Since reduced rotations scoring has been reduced.
Their no evidence that reduced rotations help with scoring.
(No such thing as stupid) Ideas Zone: "Improving" the Game
- Thread starter arsesmart
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Their no evidence that reduced rotations help with scoring.
Prior to the interchange cap rotation numbers were ridiculous though. The RTB era, Freo were averaging 150 -160 per game. That’s 40 rotations per freaking quarter. More than the average per game in the mid 2000s.
To me, the biggest difference in footy today versus footy in the past is that today nearly all players follow the ball to greater extent. If you look at the game today, the quadrant or quarter of the ground where the ball is contains nearly all the players. Back in the old days players used to play more to their positions on the field. It is this greater degree of movement which has favoured the recruitment of athletes over skilled players, blokes with a tank that can run all day are more valuable than players who are skillful but can't.
It is all within the rules of course, but I don't know how to solve it. The decline of the modern game started with the flood.
It is all within the rules of course, but I don't know how to solve it. The decline of the modern game started with the flood.
Two reasons for the hand in the back rule.The first four are pretty solid (#4 is a real winner).
More stringent paying of free kicks is interesting. The don't argue is a gimme these days isn't it? If it's not paid then that's a mistake really. The hand in the back is a matter of taste I suppose, as long as their able to judge it clearly often enough.
1. It's very difficult to determine how much force a hand in the back is applied and how much it factors a player. Player in the air is very different to player on the ground. Players also fake how much contract.
2. It clears up the game.
NBA and basketball changed from two hands on a player as automatic foul and one hand similar to our hand in the back rule to all hand checking as an automatic foul. The result was higher scoring.
Remember last year when Townsend pushed Logue twice in the back for 2 goals.
Less interpretations the better for Fremantle. I hate the maggots screwing us over.
Its dangerous especially in the air.
A fundamental Australian concept that the player should play the ball and not the man.
Nobody would be front position.
- Thread starter
- #35
But has reduced interchanges improved the game in any way? What's the case for that?.
- Thread starter
- #36
It offers some protection for the player's most vulnerable side (i.e. when the back's turned, similar to the coward punch idea). Although the danger isn't overly huge, I don't mind it as it does increase the difficulty of taking a mark (i.e. making it more valuable). Mind you, hands in the back without pushing is a bit more marginal, but it can add to the difficulty in interpreting for the umpires.
- Thread starter
- #37
Getting the numbers to the ball is such a potent weapon for coaches to wield. Even if they wanted to stop using it, they leave themselves too vulnerable in doing so. By increasing the value of other weapons in their armoury, it gives their other options more potency and opportunity to operate in a different way.
Next time you happen to be watching a game of footy, just imagine how much faster the ball can be moved on and away from numbers if instead of the player who marked the ball being forced to backpedal 5-10m, the player on the mark has to.
I’ve always found it strange that if you push your player in the back with your hands it’s a free kick (which I agree with) but if you run from behind a stationary player sitting under the ball you can jump into his back sending him flying forward and as long as you are genuinely attempting to mark it’s fine. Even if you use your knees.
In a marking contest, it’s an unfair tactic. It’s easy for a “weaker’ player to push a “stronger” player forward but take that away and the stronger bodied player will win the marking contest most times making it a fair contest.
I realise it’s only one game but How did that go yesterday? I saw a heap of comments in the game day thread about the poor umpiring but it could’ve just been saltiness bias which is usual in the game day threads.
Rotations increased and scores decreased until 2014 the AFL introduced 120 cap rotations.
People don't understand the difference between causation and correlation.
AFL decreased the rotations with caps but the scores have decreased.
The AFL and the football public think that the caps need to go further until it opens up the game.
2014 rotations were reduced to 120.
2016 rotations were reduced from 120 to 90.
How the interchange cap has failed to fix footy
Reducing rotations might not be the right cure, Marc McGowan finds
2021 rotations are now reduced to 75.
The New 6-6-6 rule has increased scoring from centre clearances but scores overall have decreased.
Maybe the AFL is thinking that the cap rotations have helped to stem the tide like 6-6-6.
My thinking is very different. Reduce stoppages, increase ball movement and decease time for defenses to set up behind the ball.
Reduce stoppages - AFLW out of bounds rules
My thinking is very different. Reduce stoppages, increase ball movement and decease time for defenses to set up behind the ball.
Reduce stoppages - AFLW out of bounds rules
Increased ball movement - any holding when a player marks the ball is 50m, don't care if the player thinks its touched. They take the chance.
Decrease time to set up - back to the future Umpires throw up the ball straight away don't wait for the rucks like in the 80's when scores were huge. That reduces the time to set up defensive systems and number of players around the stoppages.
More space and increased ball movement - 15 or 16 a side. Chris Scott mentioned that 15 a side opened up the game.
NBA and FIBA had the same issues of decreasing scores. They decide to call more fouls, and scoring is up.
In 80's more free kicks were paid and scores were huge.
I really don't want to have "soft free kicks" in the forward 50 but everywhere else no tolerance for blocking, and holding off the ball.
Maybe only allow blocking on the tackler.
I like that rule.
I’m not fussed with low scoring games but I do think it has improved congestion issues slightly. I’ve talked about this ad nauseam on r/AFL where every person wants uncapped rotations and I get downvoted
to oblivion. So I’ll just leave this passage from Conventry’s AFL book Time and Space.
Matthew's view is way too simplistic .
He doesn't understand that correlation is not causation.
Neale Craig, Mick Malthouse, Rodney Eade/Paul Roos and Ross Lyon employed defensive styles that increased stoppages and decreased ball movement.
Did the above the coaches develop a style because of increased fitness and rotations?
AFL has cap rotations with no impact.
Ways to open up the game.
1. Reduce the players on the field
2. AFLW out of bounds rules
3. 80's style of Umpiring of paying more free kicks and throw up the ball quicker.
Very simple changes.
I would say no. I do think uncapped rotations does empower this type of defensive game style but doesn’t cause it.
I would like to see the AFL at least trial this but the amount of pushback would be huge.
These discussions always leave me feeling depressed, because they make it clear not only that I am in a minority, but also that footy will inevitably end up being changed in the most radical and bizarre ways in an effort to create a "product" that the "majority" find palatable.
You see, I love "ugly" football. I love "rolling mauls" and repeat stoppages. I love the tension that builds over the course of a series of stoppages that may end up resulting in a stalemate but which at any time promises a sudden release and a quickening of the pulse in the form of an unexpected clearance and spread and run as players try to catch the opposition out of position. Most of all, I enjoy the meta-contest between styles or game plans, as coaches try to implement strategies geared around undoing the opponent's, including the contest between high-stoppage play and possession-based plans.
I have no distaste for low scoring games. While I'm a pluralist at heart, and also enjoy so-called fast, free-flowing football, I do think that beyond a certain (or is it uncertain?) threshold, higher-scoring is inversely proportionate to excitement. The only time I enjoy centre-clearance-mark-inside-50-goal, rinse and repeat, is when Freo's the one that's winning the centre clearance. Couldn't think of anything worse than making changes that allow other teams to do that too.
And there's the rub. So much debate around how to make the game more "attractive" by undoing the tactics that are directly responsible for making the game more "congested". Yet the most diabolical invention in modern footy is not "flooding", "tagging", or even "prior opportunity" or "ruck nomination" but the idea of the "neutral fan" of AFL — a contradiction in terms if ever there were one. (And so much for the axiom that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.)
Of all the proposed "fixes" to the "problem" of congested footy, the only one I support (and have previously proposed myself) is the automatic 50m against an opposition player for preventing the recipient of a free kick from getting up, etc. (i.e. arsesmart's level 1 change), but not because it will make the game faster or less congested, but simply because allowing scragging seems to contradict the very principle of a free kick. What's the point in taking a mark if you can't benefit from the reward it supposedly earns you?
You see, I love "ugly" football. I love "rolling mauls" and repeat stoppages. I love the tension that builds over the course of a series of stoppages that may end up resulting in a stalemate but which at any time promises a sudden release and a quickening of the pulse in the form of an unexpected clearance and spread and run as players try to catch the opposition out of position. Most of all, I enjoy the meta-contest between styles or game plans, as coaches try to implement strategies geared around undoing the opponent's, including the contest between high-stoppage play and possession-based plans.
I have no distaste for low scoring games. While I'm a pluralist at heart, and also enjoy so-called fast, free-flowing football, I do think that beyond a certain (or is it uncertain?) threshold, higher-scoring is inversely proportionate to excitement. The only time I enjoy centre-clearance-mark-inside-50-goal, rinse and repeat, is when Freo's the one that's winning the centre clearance. Couldn't think of anything worse than making changes that allow other teams to do that too.
And there's the rub. So much debate around how to make the game more "attractive" by undoing the tactics that are directly responsible for making the game more "congested". Yet the most diabolical invention in modern footy is not "flooding", "tagging", or even "prior opportunity" or "ruck nomination" but the idea of the "neutral fan" of AFL — a contradiction in terms if ever there were one. (And so much for the axiom that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.)
Of all the proposed "fixes" to the "problem" of congested footy, the only one I support (and have previously proposed myself) is the automatic 50m against an opposition player for preventing the recipient of a free kick from getting up, etc. (i.e. arsesmart's level 1 change), but not because it will make the game faster or less congested, but simply because allowing scragging seems to contradict the very principle of a free kick. What's the point in taking a mark if you can't benefit from the reward it supposedly earns you?
Last edited:
There was a period in the 4th when Brisbane were throwing the ball around at will without getting pinged. I get that they wanted to keep the game moving but it is frustrating that rules are applied inconsistently from game to game but also within games as well. If they aren't going to call throws then they need to do away with the handball. A team doing the right thing shouldn't be penalised. Freo deserved to lose irrespective of this though.
yyou
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 18, 2014
- 5,756
- 7,169
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- NY Mets, NO Pelicans, Toronto Leafs
The previous hands in the back rule was far better.
There is too much grey area with respect to holding position & pushing.
I would like each team to be given the option of 1 timeout that can be taken at any time, except with 10 minutes to go in the match (a beep can announce that)
The idea is to prevent those run-ons that can lead to blow-outs.
Surely the AFL would love the chance of 3 minutes of extra commercials twice a game.
There is too much grey area with respect to holding position & pushing.
I would like each team to be given the option of 1 timeout that can be taken at any time, except with 10 minutes to go in the match (a beep can announce that)
The idea is to prevent those run-ons that can lead to blow-outs.
Surely the AFL would love the chance of 3 minutes of extra commercials twice a game.
