Ending congestion

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Sep 22, 2011
31,359
60,893
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
You get rid of stoppages you get rid of rucks in this era. I understand you don't have the foresight to see the reaction to your ideas
You might think you have foresight, but it seems like it extends about 10cm in front of you.

You’re not getting rid of stoppages but you’d sure as hell reduce them.

And ruckmen adapt as do all positions. They’re there to win hitouts, but they always used to sit behind the play as an extra marking player. There’s scope for a new interpretation of that role with today’s defensive lines - D1, D2, D3 and all that.

The best coaches are smart and if they have a resource like a ruckman they’ll work a way to utilise it.

Footy evolves. Many of the best rucks have now evolved into “an extra midfielder” because they’re constantly on the ball with their being a new stoppage every 3.5 seconds. They’ll evolve again, it’s ridiculous to think otherwise, and it’s ridiculous to think teams will go in without a ruck and forfeit hitouts, particularly if the ability to hitout to space and out of congestion becomes valuable.

It’s like somebody saying 30 years ago that if ruckman can’t just sit behind the ball, they’ll be extinct because they can’t keep up with the play.
 

PerthBoy86

Norm Smith Medallist
May 23, 2016
5,283
3,825
AFL Club
West Coast
So how long would a player have to break free from a tackle before they're pinned?

I think it would make HTB decisions even more - not less - subjective, and more unclear.
 

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Aug 29, 2010
35,288
43,303
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
You might think you have foresight, but it seems like it extends about 10cm in front of you.

You’re not getting rid of stoppages but you’d sure as hell reduce them.

And ruckmen adapt as do all positions. They’re there to win hitouts, but they always used to sit behind the play as an extra marking player. There’s scope for a new interpretation of that role with today’s defensive lines - D1, D2, D3 and all that.

The best coaches are smart and if they have a resource like a ruckman they’ll work a way to utilise it.

Footy evolves. Many of the best rucks have now evolved into “an extra midfielder” because they’re constantly on the ball with their being a new stoppage every 3.5 seconds. They’ll evolve again, it’s ridiculous to think otherwise, and it’s ridiculous to think teams will go in without a ruck and forfeit hitouts, particularly if the ability to hitout to space and out of congestion becomes valuable.

It’s like somebody saying 30 years ago that if ruckman can’t just sit behind the ball, they’ll be extinct because they can’t keep up with the play.
Why would it become more valuable? It would actually be more valuable to let your opponent win the ball and then just tackle them.

Rather than the 80 or whatever stoppages they attend now, some of the low scoring games would see 15 ruck contests. Why would you waste a spot on a ruck for that. Certainly kills off the 2nd ruck.

In fact trying to get a ruck tap would be stupid because of the difficulty of controlling it and the likely hood of being tackled and conceding a free kick.

This is why you can't understand how poor your foresight is, you literally say how important it is for a ruck to clear congestion yet your rules itself would completely eliminate congestion and remove 80% of ruck contests from the game
 

Hawk_francais

Club Legend
Sep 20, 2015
2,483
4,697
AFL Club
Hawthorn
So how long would a player have to break free from a tackle before they're pinned?

I think it would make HTB decisions even more - not less - subjective, and more unclear.
...if they take possession of the ball and don't dispose of it correctly then it's holding the ball. I think it's very clear when a player is unable to break a tackle.


You’re not getting rid of stoppages but you’d sure as hell reduce them.
Exactly. The crux of this issue is that stoppages are currently desirable for coaches. They bring a measure of control over how the game will be played. Language like "Dockers have set up to defend this stoppage" should disappear if prior opportunity is dropped. The only way to defend it will be to win it. This stuff sounds obvious but we've strayed pretty far away from the original idea of a ball-up. I mean when the ball goes out of bounds the boundary ump actually turns his back and hurls the ball into the field without looking. It's supposed to be a quick haphazard method to keep the ball in play that advantages no one. I would love to see them throw it in asap after the whistle is blown.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
3,700
4,526
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Why would it become more valuable? It would actually be more valuable to let your opponent win the ball and then just tackle them.

Rather than the 80 or whatever stoppages they attend now, some of the low scoring games would see 15 ruck contests. Why would you waste a spot on a ruck for that. Certainly kills off the 2nd ruck.

In fact trying to get a ruck tap would be stupid because of the difficulty of controlling it and the likely hood of being tackled and conceding a free kick.

This is why you can't understand how poor your foresight is, you literally say how important it is for a ruck to clear congestion yet your rules itself would completely eliminate congestion and remove 80% of ruck contests from the game
You're pro-stoppages because without them ruckmen will become extinct?
 

Hawk_francais

Club Legend
Sep 20, 2015
2,483
4,697
AFL Club
Hawthorn
This is why you can't understand how poor your foresight is, you literally say how important it is for a ruck to clear congestion yet your rules itself would completely eliminate congestion and remove 80% of ruck contests from the game
80% is too high. 50-60%

Since you're so sure that rucks would be irrelevant if that happened, then tell me why they existed 1985-1995 when competition averaged only 20 throw-ins/ball-ups per game? I seem to remember Paul Salmon, Simon Madden, Damian Monkhorst and other rucks being pretty influential in those years.

I don't know dude, maybe you weren't born then or something but footy was just fine.
 

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Aug 29, 2010
35,288
43,303
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
80% is too high. 50-60%

Since you're so sure that rucks would be irrelevant if that happened, then tell me why they existed 1985-1995 when competition averaged only 20 throw-ins/ball-ups per game? I seem to remember Paul Salmon, Simon Madden, Damian Monkhorst and other rucks being pretty influential in those years.

I don't know dude, maybe you weren't born then or something but footy was just fine.
Because footy doesn't move backwards it moves forward. There were real FFs and CHFs back in the day aswell. If I was a coach and you brought in these rules I would get rid of my ruck unless they were super agile. So yeah Grundy might survive but half the teams won't bother drafting rucks and you certainly wouldn't play 2 ever again
 

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Sep 22, 2011
31,359
60,893
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
Because footy doesn't move backwards it moves forward. There were real FFs and CHFs back in the day aswell. If I was a coach and you brought in these rules I would get rid of my ruck unless they were super agile. So yeah Grundy might survive but half the teams won't bother drafting rucks and you certainly wouldn't play 2 ever again
Even if that was true - which it’s not - so what?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hawk_francais

Club Legend
Sep 20, 2015
2,483
4,697
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Because the games better for having different sized players not just 22 blokes who can tackle
In the course of trying to dismiss this idea, all you've said it will lead to a wet weather territory game full of tackling while kicking and skills become less relevant.

For the second time I'm going to point out that the game you are describing is the one that exists now.
The one where the ball is between the arcs for so long that full forwards have become some of the best distance runners in the competition.
The one where players chew down the clock by taking possession and falling into a gang-tackle.
The one where there is so little emphasis on skill that only three players in the top 100 disposal-getters are also in the top 100 for disposal efficiency (well done Rory Laird, Jake Lloyd and Lachie Neale).
The one where it's rare to field two ruckmen.
The one where there are so many players around the ball that it's not uncommon for two umpires to blow their whistle at the same time for two different free-kicks.
You're just talking about the game as it exists now, and for some reason you can't see that it's a result of the fact that players lack incentive to move the ball away from a contested situation. You're just picturing the game as it is now, but with every tackle resulting in a holding-the-ball decision. You're not seeing the part where players will be more careful about when and where they take possession, therefore needing to create space around the ball in order to take clean possession. You're not seeing the part where a group of players who all run in for a gang tackle are putting their team at risk, because there will be no stoppage, and their opponents are already 15 metres away from the contest on their own.

At the minute it's too easy for those players to simply hold the ball up, as any of them can (for the most part) grab the ball or fall onto it with impunity. That's why you hear players talking about getting 'even numbers' around the ball. It's why you hear commentators calling each game 'an arm wrestle'. It's very apt, and it's a very ugly term for a game which is equally about kicking, marking, running, agility, tackling and teamwork.
 

2Knights

Senior List
Aug 16, 2009
242
239
Perth
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
There are no other teams
This is going back a few decades - correct technique for tackling a player on the ground was to stand over him and hold the jumper. 'Stacks on the mill' always resulted in a ball-up or a free kick for push in the back to the tackler player. The tackling player couldn't lock the ball in, but the tackled player couldn't throw the ball out, he had to make a correct disposal.

AFL need to give serious consideration to reducing the all-in packs that have turned our game into an eye-sore. At the very least umpires should be enforcing the rules as written. Crowds and TV audience are staying up for now but sooner or later the public will realise they're being sold a dud.
 

Top Bottom