Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
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
Ending congestion
- Thread starter Bunk Moreland
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #102
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.
- May 23, 2016
- 6,889
- 5,810
- 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.
I think it would make HTB decisions even more - not less - subjective, and more unclear.
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
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
Cancelled
- Sep 20, 2015
- 3,509
- 7,036
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
...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.
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.
You're pro-stoppages because without them ruckmen will become extinct?
Hawk_francais
Cancelled
- Sep 20, 2015
- 3,509
- 7,036
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
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
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
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
- Thread starter
- #109
Even if that was true - which it’s not - so what?
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
Because the games better for having different sized players not just 22 blokes who can tackle
- Thread starter
- #111
Hawk_francais
Cancelled
- Sep 20, 2015
- 3,509
- 7,036
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Because players won't take possession of a ball when they're about to be tackled, every team will just field 22 Paul Puopolos, I don't see why you can't make that connection.
Hawk_francais
Cancelled
- Sep 20, 2015
- 3,509
- 7,036
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
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
Team Captain
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.
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.
What about from kicks that aren't 15m and it comes to quickly for the ump to call play on?
All new players have to spend at least their first two years playing only in the regions, to better utilise that part of the ground. That will solve congestion.
- Banned
- #117
take away the bench or make it substitutes
- Banned
- #119
because he was arguing making it a lot less than 120 changes or whatever the stupid rules are - as per usual the afl did a half assed job of implementing the rule change
if you remove the bench completely, or make it a player cannot go back on when he goes off, it will open up a lot like everyone wants. cause everyone will be knackered. You cant just draft athletes because you still have to get and kick the football
you would have rovers and forward pockets again
#KBwasright
- Banned
- #121
if you put the kb obsession aside the logic is sound;
no bench or subs model = players much more tired = the game will open up a lot
clubs can go draft long distance runners but you still need to get and kick the ball
- Thread starter
- #122
It hasn’t made a difference. All players tire so you basically just get the same game, slowed down.
I’ll die on this hill... prior opportunity is the problem. You cannot allow blokes to just hold the ball in and stop the the game.
Do me a favour and watch these... watch the difference between how Touhy and Ablett deal with very similar situations. The Touhy example is what we overwhelmingly get now. The Ablett example is what we could have.
If you want to keep the ball moving then you have to prioritise that in the rules.
View attachment IMG_5872.MOV
View attachment IMG_5874.MOV
Ablett could easily have just dived on it when confronted by Broad - that’s what most players do - and he’d have been protected under the rules. Play stops. 36 players run to the stoppage. Rugby ensues.
You. Must. Keep. The. Ball. Moving.
- Banned
- #123
it cant make a difference if it hasnt happened
remove the bench, or dont let the player come back on when he is substituted
this is much different from the current 120 interchanges or whatever
you can allow people to hold the ball - the incentive should be to get the football
The incentive is still there to get the ball because the only way you can kick a higher score than the opposition and win is by getting it. The AFL needs to de-incentivise
holding onto the ball when tackled.
- Thread starter
- #125
The incentive can still be to get the ball, but what made the game great was the fast flowing movement if it. Constant attack (or attempt to attack) rather than keeping possession or forcing a stoppage. Which is what it has become now.
You have to force players to continually attack and that means moving the ball on. If you don’t, you’re doomed to what we have now.
