point - but what are your thoughts about the measures they will introduce ?

Massive over correction and will actually change the entire look, feel and structure of the game.

It MAY attract the younger generations and possibly those from non traditional football areas, but it has the potential to put off the heartland and a lot of people over 30.

Rules brought in to protect players welfare, given the litigious society we live in I get though they could be done more simply with more clarity.

Rules to try to change how the game looks and feels is not only fraught with danger, it provides the real danger of going to far an alienating the traditional supporters of the game who comprise the majority of supporters. It is an indigenous game and its differences should be celebrated not looked down upon

 

[BRWB]

Keep 3rd man up but get rid of idiotic nomination.

Stuff changing fabric of the game. But no harm in going back to what was. Ban interchange. 3 or 4 subs.

Players simply wont have the gas to run to zone up and congest. Yes fatigue may increase but that is part of footy. Guys like R Harvey became legends by running opponents into the ground. Skills are shit now due to fatigue from zoning and congesting, so IMO skills will get better with less congestion.

Just at least try it for a few years before stuffing with the fabric of the game like a big goal square or netball zones.

 

[cecil]

Keep 3rd man up but get rid of idiotic nomination.

Stuff changing fabric of the game. But no harm in going back to what was. Ban interchange. 3 or 4 subs.

Players simply wont have the gas to run to zone up and congest. Yes fatigue may increase but that is part of footy. Guys like R Harvey became legends by running opponents into the ground. Skills are shit now due to fatigue from zoning and congesting, so IMO skills will get better with less congestion.

Just at least try it for a few years before stuffing with the fabric of the game like a big goal square or netball zones.

I remember a fair few players being asked about the effect of reducing interchange on congestion and most thought it had contributed to it. Coaches were wanting the ball in tight because players were too tired to constantly spread, or something to that effect.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

Free agency is the worst American invention ever- great for Richmond, Collungwood, Geelong, Hawks- terrible for everybody else.


Less night games please- especially this time of year. You note that all best blockbuster games are arvo games and usually played in good conditions.

 

[jdz101]

Free agency is the worst American invention ever- great for Richmond, Collungwood, Geelong, Hawks- terrible for everybody else.


Less night games please- especially this time of year. You note that all best blockbuster games are arvo games and usually played in good conditions.

Free agency is fine, just not the way the AFL does it. Also the way AFL players can force trades, contract or no, and push and shove their way to another team is absolutely pathetic. That in my opinion is where most of the problems lie in terms of the power clubs or the clubs at the top of the ladder attracting the better players who want to move.

 

[Testekill]

Its last disposal - like AFLW if you have ever watched a womens game. It doesnt work too badly - no kicking to touch effectively inside your own fifity.

It's ****ing dire is what it is