How do you think the AFL's proposed rule changes will effect out list?

[rand corp]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/ru...4zm93.html?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

How do you see the proposed changes to the rules, (almost certain to come in) supposedly, (although debatable) to free up congestion around the ball, affecting players on our current list?

The two main talking points are the dramatic reduction in permissible interchange rotations down from 90 to 60; and the idea of set zones for players at stoppages.

Obviously, if they are looking to free up the game more and create more space, less congestion and stoppages, then it has the potential to benefit the athletes and players with big tanks and could be to the detriment of the beasts and the 'inside' in and under types.

The other area which is interesting is to consider how zones might affect the tall, strong overhead, limited on the ground types, as apposed to the tall/medium athletic, pacy, 3rd man up types?

Interested to hear other's thoughts on this as I see this as some of the biggest changes in the sport for some time, with the potential to dramatically change the game as we know it.

 

[TheSierBear]

Great thread. Honestly have no idea either way though. I just cross my fingers and hope for the best myself. Tom Lynch would be awesome you'd imagine.

 

[mike123]

Lower interchanges won't free up the game.

 

[TheSierBear]

Lower interchanges won't free up the game.

Why won't it?

 

[The Dawes]

might put some money on Tom Phillips to win the Brownlow is these proposed changes eventuate.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm not certain that less rotations will have a huge impact or not.

As far as starting positions at every stoppage, how would that be achieved? A stoppage ensues and then everyone goes back to their starting positions! What if it's in D50, do the rucks and mids have to go back to the centre? Who then contests the ball up? yeah nah - would add too much time on.

The impression I get is that IF they're going to introduce starting positions it would be in the 25 and 50 metre arcs and the current centre square ruling at the start of quarters and after every goal.

How all that effects our list or anyone else's is hard to quantify. I'd argue it wouldn't have a huge impact one way or the other.

 

[The Dawes]

I’m almost in the KB camp where you eliminate the interchange completely and go back to reserves if you want to reduce congestion

 

[jonbe54]

I’m almost in the KB camp where you eliminate the interchange completely and go back to reserves if you want to reduce congestion

And what makes you think the coaches will give up congestive play?

Congestive play is a proven tactic to drag superior teams down to the level of struggling teams.

If the coaches refuse to give up congestive play then the players will be forced into over stressing bodies due to exhaustion which leads to injury.

 

[Moeydw]

Why do they have to change the game, it's good how it is at the moment

 

[Pie eyed]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/ru...4zm93.html?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

How do you see the proposed changes to the rules, (almost certain) to free up congestion around the ball affecting players on our current list?

The two main talking points are the dramatic reduction in permissible interchange rotations down from 90 to 60; and the idea of set zones for players at stoppages.

Obviously, if they are looking to free up the game more and create more space, less congestion and stoppages then it has the potential to benefit the athletes and players with big tanks and could be to the detriment of the beasts and the 'inside' in and under types.

The other area which is interesting is to consider how zones might affect the tall, strong overhead, limited on the ground types as apposed to the tall/medium athletic, pacy 3rd man up types?

Interested to hear other's thoughts on this as I see this as potential the biggest changes in the sport for some time, with the potential to dramatically change the game as we know it.

Rules committee should just be put in a pension home for morons.
* off and stop ruining the game.

 

[barrackers]

Starting positions - as seen with women’s footy if it’s only after a goal it will make minimal difference.

Zones - if starting positions are applied to all stoppages the AFL may as well skip the PR bullshit and call it what it is - ZONES. There’s no way players will be able to run the length of the field without dramatically slowing down the game.

Reducing interchange - I’ve never bought what they’re trying to sell here. Sides averaged 90 points per game in 2010 with an unlimited interchanges and 93 in 2011 with the sub rule & 120 interchanges. Reducing the interchange down to 90 seen sides average 88 points in 2015 and 89 in 2016. The scoring difference is marginal and the game was certainly better to watch in 2010-11.

Fatigue caused by less interchange will lead to poorer skills, which equals more stoppages and lower scores. There argument for is players covering less ground, but who’s to say they’ll spread rather than cluster. That zones are being discussed shows the AFL is concerned of the latter occurring.

In terms of us -

Less interchanges will mean players with high endurance will be more valuable as will those who are versatile and/or able to rest forward. I think we’re well covered in both areas.

Zones - really depend on the restrictions. If 4-6 players are mandated inside the 50m arc it will clog space and hurt Cox, if it’s 2-3 the opposite should apply. However we rely very much on a defensive unit of 6-7 players coming across to help each other out and don’t really have standout or overly tall backs. Ultimately for us what we’ll gain at one end we’ll lose at the other.

 

[mike123]

Why won't it?

It will just reduce skills which will clog the game up more.

 

[TheSierBear]

IMO congestion has been a problem for twenty years and it's good they are looking at doing something about it.

 

[bunter]

game is hard enough to umpire already.
congestion is maybe caused by increased player fitness and the increased attention to coaching tactics.
I don't think the nature of aussie rules is made for zones, 360deg free wheeling game. I really hate to say this but to my eye, the best footy was played in the 80's & 90's. I will also suggest that the expansion teams have diluted the player pool, not sure how that relates to congestion but their arrival seems to have coincided with the increased focus on congestion.
I say leave the game alone.

 

[Pie eyed]

IMO congestion has been a problem for twenty years and it's good they are looking at doing something about it.

There was no congestion when there were unlimited rotations. The dumb *s argued the game was too fast causing too many injuries, which was total bullshit, and based on a bogus trial in Rugby League..which was debunked a month after it was released.
These tools are just pandering to the campaigners at foxtel....

 

[TheSierBear]

There was no congestion when there were unlimited rotations. The dumb ****s argued the game was too fast causing too many injuries, which was total bullshit, and based on a bogus trial in Rugby League..which was debunked a month after it was released.
These tools are just pandering to the campaigners at foxtel....

You could be right there. Haven't thought too much about it and what you say could have merit.

 

[jonbe54]

Rotations have nothing to do with congestion, they have everything to do with coaching tactics.

 

[MyManLynch]

IMO congestion has been a problem for twenty years and it's good they are looking at doing something about it.

Yes the roads leading to the MCG are very congested on game day...
Getting out of the carpark after the game is ridiculous...
I’m not sure how less Interchanges will improve this.

 

[jonbe54]

Yes the roads leading to the MCG are very congested on game day...
Getting out of the carpark after the game is ridiculous...
I’m not sure how less Interchanges will improve this.

Allows the parking officers more time to write up tickets lol.

 

[Old Spice]

If you talk nonsense often enough and with conviction, soon you'll get people on board your crazy train, it's the Donald Trump and Kevin Bartlett credo.

 

[jatsad]

3 easy changes would reduce congestion a lot and they are not major changes.

1. After a goal is kicked, you must have 6 in the back half, 6 acoss the middle and 6 in the forward line. This stops packing the backline in a close finish. After the ball is bounced, run where you like.
2. Get rid of this stupid, childish rule of nominating ruckman by raising your hand. It treats players like schoolkids. If the umpire simply throws it up immediately instead of spending 10-15 seconds asking who is going up, this doesn't allow players time to run in and cause congestion. If 2 players from the same team go up, pay a free kick against them.

Really simple.

One more change I would like is a variation on the last touch out of bounds free kick suggestion Malcolm Blight is pushing. This will result in no boundary umpires, no throw ins which are major pillars of our game and also make life incredibly harder for backmen who already have it tough. Imagine a full forwatd leading to a pass and as he is about to mark it, a fist punches the ball away and it goes out of bounds. Under Blight's suggestion, that would still be a kick to the full forward. Just not on.

Instead, make the free kick payable if the ball goes out by foot. This keeps boundary umpires in the game as well as throw ins and takes away the "deliberate" scream everytime the ball goes out.

 

[jonbe54]

If you talk nonsense often enough and with conviction, soon you'll get people on board your crazy train, it's the Donald Trump and Kevin Bartlett credo.

Joseph Goebbels - Hitlers propaganda minister said 'repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it'

So true

 

[TradeDraft]

AFL keep Stuffing around the Game and not let the Game Evolve by itself

 

[barrackers]

3 easy changes would reduce congestion a lot and they are not major changes.

1. After a goal is kicked, you must have 6 in the back half, 6 acoss the middle and 6 in the forward line. This stops packing the backline in a close finish. After the ball is bounced, run where you like.
2. Get rid of this stupid, childish rule of nominating ruckman by raising your hand. It treats players like schoolkids. If the umpire simply throws it up immediately instead of spending 10-15 seconds asking who is going up, this doesn't allow players time to run in and cause congestion. If 2 players from the same team go up, pay a free kick against them.

Really simple.

One more change I would like is a variation on the last touch out of bounds free kick suggestion Malcolm Blight is pushing. This will result in no boundary umpires, no throw ins which are major pillars of our game and also make life incredibly harder for backmen who already have it tough. Imagine a full forwatd leading to a pass and as he is about to mark it, a fist punches the ball away and it goes out of bounds. Under Blight's suggestion, that would still be a kick to the full forward. Just not on.

Instead, make the free kick payable if the ball goes out by foot. This keeps boundary umpires in the game as well as throw ins and takes away the "deliberate" scream everytime the ball goes out.

Having seen last touch in women's footy, there's no way in hell I'd like to see it introduced across the ground even if it's just out by clear kick or handball. What kills it for me is the rule applying inside 50. Obviously the impact won't be so severe in the higher scoring men's game, but to see sides work their arse off getting the footy forward only to see it come back after a mis-kick to a leading forward is just wrong.

The rule changes that I think may have merit is prohibiting players running into the centre square until the footy is cleared when a bounce or secondary bounce occurs. Potentially the square could also be enlarged. Obviously it wouldn't impact general play, but it would help with centre clearances, which is one of the more efficient avenues to goal. The other is lengthening the goal square.

Perhaps the simplest thing though doesn't involve a rule change at all, rather it involves simply getting back to how holding the ball and throws used to be applied. More and more we're seeing congestion after players drop the ball when tackled or immediately before being tackled or alternatively after players give or throw the footy to a teammate under more pressure. Prior opportunity could be discussed/done away with, but I lose count of how many times players now take 3-5 steps (or more), duck or fend off without being penalised.

 

[Chameleon75]

The game has been brought to where it is by afl rule changes, their solution? More rule changes, yep that’ll work. Muppets.