Good post.Have the combined efforts of overly defensive coaches & a meddling AFL killed the game as we know it? Boring as hell games for 3 quarters until the shackles are thrown off for a last quarter mad rush to victory is getting old real quick.
67, 63, 76, 66, 58, 44, 31, 71, 55 - the majority if scores kicked so far this weekend in mostly fine football weather. This nonsense cannot continue.
I don't mind that. Almost like they're taking the responsibility of "prior opportunity" off the individual, and onto the team or the play.Hardwick likes it too
Richmond coach Damien Hardwick wants the AFL to introduce team prior opportunity as a way to solve congestion around the ball.www.theage.com.au
I really like this idea.They should trial the 16 on field in the pre season next season (official jlt but also any other practice games)
Players should be accountable to making a decision on whether or not to take possession if they are about to get tackled. If they decide to take possession and get legally tackled they have made a poor decision. Every player had to make a similar judgement call before prior opp came into being in the early 00's. The smart ones would tap ths ball forward and then win a free for holding the man - see, the tackler also has to make a judgement call on whether or not to tackle. Prior opp simply give both players an out to create yet another boring stoppage for no good reason.If by getting rid of prior opp you mean paying a free kick every time someone is tackled, that will destroy the game. I don’t want to watch a game where players are too afraid to pick the ball up so they essentially turn it into a game of soccer. Also it would increase the free kicks ten fold. Not really something I want to watch. I think furthering of the zones could have a positive effect. Maybe a minimum of 2 players have to be in the forward/mid/back zones at every stoppage. Pay a free kick if they aren’t in the zones by the time the ball is balled up.
In relation to your last point - last possession, not last touch. If there is no definitive last possession and the ball goes out of bounds, a throw-in is fine in those circumstances.3. WILL not happen. Many players have said one of the rules they dislike is the interchange cap. And you do realize that when the game was "more open and high scoring there was no cap on interchanges? Since the caps have come in the game has become less free flowing? 10 per quarter is to little. Tired heavy legs will lead to even worse kicking skills, thus more turnovers and having the opposite effect of what you hope for
4. Would be one of the rules that everyone hates. May reduce stoppages. But with the amount of over the top sooking fans do about umpires these days, but its not an easy black and white rule. With congestion on the sideline there will be confusion many times to who touched it last because the umpire could be blocked from view to see whos body it touched during a contest on the sideline
Variety is the spice of life. 3 100 point games so far is a clear indication the game has become too defensive.I don’t see what the problem with that is. Defence-less games are boring and one dimensional, the only competitive part of the game is the centre clearance.
Nothing wrong with in game variety too my friend.Variety is the spice of life. 3 100 point games so far is a clear indication the game has become too defensive.
I don't mind defensive games. What I do mind is knowing that at the moment any given game I sit down to watch is probably going to be a grind.
Problem is that scoring is not increasing, the opposite in fact & showing no signs of increasing any time soon.Nothing wrong with in game variety too my friend.
Last year’s grand final was one of the most enjoyable games to watch all year because of it. It includes periods where scoring couldn’t be stopped, and periods where it was nearly impossible. It was gripping viewing because of that variety.
Any game where both teams end between 70-110 are pretty good and show some variety. A couple of games outside of that are good too but lower than that and it’s often just a slog which everyone carries on about, anything above that and it’s either a huge blowout that’s over early, or scoring just couldn’t be stopped and goals are devalued. Boring, one dimensional, just as bad, if not worse than slogs. At least slogs often open up late, shootouts often don’t have any slow periods.
Games with scores between 70-110 happen around a quarter of the time. Open that up to 60-110 and you’ve got about half of all games. So really if scoring increased by about a goal per game we’re looking at 4 or 5 games per week that are quality viewing. Far from a broken game.
Would be interesting to see that compared to the population growth of Melbourne.I've heard this sort of conversation many times, but my query on the future of the game lies on the lack of growth. Our game might be popular but where is it growing?
1990-1999 was justified due to the game going national but since then we've seen very little growth.
View attachment 705563
I actually don't mind 6-6-6 although it stifles coaching strategies some what. It's not a solution though. I was thinking I wouldn't mind if they took it further, have a 25m arc as well (like you would see on the old WA grounds in the 80s) and make 3 players from each team be inside the 25m arc and 3 players between 25m-50m arcs at each centre bounce.I’ve always been a fan of needing to have at least 3 on 3 inside the arcs at all times. I don’t see what is wrong with enforcing that rule. As well as retaining the standard 6-6-6 for centre bounces.
I hate it. It does nothing to solve congestion and players crowding the ball. If anything it will create more if a rolling scrum as players won't want to take possession, just keep moving the ball forward by tapping it or kicking off the ground.I don't mind that. Almost like they're taking the responsibility of "prior opportunity" off the individual, and onto the team or the play.
The best part about it is it doesn't actually alter the rules of the game at all. It just impacts coaching strategies as they now have to less pieces on the chessboard to work with.
Prior opportunity existed before the mid-00s. Are you saying there were never ballups for a player being tackled in the 90s?Players should be accountable to making a decision on whether or not to take possession if they are about to get tackled. If they decide to take possession and get legally tackled they have made a poor decision. Every player had to make a similar judgement call before prior opp came into being in the early 00's. The smart ones would tap ths ball forward and then win a free for holding the man - see, the tackler also has to make a judgement call on whether or not to tackle. Prior opp simply give both players an out to create yet another boring stoppage for no good reason.
On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app