ThirtyThr33
All Australian
So what is the general consensus? Reduce the interchange cap further below 90 and/or limit the bench to 2 players? Personally I would rather this than to start having zones.
Dealing with congestion
- Thread starter cleomenes
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Wait and see what happens. Quite a few rules altered already this season
Garlic muncher
Cancelled
- Feb 3, 2016
- 4,480
- 3,258
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
What is stopping any coach from starting 15 players in defence at any point in time ?, whether you alter the interchange numbers.
The only way to stop congestion is for coaches to want to play a open free flowing style, to get them to agree and do so is not going to happen.
The only way to stop congestion is for coaches to want to play a open free flowing style, to get them to agree and do so is not going to happen.
DapperJong
Cancelled
30k Posts
10k Posts
SFA Good Friday Appeal
Spooderman Meme Medal
Pantskyle
BeanCoiNFT Investor
- Feb 11, 2015
- 42,844
- 82,918
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Juventus
I usually drink a lot of coffee and it clears me out
Those coaches are no longer AFL coaches
Furn2
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 27, 2012
- 9,475
- 15,515
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Without the ability to run end to end through interchange you wont kick any goals if you put all your players back. Its not like you can knick a goal on the break and win 1-0 like soccer. If you flood back without interchange you will keep the opposition to a low score but you will lose every game.
You need to change the rules so that positional player can compete with congested play. At the moment putting 3 or 4 players in the forward 50 doesn't work because teams can just outnumber at the ball and then get back to cover those players before the ball can get there. If you cant rest you cant sprint back and those players are going to have to be manned up or will kick easy goals.
The womens league has a lesser level of fitness - yet they have just as much congestion. Can it be accepted that those days will never return?
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
Fitzpatrick yesterday, at his farewell press conference, made the extraordinary confession he argued privately inside the Commission he wanted a maximum of about 30 interchange per team to reduce the curse of congestion-but he could'nt convince the majority of his view.
He was the Chairman, & one of the few on the Commission who actually had elite football playing experience!
It appears the AFL has successfull business people & professionals on it controlling the game, yet they don't have a practical knowledge of how best to play the game asthetically ; & for the players'safety ( The AFL commissioned an expert, Prof. Norton, who wrote a Report 3 years ago that congestion was causing more collisions & bumps, & therefore more injuries).
There needs to be intense public, media, & player scrutiny on why Fitzpatrick's (&, by extension, Prof. Norton's) views are not being implemented.
Although, one possible solution is to reduce the bench to two only, as it was for about 90 years -the AFLPA will probably resist this, as it means less jobs for players.
We have a very poor Commission, & the future is worrying.
The above assumes Fitzpatrick is right
- Jun 27, 2010
- 1,789
- 4,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Sturt
I'd go with that. The distinctive thing about AFL is 360 degrees, no knock-on, no offside, players can run anywhere. I don't mind tinkering with the rules to make it flow better, etc, but limiting player movements on the field is a pretty fundamental shift. And those advocates saying we already have a precedent with the centre square aren't convincing at all. That's just for the start or re-start - it doesn't go to how the game is played.
I'm happy to see interchanges reduced but the league has to convince the players and the AFLPA.
Is Netball and Basketball worth a look?
Very similar games but one has much more positional rules and has very technical umpiring. The other has a far bigger audience. Lesson to learn?
Very similar games but one has much more positional rules and has very technical umpiring. The other has a far bigger audience. Lesson to learn?
Garlic muncher
Cancelled
- Feb 3, 2016
- 4,480
- 3,258
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Reduce I/C will slow the game and should reduce injuries, causing fatigue should see players revert to more positional play and see footballers rather than athletes drafted.
You'll see better athletes drafted.
The game has evolved and now requires players to run further. Reducing the cap means coaches and recruiters will go for endurance athletes.
We honestly need to just leave the game alone. It's the one sport where numerous types can play. Look at hawthorn from 11-15, not exactly the fastest team ever, but lots of skilled players. The dogs last year and Geelong from 07-11 were very quick teams. This year will evolve again. Changing the rules will just ensure it teams find ways to exploit it
Aeglos
Cancelled
- Sep 27, 2016
- 3,580
- 2,743
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Riverpigs
And 2 less players
Only way you'll see more significantly cantle open games is reducing sides to a dozen each or making every ground in Australia bigger
I can't stand this talk of large scale rule changes. The 3rd man up and head high tackle changes were fine, they in my opinion make the game better. But wanting to make significant changes to deal with 'congestion' is stupid, can't we just let the game evolve organically?
Back to the future with 2 interchange players would help.
KB even said none ans just reserve players for injury emergencies.
Don't mind giving it a bash.
KissKiss
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2012
- 7,741
- 8,756
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I dont care about how many are actually on the bench just severely restrict the numbers of interchange. It keeps the game fundamentally the same yet brings the bench back as a tactical decision
- Jun 6, 2012
- 9,893
- 17,461
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Rampage
It's already dealt with
Now we are hearing reducing interchange numbers works toward the end of games and to a lesser extent quarters
Theory being the players with greater endurance then hold sway
So that's the current push. But wasn't it a few years ago the mantra was to avoid blow outs and have closer games?
Maybe what's fashionable is the issue
Theory being the players with greater endurance then hold sway
So that's the current push. But wasn't it a few years ago the mantra was to avoid blow outs and have closer games?
Maybe what's fashionable is the issue
Increasing interchange numbers have directly correlated to increasing congestion. It's not hard to work this one out. We don't need zones we just need interchange reduced to no more than 40 per game. Players will tire just a tad more and the quicker movements from contested plays with more kicking will require a reintroduction of positional play and one on one contests that we all love. You won't have the issue with prior opportunity or incorrect disposal because gang tackles and players locked up immediately they touch the ball will reduce proportionately.
The football of the late nineties and early 00's was a beautiful mix of skill, endurance and aggression. Interchange was below 40. Just sayin. The abuse of interchange has been the greatest threat to the game in its existence. The lack of differentiation between Soccer, the use of Soccer tactics and Basketball zones, has left us with an increasingly generic product. Ring a ring a rosie handballathons are just plain boring.
Maybe. But can the genie go back in the bottle?
Btw I heard people passionately say the same thing you are saying at games in season 2000
It seems to have arrived coincidentally with dock lands stadium
And my point is if games do open up as suggested. There will be big blow outs. And the same voices will again be bagging the crap out of the game for different reasons It's their function
Some stats that might prove the case. Lower interchange will lead to a more expansive game with longer kicking,fewer tackles and stoppages and less disposals. It is pointless to reduce the Interchange to 60 or 80. There will be a positive impact but coaches will adjust accordingly. We have to act as they did in the NRL when unlimited interchange nearly ruined the game. I think 40 would be sufficient to keep most of the speed of the current game but free it from the ugly congested crap that is the norm rather than the exception on a wet day.
Compare the era's. One congested one not.
KissKiss
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2012
- 7,741
- 8,756
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I also think that the game was still tactically evolving and adopting what works in other sports and that also contributed to the rise of congestion.
Personally I'd rather much reduce the interchange numbers and part of that is I don't actually think it adds much to the sport
Personally I'd rather much reduce the interchange numbers and part of that is I don't actually think it adds much to the sport
So if interchange gets reduced, and found not to work, can the cap be abandoned?
Just like The sub rule? which was a cap by back door methods, despite KB howling to the contrary
If the reduced cap fails, expect KB to state it was nothing to do with him
I still think we never had these problems before docklands replace waverley, a much bigger oval
Just like The sub rule? which was a cap by back door methods, despite KB howling to the contrary
If the reduced cap fails, expect KB to state it was nothing to do with him
I still think we never had these problems before docklands replace waverley, a much bigger oval
What about adding incentives. Four points for the win, an extra four points one for each quarter won. would shake up the predictability a the end of the season too
Similar threads
- Poll
