Analysis Football is stuffed

[gokangas]

Remember the wise old word of Dermie from a few years ago. When the umpire blows his whistle for a free kick and every player stops and looks at the ump because they have no idea who the free is for, then you have a problem. Happens plenty of times every game now.

 

[LB2Snake]

Remember the wise old word of Dermie from a few years ago. When the umpire blows his whistle for a free kick and every player stops and looks at the ump because they have no idea who the free is for, then you have a problem. Happens plenty of times every game now.

I’ve said it before, but the game has become like my son U13’s games last year. Most blokes are waiting for the whistle instead of going to get the ball....20 people around the ball, 15 of them appealing. Half of them unhappy with the decision. It’s bollocked to watch right now. AFL will make another rule change that’ll fk the game even more.

 

[Harris 10]

When the only player who is actually attacking the contested ball is penalised, then the game is broken.

Good decision
Dived on it, dragged it in and didn’t get it out.

 

[Dirty_11]

When the only player who is actually attacking the contested ball is penalised, then the game is broken.

When you are rewarded more often than not for being second to the contest/ball you are destroying the fabric of the game.

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dirty_11]

Which succinctly sums up the main corrupting factor..............money.

Money is the driving reason why the league has no integrity. Fixtures, sponsorships, stadium deals, free agency, allowing third party player sponsorships from major club sponsors. I could go on. Sometimes I find it hard to believe North Melbourne still exist with the constant battles it faces to stay afloat, let alone be competitive.

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Shermanator]

Money is the driving reason why the league has no integrity. Fixtures, sponsorships, stadium deals, free agency, allowing third party player sponsorships from major club sponsors. I could go on. Sometimes I find it hard to believe North Melbourne still exist with the constant battles it faces to stay afloat, let alone be competitive.

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

And the AFL say they’re ‘not for profit’.. but Gil is all for big bonuses..

 

[Go_Roos!]

And the AFL say they’re ‘not for profit’.. but Gil is all for big bonuses..

Gil and his friends are doing very nicely for themselves, thank you very much $$$$$$

 

[Snake_Baker]

I’ve said it before, but the game has become like my son U13’s games last year. Most blokes are waiting for the whistle instead of going to get the ball....20 people around the ball, 15 of them appealing. Half of them unhappy with the decision. It’s bollocked to watch right now. AFL will make another rule change that’ll fk the game even more.

They were supposed to be there to officiate when the contest went too far, not to mitigate the contest altogether.

The whole thing's a farce.

 

[Colbys Boots]

When the only player who is actually attacking the contested ball is penalised, then the game is broken.

Not wanting to go all MAV, but the decision was entirely consistent with the rule, the umpire was not entirely wrong. There is nothing in the rule about getting to your feet after you've dived on the ball, you are simply required to get the ball out legally once you have dived on the ball. The act of diving on the ball means you have no claims to prior opportunity. The only criticism I would level at the umpire here is that two players were ultimately wrestling for the ball and no-one was actually tackling the Essendon player at that point so that makes the holding-the-ball decision questionable.

Having said all that, diving on the ball was horse s**t from the get-go. The decision should always be whether the player is trying to hold the ball in and force a stoppage, making no attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled. That should be the case whether he is on top of the ball or standing up or hanging from the rafters.

 

[discodaddy]

However, IMO there is a solution. The game must be slowed down.

What changes did you have in mind, Snake?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Not wanting to go all MAV, but the decision was entirely consistent with the rule, the umpire was not entirely wrong.

Missed the point completely mate.

 

[Snake_Baker]

What changes did you in mind, Snake?

1) Interchange wound back to 10 over the course of 2-3 seasons to allow clubs to adjust.

Then:

2) Kicks must be 20+ metres OVER the mark and not from where the kick is taken, or play on. Any kick made laterally or backwards from the mark must travel 20 metres from where the kicker makes the kick.
3) Enforce the proper rules properly as the game slows down.

 

[Mav]

Not wanting to go all MAV, but the decision was entirely consistent with the rule, the umpire was not entirely wrong. There is nothing in the rule about getting to your feet after you've dived on the ball, you are simply required to get the ball out legally once you have dived on the ball. The act of diving on the ball means you have no claims to prior opportunity. The only criticism I would level at the umpire here is that two players were ultimately wrestling for the ball and no-one was actually tackling the Essendon player at that point so that makes the holding-the-ball decision questionable.

Having said all that, diving on the ball was horse sh*t from the get-go. The decision should always be whether the player is trying to hold the ball in and force a stoppage, making no attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled. That should be the case whether he is on top of the ball or standing up or hanging from the rafters.

The fact people are only picking up on this now makes me laugh.

It all went to s**t when they introduced the diving on the ball rule. Remember Archer in the earlier days, he was baffled as to why he was penalized for winning the ball. The AFL changed the rule to say, in essence don’t be the first to the ball, be the first to ball standing on your feet.

All they needed to do at the time was to adjudicate the rules we had. If someone dives on top of a player who’s on the ball its a push in the back. This allows the person who won the ball a chance to dispose of it.

And, if a team mate dives in and takes the ball off their team mate Who’s being tackled on the ground then it’s illegal disposal. It shits we how many times you see a team mate pass the ball like they’re playing pass the parcel.

Pay these two frees and all is well.

They introduced the diving rule to decrease the amount of stoppages. Well, it hasn't worked. Just one example of AFL rule changes that have unforeseen results. People that think we can “fix” the game with simple rule changes and simpletons. Arguing that it’s the coaches that have caused it is also certified moronic. Who here was complaining when Pagan introduced the Paddock?? The coaches role is to come up with a game plan that enables your strengths to beat the opposition, with in the rules.

 

[discodaddy]

1) Interchange wound back to 10 over the course of 2-3 seasons to allow clubs to adjust.

Then:

2) Kicks must be 20+ metres OVER or FROM the mark, and not from where the kick is taken, or play on.
3) Enforce the proper rules properly as the game slows down.

I last read the official rules about 2 years ago (I must have been either bored or angry). Curiously, “The Mark” was not defined...

1. Agree. I’m ok with any small number.
2. I was thinking any backward kick should be play-on, which is similar to what you’ve proposed. It might be less effective/restrictive than your proposal, but it would be marginally easier to umpire.

Slowing players down should help with the blight of congestion, but I’d like to see more done. Dunno what, but zones are a last resort I reckon.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

1) Interchange wound back to 10 over the course of 2-3 seasons to allow clubs to adjust.

Then:

2) Kicks must be 20+ metres OVER or FROM the mark, and not from where the kick is taken, or play on.
3) Enforce the proper rules properly as the game slows down.

I'm unsure about interchanges being so heavily limited but I understand why you suggest it and I'm sure it would slow the game if limits were applied.

Points 2 and 3 have my vote though, without reservation.

Piss off the interpretations, forget the "rule of the week" which is often only applied to one or two games, and even then only in the first quarter. The s**t going through the heads of umpires must confuse them so much that half the time they themselves don't even know what they paid a free kick for (as proven when video replays often show that the infringement the umpire called did not actually occur). The flip-side of this is the frees that don't get paid. Throwing, tackling in marking contests - I could go on. Then, after a marking contest at one end where one bloke (i.e. Ben Brown) might have been pulled to the ground without reward, the ball goes down the other end where some forward has his hand tapped and "there you go!!!". Spotted that one!

Short kicks being paid as marks would have to be the most pathetic example of poor umpiring ability that there is. In some cases, kicks that go 2 or 3 body lengths are paid as marks. Make it 20M and I agree with the point - measured from the mark. It is ridiculous to see a bloke go back, then short pass to somebody when the ball is caught close to the point where the original mark was being stood. OVER the mark, and 20M or it is play-on. Backward kicks can get ****ed. Take that option if you will, but it's play-on.

The rules need to be given a proper dose of the salts. Dump the 6:6:6 and the penalty for rushed behinds where an umpire can make an opinion if the player was under pressure to award the maximum penalty that can be inflicted on the field. Dump anything that goes against the grain of a natural free-spirited game and officiate the simple, basic game of footy in a consistent and impartial way.

I doubt that footy will survive another 2 generations anyway. I don't know a single kid who has more than a superficial interest in it. Some say they barack for X, Y or Z, but they don't know when their team plays, if they won or not most of the time. They arc up a bit for the finals - that's about all. I can see the day when they reduce the H&A season, introduce a top 10 for the finals and tap into the next generation by having a 10 weeks finals series with a best of 3 playoff for the premiership.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I last read the official rules about 2 years ago (I must have been either bored or angry). Curiously, “The Mark” was not defined...

1. Agree. I’m ok with any small number.
2. I was thinking any backward kick should be play-on, which is similar to what you’ve proposed. It might be less effective/restrictive than your proposal, but it would be marginally easier to umpire.

Slowing players down should help with the blight of congestion, but I’d like to see more done. Dunno what, but zones are a last resort I reckon.

Think it through mate (bolded).

Players would just flood down the ground.

The idea is to maintain the integrity of the entire field and create options. We actually want to go back to man on man football and eradicate the men on man or men in space crap.

 

[Snake_Baker]

1) Interchange wound back to 10 over the course of 2-3 seasons to allow clubs to adjust.

BTW, I am happy to look at extending the bench to another 2 players with the rotation cap limitation.

 

[Marstermind]

Snake is right. The game is broken. Not just "struggling" or "in trouble". It's broken. Stuffed. Dying.

I don't blame the coaches - they are there to win games, not to have attractive losses until the media jumps all over you until you relentlessly until you get the sack and never coach again.

I don't blame the umpires. Yes, it's pretty ordinary at times but they aren't helped when interpretations of rules, nuances of rules and even vibes of rules are changed weekly. They get accused of having no 'feel for the game' but how are they supposed to do that when the 'feel' changes all the time. The McGrath holding the ball last night 'feels' like a terrible decision but it actually isn't - the umpires have been told to pay that after one coach had a whinge a few months ago about it. Next week they'll be told not to pay it.

How many significant rule changes have there been in the last 10 years that actually made the game a better spectacle? If it's not zero, then it's pretty damn close to it. Some have made it safer, but not a better spectacle. And the reason is because they don't have the balls to really change them and the coaches are too smart that the counter it almost immediately. Whilst the Titanic sinks, the AFL is looking for the Selleys Leak Seal. The "don't keep messing with the game" thinking has left the game in a mess.

• Zones need to happen. 6-6-6 was a start but as usual the AFL didn't go anywhere near far enough. In it's current form it affects the first 15secs after each centre bounce and with 16 goal games being normal nowadays, that's about 5 of the 100 minutes. Malcolm Blight has plenty of left-field ideas and one is that 6-6-6 happens after each kick in as well. I don't mind it. Go back to the kick in having to wait for the goal umpire's flag (another stupid rule change that fixed nothing) and you have that time to set up - that is, hardly any time at all. So if you want to flood or have everyone hanging around the ball like an Auskick game, you better hope that a point doesn't get scored. You're better off staying in the position you were allocated. If it's against the defending team, free kick 30m out dead in front. If it's against the attacking team, maybe a free from the centre circle. Not sure what happens if both teams are out of position though. Probably a big flaw there somewhere but worth thinking about.
• I'm not against 16 a side, it would reduce congestion obviously but not sure to what degree unless other measures are brought in to spread the field.
• Go back to 2 on the bench or severely limit rotations. These players are all crafted athletes who are capable of running half-marathons each week. They don't need to rest as much as they do. They should come off the ground absolutely knackered.
• Reduce stoppages. Kicks out of bounds are a free kick. When there's a ball up just chuck it up and stop waiting around (nominating rucks??? FFS who thought that would make the game better???). Team holding the ball - the bloke winning the ball from a dispute or turnover gets prior opportunity (and in McGrath's case last night it wouldn't be a free because he won the ball) but once he's disposed of it too bad. It maybe becomes a bit hot potato but it keeps the ball moving and you don't get guys deliberately handballing to stationary targets, drawing tackles, no prior, ball-up, reset for the stoppage. Rinse and repeat.
• Kicks backward anywhere other than in your attacking 50 are play on (although this probably happens way less than we think) Kick has to go 25m to be a mark - too much boring soccer tactics of just chipping and switching in the back half until play opens up downfield.
• And umpires...pay the frees that are there!

They are probably all stupid ideas but whatever the case - fix the bloody game instead of doing pissy patch up jobs on the run that make it worse.

 

[Go_Roos!]

Why do people think that the game needs to get more complicated? It was fine for decade after decade after decade until all the know alls became involved.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Why do people think that the game needs to get more complicated? It was fine for decade after decade after decade until all the know alls became involved.

Complicating it can get wins.

IMO, it's about the clubs with the money and resources who exploit the game in order to achieve results.

Exhibit A: Mick Malthouse squealing to the high heavens about rotations getting capped when Collingwood's massive advantage in football department spending had invested heavily in exploiting the rotation rule. It still exists today. They have no great spine to speak about, just a million mid sized runners that can go all day, clog up space and flick the ball around between themselves a million times a match. Bulldogs, Richmond & scum are all similar.

 

[Colbys Boots]

Think it through mate (bolded).

Players would just flood down the ground.

The idea is to maintain the integrity of the entire field and create options. We actually want to go back to man on man football and eradicate the men on man or men in space crap.

It's interesting to see people widely calling for an end to switching play or backwards kicking or possession football as one of the few alternatives is kicking long to a contest. Now, as it happens, North Melbourne has been #1 for kicking long to a contest lately and we have also been accused of playing boring and predictable football for that very reason. In a way, you could say that watching Robbie Tarrant take an intercept mark and then kicking long to a pack out on the wing is a throwback to the good old days of the 1970s. Yet no-one sees it that way. Why? Because the long kick out to the wing inevitably results in either another intercept mark or the ball being punched out of bounds.

Certainly, flooding and zone defence and outnumbering the good marking targets is a major concern, but equally problematic is the fact that not enough players are capable of taking a contested mark. When we kick long out of defence to the wing, there is not a single player on our list sitting under that high ball that I have confidence in taking a contested mark. And especially when outnumbered.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It's interesting to see people widely calling for an end to switching play or backwards kicking or possession football as one of the few alternatives is kicking long to a contest. Now, as it happens, North Melbourne has been #1 for kicking long to a contest lately and we have also been accused of playing boring and predictable football for that very reason. In a way, you could say that watching Robbie Tarrant take an intercept mark and then kicking long to a pack out on the wing is a throwback to the good old days of the 1970s. Yet no-one sees it that way. Why? Because the long kick out to the wing inevitably results in either another intercept mark or the ball being punched out of bounds.

Certainly, flooding and zone defence and outnumbering the good marking targets is a major concern, but equally problematic is the fact that not enough players are capable of taking a contested mark. When we kick long out of defence to the wing, there is not a single player on our list sitting under that high ball that I have confidence in taking a contested mark. And especially when outnumbered.

You DON'T think all of this is symptomatic of the way the gamed has been allowed to evolve?

You're putting the cart in front of the horse Jabba.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It's interesting to see people widely calling for an end to switching play or backwards kicking or possession football as one of the few alternatives is kicking long to a contest.

Done effectively it's the best way to beat a team defense. The call to ban backwards kicks always comes up in the media and it's never thought through.

Although it it is done well, there isn't much need to go back and take a kick anyway.

 

[Go_Roos!]

Have heard plenty of clapping and cheering for a great contested mark, yet to hear the same for a backward kick.

 

[Colbys Boots]

You DON'T think all of this is symptomatic of the way the gamed has been allowed to evolve?

You're putting the cart in front of the horse Jabba.

Yes I appreciate what you're saying, but I suspect the way the game has evolved has also changed expectations. People think they want a return to the old days of contested football, but if you could somehow orchestrate and choreograph a few minutes of play to exactly replicate the same few minutes of play from a game 50 years ago, I expect that many people would be baffled. It used to be called aerial ping pong for a reason. Some of the attributes of the modern game are actually more attractive than the old ways. Not all, but some.

Look, I'm certainly not saying all is rosy now, and I do agree with the extreme limits on interchange that you are suggesting. I also think the minimum distance for a mark should be looked at. All I'm saying is that long bombs to a contest is what we have been criticised for doing instead of pinpointing Ben Brown with a 5-metre break on this opponent inside 50. We don't have a Snake Baker or a Gary Dempsey to clunk everything in one grab yet we are playing as though we do.