Ending congestion

Remove this Banner Ad

hawkman

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 7, 2007
20,094
23,307
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur
Clarko has called it post North Melbourne match. 69 tackles for the Hawks without a single holding the ball decision (Simpkin was penalised once, but that was for a throw). He has called on the umpires to improve the state of the game and just pay holding the ball whenever a player is caught in possession.
There are also many illegal tackles that don't get penalised.

I'm close to getting into the camp of 16 per side now
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Consolaçao

All Australian
May 22, 2007
714
459
Melbourne Town
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Phnom Penh Utd (curling)
Should be one interchange allowed every player beyond forced concussion ones. If you benched a second time from field for any other reason, the second time you cannot come back on. Make it closer to old school. It would basically mean less than 30 anyway except for can make as many changes as you like during quarter breaks and half time naturally.
Agree, but I'd go further. In my view, the primary function of interchange should be to replace injured players, like it is rugby league, rugby union and soccer. Make it a maximum of four per game. Players will be more fatigued and that's great... watch defensive structures fall apart, see loose men created, watch congestion around the ball reduce, bring back the 'attritional' element that is a part of football at its best.
In a game without interchange, is it possible that we might have forwards actually not pushing up to the defensive 50 so as to conserve energy? In any event, we'll surely have fewer willing and able to be involved in a given contest.
The other benefit would be to eliminate this ridiculous and unfair situation where a team loses a player to injury early, and is forced to play the rest of the game 'down a rotation.
 

shaqsuns

Club Legend
Jun 13, 2011
1,251
1,083
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Cleveland Cavaliers
Agree, but I'd go further. In my view, the primary function of interchange should be to replace injured players, like it is rugby league, rugby union and soccer. Make it a maximum of four per game. Players will be more fatigued and that's great... watch defensive structures fall apart, see loose men created, watch congestion around the ball reduce, bring back the 'attritional' element that is a part of football at its best.
In a game without interchange, is it possible that we might have forwards actually not pushing up to the defensive 50 so as to conserve energy? In any event, we'll surely have fewer willing and able to be involved in a given contest.
The other benefit would be to eliminate this ridiculous and unfair situation where a team loses a player to injury early, and is forced to play the rest of the game 'down a rotation.
Stop talking sense!!! that s*** is not welcome here on big footy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

big_e

Premium Platinum
Apr 28, 2008
7,059
20,215
The Championship
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers
Agree, but I'd go further. In my view, the primary function of interchange should be to replace injured players, like it is rugby league, rugby union and soccer. Make it a maximum of four per game. Players will be more fatigued and that's great... watch defensive structures fall apart, see loose men created, watch congestion around the ball reduce, bring back the 'attritional' element that is a part of football at its best.
In a game without interchange, is it possible that we might have forwards actually not pushing up to the defensive 50 so as to conserve energy? In any event, we'll surely have fewer willing and able to be involved in a given contest.
The other benefit would be to eliminate this ridiculous and unfair situation where a team loses a player to injury early, and is forced to play the rest of the game 'down a rotation.
You don't think coaches will spend more time making their players fitter?
 

Ausbenito

Team Captain
Sep 12, 2013
406
193
AFL Club
Fremantle
What a joke Clarkson blaming the umpires for the coaches destroying the game Hawthorn have been becoming more and more unwatchable each season to get to that point last night and he blames the umpires bahaha.
When is a journalist going to ask a coach after a game at a press conference what was that you served up for viewers tonight? Do you feel any sort of accountability for keeping viewers watching?
Please no one listen to coaches in the debate they are the last people to ask IMO time to go for 16 a side zones less interchange the lot try it we have nothing to lose.
Ignore the moaners and sooks about rule changes they have been happening the whole history of the game no big deal.
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,896
10,609
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Stop talking sense!!! that s*** is not welcome here on big footy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Personally, I'd simplify it.

Interchange was introduced to give a player a rest, and to allow injured players to get treatment and then come back on.

Not as a tactical weapon.


In my opinion, each player should be allowed 1 rest per half.

Not all of them will need it, and they don't have to be used.

But it facilitates treatment for an injured player, and allows midfielders a breather if they need it.

It will reduce the over-coaching to some degree, and will mean good players stay on the ground more.

And, it's not a rule change.
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
78,923
36,031
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
What a joke Clarkson blaming the umpires for the coaches destroying the game Hawthorn have been becoming more and more unwatchable each season to get to that point last night and he blames the umpires bahaha.
When is a journalist going to ask a coach after a game at a press conference what was that you served up for viewers tonight? Do you feel any sort of accountability for keeping viewers watching?
Please no one listen to coaches in the debate they are the last people to ask IMO time to go for 16 a side zones less interchange the lot try it we have nothing to lose.
Ignore the moaners and sooks about rule changes they have been happening the whole history of the game no big deal.
;) :cool: Clarko started to get annoyed when the game did open up
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
78,923
36,031
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Whatever is done. There was plenty of effort spent on trialling changes in 2018, but the process was not great, and now we are worse off than ever. That process needs to be improved drastically.

Call me cynical but the testing budget v the PR budget in that process was 20-80 or worse

Get that right first
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Sep 22, 2011
35,209
71,574
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
Just stop the stoppages. That’s what’s changed the game.

Coaches delight in forcing them. They love them. It gives them structure to set up their defence and slow the game.

The thing about our game is it. has. to. keep. moving.

The prior opportunity interpretation is the problem. Bin it.

If you’re caught with the ball, get rid of it. Keep the game moving.

You can’t just dive on the ball and wait for 5 opponents and teammates to dive on top of you.

If you don’t get rid of it, it’s a free kick to the other team.

If it’s an illegal tackle, you get a free kick.

Stop the stoppages.

The game has to move.
 

workhorse

Premiership Player
Nov 13, 2006
4,132
2,978
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Boston Celtics
Coaches want to control everything. A stoppage means they can set up around the ball and behind the play. Winning possession means they can retain possession (ie not get scored against). Playing on and taking risks means you could be scored against, therefore "not good". It's garbage. The AFL can fluff around playing around the edges in changing rules but it will do nothing to change the coaches' attitude towards winning - or, in reality, not-losing.

I've become of the firm view in the past two years that there's two changes that could, I say could, result in an approved spectacle:
- Zones. People will groan but unfortunately it's the truth. It'll take away the coaches' ability to control where every player is on the ground and will spread the players out. It would be as simple as this - when the ball is between the arcs, each team must have min. 3 people inside each 50, and when the ball is in either teams 50, each team must have min. 1 person inside the other 50 and a further min. 2 people behind centre (ie 2 people between centre and 50 and 1 inside 50, each). Because at least one, sometimes two, players will now be at least two kicks from goal, the rest of the field will need to invariably spread, even just a minor amount.
- Additional premiership points for scoring 100+. Self-explanatory really. You give yourself a much better chance of finals or top-4 if you gain an additional 1 or 2 premiership points for scoring 100+, hopefully encouraging coaches to develop attacking game plans.

16 a side is one that could also potentially help but I think teams will still set up around the ball and down the line as they do now, and the additional space created by less players will be away from where the ball is, anyway.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
4,778
8,017
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Agree, but I'd go further. In my view, the primary function of interchange should be to replace injured players, like it is rugby league, rugby union and soccer. Make it a maximum of four per game. Players will be more fatigued and that's great... watch defensive structures fall apart, see loose men created, watch congestion around the ball reduce, bring back the 'attritional' element that is a part of football at its best.
In a game without interchange, is it possible that we might have forwards actually not pushing up to the defensive 50 so as to conserve energy? In any event, we'll surely have fewer willing and able to be involved in a given contest.
The other benefit would be to eliminate this ridiculous and unfair situation where a team loses a player to injury early, and is forced to play the rest of the game 'down a rotation.
But don't fatigued players make more mistakes, ie, worse football? Fatiguing players isn't the answer. For once I agree with Clarkson, who btw seems to have changed his tune from a few weeks ago when he (reportedly in BigFooty) called for 16 a side.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
4,778
8,017
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Coaches want to control everything. A stoppage means they can set up around the ball and behind the play. Winning possession means they can retain possession (ie not get scored against). Playing on and taking risks means you could be scored against, therefore "not good". It's garbage. The AFL can fluff around playing around the edges in changing rules but it will do nothing to change the coaches' attitude towards winning - or, in reality, not-losing.

I've become of the firm view in the past two years that there's two changes that could, I say could, result in an approved spectacle:
- Zones. People will groan but unfortunately it's the truth. It'll take away the coaches' ability to control where every player is on the ground and will spread the players out. It would be as simple as this - when the ball is between the arcs, each team must have min. 3 people inside each 50, and when the ball is in either teams 50, each team must have min. 1 person inside the other 50 and a further min. 2 people behind centre (ie 2 people between centre and 50 and 1 inside 50, each). Because at least one, sometimes two, players will now be at least two kicks from goal, the rest of the field will need to invariably spread, even just a minor amount.
- Additional premiership points for scoring 100+. Self-explanatory really. You give yourself a much better chance of finals or top-4 if you gain an additional 1 or 2 premiership points for scoring 100+, hopefully encouraging coaches to develop attacking game plans.

16 a side is one that could also potentially help but I think teams will still set up around the ball and down the line as they do now, and the additional space created by less players will be away from where the ball is, anyway.
Again the obsession with high scores. Why? Isn't 80 points enough? There's more to games of football than how straight someone can kick at goal.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
4,778
8,017
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
BTW for those calling for higher scores, isn't there a (too) long stoppage when a goal's kicked? They're now taking over a minute to bounce the ball after a goal - I timed one at 1.19 on the weekend!
 

owen87

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
9,458
12,069
AFL Club
Essendon
BTW for those calling for higher scores, isn't there a (too) long stoppage when a goal's kicked? They're now taking over a minute to bounce the ball after a goal - I timed one at 1.19 on the weekend!
They increased the breaks for this season specifically.
 

owen87

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
9,458
12,069
AFL Club
Essendon
But don't fatigued players make more mistakes, ie, worse football? Fatiguing players isn't the answer. For once I agree with Clarkson, who btw seems to have changed his tune from a few weeks ago when he (reportedly in BigFooty) called for 16 a side.
It depends, fatigue means less bodies around contests, but has also been a factor in goal-kicking accuracy being less than it once was.

Also we've been guys like Whitfield struggle to make an impact this year with the reduced game-time taking away one of their main strengths.

Again the obsession with high scores. Why? Isn't 80 points enough? There's more to games of football than how straight someone can kick at goal.
4 - 5 goals per quarter is a good number for mine, the odd scrappy contested game is fine but you don't want everything to be low scoring arm wrestles like Rugby.
 

big_e

Premium Platinum
Apr 28, 2008
7,059
20,215
The Championship
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers
It depends, fatigue means less bodies around contests, but has also been a factor in goal-kicking accuracy being less than it once was.

Also we've been guys like Whitfield struggle to make an impact this year with the reduced game-time taking away one of their main strengths.



4 - 5 goals per quarter is a good number for mine, the odd scrappy contested game is fine but you don't want everything to be low scoring arm wrestles like Rugby.
As interchange numbers have come down in the last ten years (or however long its been), congestion has worsened.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
4,778
8,017
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
It depends, fatigue means less bodies around contests, but has also been a factor in goal-kicking accuracy being less than it once was.

Also we've been guys like Whitfield struggle to make an impact this year with the reduced game-time taking away one of their main strengths.



4 - 5 goals per quarter is a good number for mine, the odd scrappy contested game is fine but you don't want everything to be low scoring arm wrestles like Rugby.
I do, I want arm wrestles, but not literal arm wrestles, just the pressure.

BTW the reduced game time has impacted Richmond's whole game plan where we wore teams into the ground over 4 full quarters. It's no coincidence that the only game we've won was before coronavirus shortened games.
 

owen87

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
9,458
12,069
AFL Club
Essendon
As interchange numbers have come down in the last ten years (or however long its been), congestion has worsened.
I'm looking at the recent games with the shortened quarters; you lack that extra time in quarters where the congestion breaks as players can no longer get to repeat contests.

I do, I want arm wrestles, but not literal arm wrestles, just the pressure.

BTW the reduced game time has impacted Richmond's whole game plan where we wore teams into the ground over 4 full quarters. It's no coincidence that the only game we've won was before coronavirus shortened games.
I don't think there's any one single silver bullet that will fix it, but things like 6-6-6 have unintended side effects of making coaches more conservative with game-plans.

You'd want a close, reasonably regular scoring game for the most part I'd think. A 50 v 49 scoreline can be good on occasion, but you'd struggle with a whole season of it. I'd think somewhere around the 100 - 120 mark (full length quarters) per team is a good level of scoring frequency.

Maybe last touch OOB isn't such a bad rule to introduce between the arcs.

Rules that keep the game moving are good, it forces players to keep active and stops teams having too many opportunities to set up behind play. Also the HTB interpretation being looked at to tighten it up and reduce those repeat stoppage-rolling maul type games. I think you still need to reward the player first to the ball, but they shouldn't be able to drop it and fall on it to slow the game down repeatedly.
 

Consolaçao

All Australian
May 22, 2007
714
459
Melbourne Town
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Phnom Penh Utd (curling)
But don't fatigued players make more mistakes, ie, worse football? Fatiguing players isn't the answer. For once I agree with Clarkson, who btw seems to have changed his tune from a few weeks ago when he (reportedly in BigFooty) called for 16 a side.
I don't think it'll necessarily mean more fatigue... If players begin a match knowing they have to run out 120 minutes of football without resting on the bench, they'll play differently. Players would need to ration their energy output.. this'll mean that rather than a player sprinting 100 metres to a contest that they *may* influence, they'll hang back and conserve their energy for a situation in which their effort is most likely to be rewarded.

Players will simply not be able to make the number of contests as they do today, and not become a liability for their team late in quarters/ games.

As to the idea that coaches will respond to fatigued players by putting everyone in the back 50... maybe. But I don't see that being a premiership-winning approach. I would imagine a coach focused on winning games will not allow his players to reach that level of exhaustion, and instead develop a game plan in which players unlikely to have much influence on the contest will be instructed to conserve energy off the ball.

Makes sense to me, but in the end, what do I know?!
 

Remove this Banner Ad