Rule changes seem like a given

Remove this Banner Ad

tony__montana said:
No problem. My take on fatigue is different. When players aren’t fatigued they can get to every contest, which doesn’t alleviate the problem of
Congestion, when they are tired, gaps appear which = less pressure on the ball carrier which means easier goals are kicked.
Click to expand...

Very well thought out Tony Montana.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

tony__montana said:
why not look at some simple solutions first.
Click to expand...

Because IMO the AFL are hoodwinking us by selling the alleviation of congestion but they really want zones, zones are unworkable though for obvious reasons, so they make starting positions, lower interchanges and penalise anyone not back in their starting position after each and every stoppage.

If it was purely about congestion there's a bucket load of rule tweaks which would ease congestion.

The AFL aren't stupid, they're running a business, they would know this already.

I noticed last night in the first quarter BT was banging on about the state of the game followed by wide shots of the players all in one part of the ground. It was so obvious.
 
Thetrader15 said:
Perhaps cancelling games on wet days too...they are always congested and have low scores:rolleyes:

And while we are at it, no more tackling, that will eliminate concussion as well as increasing flow
Click to expand...
Possibilities are endless. Remember if you want the game to evolve naturally you should leave the game.
I swear the day an AFL player is penalised for being off side is the day I give it away.
 
Thistle said:
The game just needs time to evolve. As an avid soccer fan I have watched the once dominant 4-4-2 formation be conquered by the 4-5-1 which has since been exposed by a 3-6-1style. I've also watched Barcalona revolutionise the game with their tika-taka only for coaches to work out an effective counter attacking set-up could be its downfall. All of this happened with basically no change to the rules.

Given the chance I would bet the AFL would chance too and for the better. For example Richmond's exhilarating, fast-paced footy that other teams are likely to replicate.

Opening congestion can be dealt with small tweaks such as faster stoppages, the removal of runners and lower interchange.

If changes are to be made at the very least need to be gradual and stress-tested at various levels.

Also more goals doesn't always equal more excitement. I really don't understand the fascination with higher scores. I'd rather see goals that are earned and worth their weight in goals than a shootout where defences may as well not exist.

With more money players are becoming more athletic and coaches more intelligent, let's see where that organically takes the game.
Click to expand...
i think it's more about faster ball movement and freer play than higher scoring. Im sure I'm lot alone in wanting to see our stars have the opportunity to execute their skill effectively. I dont want to see Buddy against 4 defenders, I want to see Sydney's best forward against the opposition's best backman. I dont want to see an average player play loose in the backline and rack up countless uncontested possessions. I dont want to see an entire team behind the ball with no where to go when they eventually gain possession. These are frustrating parts of the current game which are all aimed at reducing free play
 
tony__montana said:
No problem. My take on fatigue is different. When players aren’t fatigued they can get to every contest, which doesn’t alleviate the problem of
Congestion. When they are tired, gaps appear which = less pressure on the ball carrier which means easier goals are kicked.
Click to expand...

Is a double edged sword which is why they need to take their time and get it right.

No one knows how any one change will effect the game, especially over a longer period once coaches have adapted.
 
mxett said:
i think it's more about faster ball movement and freer play than higher scoring. Im sure I'm lot alone in wanting to see our stars have the opportunity to execute their skill effectively. I dont want to see Buddy against 4 defenders, I want to see Sydney's best forward against the opposition's best backman. I dont want to see an average player play loose in the backline and rack up countless uncontested possessions. I dont want to see an entire team behind the ball with no where to go when they eventually gain possession. These are frustrating parts of the current game which are all aimed at reducing free play
Click to expand...
Used to see Lockett, Carey, Ablett Snr and Brereton get double teamed and triple teamed. They still became legends of the game.
There was also plenty of high scoring matches in that era.
 
SCRAY72 said:
Used to see Lockett, Carey, Ablett Snr and Brereton get double teamed and triple teamed. They still became legends of the game.
There was also plenty of high scoring matches in that era.
Click to expand...
But by double and triple teaming these great players the teammates around them were released, so there was a balance. There was also room for them to lead, and time and room for the teammates up the ground to pass to them effectively. Nowadays the zone has killed almost all effective leads, so not only does Buddy need to contend with the 3 key defenders like Lockett did, he cant even use his speed to lead into space due to the entire opposition team occupying his forward 50m
 
gsta12 said:
What can we do to make our voices heard to the AFL? In all seriousness we need to make it known that majority of footy fans don't want knee jerk rule changes every year! But at the moment we are being drowned out by the media who feed on crap like this!

Maybe could someone organise a online petition?
Click to expand...
you have every right to be heard. However, in my experience there are far more people dissatisfied with the current state of the game than those who are content with how it is. I agree that sweeping changes rushed in without full consultation and testing are not appropriate, but IMO the game has arrived at this ugly version because the AFL has attempted to address a major developing problem with small and insignificant changes, hoping it would right itself.
 
benneth said:
Because IMO the AFL are hoodwinking us by selling the alleviation of congestion but they really want zones, zones are unworkable though for obvious reasons, so they make starting positions, lower interchanges and penalise anyone not back in their starting position after each and every stoppage.

If it was purely about congestion there's a bucket load of rule tweaks which would ease congestion.

The AFL aren't stupid, they're running a business, they would know this already.

I noticed last night in the first quarter BT was banging on about the state of the game followed by wide shots of the players all in one part of the ground. It was so obvious.
Click to expand...

Spot on , it’s not hard to see the directive from AFL to likes of Whatley on SEN and some Commentators on 7 , also Robbo headline in the Herald scum today : Steve Hocking is a Godsend , lol . Then apparently all this info about the proposed rule changes will be taken to the commission and they will say yes or no all without a full and proper trial apart from two 20 min scratch matches with Hawthorn and Brisbane in training sessions .
FMD how stupid do they think we are , the decision has already been made and this stupid zone bs will be in next year , the commission is a complete crock of s**t .
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mxett said:
i think it's more about faster ball movement and freer play than higher scoring. Im sure I'm lot alone in wanting to see our stars have the opportunity to execute their skill effectively. I dont want to see Buddy against 4 defenders, I want to see Sydney's best forward against the opposition's best backman. I dont want to see an average player play loose in the backline and rack up countless uncontested possessions. I dont want to see an entire team behind the ball with no where to go when they eventually gain possession. These are frustrating parts of the current game which are all aimed at reducing free play
Click to expand...
Wasn't Blighty the one who instigated the loose behind the ball in 98 when we played the gf as a way of reducing Carey's influence
 
benneth said:
Because IMO the AFL are hoodwinking us by selling the alleviation of congestion but they really want zones, zones are unworkable though for obvious reasons, so they make starting positions, lower interchanges and penalise anyone not back in their starting position after each and every stoppage.

If it was purely about congestion there's a bucket load of rule tweaks which would ease congestion.

The AFL aren't stupid, they're running a business, they would know this already.

I noticed last night in the first quarter BT was banging on about the state of the game followed by wide shots of the players all in one part of the ground. It was so obvious.
Click to expand...

It was so obvious to me that another shite game was being served up and BT was pointing out some of the reasons why this is happening consistently and hopefully the AFL is going to do something about it asap.
The talk from coaches about blowouts is truly laughable Saint Kilda were out of that contest by quarter time losing by 60 points or 120 points meant nothing at all if we had a chance to see Jack Reiwoldt kick 10 or 12 goals that would have created some interest but that was never going to happen with zoning etc.
On another point cant believe how bad Saint Kilda and Carlton have got did give both of them a chance this weekend of making a contest.
 
Ausbenito said:
It was so obvious to me that another shite game was being served up and BT was pointing out some of the reasons why this is happening consistently and hopefully the AFL is going to do something about it asap.
Click to expand...

Nothing could if helped the saints last night.
 
Yeah you're not wrong, OP. I can see both sides but something I noticed last night during Richmond's training run was how much the umpires were imposing themselves unnecessarily. At one point during the drill there were even two of the maggots on the mark barking instructions at the players, lol, seems like the officials think they're centre stage and the stars of the game. If these extensive rule changes come in lawd have mercy, all we'll hear are the maggots blowing their whistles and calling infractions all night.
 
psychobrown said:
Yeah you're not wrong, OP. I can see both sides but something I noticed last night during Richmond's training run was how much the umpires were imposing themselves unnecessarily. At one point during the drill there were even two of the maggots on the mark barking instructions at the players, lol, seems like the officials think they're centre stage and the stars of the game. If these extensive rule changes come in lawd have mercy, all we'll hear are the maggots blowing their whistles and calling infractions all night.
Click to expand...

Blame the umps for everything this is why I hope they just go to 16 a side and save the umps having to cop more abuse
 
gsta12 said:
What can we do to make our voices heard to the AFL? In all seriousness we need to make it known that majority of footy fans don't want knee jerk rule changes every year! But at the moment we are being drowned out by the media who feed on crap like this!

Maybe could someone organise a online petition?
Click to expand...
https://www.aflfans.org.au/
 
gsta12 said:
What can we do to make our voices heard to the AFL? In all seriousness we need to make it known that majority of footy fans don't want knee jerk rule changes every year! But at the moment we are being drowned out by the media who feed on crap like this!

Maybe could someone organise a online petition?
Click to expand...

Only one way to get through to AFL house. Don’t go to games. Have a national one round boycott. That is the only thing that will get there attention. AFL lose one weeks revenue of Crowds, Channel 7 brad ast games on tv with no one there.
It’s the only way. But people won’t do it because they feel it hurts their club. The clubs couldn’t give a rats about their supporters or members, they just want your money and they will tell you everything you want to hear to ensure you keep handing it over.
 
I've been posting about this back on the Saints board; anyone who supports brining in zones to "fix" the game is lacking in depth of thought. Looking at the game, seeing everyone following the ball and then thinking about implementing zones would have to be the most shallow way of approaching this problem. The key issue with this is that it would be creating a rule that addresses the manifestation of the problem, and not the problem itself.
Implementing zones would be like having a leaking pipe inside your wall, and instead of actually fixing the pipe, you merely re-do the wall where the leaking water has warped the paint, since that's all you 'see'.
In addition, implementing zones would be a rule change that compels you to perform a certain action, rather than denying you the right to perform a certain action. There's a big difference between the two.

The real way to address the issue would be to look at why congestion is the way it is, and addressing that. If anyone cares to read a suggestion, I've quoted it down below (it's a big post so be warned).


Strahany said:
Two of the biggest proposed changes are to force structures onto teams (X number of players in the forward 50 at each bounce) or to limit/scrap interchanges. I can see why they're floated, but the reality is that these are addressing only the 'result' of the issue, not the issue itself.

Sure, we could force players to stay inside the forward 50, but finding the exact number will be tricky; too many and you'll have teams just bombing it forward like the 80's and earlier because there's no link up play, but too few and the congestion will remain.
Limiting interchanges (or removing them altogether in favour of substitutions) is much worse, from my perspective. People assume that congestion will relieve itself due to players being tired and unable to make it to the contest, but players are already gut running within the first quarter. These are elite athletes who have the mental fortitude to push themselves to the extreme, so if anyone thinks that they won't continue to do that then you're mistaken. Injuries will likely go up due to the extra wear on players, and something like substitutions would do little to mitigate this (not to mention removing players from a game altogether which never worked well in the recent 1 man substitution era).

You need to address the problem itself, which I haven't seen addressed in the media. From my perspective, the issue can be boiled down to one thing; the holding the ball ruling. As it stands, congestion comes about due to the ball becoming stagnant, either because of a stoppage or because of a period of play involving the ball carrier being tackled, the ball spilled (rinse, wash, repeat) until a free kick or a stoppage occurs. When the ball isn't moving (or moving minimally) players have the opportunity to come to the ball, and in fact they actively choose to do so because they're trying to swoop on a spilling ball from a tackle, or hold it in to create the stoppage.

So how do we fix it? Simple.

Change the holding the ball rule to achieve two things; reduce the amount of time the ball is moving minimally/not at all (AKA periods of play where there are multiple tackles and ball spills, and/or stoppages), and remove subjectivity from the ruling. As it stands, stoppages are most often created when a player is tackled and ball is pinned to them, or the player feigns an attempt to dispose it because they're aiming for the stoppage (sometimes with the help of a teammate to hold it in). The minimal ball movement is a result of a chain of tackle after tackles. So, we just have to address these areas.

The new ruling that I propose is as follows:
> Eliminate the concept of prior opportunity.
> If a player is tackled with the ball pinned to them and can't get it out, or choses not to dispose of it, then that's holding the ball
> If a player manages to get the ball out (with anything except a throw; dropping/spilling is allowed) then it's play on.

Why these rules?
> Firstly, eliminating prior opportunity almost completely eliminates subjectivity in this ruling. Some will remain due to having to determine an arbitrary amount of time before an umpire calls 'holding the ball' on a player being tackled, but the massive grey area of prior opportunity is removed. This is great added bonus IMO since holding the ball rulings are always a point of contention no matter how many times the AFL tries to toy with the rule (e.g diving on the ball rule)
> Secondly, there is still a large element of skill involved since there is a direct way to win a free kick - pin the ball. This rewards good play.
> Thirdly, ball ups will be altogether eliminated or minimised (e.g used in the same way that they throw the ball back in if it went out on the full from a pack and they couldn't determine what team it came off) since every current ball up situation would be a free kick.
> Lastly, this disincentives swarming around the ball, since players will no longer try to help their teammate hold onto the ball in a tackle (since that would give away a free kick) but also because players know that the ball carrier's prime objective would be to spill the ball ASAP when getting tackled (not try to hold it in) and that if the ball isn't spilled, then it will be a free kick to one of the teams, so they need to get into their offensive/defensive structures and not be stuck next to the ball. This will mean that the players who used to be around the ball will be spread out for link passes, which means that the players who used to be the link pass will be further down ground for a link or to chop off an opposition kick, which means the players that were in that further down the ground (usually the KPF's and KPD's) will likely be in/near the forward 50 since they're not needed up the ground and because they know a ball will come their way at any moment due to the extra flow.

Congestion is severely reduced, player spread is encouraged, stoppages are severely reduced, the game will be more free flowing, higher scores will be possible, and there is less subjectivity in umpiring calls - positives all around.

I see two main objections to this proposal, but I don't think they stand up to much criticism.
1) "Too many free kicks". This objection is quite right in pointing out that if all the tackles in today's game where a player can't release the ball would result in a free kick, then the count would go through the roof. However, the game would change (out of necessity) in response to these rules, to mean less tackles. This is achieved due to punishing players and teammates that trap the ball when being tackled (this is quite common) as well as the reduced congestion (secondary to incentivising spread as a result of more ball movement) meaning that there are less players around the ball to lay a tackle in the first place. So, yes, more tackles will result in a free kick, but the total number of tackles that end in a ball up (now a free kick) would be severely decreased.

2) "Don't change tradition". This objection will always pop up when proposing a drastic change, but the reality is that the holding the ball rule does not gel well with the rest of the game. As players have become better athletes and game plans have shifted to playing to a dimensional structure across the field as opposed to on an opponent, tackling has skyrocketed and exposed this large issue. The AFL can either accept that this one rule is the biggest problem and address it, or they can try to mess around with a half dozen other changes and hope they all work well together and achieve the desired result. It makes more sense to change this one rule even if it is 'tradition', and the reality is that if the game was played like this when the rules were initially invented, then the holding the ball rule would never have existed as it does - they would've seen how problematic it is (as we are) and altered it.
Click to expand...
 
Strahany said:
I've been posting about this back on the Saints board; anyone who supports brining in zones to "fix" the game is lacking in depth of thought. Looking at the game, seeing everyone following the ball and then thinking about implementing zones would have to be the most shallow way of approaching this problem. The key issue with this is that it would be creating a rule that addresses the manifestation of the problem, and not the problem itself.
Implementing zones would be like having a leaking pipe inside your wall, and instead of actually fixing the pipe, you merely re-do the wall where the leaking water has warped the paint, since that's all you 'see'.
In addition, implementing zones would be a rule change that compels you to perform a certain action, rather than denying you the right to perform a certain action. There's a big difference between the two.

The real way to address the issue would be to look at why congestion is the way it is, and addressing that. If anyone cares to read a suggestion, I've quoted it down below (it's a big post so be warned).
Click to expand...

That's good.
I have noticed the umpires are starting to get much stricter on non prior opportunity over the last 2 weekends and have been paying a lot against the tackler or ball carrier and less stoppages.

Players will adapt and then less frees will be paid overall to go with the less stoppages and less congestion.

And presto, much less congestion.
It was interesting that Richo pretty much indicated on 3AW that the starting positions didn't look good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cleric
Time to change the tackling rules
Replies
12
Views
1K
RedV3x
RedV3x
Purple7x08_24
What changes would you like to see in 2024 and beyond?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
4K
Stemp Fester
Stemp Fester
the_cleaner
Rule Change for kicking for goal/30 second countdown
Replies
9
Views
752
BigTacoBandit
BigTacoBandit
T
Rules you would like to see implemented
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
195
Views
9K
Lavender Bushranger
L
dino_67
What rule changes would you make if you had all control of the LoAF?
Replies
3
Views
429
dino_67
dino_67
Frederico_WA
Rules Official 2024 season rule tweaks
Replies
22
Views
1K
D-N-R
D
Obeanie1
Umpiring Whats with umpires not knowing or forgetting the rules of the game?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Hoops
Hoops

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top