making the game less "Boring"

[Bloodstained Angel]

Ok - everybody by now knows about David Parkins comments on how the game is losing spectacle and becoming boring and predictable because there is too much :

- Flooding of the backline
- Too much "tagging out "of followers and rovers
- Too many short kicks, too many handballs.
- Too many players around the ball, creating unsightly packs of players everywhere.

Parkin has a point here I think and whats interesting is some of the ideas put forward to try and do something about it.

Now you would know that like most of the rest of you I hate rule changes and think the game is better off just being left alone.

But some of these suggested rule changes DO sound pretty sensible. They may do the trick of making the game more of a spectacle, and most imporatntly, don't radically alter the character of the game.

Proposed rule changes include :

- The length of a markable kick increased from 10 metres to 20 metres.
- Kickouts from a behind MUST clear the 50 metre arc.
- At Centre Bounces, all midfielders should line up in their traditional postions ONLY.
- At a ball-up, if the ruckman chooses to take possession cleanly with both hands, and then subsequently fails to dispose of the ball cleanly, or fails to break away from the pack when in possession, then he should be penalised for holding the ball. (this will encourage ruckmen to do what they are supposed to do and tap the ball on, not take possession just to bottle-it up)
- If a Full Forward marks in the goal square, they should shoot for goal from directly in front, and not made to line up on a sharp angle.


I think these are all pretty good ideas and should help to eliminate some of the eyesores that Parkin is talking about.

what do you reckon ?

 

[sbagman]

I think they're all pretty good, BSA. Not sure if it would fix the problem, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

Cheers,
Sbagman.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

I think they are all good suggestions but the game should be give a few more years to see how it pans out first. Who knows, maybe some coach will come up with a plan that will make floodin useless??

 

[Pessimistic]

Someone pointed out that you never saw flooding at waverley, as the ground was too big.

Perhaps waverley was the way to go after all.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
- The length of a markable kick increased from 10 metres to 20 metres.
- Kickouts from a behind MUST clear the 50 metre arc.
- At Centre Bounces, all midfielders should line up in their traditional postions ONLY.
- At a ball-up, if the ruckman chooses to take possession cleanly with both hands, and then subsequently fails to dispose of the ball cleanly, or fails to break away from the pack when in possession, then he should be penalised for holding the ball. (this will encourage ruckmen to do what they are supposed to do and tap the ball on, not take possession just to bottle-it up)
- If a Full Forward marks in the goal square, they should shoot for goal from directly in front, and not made to line up on a sharp angle.


I think these are all pretty good ideas and should help to eliminate some of the eyesores that Parkin is talking about.

what do you reckon ?

Personally I'm not finding things too boring at all , but as far as the above goes, I agree with points 3 and 5, am not fussed about 1 (IMO increasing the kick length wont stop teams chipping the ball around) and against 2 and 4.

Mandating the kick in to clear 50 means that the attacking team can ignore the 50 and set it's zone up outside 50, causing a flood at that point. I also think enforcing in the rules where a player must kick in this manner takes away some of the free form nature of our game

Penalising the ruckman the way you've said has been introduced in the comp I play in this year (though I haven't seen it paid too often) and as a ruckman I'm (naturally!) against it. If the umpire stuffs the bounce up, which happens, you're often in the position of not being able to do anything but take the footy. I don't feel you should be penalised for this. I also don't think that this happens all that often. A far greater blight IMO is the practice of thumping the ball back over the line at boundary thow ins, something that was supposed to be penalised this year but seems to have been forgotten.

Nice troll btw, bastard!

 

[Blues2001]

I agree about the marking the ball near the goal line thing. They should have a mini arc ofabout 10 metres (similar to the 50m line but only 10m out). If you mark it inside this arc then you should kick from a spot about 10m out directly in front (or 5m or whatever). In theory, as the rule stands, if a plyer marks it on the goal line but it is not exactly centre, they should be put on an angle that is litererally impossible to kick a goal from. Its a ridiculous rule.

 

[Port01]

Most of those will just create more problems.

For example, not letting players kickout within the 50 arc will inevitably lead to nearly all the opposition crowding just outside 50, which is what you are trying to avoid.

Not letting ruckmen take possession of the ball is akin to not letting players in packs anywhere take possession of the ball, simply stupid. The ruckman is NOT there to tap the ball, he is not supposed to tap the ball, there is no law saying the ruckman must tap the ball, the ruckman is there to win possession for his team in a neutral ball situation. Making this one dimensional will take away the 2nd ruckman flying over the pack at a boundary throwin, grabbing the ball and snapping it for a goal, examples of which are regular hightlights and contenders for 'goal of the week'.
Don't introduce bull******** rules for certain periods of play, all players must be given equal oppurtunity to take the ball and dispose of it, or tap it on, at ANY stage of play.

10m-20m wont make any difference, the umpires cant judge distance as it is, so any kick over 15m will be given benefit of the doubt, there are very few instances of players kicking <15m and I wouldn't call it a blight on the game when they do.

As for the full forwards, they shouldnt be put on a ridiculous angle, but with the player on the mark inside the goalsquare for any talented player it doesnt mean much. Running around a little you have plenty of goal to aim for and very few players miss. I don't see how changing this would make the game 'less boring', in fact it would make it more so because of the undoubted predictability of watching a FF take 50 seconds over a kick from the end of the goalsquare.


IN summary, changing the game for changes sake is a typical knee-jerk reaction from the AFL, and it wouldn't surprise me to see stuff like this implemented.

However, I don't see how these changes will make the game more exciting by changing towards the predictable.

 

[WCE2000]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel

- The length of a markable kick increased from 10 metres to 20 metres.

They should put that rule in, but i don't think it would make to much of a difference. But it would be useful, never-the-less.

- Kickouts from a behind MUST clear the 50 metre arc.

Not a good rule at all. As someone mentioned, it would create more problems, as the opposition would just crowd around the 50 metre arc.

- At Centre Bounces, all midfielders should line up in their traditional postions ONLY.

I don't know about this one, it's a bit picky, telling a person where they must stand.

- At a ball-up, if the ruckman chooses to take possession cleanly with both hands, and then subsequently fails to dispose of the ball cleanly, or fails to break away from the pack when in possession, then he should be penalised for holding the ball. (this will encourage ruckmen to do what they are supposed to do and tap the ball on, not take possession just to bottle-it up)

I thought this one was a good one. Someone said you'll take the aspect of the game, where a second ruck flies over and snaps. But if you read carefully, the can still do that, but if they don't dispose of the ball, they're pinged, not just another ball-up.

- If a Full Forward marks in the goal square, they should shoot for goal from directly in front, and not made to line up on a sharp angle.

Good rule, and should've be introduced from the start.

I don't think there is any "policable rule" to counter flooding. You could say, only 7 defenders in the defensive arc, but it's too hard to police.
And also, The only tactic that can be used to counter flooding effectively, is too just move the ball quick.

If you remember back to Round 2, West Coast v Sydney, in the third and fourth quarter, all West Coast did was move the ball quick. We basically just kicked the ball, as far and as quick as we could downfield, with little-to-no direction. Despite just bombing the ball, we managed to get back from a 50 point half-time depisite to lose by 15.
IMO, that's really, the only way to counter flooding, move the ball as quickly as possible.

 

[happy hawker]

All excellent stuff BSA but for the ball clearing the 50 on a kickout, maybe limit the team to 2 possessions to give the team some options.

Here are some more rules which I think should be introduced.

1. Once the ball leaves the 50m defensive arc it can't re-enter.

2. At the centre bounce no player can enter the the square until the ball comes out.

3. Last player to touch the ball out of bounds, free kick to the opposition. It would speed up play and help beat flooding. Except for the defensive players in the defensive 50 who should be allowed to put the ball over the line with no penalty.

4. All balls kicked backward are play on, makes teams think about time wasting at the end of close games.

5. The ball to be deemed out of play when the player is out of bounds touching the ground with the ball, it's much easier for the boudary umpire to see that than trying to estimate when the ball has broken an imaginary plane as it is now.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by happy hawker

Here are some more rules which I think should be introduced.

1. Once the ball leaves the 50m defensive arc it can't re-enter.

Great, as once I get the ball out it stays out. Should make defending heaps easier . Seriously, play, particularly in pack situations, is too haphazard to enable a rule like this to be enforced. When you're in a pack trying to get the ball out you're listening for a call from a team-mate, not worrying about where the 50m arc might be. Will add to the confusion as if it comes out of a pack, who touched it last?

2. At the centre bounce no player can enter the the square until the ball comes out.

I like it! Will reduce centre square congestion even further, particularly at the SCG.

3. Last player to touch the ball out of bounds, free kick to the opposition. It would speed up play and help beat flooding. Except for the defensive players in the defensive 50 who should be allowed to put the ball over the line with no penalty.

LOL! Like the last bit, but this was tried and died. It's a disincentive for players to attempt to take posession near the boundary.

4. All balls kicked backward are play on, makes teams think about time wasting at the end of close games.

And that's the only time this happens? The solution to "time wasting" is for the team that is behind to man up. Collingwood's ploy of not having a man on the mark was a good innovation with relation to this.

5. The ball to be deemed out of play when the player is out of bounds touching the ground with the ball, it's much easier for the boudary umpire to see that than trying to estimate when the ball has broken an imaginary plane as it is now.

Straight from basketball where there's just as much dispute over whether a ball was in or out and whether a foot was on the line or not.

2. is worth a look at, the others not. All IMO of course

 

[WCE2000]

Happy Hawker:

I thought 2 was a very good one.

4 has a bit of potential, but has to be looked at, and maybe refined abit.

But as Dave said, it's the other teams responsibility to man up.

 

[HahnPremium8]

I don't think there should be any rule changes. Just let it evolve. BSA did u see the WC v WB game last week. There was NO flooding. It was a man on man type game.

Anyway i don't think the game is becoming boring at all. What's wrong with teams having a few players loose back in defence and then running it out all the way to the other end and kicking a goal?

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Proposed rule changes include :

- The length of a markable kick increased from 10 metres to 20 metres.
- Kickouts from a behind MUST clear the 50 metre arc.
- At Centre Bounces, all midfielders should line up in their traditional postions ONLY.
cleanly with both hands, and then subsequently fails to dispose of the ball cleanly, or fails to break away from the pack when in possession, then he should be penalised for holding the ball. (this will encourage ruckmen to do what they are supposed to do and tap the ball on, not take possession just to bottle-it up)
- If a Full Forward marks in the goal square, they should shoot for goal from directly in front, and not made to line up on a sharp angle.


I think these are all pretty good ideas and should help to eliminate some of the eyesores that Parkin is talking about.

what do you reckon ?

- The length of a markable kick increased from 10 metres to 20 metres.

Nope. 15m maximum. 20 metres would be too difficult to pick up from the umpire how long it went and whether or not it is 20m. 15m yes, 20m too far.

- Kickouts from a behind MUST clear the 50 metre arc.

Now this is the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Must clear 50m or what?? Ballup??? Opposition free kick?? The whole idea of the kickout is to clear the ball safely out of the opposition forward line. Hence you get free men in spots. If you boot it out of 50, youd have to rely on a very strong pair of marking hands, and it defies logic.


- At Centre Bounces, all midfielders should line up in their traditional postions ONLY.

yeah fair enough

- ruckmen at the ball up

thats fair enough too

- - If a Full Forward marks in the goal square, they should shoot for goal from directly in front, and not made to line up on a sharp angle.

fair enough.

The only one i disagree with seriously is the 50m kickout thing. Thats stupid. It would bottle up play more. 8 times out of 10 the ball will be knocked away to the ground, then 8 people will jump on the ball and a ballup, stoppage of play.

the others are reasonable tho

 

[happy hawker]

Oh well......5 thoughts with one pretty good idea - No.2 .

Of all the 5 it's the one which I hope would be implemented because I think it would make game a far better spectacle.

I tried to make use of the 50m lines with No.1, I wonder if anyone can put these cosmetic features to good use. Off hand I can't think of any sport that has this feature on the field, someone will prove me wrong .

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by happy hawker
Oh well......5 thoughts with one pretty good idea - No.2 .

Of all the 5 it's the one which I hope would be implemented because I think it would make game a far better spectacle.

I tried to make use of the 50m lines with No.1, I wonder if anyone can put these cosmetic features to good use. Off hand I can't think of any sport that has this feature on the field, someone will prove me wrong .

Gridiron has yardage marking on the field, which they use to determine downs. Basketball has the key & three point arcs, netball the third markings, rugby the 22 line, there's a few for starters

 

[happy hawker]

You missed the point dave, the 50m arc has no purpose in the game except for aesthetics. All the markings on the field you stated have a purpose in the game.

 

[Dave]

Au contraire (sp?), runners, trainers and waterpersons are not allowed inside the fifty when the ball is being kicked in after a point or when a player is having a shot at goal so it does serve some (insignificant) purpose