Banter RDT 154 - No Dogs Allowed

[Dazzler9]

15 a side
Stoppage between the 50s: Each team needs 3 in each 50
Stoppage in a 50: Each team needs 2 in the other 50 and 3 more in that half.
Kicks have to go 20/25 for a mark

Congestion halves and teams are able to play much faster from their back half. Teams can still drop loose mean back if they want but it then disadvantages them more around the ball.

What if this actually creates more congestion?

If you place no minimum distance on a kick, it may clear congestion, since players may use a dinky little kick to find a teammate 3metres away, causing instant spread. It's a radical notion, I'm not advocating it, but using it to highlight a point.

 

[Dazzler9]

15 a side

This would help. I'm not sure the game (the industry) is ready for it though.

 

[Dazzler9]

I think the effect that would have is minimal. Gaffs already playing 100% most games.

You'd need to drop it to ~10 for the difference to be noticeable, and even then I'm not sure what that difference is. I could see teams just trying to play slow possession football and/or force stoppages. Neither I think would help.

It would stop players running from contest to contest all game long. Sure, you might get the odd Andrew Gaff or Robert Harvey with elite endurance, but it wouldn't be the norm. Your suggestion is in effect a type of substitute rule, sans the red vest.

 

[Ochre]

What if this actually creates more congestion?

If you place no minimum distance on a kick, it may clear congestion, since players may use a dinky little kick to find a teammate 3metres away, causing instant spread. It's a radical notion, I'm not advocating it, but using it to highlight a point.

Then you end up repeating what happened in the 1870s with the little mark.

 

[Ochre]

This would help. I'm not sure the game (the industry) is ready for it though.

Agreed, but if half way through the season the style of football is much better, I think people would come round quickly

 

[Dazzler9]

Then you end up repeating what happened in the 1870s with the little mark.

You might have to remind me...

 

[Ochre]

You might have to remind me...

From Time and Space by James Coventry, which is a terrific book on the history of tactics and the laws of Australian football (and there's even a little bit about #VICBIAS)

Sutherland commented on its prominence. ‘A great deal of this concerted play depends on what is called the “little mark”,’ he wrote. ‘As no throwing or passing of the ball is permitted, the only way in which one player can give it to a fellow-player is to kick it so that he can “mark” it. But when the latter has caught it he is, for the time being, unmolested. He is master of the situation; if he makes his mark, none of the opposing players are allowed to cross it, or crowd nearer than four yards on either side of him while he takes a free kick. It thus becomes a point of extreme importance for players to give each other this advantage.’ It all sounded rather clinical, but the reality was far less straightforward. Keeping the ball in close quarters tended to foster congestion, which, in turn, inevitably led to the formation of scrums. Ironically, a strategy designed to adapt to the anti-scrimmaging laws was soon exacerbating the problem.

Nevertheless, it became apparent that the system of little marking had other benefits. One was to allow players to engineer an easier shot on goal by safely centring the ball. Blainey has suggested that ‘ingenious forwards soon realised that if their team had possession of the ball near the goal but on an impossible angle, they could work it around to the front of the goal by a succession of short kicks, each of which was marked’. He cited the example of a match in Gippsland in 1877 between Sale and Stratford, when ‘a Sale player who marked 20 yards from goal on an impossible angle initiated a chain of little marks or “little ’uns”. After the fifth little mark, the ball was so centred that a goal was kicked with ease.’

Coventry, James. Time and Space (p. 39). ABC Books. Kindle Edition.

 

[Dazzler9]

From Time and Space by James Coventry, which is a terrific book on the history of tactics and the laws of Australian football (and there's even a little bit about #VICBIAS)

Yeah, ok. 15 per side FTW

 

[HoneyBadger35]

I think part of the reason is that footy is just uglier these days.

I was reading an article on golf and DeChambeau the other day and it talked about how some sports are being optimised strategically and how you need to hope your sport is good to watch when it's optimised. And optimised football is unfortunately just not good to watch.

I won't get into how I think you fix that because I know some people get touchy when you mention zones.

That's an impressively selfish viewpoint. "I don't like how footy looks therefore footy is uglier now." Plenty of people disagree with that. Plenty of people agree too, but given there's a disparity there and a seemingly universal feeling of ambivalence towards the AFL amongst the rusted on community, I don't think that's the reason.

There was a narrative that footy was crap in the mid 2000s by a bunch of fossils too, and now you see people pining for mid 2000s footy back when the game was played the right way. People in 2035 will be pining for 2018-2020 footy as the pinnacle of the sport.

'Optimised' footy doesn't exist, its ever changing as all sports are. The optimal strategy is the one that works, and what works now isn't what worked two years ago or ten years ago, and won't be what works in ten years. Sport is fluid.

Obviously the thinly veiled mention of me re: zones is there for a reason, I do think it's a phenomenally stupid idea, but not being keen on the AFL as a league has nothing to do with how the games look or my team being bad, and everything to do with how impossible the league has made enjoying anything other than the one team you've invested in. That and the down time between games over the bye week has made me realise I would much rather watch neutral games of other sports than any neutral game of footy.

 

[Dazzler9]

Footy is dog ugly in 2020. Sorry Badge, but it's a f***in' mess.

 

[ChampRevesby]

Just go back to late 80's early 90's brand and rules. Screw big money and TV.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Footy is dog ugly in 2020. Sorry Badge, but it's a f***in' mess.

Just as it was in 2010 to a certain group, and 2000 to another group, and 1990 to a certain group, and 1980...

Footy in 2030 will be dog ugly too, in the eyes of people who grew up with this. Sport changes, and never uniformly. Teams/coaches try new things constantly, often times things that don't match up with what the rest of the league are doing.

I hate watching Richmond play, for example, I find their rolling scrum ridiculously unappealing. It's gross, just mob the ball and when the turnover comes chain handballs together until you draw a man, rinse, repeat, walk in goal. But plenty of people feel the same about the Eagles/classic Hawks possession game style, which is about as polar opposite as it gets. They find it boring and lacking action. So when you say "footy" is ugly, which of those two wildly different game styles isn't working for you?

And if it's both, do you think they're the only two that have/do/will ever exist? The greatest coaching innovation of the 1990s was 'what if we took our best player and gave him lots of space inside 50'. We can't even fathom what coaches in five years time will come up with, or ten, or fifteen.

Legislating to force the game to look a certain way is a dreadful idea, as it is in all sport. "We want 6-6-6 because it will do x,y,z" said the AFL. So coaches came up with ways to get around 6-6-6, like having players run off the back of the wing, or immediately playing for a second stoppage so they could set up their structure. Nobody in a boardroom can ever comprehend what a league full of coaches will do over time, so legislating the game with a specific vision in mind is useless.

A style dominates and then someone solves it. Copycats emerge, then someone solves that. And so on. it's all good. If you don't like how footy looks now, the beauty is that within five years it will look wildly different because someone will solve Richmond's game style and then that will be the new in vogue concept.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Agreed, but if half way through the season the style of football is much better, I think people would come round quickly

Love a fundamental rule changed based on a hunch. Just like 6-6-6 was brought in cause some suits thought it would improve scoring, until it plummeted but "don't blame the rule change".

Bring in last touch for the boundary line too, meaning teams would always go corridor, shorter distance to goal, higher scoring. How good. Solved. No possible adverse affects to that whatsoever and everyone will react how we expect them to, let's implement it immediately.

 

[Ochre]

That's an impressively selfish viewpoint. "I don't like how footy looks therefore footy is uglier now." Plenty of people disagree with that. Plenty of people agree too, but given there's a disparity there and a seemingly universal feeling of ambivalence towards the AFL amongst the rusted on community, I don't think that's the reason.

There was a narrative that footy was crap in the mid 2000s by a bunch of fossils too, and now you see people pining for mid 2000s footy back when the game was played the right way. People in 2035 will be pining for 2018-2020 footy as the pinnacle of the sport.

'Optimised' footy doesn't exist, its ever changing as all sports are. The optimal strategy is the one that works, and what works now isn't what worked two years ago or ten years ago, and won't be what works in ten years. Sport is fluid.

Obviously the thinly veiled mention of me re: zones is there for a reason, I do think it's a phenomenally stupid idea, but not being keen on the AFL as a league has nothing to do with how the games look or my team being bad, and everything to do with how impossible the league has made enjoying anything other than the one team you've invested in. That and the down time between games over the bye week has made me realise I would much rather watch neutral games of other sports than any neutral game of footy.

The zones comment wasn't just at you, social media and talkback radio would melt down if they implemented it.

Footy's consistently changed but there's been a through-line in the past 20 years, starting with the Dogs flood in their win over Essendon in 2000, then Sydney's flooding in 05/06, the Hawks first implementing a zone in 08, Collingwood's frontal pressure in 10/11, our intercept marking and then Richmonds get the ball forward at all costs strategy. Teams are getting more numbers around and behind the ball, and the games gotten more and more congested as a result. It will continue to evolve but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that what has been the overall pattern for over two decades will continue to be a major theme in any evolution going forward.

People have been calling 'modern' footy crap since the 1800s, but there's also been rule changes to counter negative tactics since the 1800s. Footy would be much worse off if they'd never brought in out of bounds on the full or the centre square.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

People have been calling 'modern' footy crap since the 1800s, but there's also been rule changes to counter negative tactics since the 1800s. Footy would be much worse off if they'd brought in out of bounds on the full or the centre square.

Not all rule changes are inherently bad, as you’re trying to say there. Not even all the recent ones are bad. The new kick in rule, for example, is extremely intuitive and a big tick. But what it isn’t is a fundamental rule change that impacts the very fabric of the game.

Just dropping in 6-6-6 out of the blue with three VFL games as trial was a big fail, and then the “well don’t blame the rule change” attitude was piss poor.

Deciding that an even more rigorous zone system would work because you can picture how it would work is very dangerous without stringent testing. It’s a giant overhaul of the very nature of our game. I can see how it wouldn’t work, but counter examples are always met with “nah” or “oh what, you’re happy with how footy looks now?”. Some of it I am, yeah. The rest of it will change over time as it always does. The stuff I like will also, sadly, change. That’s sport.

You can’t legislate footy to look a certain way because there’s no telling what the coaches and players will come up with in future under the new rules. The AFL will set the law, and then people will sit for hours thinking how to work around that law to get an advantage. The suits will never keep up with that.

Change a kick in rule, say no to runners, decide that deliberates should be adjudicated a certain way? Sure. That’s fluid, that’s small tinkering to keep the rules in line with an ever changing game.

Coming out and putting cones on the floor, then saying now don’t you cross this line or you’ll be in trouble, is never, has never and will never be what football is about. The day they implement that, untested after a boardroom meeting no doubt, is the day that what we know as Aussie Rules dies.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Anyway back to the random discussion element of this thread.

Was just watching Limmy’s Show on Netflix and it got taken off the service as I was finishing an episode. October 1 EST. Absolute madness, leaving me hanging like this.

 

[DanWCE]

Anyway back to the random discussion element of this thread.

Was just watching Limmy’s Show on Netflix and it got taken off the service as I was finishing an episode. October 1 EST. Absolute madness, leaving me hanging like this.

I've been rested up after getting crook thanks to the little dude, so have binge watched F is for Family. Not a bad show. Walks a similar line to BoJack in its depressive points but does a better job of bouncing back out of them.

 

[kane249]

Anyway back to the random discussion element of this thread.

Was just watching Limmy’s Show on Netflix and it got taken off the service as I was finishing an episode. October 1 EST. Absolute madness, leaving me hanging like this.

Try connecting to a VPN and see if it's available in another region

 

[Bender_]

I've been rested up after getting crook thanks to the little dude, so have binge watched F is for Family. Not a bad show. Walks a similar line to BoJack in its depressive points but does a better job of bouncing back out of them.

It's not too bad, some seriously funny moments. It's getting better as time goes on. The sign of the times stuff can be hilarious, like the doctor smoking during delivering a baby and such.

 

[DanWCE]

It's not too bad, some seriously funny moments. It's getting better as time goes on. The sign of the times stuff can be hilarious, like the doctor smoking during delivering a baby and such.

Yeah there's some hilarious moments and then really sobering moments like the rasicm and inequality of genders in schools and the workplace. I can picture Bill Burr on stage ranting and raving when his character kicks off on the show. Strangely I think that adds to it.

 

[Bender_]

Yeah there's some hilarious moments and then really sobering moments like the rasicm and inequality of genders in schools and the workplace. I can picture Bill Burr on stage ranting and raving when his character kicks off on the show. Strangely I think that adds to it.

His involvement is probably the reason that I watched it initially and stuck with it. Big fan of his stand-up.

 

[kane249]

In what has been a bad year, possibly the best thing has just happened...


The XFL will launch again for a third in 2022

 

[Godfather32]

In what has been a bad year, possibly the best thing has just happened...


The XFL will launch again for a third in 2022

Doesn't The Rock own it now?

 

[kane249]

Doesn't The Rock own it now?

Correct, he just announced it on social

 

[Godfather32]

Correct, he just announced it on social

If Vince isn't involved then there might be a chance it works this time