Dealing with congestion

[yebiga]

It's difficult but it's what the sport needs to answer: if the ball is In front of me and an opponent is so close that if I take possession I will be immediately tackled what are the rules? At the minute we are asking players who take possession and are tackled to make an effort and if the umpire judges the effort sufficient than its a ball up - insufficient a free - if the umpire thinks the possessor is only trying to hold up the game and the crowd yells loud enough who knows - the umpire will make a snap call either way and at least half the crowd is pissed

There is no other sport which asks umpires to determine intent. Umpires have enough on their plate to determine facts let alone whether someone was genuine - it is ridiculous and it is the central cause of our games problems

Thus the answer is simple either accept congestion or remove the prior opportunity rule and replace it with the onus of the player in possession to release the ball in a quick tackle by any means - fair or foul - call it knocked or stripped in the tackle call it what you want - or go hardcore and penalize the possessor for incorrect disposal

Either way - remove the adjudication of intent with judging facts and facts alone

Penalize the third man up

adjudicate the kick out of bounds as we do the kick from a behind consistently across the ground

This will still leave enough decisions adjudicating intent to have us argue for another 100 years but it will clarify the game enormously whilst drastically reducing congestion at its source

 

[RobbieGray17]

It is not just the holding the ball rule that is the problem though, high contact is now rife throughout a game without penalty and holding the man has been for years now without penalty. It has to be sorted out.

wouldn't a more free flowing game result in less stoppage time, more injuries, more fatigue because players will no longer get time to rest. You change the rules, it brings about new problems.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

wouldn't a more free flowing game result in less stoppage time, more injuries, more fatigue because players will no longer get time to rest. You change the rules, it brings about new problems.

I am not asking for the rules to be changed, I want the existing rules implemented without these interpretation sub rules. The game was fine for 100 years until we started changing the rules and adding interpretations to existing rules. We had good games, we had bad games. That is our sport. There is nothing ever going to be perfect.
You mention less stoppages, more fatigue, more injuries. There was one rule which everyone forgets to quickly which changed the game and created less rest for players. Kicking the ball back into play after a behind without having to wait for the umpires flags to be waived. That one rule change made the game faster than any other rule change, on the back of that interchanges went through the roof and it has spiralled out of control since then.
Change this rule back and then you can get your rest for players. Stoppages do not give players much rest.

 

[RobbieGray17]

I am not asking for the rules to be changed, I want the existing rules implemented without these interpretation sub rules. The game was fine for 100 years until we started changing the rules and adding interpretations to existing rules. We had good games, we had bad games. That is our sport. There is nothing ever going to be perfect.
You mention less stoppages, more fatigue, more injuries. There was one rule which everyone forgets to quickly which changed the game and created less rest for players. Kicking the ball back into play after a behind without having to wait for the umpires flags to be waived. That one rule change made the game faster than any other rule change, on the back of that interchanges went through the roof and it has spiralled out of control since then.
Change this rule back and then you can get your rest for players. Stoppages do not give players much rest.

you can't compare the game today to the game in 1915

 

[greatwhiteshark]

you can't compare the game today to the game in 1915

Didn't know I was? Where you get that from? I said that for 100 years the game was fine without need to constantly change rules or interpretations of the rules. What makes this particular era different to any other era? Why does this era feel the need to change everything? How come previous era's did not feel this need? The answer is that up to the mid 80's football people ran football, once you start letting suits run a sport you end up with what we have now.
No matter how we got here though rule changes are going to be a yearly thing and consistently change, this is because so many have been stuffed around with that you have to keep making adjustments on them all the time. And the other reason is to keep ex players in a job which is why we have a rules committee.

 

[yebiga]

When a game becomes fully professional you see the collective impact of professionals attempting to exploit every nuance of the game
The problems with the rules have alwYs been there
There have always been changes: oob on the full for example, centre square etc etc
There was never a golden time but the 1980s were as good as it's been

We have unique game
It's fast and exciting
There are a few areas which need to be addressed because of the frustration, confusion and the negative impact on the spectacle
Philosophically, I believe removing the need for umpires to intrepret intent is key to most if not all of our issues.
Umpires should determine facts
Aside from soccer s handball rule no other sport asks umpires or referees to judge intention and we ask our umpires to judge a whole list of rules about intent
Where ever this can be changed the better

Clarity is needed desperately

 

[yebiga]

Rewarding a tackle which pinned the ball would add clarity and excitement to the game - we would never look back
The unintended or intended consequence would be that very few such tackles would occur and the ball would ping around in a more unpredictable fashion

Coaches alwYs work towards predictability
As a spectacle predictability is a boring disaster

Kill the prior opportunity rule and the greatest game in the world will become an irresistible spectacle

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Rewarding a tackle which pinned the ball would add clarity and excitement to the game - we would never look back
The unintended or intended consequence would be that very few such tackles would occur and the ball would ping around in a more unpredictable fashion

Coaches alwYs work towards predictability
As a spectacle predictability is a boring disaster

Kill the prior opportunity rule and the greatest game in the world will become an irresistible spectacle

Kill prior opportunity and no one will want to get the ball. You have to be given a chance to dispose of the ball. If not then its a ball up.

 

[yebiga]

Kill prior opportunity and no one will want to get the ball. You have to be given a chance to dispose of the ball. If not then its a ball up.

Please please think this thru
Put your self in the shoes of a player when there is no prior opportunity
Did you hear clarkson last week - no prior and they will find a way to move the ball

Most suburban leagues the umpires routinely adjudicate no prior

The rule is an embarrassment to the code
There is nothing like it remotely in any other sport

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Please please think this thru
Put your self in the shoes of a player when there is no prior opportunity
Did you hear clarkson last week - no prior and they will find a way to move the ball

Most suburban leagues the umpires routinely adjudicate no prior

The rule is an embarrassment to the code
There is nothing like it remotely in any other sport

Our game is different from other sports. Now if you could throw the ball I would agree with you but we have to hand pass the ball which is different. And it also depends on how you look at the game, see I don't care if it is a good game or a bad game I just want my side to win. I don't want to get the ball and just have to handball without looking to open space, I want to handball it to my team mate, I don't want to give the opposition a half chance of getting the ball off my team.
The team with the ball make the play, the idea of being tackled without prior to just give it back to your opponent is silly, as soon as they have it they will then be tackled and so on and so on.
There is nothing wrong with ball ups in our sport, what is wrong is the interpretation of the rules of our sports and all the what if's attached to those rules. Just pay the free kicks as per the rules and as we saw on the weekend the games will move better.
I heard last night on 360 that Gerard and Robbo were debating what is the right number of free's to be paid. I just don't get that conversation, how on earth can you predetermine how many free kicks there can be in a game? If there is 30 then pay 30, if there is 70 then pay 70. That the AFL actually think like this is very concerning, you simply cannot predetermine anything and make a rule about it.

 

[yebiga]

Our game is different from other sports. Now if you could throw the ball I would agree with you but we have to hand pass the ball which is different. And it also depends on how you look at the game, see I don't care if it is a good game or a bad game I just want my side to win. I don't want to get the ball and just have to handball without looking to open space, I want to handball it to my team mate, I don't want to give the opposition a half chance of getting the ball off my team.
The team with the ball make the play, the idea of being tackled without prior to just give it back to your opponent is silly, as soon as they have it they will then be tackled and so on and so on.
There is nothing wrong with ball ups in our sport, what is wrong is the interpretation of the rules of our sports and all the what if's attached to those rules. Just pay the free kicks as per the rules and as we saw on the weekend the games will move better.
I heard last night on 360 that Gerard and Robbo were debating what is the right number of free's to be paid. I just don't get that conversation, how on earth can you predetermine how many free kicks there can be in a game? If there is 30 then pay 30, if there is 70 then pay 70. That the AFL actually think like this is very concerning, you simply cannot predetermine anything and make a rule about it.

Your post has problems on so many levels. If you only cAre about your team winning why bother contributing at all to a post about congestion and ascetics
Aside from repeated ball ups the next blight on the game is teams retaining possession for no purpose but to kill the game - by direct inference you post supports this retention

Like you support the rules being interpreted as they are - but display are poor understanding of what those rules actually are - which amounts to little more than a confession that the subject is beyond your ken

Right now the ball is routinely stripped or knocked on in a tAckle - no correct handball occurs - and there is no free kick
So to address tour first point - we do permit throwing in this game - if and when the umpire interprets it as knocked or stripped in the tackle

Of course one mans strip is another's throw - and there is the problem
We are asking officious people by nature to make artistic decisions - a recipe for endless frustration

And yes this game is unique but other contested sports have found ways to solve different and similar issues
None of those sports - none - have the continuous need for interpreting intent
It is quite frankly bizarre - ok for amateurs. But for a pro sport its unworkable and laughable on so many levels

The damage this does to our brand and its marketability is beyond measure.

It is the same with the deliberate out of bounds rule
No one goes to the game to see how umpires will interpret intention
A player with poor skill kicks it out of bounds and is forgiven for his error but someone who deliberately kicks the ball down the line is punished - it's bizarre

Similarly a player handballs to his teammate in a worse position is tackled correctly, causing a stoppage -

the same player doesn't handball takes 2 additional steps is tackled ball is trapped and it's a free kick against

And what exactly is sufficient prior?
There is no definition
Again we ask the officious to be artists and interpreters
We set everyone up for failure because it is simply not possible to adjudicate this game correctly given there is no definition of correctness - what constitutes prior opportunity

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Your post has problems on so many levels. If you only cAre about your team winning why bother contributing at all to a post about congestion and ascetics
Aside from repeated ball ups the next blight on the game is teams retaining possession for no purpose but to kill the game - by direct inference you post supports this retention

Like you support the rules being interpreted as they are - but display are poor understanding of what those rules actually are - which amounts to little more than a confession that the subject is beyond your ken

Right now the ball is routinely stripped or knocked on in a tAckle - no correct handball occurs - and there is no free kick
So to address tour first point - we do permit throwing in this game - if and when the umpire interprets it as knocked or stripped in the tackle

Of course one mans strip is another's throw - and there is the problem
We are asking officious people by nature to make artistic decisions - a recipe for endless frustration

And yes this game is unique but other contested sports have found ways to solve different and similar issues
None of those sports - none - have the continuous need for interpreting intent
It is quite frankly bizarre - ok for amateurs. But for a pro sport its unworkable and laughable on so many levels

The damage this does to our brand and its marketability is beyond measure.

It is the same with the deliberate out of bounds rule
No one goes to the game to see how umpires will interpret intention
A player with poor skill kicks it out of bounds and is forgiven for his error but someone who deliberately kicks the ball down the line is punished - it's bizarre

Similarly a player handballs to his teammate in a worse position is tackled correctly, causing a stoppage -

the same player doesn't handball takes 2 additional steps is tackled ball is trapped and it's a free kick against

And what exactly is sufficient prior?
There is no definition
Again we ask the officious to be artists and interpreters
We set everyone up for failure because it is simply not possible to adjudicate this game correctly given there is no definition of correctness - what constitutes prior opportunity

Ok so let me get this clear, you would rather the game look nice than your team win?
If you go back through my posts I have been very consistent in regards to how I think the game should be umpired. The rules need to go back to being Black and white as they were from the time the game first was played until approx late 1980's to early 1990's. Umpires still made some mistakes but they always will no matter which way you do it but the rules were clear and they were adjudicated as they were written.
There was no rules with what if's attached to them, there was no sub clauses to the rules. Everyone knew the rules, the coaches, the spectators, the players. They didn't change weekly and certainly didn't change yearly.

You mentioned the deliberate out of bounds rule, it is a stupid rule when you advance the ball in your own sides direction and can be penalised for it. If I am under pressure on the HBF and have no options then I should be able to kick the ball down the line 30-40m with the hope it goes over the line and we get a throw in. Why should I have to bring the ball back into an attacking position for my opponent? Just to make you and half the crowd happy? The AFL and even you may want to see this but it is against every instinct how as player or a coach thinks or will ever think.

As for your tackling point, a ball that is stripped or knocked out of a players hand is not incorrect disposal it is play on. Actually throwing the ball though is incorrect disposal. The league in their wisdom have let this happen a lot because the little throw kept moving. But that is an infringement and a free kick should be paid every time.

What about head high tackles? Since the Lindsey thomas rule was introduced some 8 or so weeks ago we now have a huge amount of high contact occurring in games and no free kicks for it. The bloke bending down to pick up the ball is consistently infringed on yet no free kick, he doesn't even get one step to stand up. Under 1% of the players of the league were dropping their knees or leading with their head yet again the AFL decided to change the interpretation for the 1% instead of the 99% who do it right.

This is how our rules should be.
1) Any Head high contact will result in a free kick.

This is how it is
1) Any head high contact will result in a free kick
Sub Rule A) Unless player with ball has not dropped their knees
Sub Rule B) Unless player with the ball has not lead with their head.
Sub Rule C) Unless Player with the ball does not duck his head.
Sub Rule D) If player bending over to pick up ball is taken high that is legal.
Sub Rule E) Accidental head high contact is ok unless player is injured.

And so on and so on with every rule.

If you just paid every head high contact no matter how it occurred then the coaches will adjust and direct their players to make the adjustments, the only sub rule I would have for head high contact is ducking your head.

I feel for the umps as it is confusing and to hard for them, we saw on the weekend by paying the free kicks the game will open up. Ignoring them and yelling out play on creates stoppages.

people keep saying if we paid every free kick there would be 100 free kicks a game, initially there might be but you can't honestly think coaches are stupid, they would direct their players and sort it out very quickly and the infringements would not happen. The coaches and players have gotten away for so long now breaking the laws without penalty that it would be a major change for them and for us the spectator.
But in my view be it Aussie Rules, Cricket, Rugby, tennis etc etc the rules of the sport must be administered by the umpires without exception.

 

[yebiga]

Ok so let me get this clear, you would rather the game look nice than your team win?
If you go back through my posts I have been very consistent in regards to how I think the game should be umpired. The rules need to go back to being Black and white as they were from the time the game first was played until approx late 1980's to early 1990's. Umpires still made some mistakes but they always will no matter which way you do it but the rules were clear and they were adjudicated as they were written.
There was no rules with what if's attached to them, there was no sub clauses to the rules. Everyone knew the rules, the coaches, the spectators, the players. They didn't change weekly and certainly didn't change yearly.

You mentioned the deliberate out of bounds rule, it is a stupid rule when you advance the ball in your own sides direction and can be penalised for it. If I am under pressure on the HBF and have no options then I should be able to kick the ball down the line 30-40m with the hope it goes over the line and we get a throw in. Why should I have to bring the ball back into an attacking position for my opponent? Just to make you and half the crowd happy? The AFL and even you may want to see this but it is against every instinct how as player or a coach thinks or will ever think.

As for your tackling point, a ball that is stripped or knocked out of a players hand is not incorrect disposal it is play on. Actually throwing the ball though is incorrect disposal. The league in their wisdom have let this happen a lot because the little throw kept moving. But that is an infringement and a free kick should be paid every time.

What about head high tackles? Since the Lindsey thomas rule was introduced some 8 or so weeks ago we now have a huge amount of high contact occurring in games and no free kicks for it. The bloke bending down to pick up the ball is consistently infringed on yet no free kick, he doesn't even get one step to stand up. Under 1% of the players of the league were dropping their knees or leading with their head yet again the AFL decided to change the interpretation for the 1% instead of the 99% who do it right.

This is how our rules should be.
1) Any Head high contact will result in a free kick.

This is how it is
1) Any head high contact will result in a free kick
Sub Rule A) Unless player with ball has not dropped their knees
Sub Rule B) Unless player with the ball has not lead with their head.
Sub Rule C) Unless Player with the ball does not duck his head.
Sub Rule D) If player bending over to pick up ball is taken high that is legal.
Sub Rule E) Accidental head high contact is ok unless player is injured.

And so on and so on with every rule.

If you just paid every head high contact no matter how it occurred then the coaches will adjust and direct their players to make the adjustments, the only sub rule I would have for head high contact is ducking your head.

I feel for the umps as it is confusing and to hard for them, we saw on the weekend by paying the free kicks the game will open up. Ignoring them and yelling out play on creates stoppages.

people keep saying if we paid every free kick there would be 100 free kicks a game, initially there might be but you can't honestly think coaches are stupid, they would direct their players and sort it out very quickly and the infringements would not happen. The coaches and players have gotten away for so long now breaking the laws without penalty that it would be a major change for them and for us the spectator.
But in my view be it Aussie Rules, Cricket, Rugby, tennis etc etc the rules of the sport must be administered by the umpires without exception.

Having a half dozen exceptions to a rule requiring interpretation and instant decision mAking is no rule at all
It's a vibe
And that is what we ask our umpires to do - Create the right vibe

There was never a time it was clear
The cracks just weren't exploited

And I don't care whether out of bounds can be deliberate or not
I just ask that intent is not considered just the facts

 

[FlowersByIrene]

The game needs to be fixed that is for certain.
Zones are definitely not the answer. If that happens, i will permanently shift to Basketball or some other sport to avoid the cancer that is zones.

A few things must change.

1. Sub Rule must go - this isnt to reduce congestion, its merely a blight on our game.
2. Holding the ball should be implemented properly. Its very simple.
Holding the Ball
1) If a player is tackled after having prior oportunity to dispose of the football legally he is deemed to be holding the ball.
2) If a player is tackled without prior opportunity and cannot dispose of the football it is a ball up
3) If a player is tackled after having prior oportunity to dispose of the ball and does not dispose of the ball legally but the ball spills free by
a) the tackler knocking the ball lose directly with their hands contacting the ball or stripping the ball from the player it will be deemed play on, or;
b) during the tackled the ball is knocked free, dropped or otherwise incorrecrly disposed of it will be deemed holding the ball and a free kick will be awarded.

Those two are certainties.

Other possibilities are

1. Reducing interchanges. Someone said earlier there were 30 subs in the 2004 grandfinal. It amazes me that is possible and we clearly need to bite the bullet and drastically reduce substitutions.

2. Rewarding the mark more. This may either be accomplished by a) paying more free kicks for chopping of the arms, in the back etc or conversely b) paying less free kicks for in the back, bodying your oponent etc. We need to chose a direction and go with it.

3. Paying 15m or 25m penalties.
Quick little penalities that arent as harsh as 50m penalties but push the game forward and get the teams to spread out. They should be paid for instances where a free kick occurs on top of earning the footy yourself. So getting your arms chopped or pushed in the back but still taking the mark would be a 15 or 25m penalty. Getting the kick away whilst being tackled high - penalty. Getting dumped after you kick it - penalty.

Get rid of the 50m penalty or save it for serious offences.

4. Pay more deliberate out of bounds.

5. If you are tackled over the boundary line and would normally be found holding the ball if the same scenario happened in the middle of the ground - pay holding the ball.

 

[yebiga]

The game needs to be fixed that is for certain.
Zones are definitely not the answer. If that happens, i will permanently shift to Basketball or some other sport to avoid the cancer that is zones.

A few things must change.

1. Sub Rule must go - this isnt to reduce congestion, its merely a blight on our game.
2. Holding the ball should be implemented properly. Its very simple.
Holding the Ball
1) If a player is tackled after having prior oportunity to dispose of the football legally he is deemed to be holding the ball.
2) If a player is tackled without prior opportunity and cannot dispose of the football it is a ball up
3) If a player is tackled after having prior oportunity to dispose of the ball and does not dispose of the ball legally but the ball spills free by
a) the tackler knocking the ball lose directly with their hands contacting the ball or stripping the ball from the player it will be deemed play on, or;
b) during the tackled the ball is knocked free, dropped or otherwise incorrecrly disposed of it will be deemed holding the ball and a free kick will be awarded.

Those two are certainties.

Other possibilities are

1. Reducing interchanges. Someone said earlier there were 30 subs in the 2004 grandfinal. It amazes me that is possible and we clearly need to bite the bullet and drastically reduce substitutions.

2. Rewarding the mark more. This may either be accomplished by a) paying more free kicks for chopping of the arms, in the back etc or conversely b) paying less free kicks for in the back, bodying your oponent etc. We need to chose a direction and go with it.

3. Paying 15m or 25m penalties.
Quick little penalities that arent as harsh as 50m penalties but push the game forward and get the teams to spread out. They should be paid for instances where a free kick occurs on top of earning the footy yourself. So getting your arms chopped or pushed in the back but still taking the mark would be a 15 or 25m penalty. Getting the kick away whilst being tackled high - penalty. Getting dumped after you kick it - penalty.

Get rid of the 50m penalty or save it for serious offences.

4. Pay more deliberate out of bounds.

5. If you are tackled over the boundary line and would normally be found holding the ball if the same scenario happened in the middle of the ground - pay holding the ball.

What is prior opportunity?
A step, 3 steps , 6 steps, a second, 3 seconds ...if you saw it coming, didn't , couldn't - what if your team mate handballs you in trouble?

 

[Skoob]

Please please think this thru
Put your self in the shoes of a player when there is no prior opportunity
Did you hear clarkson last week - no prior and they will find a way to move the ball

Most suburban leagues the umpires routinely adjudicate no prior

The rule is an embarrassment to the code
There is nothing like it remotely in any other sport

Clarkson didn't go as far as to say that at all. What he said was that umpires need to give it more consideration to reward the tackler as well as the player getting the ball.

Your post has problems on so many levels. If you only cAre about your team winning why bother contributing at all to a post about congestion and ascetics
Aside from repeated ball ups the next blight on the game is teams retaining possession for no purpose but to kill the game - by direct inference you post supports this retention
Like you support the rules being interpreted as they are - but display are poor understanding of what those rules actually are - which amounts to little more than a confession that the subject is beyond your ken
<SNIP>

greatwhiteshark didn't say that either.

There is nothing wrong with ball ups in our sport, what is wrong is the interpretation of the rules of our sports and all the what if's attached to those rules. Just pay the free kicks as per the rules and as we saw on the weekend the games will move better.
I heard last night on 360 that Gerard and Robbo were debating what is the right number of free's to be paid. I just don't get that conversation, how on earth can you predetermine how many free kicks there can be in a game? If there is 30 then pay 30, if there is 70 then pay 70. That the AFL actually think like this is very concerning, you simply cannot predetermine anything and make a rule about it.

You can't twist things to suit your argument like that.

Clarkson was pretty spot on, and mostly aligns with what GreatWhite has been saying. The rules are fine; It is interpretation that needs to be tidied up. This includes prior opportunity. Players are to be encouraged to get the ball. That means pick it up, otherwise we may as well play soccer.

What is prior opportunity? Well that has to just come down to common sense. Could the player have disposed of the ball between taking possession and being tackled? Yes, then he's deemed to have had prior. No, then he has to try to get rid of it or risk being penalised. The rules are there, they just aren't being applied properly.
You can't ping a bloke for catching the ball and being crunched in a tackle immediately with the ball held to him. If they're on the ground and drag it in, that's another matter, and is dealt with by the rules as well. Again, just not policed properly.

 

[Skoob]

The game needs to be fixed that is for certain.
Zones are definitely not the answer. If that happens, i will permanently shift to Basketball or some other sport to avoid the cancer that is zones.

A few things must change.

1. Sub Rule must go - this isnt to reduce congestion, its merely a blight on our game.
2. Holding the ball should be implemented properly. Its very simple.
Holding the Ball
1) If a player is tackled after having prior oportunity to dispose of the football legally he is deemed to be holding the ball.
2) If a player is tackled without prior opportunity and cannot dispose of the football it is a ball up
3) If a player is tackled after having prior oportunity to dispose of the ball and does not dispose of the ball legally but the ball spills free by
a) the tackler knocking the ball lose directly with their hands contacting the ball or stripping the ball from the player it will be deemed play on, or;
b) during the tackled the ball is knocked free, dropped or otherwise incorrecrly disposed of it will be deemed holding the ball and a free kick will be awarded.

Those two are certainties.

Other possibilities are

1. Reducing interchanges. Someone said earlier there were 30 subs in the 2004 grandfinal. It amazes me that is possible and we clearly need to bite the bullet and drastically reduce substitutions.

2. Rewarding the mark more. This may either be accomplished by a) paying more free kicks for chopping of the arms, in the back etc or conversely b) paying less free kicks for in the back, bodying your oponent etc. We need to chose a direction and go with it.

3. Paying 15m or 25m penalties.
Quick little penalities that arent as harsh as 50m penalties but push the game forward and get the teams to spread out. They should be paid for instances where a free kick occurs on top of earning the footy yourself. So getting your arms chopped or pushed in the back but still taking the mark would be a 15 or 25m penalty. Getting the kick away whilst being tackled high - penalty. Getting dumped after you kick it - penalty.

Get rid of the 50m penalty or save it for serious offences.

4. Pay more deliberate out of bounds.

5. If you are tackled over the boundary line and would normally be found holding the ball if the same scenario happened in the middle of the ground - pay holding the ball.

I'm a big fan of number 5, you've got there.

 

[Pessimistic]

Tonight fox had a round table on the issues, I found a couple of things perplexing

1. We have borrowed tactics form other games (healey kept on abour posession game like it was the devil incarnate) which are ruining our game and will eventually drive kids to these other games ? I dont get it. Kids are intersted in other sports because of the cult of personality. A few years ago it was the top basketballers, now it seems to be soccer players

2. there was a willingness to debate all kinds of changes, but actually reducing the numbers on the field got no acknowlegdement, yet they were happy to scare monger and say radical changes are needed

 

[the PILL]

I keep throwing my hands up in the air asking why did the implemented sensitive holding the ball at the beginning of the season get phased out as it seemed to work quite well...

Then I hear Clarko pretty much hand them a Blueprint to fix the problem only for his comments to basicly be forgotten...It's mind blowing as I believe all along that Bomber Thompson and Alistair Clarkson were the Kryptonite to Roos/Lyons make a spud useful brand...

Good points in here and do like a few of the ideas, No. 5 mentioned before should be trialed at least...

One thing I dread is that they (powers that be) seem hell bent that more rules need to be implemented rather than listen to some like Clarko who has everything bucked already...

Have you seen Hawthorns attack lately???

Bring in the Supergoal I say...

 

[Pessimistic]

King was so aggressive towards malthouse, both sounded like the think their s**t doesnt stink, but where are kings credentials ? The was run, forrest run when he played

And anderson seemed hell bent on defending his legacy, defending the sub rules effect etc

Malty just said 'why are we here then' Ouch

 

[dogsfan]

1. Get rid of sub rule an absolute joke for a fit player to only play for 30 mins or less with rotations

2. Cap rotations to 15 per quarter

3. Get rid of prior opportunity rule

We want to see players with the ball take on tacklers and bring excitement back to our game and the prior opportunity rule doesn't encourage this.
If players dispose the ball correctly while being tackled then it can't be holding or dropping the ball regardless of how long they have possession and so if they cannot dispose the ball correctly or at all then it's simply a free against.

This way it's not left up to umpires inconsistent interpretations of the rules that create ball up stoppages frustrating the hell out of viewers.

If two or more players have locked possession of the ball then and only then it's a ball up.

Players and coaches will adapt and the game will be better for it.

 

[yebiga]

Clarkson didn't go as far as to say that at all. What he said was that umpires need to give it more consideration to reward the tackler as well as the player getting the ball.

greatwhiteshark didn't say that either.


You can't twist things to suit your argument like that.

Clarkson was pretty spot on, and mostly aligns with what GreatWhite has been saying. The rules are fine; It is interpretation that needs to be tidied up. This includes prior opportunity. Players are to be encouraged to get the ball. That means pick it up, otherwise we may as well play soccer.

What is prior opportunity? Well that has to just come down to common sense. Could the player have disposed of the ball between taking possession and being tackled? Yes, then he's deemed to have had prior. No, then he has to try to get rid of it or risk being penalised. The rules are there, they just aren't being applied properly.
You can't ping a bloke for catching the ball and being crunched in a tackle immediately with the ball held to him. If they're on the ground and drag it in, that's another matter, and is dealt with by the rules as well. Again, just not policed properly.

You should re watch it
He said what he thought early and then avoided controversy when Gerard asked - "so you would remove prior opportunity?"

Judging opportunity is impossible
When a player is looking to handball instantly many of them move it so quickly it beggars belief
Itis when they don't see an immediate option that they get caught
So in truth it is a player who has no clear immediate option which the current rules protect - until they don't
To umpire intent requires a whole different umpire selection process
You need umpires with a real feel for the game not prefects not sticklers for rules
Thus we set up our umpires to fail
If we remove value judgements
I.e an unrealistic attempt at marking - a player who places his knees into his opponents back when go for a mark needs to at least touch the ball

Without clarity we will remain frustrated

 

[Freoforever86]

Zones would be horrible.

Good bye running goals of the year (Jetta/Ballantyne/Franklin/Harvey's as examples)

 

[PurpleHill]

Zones would be horrible.

Good bye running goals of the year (Jetta/Ballantyne/Franklin/Harvey's as examples)

I don't think people are actually proposing Auskick style zones, I think it's more about the starting position of the players at stoppages

 

[chrisdon16]

Meh, last two flags won by attacking side playing free flowing footy. Just let Hawthorn win a couple more flags and the comp will get over this defensive footy.

Not all teams have a list like the hawks, hence why coaches congest and flood to try and stop them.