How would on field zoning likely work?

[Wallaby]

1. Remove Interchange.
2. Look at reducing numbers of players on field (it's a big ground).
3. Remove Interchange.
4. Shoot the first coach who suggests re-introducing interchange (probably Sheedy - just do it now and save time).
..........
6. There is no Rule 6.
7. Remove Interchange.
................
..................
2,983,154. Think about zoning and reject it.
2,983,155. Remove Interchange.

 

[Bokonon_]

1. Remove Interchange.
2. Look at reducing numbers of players on field (it's a big ground).
3. Remove Interchange.
4. Shoot the first coach who suggests re-introducing interchange (probably Sheedy - just do it now and save time).
..........
6. There is no Rule 6.
7. Remove Interchange.
................
..................
2,983,154. Think about zoning and reject it.
2,983,155. Remove Interchange.

Ok
I'm getting you're a bit ambiguous about continuing with the interchange.
Dont necessarily disagree. Presumably the blood rule would still allow temporary replacement, and what about injury replacement?
One issue I can see is the dreaded interchange does allow injuries to be assessed thoroughly off the field. If this cant be done an unintended consequence could be longer delays in play as medical staff would be pressured to take the time to decide if the player can go on.

 

[NoobPie]

1. Remove Interchange.
2. Look at reducing numbers of players on field (it's a big ground).
3. Remove Interchange.
4. Shoot the first coach who suggests re-introducing interchange (probably Sheedy - just do it now and save time).
..........
6. There is no Rule 6.
7. Remove Interchange.
................
..................
2,983,154. Think about zoning and reject it.
2,983,155. Remove Interchange.

Interesting to consider but someone early noted the possibility that coaches may respond by resting players behind the ball. Presumably there would be substitution? How many substitutes would you allow?

 

[master bate]

I'd start small with 2 from each side inside 50 at every stoppage. That would mean a lot of the other forwards and backs (maybe 3 of 4 from each side) would have to stay away from stoppages just to make sure there's someone to get the ball to the inside 50 forwards. Wingers are probably always going to sit outside stoppages so in terms of the inside group at each stoppage it might just be the 4 midfielders from each team plus 1 half forward/half back.

I'm less and less worried about congestion. Good teams play good football both inside and outside the congested areas. Fixing the talent drain and inequity will help more than any rule change. Most of the bottom teams have improved this offseason by getting good access to the drat and the availability of better players in trade week this year. For example Gold Coast were able to pick up Michael Barlow and Jarryd Lyons for very little to help their list in the short/medium term.

Most sides should be confident they have the skills and physical ability to play a good brand of footy.

 

[Pessimistic]

RoCos making a lot of sense these days but this barks. One feature of AFL is no onside or offside or positional rule.

but if you really wanted to spice things up, have four interchange gates, two on the wings and two near each goal square.

players are chipped and four interchange stewards have a detecting device with go/no go on it.

So a team can take a back pocket player off and add a forward pocket in a few seconds. If the teams have to cover for this tactic, they won't crowd everyone into a third of the oval

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I wouldn't mind a rule saying each team must have a player in each 50m zone at all times, but full on zoning would make the game a bit boring I think.

That's actually not too bad of an idea. Keeps teams honest to a degree without killing the system. Means you're always going to have to have a resting forward, midfield interceptor/defensive midfielder and a last man back/sweeper type player (depending on the situation)

 

[Sando22]

Like sh*t

 

[basashi]

I am sick to death of seeing games determined by skill, fitness, commitment, passion and that sort of garbage.

I look forward to games being determined by administrative technicalities and opaque rulings on positioning, especially if it is relative to another position.

It will be great to see replays of players in the wrong bib ("type N6" for example) put their foot into a zone that only type N4, R31 can enter in the first halves of games played in months starting with J if the powerplay doesn't apply.. except it would, though, if the interchange was in phase Orange. it will be wonderful to see a grand final be concluded with a "checkmate" ruling by the chair umpire because an interchange steward shouted "Mornington Crescent!"

 

[Pessimistic]

So the teams just have a gut runner to run to the goal square and back. And one for the other end

Enjoy

 

[Garlic muncher]

WAFL colts has a rule where each team has to have at least two players behind the halfway line at each ball up. It's monitored by the off-field umpire I believe.

Junior football - well at least in the West Perth district has a unspoken coaching rule of not flooding, which also means not playing extra in defense etc etc

Doesn't always happen though.

 

[Garlic muncher]

I blame Sheedy who begged for extra I/C - just snowballed from there.

 

[Pessimistic]

So the teams just have a gut runner to run to the goal square and back. And one for the other end

Enjoy

 

[TwentyNine]

It would not.

 

[Trip3101]

I wouldn't mind less players on the field. The playing talent is spread too thin now with so many teams and the players are a lot fitter

 

[Seedsfan]

Simple answer to a simple question it wouldn't work

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Zoning wouldn't work - only possible way would be ensuring x number of players inside 50 metre arcs at each stoppage even though will be too time consuming for a sport that is trying to reduce the playing time to fit in with the TV stations requirements.

Reducing the number of players on the field would probably work (at least should be the first to be tested) but people seem to have some irrational objection to this.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I wouldn't mind less players on the field. The playing talent is spread too thin now with so many teams and the players are a lot fitter

Yep A LOT fitter than they were in Edwardian times.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I am sick to death of seeing games determined by skill, fitness, commitment, passion and that sort of garbage.

I look forward to games being determined by administrative technicalities and opaque rulings on positioning, especially if it is relative to another position.

It will be great to see replays of players in the wrong bib ("type N6" for example) put their foot into a zone that only type N4, R31 can enter in the first halves of games played in months starting with J if the powerplay doesn't apply.. except it would, though, if the interchange was in phase Orange. it will be wonderful to see a grand final be concluded with a "checkmate" ruling by the chair umpire because an interchange steward shouted "Mornington Crescent!"

Priceless!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I wouldn't mind less players on the field. The playing talent is spread too thin now with so many teams and the players are a lot fitter

Agreed (though I would suggest "fewer" players, not "less" because I'm a pedantic little irritant.)

Not that I even agree there is a problem with congestion; I love our game in all its iterations, but if there is a problem, I see reducing player numbers as a far simpler and far more effective remedy than the ridiculous extra complications that zoning would add.

 

[Ant_]

Worried about congestion yet want to ban 3rd man up?

 

[The 747]

Multi ball. Less players around each ball. Makes sense.

 

[Pessimistic]

Multi ball. Less players around each ball. Makes sense.

Don't need rucks either. Both teams kick out simultaneously and each phase is played until both balls are dead

Repeat

 

[Obeanie1]

Any zoning is a terrible, terrible idea. We have a great game as is.

If the AFL were stupid enough to implement zoning the only way it could be done is each team must have a certain amount of players inside their 50m line at each stoppage.

We had a great game.

Today we have a game that resembles an under 12's game with a blob of players following the ball everywhere.

My wife, she likes AFL but she thinks the current game is boring because of this issue.

Zoning needs to be very simple to work. Min of two forwards and two backs in the forward 50 at any time. How you penalise this is the harder part as you don't want teams slowing play down. Again keep it simple, 60 seconds in the 'sin bin' and you are a player down?

 

[Furn2]

just get rid of interchange.

 

[NoobPie]

Guiding principles for the Laws of the Game are:

■ There are few restrictions on where players can be located across the ground

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Laws-of-the-game-charter.pdf