Hey all, just interested to start a discussion (if not one available already) on what people think of starting positions.
We all know rule changes are coming. One I hope they do not bring in is the last touch out of bounds. Was woeful, horrible, disgraceful to watch in NAB 2012 (or was it 2011?) and I hated it. Big NO to that.
But yes, starting positions. I'm pretty sure I'm against this, and it's nothing to do with it being so poorly timed, given we finally became a damn good team.
Starting positions... They argue that currently, congestion is bad and that TV ratings are down.
I would argue this:
- Congestion is only the current evolution of football and it will eventually and naturally take on a new form. I felt that lowering interchanges did help with this a bit, though wasn't a fan of the number cap given it was just something else to police and keep track of in an already over-umpired and over-coached game. Also, sparkling plays look better when they come out of "congestion", given the great play needed to get through. We are a fantastic example of this at our best and, bias well and truly aside, are we not currently awesome to watch in full-flight? Also, there have still been games where both teams score 100+. But it isn't about the scores and shouldn't be.
- TV ratings... What a joke. They keep putting bad teams on Prime Time but also, very importantly, people have access to Foxtel and infinite replays now, meaning there is less urgency to watch games live. Doesn't help that the commentators these days literally talk about the same things every match, depending on who is playing. How many times have you guys heard that Houli and Grigg were great pickups? They are now Richmond through and through, no longer just "pickups"... Anyway.
-------
Pros of starting positions:
Whilst we don't know the final idea of what it will look like...
- Possibly more shots at goal on the run from long-range.
- Better full forwards kicking more bags of goals, maybe.
- More "traditional" footy, maybe.
- Ruckmen are more necessary again (though still necessary now if you have a good one).
- Better midfielders really putting on shows.
-------
Cons of starting positions:
- How do you police it? One thing that turns people away from footy or at least highly frustrates them is umpiring, poor umpiring, bad decisions, and arguably the worst - lengthier stops in play for things like score reviews or excess free kicks.
So how is it policed then? Will there be an offside umpire? Does he blow a whistle or put up a flag? And then when 100,000 fans all suddenly get confused as to why play stopped wherever the ball is, and the sudden realisation of it being due to a "positional infringement" at the other end of the ground, will it thus be hugley jarring to the flow of a game and extremely frustrating to watch? The game is already over-umpired and more policing will look bad.
- The eventual solving of this by coaches might lead to even uglier football. It could spawn some terrible looking tactics.
- If all stoppages need to have the positions in place, eg. six players per team in each of the 50 metre zones, can't those players just all line up on the 50m line and leave the 50 after the ball is bounced? Won't that just be crap to look at and borderline comical? The flipside being the extra defender waiting just outside the 50 line and going back to their preferred position as soon as the ball is bounced.
-------
I think footy is currently in a very negative state of being. It feels like there is so much more focus on penalty than reward, would you agree?
- You take a mark, you are called to play-on if you even move 1cm from your "line".
- Blocking. What even IS this? It used to be called good body work.
- You get gang tackled with no prior opportunity, if you don't "appear to be making an attempt", it's holding the ball.
- Any slight touch on a forward (this all started with the hands in the back rule, infamously crucifying Richo that time) is a free kick.
- 50 metres for the protected zone.
- Nominating ruckmen.
- Deliberate out of bounds for a defenders old (and only) weapon, the long, booming, clearing kick from defensive 50 whilst under significant pressure.
The list can continue, but these are just some examples of the negative mindset of footy.
I agree, funnily enough, with something Brendan Fevola said on 101.9 this morning (I listen to this for the Alpha Bucks segment.. my fiance likes it okay
). He said there are too many umpires and way too many free kicks.
I add that this increases the negative mindset of footy, but it also creates more stops in play (and more fan frustration). Go back to one umpire and you might see more free-flowing footy. Players will be tired from all the extra flow and will more naturally need to gravitate back to playing closer to goals, and you might see more traditional positions come back naturally. But whatever evolves, it will be natural and not forced.
Be keen to hear thoughts, cheers!
We all know rule changes are coming. One I hope they do not bring in is the last touch out of bounds. Was woeful, horrible, disgraceful to watch in NAB 2012 (or was it 2011?) and I hated it. Big NO to that.
But yes, starting positions. I'm pretty sure I'm against this, and it's nothing to do with it being so poorly timed, given we finally became a damn good team.
Starting positions... They argue that currently, congestion is bad and that TV ratings are down.
I would argue this:
- Congestion is only the current evolution of football and it will eventually and naturally take on a new form. I felt that lowering interchanges did help with this a bit, though wasn't a fan of the number cap given it was just something else to police and keep track of in an already over-umpired and over-coached game. Also, sparkling plays look better when they come out of "congestion", given the great play needed to get through. We are a fantastic example of this at our best and, bias well and truly aside, are we not currently awesome to watch in full-flight? Also, there have still been games where both teams score 100+. But it isn't about the scores and shouldn't be.
- TV ratings... What a joke. They keep putting bad teams on Prime Time but also, very importantly, people have access to Foxtel and infinite replays now, meaning there is less urgency to watch games live. Doesn't help that the commentators these days literally talk about the same things every match, depending on who is playing. How many times have you guys heard that Houli and Grigg were great pickups? They are now Richmond through and through, no longer just "pickups"... Anyway.
-------
Pros of starting positions:
Whilst we don't know the final idea of what it will look like...
- Possibly more shots at goal on the run from long-range.
- Better full forwards kicking more bags of goals, maybe.
- More "traditional" footy, maybe.
- Ruckmen are more necessary again (though still necessary now if you have a good one).
- Better midfielders really putting on shows.
-------
Cons of starting positions:
- How do you police it? One thing that turns people away from footy or at least highly frustrates them is umpiring, poor umpiring, bad decisions, and arguably the worst - lengthier stops in play for things like score reviews or excess free kicks.
So how is it policed then? Will there be an offside umpire? Does he blow a whistle or put up a flag? And then when 100,000 fans all suddenly get confused as to why play stopped wherever the ball is, and the sudden realisation of it being due to a "positional infringement" at the other end of the ground, will it thus be hugley jarring to the flow of a game and extremely frustrating to watch? The game is already over-umpired and more policing will look bad.
- The eventual solving of this by coaches might lead to even uglier football. It could spawn some terrible looking tactics.
- If all stoppages need to have the positions in place, eg. six players per team in each of the 50 metre zones, can't those players just all line up on the 50m line and leave the 50 after the ball is bounced? Won't that just be crap to look at and borderline comical? The flipside being the extra defender waiting just outside the 50 line and going back to their preferred position as soon as the ball is bounced.
-------
I think footy is currently in a very negative state of being. It feels like there is so much more focus on penalty than reward, would you agree?
- You take a mark, you are called to play-on if you even move 1cm from your "line".
- Blocking. What even IS this? It used to be called good body work.
- You get gang tackled with no prior opportunity, if you don't "appear to be making an attempt", it's holding the ball.
- Any slight touch on a forward (this all started with the hands in the back rule, infamously crucifying Richo that time) is a free kick.
- 50 metres for the protected zone.
- Nominating ruckmen.
- Deliberate out of bounds for a defenders old (and only) weapon, the long, booming, clearing kick from defensive 50 whilst under significant pressure.
The list can continue, but these are just some examples of the negative mindset of footy.
I agree, funnily enough, with something Brendan Fevola said on 101.9 this morning (I listen to this for the Alpha Bucks segment.. my fiance likes it okay
). He said there are too many umpires and way too many free kicks. I add that this increases the negative mindset of footy, but it also creates more stops in play (and more fan frustration). Go back to one umpire and you might see more free-flowing footy. Players will be tired from all the extra flow and will more naturally need to gravitate back to playing closer to goals, and you might see more traditional positions come back naturally. But whatever evolves, it will be natural and not forced.
Be keen to hear thoughts, cheers!
