Analysis Congestion Rule Changes - A general discussion

[VogonProsthetnic]

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.

Under the old system Gold Coast would be over- compensated for losing Lynch. Under FA, there is no chance they get adequate compensation. The club who gets him gives up nothing.... Except salary space. If there is a fair way to have free agency I would love to see it.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Whatever they change/introduce there will be the usual unintended consequences, that will make things even worse, not better. Coaches and players will deal with them in unexpected ways, because they are not interested in the "look" of the game, all they want is to win.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

While I'm at it. We need to stop treating the umps like celebrities. Get rid of the mikes ( who cares what they are saying to the players) get rid of the numbers and make them wear white.

Maybe then we can stop them show ponying around like they are the most important people out there.

 

[maddog37]

Under the old system Gold Coast would be over- compensated for losing Lynch. Under FA, there is no chance they get adequate compensation. The club who gets him gives up nothing.... Except salary space. If there is a fair way to have free agency I would love to see it.

Surely they could have an algorithm that takes into account a squillion different factors like age and games played and injuries average and supercoach scores and player ratings and positional importance and wage scale etc and then spit out a compo pick.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

Surely they could have an algorithm that takes into account a squillion different factors like age and games played and injuries average and supercoach scores and player ratings and positional importance and wage scale etc and then spit out a compo pick.

Wasn't that how someone decided that Scully was worth 2 Callan Wards.


Or they could ask clubs to sit down and agree to a trade. How radical.

 

[ossie_21]

Good points made about the interchange cap. I’ve been against it all along, but a further reduction would mean even worse skills - this is surely the biggest issue with the game! Nobody enjoys watching games with limited flow because disposals are constantly missing targets.

Scrap the ruck nomination rule.
4 umpires I think will be good, how many times does the ump end up on the wrong side to see what’s happened/happening in the contest?
Remove interchange cap, or at very least leave it as it is.

Zones are probably just too hard to adjudicate, although the minimum 1 player from each team inside each 50 is a good idea that was mentioned

 

[Mattdougie]

While I'm at it. We need to stop treating the umps like celebrities. Get rid of the mikes ( who cares what they are saying to the players) get rid of the numbers and make them wear white.

Maybe then we can stop them show ponying around like they are the most important people out there.

Blaming umps is an discourse that equates to winning and losing

In 2016 no one in here would have said a single word against the umps when we were seen as their pets and the stats were in our favour.

Now we are losing some(and I’m not specifying you) direct their blame to the umps.

Every home town crowd gets a small advantage but the umps have been irrelevant to any of our results this year and are no better or worse than previous years.

I agree some try to make themselves central to the game but most are doing an adequate job and not effecting games directly

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

Blaming umps is an discourse that equates to winning and losing

In 2016 no one in here would have said a single word against the umps when we were seen as their pets and the stats were in our favour.

Now we are losing some(and I’m not specifying you) direct their blame to the umps.

Every home town crowd gets a small advantage but the umps have been irrelevant to any of our results this year and are no better or worse than previous years.

I agree some try to make themselves central to the game but most are doing an adequate job and not effecting games directly

Whether our team is performing or
not is not really the point here.

Actually not blaming the ump’s at all. They operate under the system they have been given. To get recognised they need to become popular so they umpire accordingly.

It’s channel 7 and the AFL who are trying to turn them into celebs. In how many sports do you hear them talking to the players on a first name basis?

Have a listen every time BT gushes over Razor Ray.

 

[Fossie 32]

I can't see the problem with last possession out of bounds = free

16 a side sounds good to me

Maybe reward marks by moving the man on the mark back 10 metres

 

[dogsfan]

I'd start with the Clarko and Buckley idea to get rid of the prior opportunity rule.

This is by far the easiest way to improve the game without radical changes like zones or interchange caps.

If the umpires pay incorrect disposal and the players know this they will instinctivley move the ball on at all costs encouraging teams to spread and run rather than crowd around the contest knowing the umpire will just ball it up and create a stoppage when players hold onto the ball.

Its already applied to ruck contests so why not for the rest of the players?

Players will have to run more and so there will be no need to alter the interchange rotations.

The ruck nomination rule is farcical just penalise the second player up from the same team.

 

[BEaston]

I'd start with the Clarko and Buckley idea to get rid of the prior opportunity rule.

This is by far the easiest way to improve the game without radical changes like zones or interchange caps.

If the umpires pay incorrect disposal and the players know this they will instinctivley move the ball on at all costs encouraging teams to spread and run rather than crowd around the contest knowing the umpire will just ball it up and create a stoppage when players hold onto the ball.

Its already applied to ruck contests so why not for the rest of the players?

Players will have to run more and so there will be no need to alter the interchange rotations.

The ruck nomination rule is farcical just penalise the second player up from the same team.

I don't think they said to get rid of the prior opportunity rule did they? That would be farcial... paying HTB against players tackled as soon as they get it. It would just penalise players actually going for the ball and result in players waiting for the opposition to take possession and that's not what we want to see at all.
Rather, I think they were advocating to tighten up the incorrect disposal definitions. According to the rules the player with the ball must dispose it correctly immediately once tackled (assuming prior). This is not enforced at all currently. Different players get different definitions of immediately (stars like GAJ/Dusty get a lot longer than most, for example). Think back to the tackle on Dahl in the 16 prelim that led to Caleb's goal. This should be the definition of immediate.
The other thing is the inconsistent "knocked out in the tackle" rule. This needs to be simplified back to: did the player dispose of it correctly (assuming prior), yes or no? Then pay a free kick as appropriate.

But overall, yes I agree with you completely. Tighten up the HTB adjudications and get rid of the 3rd man up nominations and it would quicken up and expand the congestion significantly without altering too much of the tradition of the game.

 

[dogsfan]

I don't think they said to get rid of the prior opportunity rule did they? That would be farcial... paying HTB against players tackled as soon as they get it. It would just penalise players actually going for the ball and result in players waiting for the opposition to take possession and that's not what we want to see at all.
Rather, I think they were advocating to tighten up the incorrect disposal definitions. According to the rules the player with the ball must dispose it correctly immediately once tackled (assuming prior). This is not enforced at all currently. Different players get different definitions of immediately (stars like GAJ/Dusty get a lot longer than most, for example). Think back to the tackle on Dahl in the 16 prelim that led to Caleb's goal. This should be the definition of immediate.
The other thing is the inconsistent "knocked out in the tackle" rule. This needs to be simplified back to: did the player dispose of it correctly (assuming prior), yes or no? Then pay a free kick as appropriate.

But overall, yes I agree with you completely. Tighten up the HTB adjudications and get rid of the 3rd man up nominations and it would quicken up and expand the congestion significantly without altering too much of the tradition of the game.

I'm pretty sure at least Buckley wanted to get rid of prior opportunity rule altogether.
I dont think it would be as farcical as there was no rule years ago and to be honest I don't know why they brought it in.
If you really think about it, if players knew there was no prior opportunity they would legitimately take the tackler on and not hold the ball in as they do now knowing they won't be penalised.
If players take possession of the ball and can see they're about to be tackled they still have the option to use their brains and skills and either get a quick kick or handball out or even punch or tap it on to their teams advantage. The key is that the umpire must pay incorrect disposal regardless of prior.
This also takes away the inconsistent and differing umpire interpretations of what is actually prior or not.

Works beautifully in the ruck as ruckmen still grab the ball out of the ruck but must dispose of it immediately.