Rules of the game - How to successfully make the game more open and attacking?

[hcd199]

I've never agreed that the game is in desperate need of fixing, certainly not by changing the rules so drastically (zones on the field, no mark if kicked backwards, can't pick the ball up off the ground, and so on); I'd have thought major changes like those are the last thing we need, given big changes always bring unforeseen consequences that are often worse than whatever they were there to correct for.

If the supposed problem is that the game is too contested and doesn't flow, the most rigid rules at the moment are the ruck rules, so some tweaks there could work. No nominated rucks, anyone can jump at the ball (but anyone can shepherd within 5m - nonsensical 'blocking' frees for engaging at all with 'third men up' were the real problem with how that rule was 2 years back). If a tackle is laid and there's no prior, just come in immediately and ball-up to restart; waiting ages for the ball to come out from under a pack is surely more of a problem that stoppages in general? (Would need to tweak prior opportunity a little to make sure teams couldn't just tap the ball down and pile on for another ball-up repeatedly, as well.)

In general, though, rule changes should be a last resort, used only when it's clear the game will suffer long-term if a particular tactic is allowed to continue. Endless changes year after year are part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[Pessimistic]

How about we forget about outdated positional play and move on to bigger, better things? If you need lots of scoring to be entertained you can watch AFLX.

At the very leas consider whether it is a waste of energy and goodwill to chase an impossible dream

(If it ever was that great anyway - pagans paddock, leaving Peter hudson alone in the front half at glenferrie - definitely NOT in the last few years

OR

Get Waverley back - it was pre 2000 and too big to flood - crazy thought? no more crazy than some of the suggestions atm

 

[Power Raid]

Get rid of the interchange and players won’t repeatedly move where the football is, as they will need to conserve their energy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the two man bench served footy teams well before. I see no reason why reducing the bench to 2,1 or even 0 is an issue.

perhaps a 2 man bench but no rotations. If you come off, your off.

 

[Pessimistic]

Rotations have been capped + game worse than ever before = reduce the cap further?

 

[dean33]

because the fans want to see a 145-144 game more than they want to see a 135-35 game.

Throw out defence and you have basketball on a football field. Goals don’t equal excitement, unless you are 10 years old.

 

[dean33]

because the fans want to see a 145-144 game more than they want to see a 135-35 game.

So reward the team that scored 10 more points but conceded an extra 109 points? That makes sense. If we really want to throw it open to the fans, why don’t we just do a phone vote at the end of each rd and let the fans decide who wins? Australian idol style?

 

[dean33]

It might have been the closest on record but it was miles from the best - this again falls the classic BF fallacy that close equals good. There was plenty of threads around last year lamenting the standard of the game despite the fact the ladder was tight.

Not talking about the ladder talking about the close matches. Majority of people were raving about what a great season it was. All we heard was what a great Home and away season and s**t finals series it was.

 

[legend166]

This is my three:

1. Reduce interchange to 5 per quarter (progressively lowering to get to this point)

2. Tighten up prior opportunity/holding the ball. Players get way too long to dispose of the ball after being tackled. There was an example in the Brisbane/North game where a North player had prior opportunity and was tackled to the ground, but because the Brisbane player didn't pin the arms he just kicked the goal while he was lying on the ground. That's dumb. Same with the 360 spin.

3. Again severely tighten up deliberate out of bounds. No more picking the ball up and running out of bounds. No more being tackled over the boundary after prior opportunity (this one bugs me the most). Remove the boundary as a safety valve.

 

[master bate]

I'd go 16 a side but that doesn't seem to have any traction. Cutting the 2 worst players on the field at any time alone should make the game better and the stars shine brighter. Also helps distribute talent. I think the main resistance sadly is player agents who know that lists will get trimmed by 2-3 players each.

Bigger goal square can't hurt.

Starting positions annoy me. What a joke that will be seeing players constantly run back inside lines at a stoppage. Umpires will become traffic cops.

Rotations are tricky. I'd leave it as 4 on the bench who can be used as interchange. But I'd make it you can only interchange 3 at a time and only after a goal (for either team) is scored. Injured players can be replaced at a stoppage and have to be on the bench for at least 10 minutes.

Want to play up tempo hard running attacking footy - then keep kicking goals, score 20 and your opposition scores 10 and you've got 90 rotations. Get bogged down in a 8 goals per team game and it's 48 rotations for the game.

The risk is it incentiveses teams to play conservatively with a lead but that's probably already happening.

There's lot of other positives. In close games teams will have to think twice about taking off the star players. 3 changes per goal means if a side loses a player to injury they aren't disadvantaged nearly as much which should also encourage good concussion management without bringing back the sub that limited a player to really 1/4 of a game. There's no collisions of players coming off the ground or open free player who's snuck on. Shots on goal that end in points aren't rewarded with the chance to rotate players as they are now.

It would be a very easy thing to trial in preseason rather than blindly lowering the cap and hoping that means teams stay in position which I just don't think will happen. Teams will get too good and rotating players between spots and keeping the up and back style.

 

[Belnakor]

So reward the team that scored 10 more points but conceded an extra 109 points? That makes sense. If we really want to throw it open to the fans, why don’t we just do a phone vote at the end of each rd and let the fans decide who wins? Australian idol style?

you are rewarding the team who consistently scores heavily. So in the example you have 135-34 are unlikely to happen, as teams would prioritise attack and get scorelines more like 150-70.

 

[master bate]

This is my three:

1. Reduce interchange to 5 per quarter (progressively lowering to get to this point)

2. Tighten up prior opportunity/holding the ball. Players get way too long to dispose of the ball after being tackled. There was an example in the Brisbane/North game where a North player had prior opportunity and was tackled to the ground, but because the Brisbane player didn't pin the arms he just kicked the goal while he was lying on the ground. That's dumb. Same with the 360 spin.

3. Again severely tighten up deliberate out of bounds. No more picking the ball up and running out of bounds. No more being tackled over the boundary after prior opportunity (this one bugs me the most). Remove the boundary as a safety valve.

The problem with that one is that most good players will learn how to keep the ball in play with fumbles and allowing their opponents to pick the ball up and get tackled over and all sorts of other tactics.

The result being that instead of a quick boundary throw in you get a rolling maul around the boundary before an eventual stoppage anyway most of the time.

Stoppages are seen as the enemy because they produce congestion which produces the maul. I don't want it to be starting positions or a bunch of extra free kicks but if stoppages weren't the enemy we could have more of them and better play.

AFLW and the last touch rule got rid of boundary throw ins and replaced them with long bombs down the line to big packs that all jumped on the ball in a big maul and eventually led to a ball up anyway!

Stoppages produce some of the best footy - hit out to advantage, beautiful fast hands, burst out of packs runs and clever goals. Fumbling around the boundary to prevent a free kick isn't nearly as pretty. Somehow making stoppages prettier would actual fix the root cause instead of more deliberates.

 

[dean33]

you are rewarding the team who consistently scores heavily. So in the example you have 135-34 are unlikely to happen, as teams would prioritise attack and get scorelines more like 150-70.

Collingwood beat Brisbane 121-114. On the same day Richmond beat Fremantle 110-33. In your scenario collingwood get the advantage over Richmond for their scoreline.
Please explain to me how that is logical.

 

[SaintLuko]

Reduce interchange and move the kickouts to the centre of the 50m arch.

Moving kickouts from behinds further up the field will mean much more space for the team to spread out into as a result it will be harder to zone the whole field. Since the interchange would be lower, it would also make it physically a lot harder to zone for a whole game.

I still don't the AFL's obsession with reducing interchange to 'improve the game'.
- More boring kick to kick in the backline to conserve player energy
- deeper more defensive zones to stop scoring
- no guarantee of less stoppages, as they are also a way for players to get a break
- Making the game physically harder and players being forced to stay on the ground while injured, resulting in more injuries
- More 'blow outs' to fitter sides particularly for younger sides - look at the bottom 6 sides now and their average age
- A greater focus on recruiting athletes (its already the case) over footballers, reducing the skill of the game and less key position players

Every AFL side will eventually end a team of middle distance runners that can kick a footy on occassion.

The AFL have tried this and all of these other 'grand ideas' and we have the same discussion every year. How about just letting the game evolve, like it does every season without interference.

 

[Dom PC]

I still don't the AFL's obsession with reducing interchange to 'improve the game'.
- More boring kick to kick in the backline to conserve player energy
- deeper more defensive zones to stop scoring
- no guarantee of less stoppages, as they are also a way for players to get a break
- Making the game physically harder and players being forced to stay on the ground while injured, resulting in more injuries
- More 'blow outs' to fitter sides particularly for younger sides - look at the bottom 6 sides now and their average age
- A greater focus on recruiting athletes (its already the case) over footballers, reducing the skill of the game and less key position players

Every AFL side will eventually end a team of middle distance runners that can kick a footy on occassion.

The AFL have tried this and all of these other 'grand ideas' and we have the same discussion every year. How about just letting the game evolve, like it does every season without interference.

Letting the game evolve is what the AFL did in allowing interchange numbers to go through the roof, which in turn helped create this congestion on the field...

AFL should be entertaining and free flowing... not a hybrid game of rugby union.

There is nothing wrong with tinkering the rules... in fact I'd argue the AFL have been extremely slow in reacting to on field congestion considering it was starting to be a topic of discussion in the early 2010s...

 

[RUNVS]

Can the mods possibly move this thread back to the main board as it is a really important topic and no one is going to see it on this sub-board. I would argue the topic is important enough that people should see the thread, and not have the thread die on a board no one looks at.

 

[Belnakor]

Collingwood beat Brisbane 121-114. On the same day Richmond beat Fremantle 110-33. In your scenario collingwood get the advantage over Richmond for their scoreline.
Please explain to me how that is logical.

you need to stop thinking about what the better team is and think about the spectacle. In the new scenario Collingwood would get a ~8% advantage, at the moment Richmond gets a 70% advantage.

 

[hawkman]

I like the idea of having the kickout from 25m out (as long as they kick it forward). Bring that one in for 2019, leave the rest of the rules alone and see what happens

 

[The Gong]

Don't add more rules. Take some out that made the game over officiated and actually police the original rules.

They added in the hands in the back rule so for forwards that made it harder to mark so less scoring. Get rid of it.

They added in the deliberate out of bounds that confuses everyone including the umps. Get rid of it.

Ditto the deliberate rushed behind. Get rid of it.

They stopped paying incorrect disposal and HTB so players just drop the pill that causes more congestion and stoppages. Pay a free and watch the pack disperse. They did it to try and open up play but it's had the opposite effect.

Restrict interchange rotations I agree with.

If we add any rules around zones or kicking direction it fundamentally changes how Aussie Rules works and would be a disaster.

 

[SaintLuko]

Letting the game evolve is what the AFL did in allowing interchange numbers to go through the roof, which in turn helped create this congestion on the field...

AFL should be entertaining and free flowing... not a hybrid game of rugby union.

There is nothing wrong with tinkering the rules... in fact I'd argue the AFL have been extremely slow in reacting to on field congestion considering it was starting to be a topic of discussion in the early 2010s...

And I'd argue whether the rule changes the AFL has introduced, in particular the interchange cap have improved the aethestics of the game. Congestion and your rolling maul still exists.

Nature finds a way to evolve and if coaches who are employed to win games of football, feel that its best by having as many stoppages as possible they'll employ tactics to do so.

And since when does AFL always need to be free flowing to be entertaining? Some of the best games are just great contests, that's the beauty of this unique game of ours.

 

[dean33]

you need to stop thinking about what the better team is and think about the spectacle. In the new scenario Collingwood would get a ~8% advantage, at the moment Richmond gets a 70% advantage.

You need to stop thinking that as long as a game is high scoring it’s a good spectacle.

 

[footyfan1978]

Removing the prior opportunity rule will mean players will be reluctant to take possession in congestion and might actually make the rolling mauls even worse. Could get passages where 15 blokes are in a pack just soccering it around.

This is exactly what would happen. Anything that encourages players to tackle more than get the ball is only going to make the game a worse spectacle. We have to encourage positive play of hunt the ball to get it and kick it, not hunt player with ball to tackle him.

 

[Belnakor]

You need to stop thinking that as long as a game is high scoring it’s a good spectacle.

read the thread title

 

[eastfreo75]

Both teams get a penalty

 

[eastfreo75]

I'm most likely Pat Malone on this, we reduced rotations and congestion is still a problem. Not the answer to reduce rotations.

Bigger goal square is a good idea. In basketball, keyway has changed over time. Rather, increase the size each year until we fix the problem. 5m increased in length first year, 2m wider in year 2, 5m in length in year 3 and then 2m wider in year 4.

My pet hate, player receiving a mark or free kick attempts to handball laterally and the man on the mark goes over the mark to stop it. Pay a 50m.

If a player kicks or handballs and the ball goes over boundary, free kick to the other team.

Centre bounce, teams must start with 6 defenders and 6 forwards in each 50.

 

[dean33]

read the thread title

Why don’t we award teams 3 points for taking a specy? Or a goal on the boundary is worth 9 points? And you’d no doubt want the super goal introduced as well? And we could even play with 2 balls for 5 mins each quarter so both teams can score at the same time!