How to fix footy?

[KermitJagger]

The idea of the ruckman was being lost apparently...

The greatest damage to the ruck arguably happened after they removed the third man up, it was only then we started to see people throw guys like Grigg in there to get an extra ground ball player.

 

[burner1]

The game is never going back to what it looked like in the 80s and 90s. It’s not only fitness/professionalism but offensive and defensive tactics have been vastly improved (similar in a way to NBA moving to more 3 point shooters since the 90s - better strategies have been found). We could make radical changes to force it but then is it really the same game?

I agree with looking to roll back some of the recent changes that appear to have made game worse - namely holding the ball interpretation, no 3rd man up, designated ruckman, protected area for 50s, new way 50m is given, and all the minor ruck infringements.

I think we also need the recognise the impact of the expansion teams on the talent pool, which really seems to have hit in last 4/5 years. The skill levels obviously impact offensive scoring (hard to move ball cleanly if players can’t kick, Mark etc - Richmond’s game plan is almost perfect result to this - rely on speed and strength and hack the ball forward which requires less ball skills) but lesser impact in defense. Having talent levels dropping, while fitness and defensive strategies improve is unlikely to be conducive to scoring.But afl is unlikely to do anything about this (which could be the biggest factor of all).

 

[Argy]

I agree with Clarko.

The other change in rule interpretation I would like to see is "in the back".

In a marking contest, the mere hint of a player touching the back of his opponent with the palm of his hand is enough to give away a free kick.

But when a player is on the ground with the ball, often after winning a contest, the opposition always jump onto his back to try to stop him getting the ball away. If this was paid "in the back" then the game would open up a lot more.

Plus, when a player is pinned to ground by an oppo player it becomes "stacks on the mill". Every man and his dog jumps on top to try to keep it in and generate a free kick.

If the "third man in" was penalised the ball would come free more often and the game would spread better.

 

[LuckyHawk]

After 2 handballs there must be a kick. This will spread out the packs.
Ruck, ruck rover and rover get one rest a quarter so 12 interchanges only.
16 per side on the ground, one less back and forward pocket.
3rd man in penalised.
Off your feet you have no play at the ball.
Seemingly nothing difficult to rule on here.
Where footy is terrible atm is the continual kicking close to the boundary line both defending and attacking.
Continual play is at a minimum and the players get more rests which means they can get to more contests.
Watching ball in after ball in is a blight on the game. If team A kick to the boundary and team B punch the
ball out on the full then free kick to team B.

 

[Threadkilla]

Are they umpires, otherwise I'm not good at this.

Correct. And yes, the google machine can tell you these sort of things. I recommend it.

 

[Brishawk]

The most important thing to focus on regarding the rules is supporting a fair contest. Forget the aesthetics, if you focus on fairness everyone will be much more satisfied and then it is up to the players to entertain us instead of idiots sitting around a boardroom table.

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

Correct. And yes, the google machine can tell you these sort of things. I recommend it.

That would be just lazy now, wouldn't it.

 

[Faithful Hawk]

MHO is that besides all of the rules changes and tinkering of the game by the AFL it’s mostly the dilution of the player pool with the introduction of GWS and GC that has the a most effect on the quality of the game.

There is now a number of players playing AFL who would have not been up to the standard in past years prior and this has brought down the skill level and ability to execute under pressure.

 

[Argy]

After 2 handballs there must be a kick. This will spread out the packs.
Ruck, ruck rover and rover get one rest a quarter so 12 interchanges only.
16 per side on the ground, one less back and forward pocket.
3rd man in penalised.
Off your feet you have no play at the ball.
Seemingly nothing difficult to rule on here.
Where footy is terrible atm is the continual kicking close to the boundary line both defending and attacking.
Continual play is at a minimum and the players get more rests which means they can get to more contests.
Watching ball in after ball in is a blight on the game. If team A kick to the boundary and team B punch the
ball out on the full then free kick to team B.

That's not football.

 

[cryptor]

Scrap percentage, and make "Points For" the differentiator for teams equal on premiership points. You want people to score more? Incentivise them to do it!

Interesting idea. Would be curious to see how this would change the final ladder in previous years. Off the top of my head I know we'd finish top of the ladder at the end of H&A in 2014.

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

Forwards regularly get blocked from marking so the plus one defender gets an uncontested mark. There is a rule for this that is paid about 1 in 20 times.
That's about half the problem solved.

 

[LuckyHawk]

That's not football.

What we're watching now isn't football.

 

[Furn2]

In the past decade, 2013 was the highest scoring year. Since 2013 it has declined every year following, concurrent with the limitation of rotations starting in 2014.

How could you possibly think that tiring the players out to the point where their athletic advantages have been minimised would be a good idea?

reducing rotations does nothing to change the amount of time each player spends on the field. its still 9/11ths (81%) of the game on average.

In 2013 they had the sub which changed that equation to 18/21 or (86%). Scoring went down after they got rid of the sub.

Unless you bring rotations down to under 20 or so (ideally just 4 subs) you aren't going to see an effect where players actually have to play the whole game or close to it. Once they do, current gameplans will be far less effective and attacking positional tactics will have a chance.

 

[Furn2]

MHO is that besides all of the rules changes and tinkering of the game by the AFL it’s mostly the dilution of the player pool with the introduction of GWS and GC that has the a most effect on the quality of the game.

There is now a number of players playing AFL who would have not been up to the standard in past years prior and this has brought down the skill level and ability to execute under pressure.

rotations means there 72 players who aren't best 18 playing 80%+ game time every week. Much more of a problem than the new teams as the games A-graders come off to allow that game time and much more easily fixed.

 

[H00t]

In regards to interchange numbers I honestly think the horse and long since bolted.
Warning long post - tldr - 6 on the bench unlimited interchanges

Coaches are defense at all costs first. Even getting the ball inside 50 is about defending the ground and grinding out a goal rather than scoring from the initial entry.

We want teams to attack which means players need to be fit enough to play offensively and defensively. Otherwise it’s all about defense again.

I know it will reduce the talent on the ground but if you want higher scoring I feel extending the interchange bench to 6 and having unlimited interchanges.

This means players are fresher while on the ground which means higher skills. As players get tired skill and offensive play is the first to go.

I’m kind of drawing this from the substitution rule. Most subs where the 22 player picked in the team, however when they came on they typically looked damaging with good skills because they were so fresh and full of energy that they could get involved in more offensive chains.

There’s about 10 other changes I can think of but this is one that needs looking into.

 

[Cannyman]

Heaps of old people in here sounding like Ian Chappel "everything was better in my day" baloney.

Anyways, my suggestion would be, if teams were reduced to 16 players on the field, i would like to see the two players replaced with one of the following (i haven't quite decided which group of people would lead to more free flowing football".

1) Celebrities
2) Old football stars
3) Auskick Kids
4) Random winners of competitions
5) Sportsman from other codes

You would have to just stick them in the forward pocket just like that 12 year old kid that plays 1st's in country footy to make up the numbers. Most of the time they are useless and cant get near it but once a year they do some miraculous like jag some crazy goal from the boundary and it is the best thing in footy. Maybe we shouldnt be watching the "best players" play the game, maybe we should be watching the worst.

Just a though.

 

[Lawsy]

In regards to interchange numbers I honestly think the horse and long since bolted.
Warning long post - tldr - 6 on the bench unlimited interchanges

Coaches are defense at all costs first. Even getting the ball inside 50 is about defending the ground and grinding out a goal rather than scoring from the initial entry.

We want teams to attack which means players need to be fit enough to play offensively and defensively. Otherwise it’s all about defense again.

I know it will reduce the talent on the ground but if you want higher scoring I feel extending the interchange bench to 6 and having unlimited interchanges.

This means players are fresher while on the ground which means higher skills. As players get tired skill and offensive play is the first to go.

I’m kind of drawing this from the substitution rule. Most subs where the 22 player picked in the team, however when they came on they typically looked damaging with good skills because they were so fresh and full of energy that they could get involved in more offensive chains.

There’s about 10 other changes I can think of but this is one that needs looking into.

I think almost the polar opposite H00t, that having extra players and fresher legs means it will just continue in the same vein.
I may be wrong about the years but I think the Pies of 09-11 had the highest number of interchange rotations in history. They were a really good team, won a flag, runner up and PF those years.
But they pioneered the play the boundary line, force a stoppage, get numbers to the ball and flood back in numbers to stymy scoring. It was literally run your guts out, rest, rince, repeat for that team.
We were fortunate to have one of the best, most balanced and offensive forward lines the game had seen, plus Clarko, and as such outgunned everyone during our 3 peat.
As it is much easier to defend towards the pockets or boundary and not give up the corridor, coaches have developed variations on the Collingwood style, particularly when not really an offensive threat...see 16,17 and even 19 although the 19 Tigers did have Jack and Lynch like the Eagles had Kennedy and Darling in 18.
I look at our current team and readily acknowledge we should be scoring more but we don't have twin towers yet so totally see why Clarko has put such an emphasis on our defensive structure 10-70m from the play. We can move the 10 guys not around the ball easily to the next position in play with any forward thrust and outside of the last quarter in each game and 3rd quarter v Geelong, have defended extremely well without really being particularly offensive.
Imagine how much easier it will be if there were another 2 midfielders and unlimited interchange.

Just my thoughts.

 

[phlogiston]

Interesting idea. Would be curious to see how this would change the final ladder in previous years. Off the top of my head I know we'd finish top of the ladder at the end of H&A in 2014.

The whole idea is to make scoring more appealing, but your comment got me thinking. I couldn't easily find a database of ladders that are easily editable, but here is 2019:

Using percentage:

1. Geelong
2. Brisbane
3. Richmond
4. Collingwood
5. WCE
6. GWS
7. WB
8. Essendon

Using Points For:

1. Brisbane
2. Geelong
3. Richmond
4. WCE
5. Collingwood
6. GWS
7. WB
8. Essendon

Tips Collingwood out of the double chance.

Because I'm waiting for my boss to get back to me on a report, here's 2018:

1. Richmond
2. WCE
3. Collingwood
4. Hawthorn
5. Melbourne
6. Sydney
7. GWS
8. Geelong

Using PF:

1. Richmond
2. WCE
3. Collingwood
4. Hawthorn
5. Melbourne
6. Sydney
7. GWS
8. Geelong

No difference.

In 2017, Melbourne would make the finals at the expense of WCE...

 

[cryptor]

The whole idea is to make scoring more appealing, but your comment got me thinking. I couldn't easily find a database of ladders that are easily editable, but here is 2019:

Using percentage:

1. Geelong
2. Brisbane
3. Richmond
4. Collingwood
5. WCE
6. GWS
7. WB
8. Essendon

Using Points For:

1. Brisbane
2. Geelong
3. Richmond
4. WCE
5. Collingwood
6. GWS
7. WB
8. Essendon

Tips Collingwood out of the double chance.

Because I'm waiting for my boss to get back to me on a report, here's 2018:

1. Richmond
2. WCE
3. Collingwood
4. Hawthorn
5. Melbourne
6. Sydney
7. GWS
8. Geelong

Using PF:

1. Richmond
2. WCE
3. Collingwood
4. Hawthorn
5. Melbourne
6. Sydney
7. GWS
8. Geelong

No difference.

In 2017, Melbourne would make the finals at the expense of WCE...

Yep, but of course if clubs knew that 'points for' was all that mattered (relative to 'points against') then they'd play differently and these ladders would presumably change a lot more. It's worth exploring.

 

[phlogiston]

Yep, but of course if clubs knew that 'points for' was all that mattered (relative to 'points against') then they'd play differently and these ladders would presumably change a lot more. It's worth exploring.

Yeah, agreed.

It's not my idea; I think Malcolm Blight proposed it years ago.

P

 

[Faithful Hawk]

rotations means there 72 players who aren't best 18 playing 80%+ game time every week. Much more of a problem than the new teams as the games A-graders come off to allow that game time and much more easily fixed.

I don’t agree if you remove 80 bottom end players from the AFL you would hope that the overall skill level would increase as the talent would be more condensed.

 

[Cleavy]

The whole idea is to make scoring more appealing, but your comment got me thinking. I couldn't easily find a database of ladders that are easily editable, but here is 2019:

Using percentage:

1. Geelong
2. Brisbane
3. Richmond
4. Collingwood
5. WCE
6. GWS
7. WB
8. Essendon

Using Points For:

1. Brisbane
2. Geelong
3. Richmond
4. WCE
5. Collingwood
6. GWS
7. WB
8. Essendon

Tips Collingwood out of the double chance.

Because I'm waiting for my boss to get back to me on a report, here's 2018:

1. Richmond
2. WCE
3. Collingwood
4. Hawthorn
5. Melbourne
6. Sydney
7. GWS
8. Geelong

Using PF:

1. Richmond
2. WCE
3. Collingwood
4. Hawthorn
5. Melbourne
6. Sydney
7. GWS
8. Geelong

No difference.

In 2017, Melbourne would make the finals at the expense of WCE...

any change to the ladders if it's measured on points differential (Points For minus Points Against) like they do in the NRL?

 

[Furn2]

I don’t agree if you remove 80 bottom end players from the AFL you would hope that the overall skill level would increase as the talent would be more condensed.

The bottom 80 players aren't playing each week normally though are they ?

Keeping the best players in the league on the ground for the whole game would make a much bigger difference imo.

 

[H00t]

I think almost the polar opposite H00t, that having extra players and fresher legs means it will just continue in the same vein.
I may be wrong about the years but I think the Pies of 09-11 had the highest number of interchange rotations in history. They were a really good team, won a flag, runner up and PF those years.
But they pioneered the play the boundary line, force a stoppage, get numbers to the ball and flood back in numbers to stymy scoring. It was literally run your guts out, rest, rince, repeat for that team.
We were fortunate to have one of the best, most balanced and offensive forward lines the game had seen, plus Clarko, and as such outgunned everyone during our 3 peat.
As it is much easier to defend towards the pockets or boundary and not give up the corridor, coaches have developed variations on the Collingwood style, particularly when not really an offensive threat...see 16,17 and even 19 although the 19 Tigers did have Jack and Lynch like the Eagles had Kennedy and Darling in 18.
I look at our current team and readily acknowledge we should be scoring more but we don't have twin towers yet so totally see why Clarko has put such an emphasis on our defensive structure 10-70m from the play. We can move the 10 guys not around the ball easily to the next position in play with any forward thrust and outside of the last quarter in each game and 3rd quarter v Geelong, have defended extremely well without really being particularly offensive.
Imagine how much easier it will be if there were another 2 midfielders and unlimited interchange.

Just my thoughts.

I agree that fresher players means better defending. And that coaches have gone much more defensive.

I think Collingwood in 2011 still managed to score over 100 points in 17 of their 22 H&A games, two other scores being 98 and 99because of that record number of interchanges.

They pushed themselves insanely hard defensively but were able to score so much because they could use the interchange to keep themselves fresh.

Saying this I don’t believe more interchanges and an extended bench will ever be tried. AFL seems to have fallen in love with as less interchanges as possible which has only decreased scoring. Though it might have a breaking point where scoring is increased.

 

[Brishawk]

I agree that fresher players means better defending. And that coaches have gone much more defensive.

I think Collingwood in 2011 still managed to score over 100 points in 17 of their 22 H&A games, two other scores being 98 and 99because of that record number of interchanges.

They pushed themselves insanely hard defensively but were able to score so much because they could use the interchange to keep themselves fresh.

Saying this I don’t believe more interchanges and an extended bench will ever be tried. AFL seems to have fallen in love with as less interchanges as possible which has only decreased scoring. Though it might have a breaking point where scoring is increased.

They had a tactical advantage over most of the opposition but as a whole, goals scored has been falling since the 90s. The thing that went up markedly along with the increas in interchange was tackles. The interchange and improving fitness were factors in increasing congestion aimed at lowering disposal efficiency.