Roast State of the game

[ottoman]

The holding the ball rule needs to be clarified over the off-season.

I watched 7 games over the weekend, and there was absolutely no consistency with the holding the ball interpretation across those games.

The biggest issue is with dropping the ball I reckon. If there is no prior opportunity, the player is given leeway to just drop the ball or dispose of it by any means (legal or not). I understand if the ball is knocked out in a tackle, but a player should still have an onus of disposing the ball legally, whether he had prior opportunity or not.

it just seems like they've put the whistle away with holding the ball recently. It has to be blatantly obvious, and the player needs so much prior opportunity to get penalized.

I think the umps have to be hot on it. It clears the ball because it doesn't allow packs to form. If a player disposes the ball illegally, it's an automatic free kick. No question needs to be asked about prior.

Also, I hate seeing a guy tackles, then 5 jump on him. I'd also be banning the 2nd or 3rd opposition players jumping in. And I also think a players team-mate needs to be penalized for jumping in as well. The intention here is to ensure the ball is locked in and not cleared. If your own team-mate has the ball and is being tackled, you shouldn't be allowed to jump in and make a scrum. The onus is on the player to dispose of the ball.

In summary, no more 'stacks on' tackling'. If multiple tacklers or team-mates jump in, it's a free kick.

The problem here DaVe is your adding more technicalities to what is already an overly technical game to umpire.
If what you said were to happen umpires would now have to start counting how many players were in a tackle.
I understand what you want but I think we need to be making the game easier to officiate, not adding further technicalities for the umpires.

 

[jackcass]

One rule I don't understand is the advantage rule. I've seen times when a player has taken advantage and messed it up it's play on, but other times when they mess it up and the umpire says "no advantage", and it comes back. It's seems stupid, especially when a player misses a goal and it gets taken back. it should be a rule where a team doesn't get disadvantage by a free kick being payed, not a second chance rule.
Is it to do with when the umpire calls advantage? I'm confused because I've seen both the umpire call advantage after the team has moved on or kicked at goal, and also stop the play and bring it back because he didn't call advantage.

Shits me no end. The Hunt situation was clearly the most extreme example of this rule being distorted. He won the free in a contest, went to ground, the 2x Pies players stopped chasing the ball which was well ahead of the mark and were turning to return to the mark or resume their positions when Hunt just ran past them, picked the ball up and got an advantage call. Ridiculous.

Playing on ahead of the mark is the other. You can't tackle them even though they're ahead of the mark and that'd get you a 50, yet the umps just allow the player with the ball to swing around and either run from the contest or dispose of the footy. Frustrates me no end.

 

[jackcass]

You raised some great points.
Congestion is my pet hate and when the ball goes forward the attacking player has no options as there is no one ahead.
I know in other comps they have zones etc but personally i am not sure.

And i know this will not happen but the VFA had no wingman and 16 players on the ground,Personally i think this would free up the game to be a better spectacle.And more of a challenge for the coaches in regards to rotations and team selections.

Easier to reduce the I/C rotations from 90 down to 20 (just a random and not selected for any specific or scientific reason other than 5 a quarter seems okay) + blood rule and concussion rotations.

 

[jackcass]

My view is a little lateral / left field on this issue. I think the umpires do not pay enough free kicks. We have doubled the number of umpires from 20 years ago but the approximate free kicks per game on average has remained the same.

We know coaches employ congestion tactics to win games which leads to greater physical contact between players than ever before, But we seem not to see anymore free kicks. I think the umpires are coached to provide only the most technically correct interpretation and this results in massive inconsistencies from week to week and umpire to umpire.

If we pay more free kicks it will break up the congestion and lead to better football and more consistent umpiring as we allow some more flexibility for the umpires.

And plucking 1 out of nowhere when they haven't been paid all day only causes greater frustration. If it's a free once, it's a free every time.

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

Its the inconsistency that gets me
* A Push a one end is not a Push at the other end
* Incorrect Disposal in one play is not Incorrect Disposal in the next play
* Ducking is paid, then it is not paid
* Below the legs is just a guess

Another couple that have always bugged me..........

- if you're within a metre of the boundary I can push you in the back as hard as I like
- if I move off the line while kicking then it's play on but if I am Buddy Franklin and the siren sounds I can still move metres off the line in my approach without a play on call.

 

[jackcass]

The holding the ball rule needs to be clarified over the off-season.

I watched 7 games over the weekend, and there was absolutely no consistency with the holding the ball interpretation across those games.

The biggest issue is with dropping the ball I reckon. If there is no prior opportunity, the player is given leeway to just drop the ball or dispose of it by any means (legal or not). I understand if the ball is knocked out in a tackle, but a player should still have an onus of disposing the ball legally, whether he had prior opportunity or not.

it just seems like they've put the whistle away with holding the ball recently. It has to be blatantly obvious, and the player needs so much prior opportunity to get penalized.

I think the umps have to be hot on it. It clears the ball because it doesn't allow packs to form. If a player disposes the ball illegally, it's an automatic free kick. No question needs to be asked about prior.

Also, I hate seeing a guy tackles, then 5 jump on him. I'd also be banning the 2nd or 3rd opposition players jumping in. And I also think a players team-mate needs to be penalized for jumping in as well. The intention here is to ensure the ball is locked in and not cleared. If your own team-mate has the ball and is being tackled, you shouldn't be allowed to jump in and make a scrum. The onus is on the player to dispose of the ball.

In summary, no more 'stacks on' tackling'. If multiple tacklers or team-mates jump in, it's a free kick.

And then you see the free paid against DeGoey in the Melbourne game. How are we meant to know what to expect?

 

[ppoiter]

Another couple that have always bugged me..........

- if you're within a metre of the boundary I can push you in the back as hard as I like
- if I move off the line while kicking then it's play on but if I am Buddy Franklin and the siren sounds I can still move metres off the line in my approach without a play on call.

I remember watching a segment on the AFL website when Jeff Gieschen was in charge of umpiring. They were reviewing a Buddy kick for goal and he came up with the term 'natural arc,' and said it was fine. Which is all well and good but how is a 'natural arc' any better than a player taking a few steps sideways to open up the angle? Arbitrarily applying the term 'natural' shouldn't make any difference, either you get to move off the line or you don't.

 

[magpie_marty]

Easier to reduce the I/C rotations from 90 down to 20 (just a random and not selected for any specific or scientific reason other than 5 a quarter seems okay) + blood rule and concussion rotations.

Some good points raised there.

 

[DaVe86]

The problem here DaVe is your adding more technicalities to what is already an overly technical game to umpire.
If what you said were to happen umpires would now have to start counting how many players were in a tackle.
I understand what you want but I think we need to be making the game easier to officiate, not adding further technicalities for the umpires.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not talking about multi-player tackles.

I'm talking about when a player is brought to ground, and then 2 other players jump on top. Typically one is a team-mate who is trying to prevent the ball escaping, and the other is an opponent also trying to lock the ball in to get a holding the ball.

I just think once a player has been tackled and brought to ground, there shouldn't be multiple players jumping in.

 

[Jasper84]

This is way left field and I expect it to be shot down easily, but what if the game was primarily adjudicated by a video ump with the field umpire only overruling blatent incorrect decisions? I can think of a couple of positives:

You could have more than one person viewing multiple angles.

They would be less persuaded by crowd and player appealing.

Each decision could be reviewed in slow mo, different views etc whilst play continues to ensure incorrect decisions don't get repeated.

It takes the pressure off field umpires having to multitask watching the play on and off the ball, running all over the field, talking to players, bouncing the balls etc.

It cuts down umpire abuse from fans, thus encouraging more people to join the profession, meaning a better standard of umpires.

 

[jatsad]

The score review irks me. Is there any other sport where the video footage is of lower quality than a Charlie Chaplin film?

Pretty simple fix for a goal post review. If the ball hits the post and still goes over the goal line, just make it a goal like every other sport.

Why do we have to be like every other sport?
The drama of a ball hitting the post is massive and should never be changed.
So we have a review, so what?
Just empower the goal umpires more and make them make decisions. Some are relying too much on the review.
Field umpires should stay out of it. That's what goal umpires are for.

 

[HeathySure]

This is way left field and I expect it to be shot down easily, but what if the game was primarily adjudicated by a video ump with the field umpire only overruling blatent incorrect decisions? I can think of a couple of positives:

You could have more than one person viewing multiple angles.

They would be less persuaded by crowd and player appealing.

Each decision could be reviewed in slow mo, different views etc whilst play continues to ensure incorrect decisions don't get repeated.

It takes the pressure off field umpires having to multitask watching the play on and off the ball, running all over the field, talking to players, bouncing the balls etc.

It cuts down umpire abuse from fans, thus encouraging more people to join the profession, meaning a better standard of umpires.

Video is a 2d representation of a 3d image. it totally distorts. Case in point, the Oliver "fake dive"
we see what we see, but the doctors report says Oliver had a sore jaw, I can see both sides but i cannot make a definitive decision. Same with touched balls in play. Have never seen one that i thought, yes i am 100% sure that happened.
Our eyes are the best measure, how many times have you said when you first see a "bad free kick" given that you looked at again and said, oh, the umpy was right. I bet way more than you realise. The umps are never going to get anything perfect. They are doing a good job considering how hard it is to umpire. I get frustrated like the rest of you guys, but then i look at frees we get that we shouldn't have and think, oh well the umps at least are not biased. and they aren't. To say so is ridiculous.

 

[Jasper84]

Why do we have to be like every other sport?
The drama of a ball hitting the post is massive and should never be changed.
So we have a review, so what?
Just empower the goal umpires more and make them make decisions. Some are relying too much on the review.
Field umpires should stay out of it. That's what goal umpires are for.

We should be like other sports when it comes to professionalism in adjudicating the game. This isn't the ammos. It's a billion dollar industry with several high stake ramifications on the outcome of games. At this elite level, a correct result should never be in jeopardy because we can't work out if a ball touched a post or not.

 

[Robroy22]

I agree with your first point but not your second point, that discourages switches which can open up the play and created a more free flowing game.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yep Mike it does DISCOURAGE it (but it doesn't outlaw it and really good players will still be able to do it) but what it does do, is to get the ball moving forward more (and quicker) which doesn't allow defences to set up as much or for mids to flood back and clog up the space. It makes the player taking the initiative (we used to call it making the play) a much more important player and it means that you'll see a lot more 1:1 contests. I don't want to discourage champions from using their skills and vision to switch play or make space for their team mates, but I DO want to make players accountable for their choices and if they go backwards and try to waste time I want them to pay a price.

 

[mike123]

Yep Mike it does DISCOURAGE it (but it doesn't outlaw it and really good players will still be able to do it) but what it does do, is to get the ball moving forward more (and quicker) which doesn't allow defences to set up as much or for mids to flood back and clog up the space. It makes the player taking the initiative (we used to call it making the play) a much more important player and it means that you'll see a lot more 1:1 contests. I don't want to discourage champions from using their skills and vision to switch play or make space for their team mates, but I DO want to make players accountable for their choices and if they go backwards and try to waste time I want them to pay a price.

It will have the opposite effect, instead of players kicking before the defence is set defenders will know players are less likely switch it and thus the game becomes more predictable for them. Instead of the play being broken open by a switch it more likely players will kick long up the line to a contest and then we get more stoppages.

Time wasting happens in most sports, really it's up to the opposition to force a turnover.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[neilk]

Marks being paid when kick has gone barely 10m. This has to be fixed somehow.

 

[DaVe86]

There's no doubt that game would be better off for having clear forwards, mids and backs. Unfortunately, the only way to really ensure the game goes back to this style is to set things like zones, or starting positions or even requirements to have certain amount of players inside 50 at a certain time.

Clearly, these are rules most AFL fans would not like to see, as one of the fundamentals of our game is freedom of movement and no off-sides.

I still think though that the game is severely over-coached. There's no reason why all 18 players need to be in the one quadrant of the ground at any given time. The better sides actually hold some players back. Richmond have had success this year but sitting a player like Martin at full forward. It's a really big call for a side to leave a player like Martin by himself ahead of the play.

I think players get very sucked into the play as well. The best teams keep a nice spread, and let their grunt players feed it out. I think we in particular have a habit of all drawing to the football.

I'm not a supporter of limiting interchanges or reducing it to 16 a side. I think all you're doing is trying to fatigue players, which isn't going to improve the spectable. You're just going to see more missed goals and less speed in the game.

It's hard to see how the game is going to be repaired. But it will mostly have to be coach driven. We need a coach with the bravery to play a more traditional structure and not the rolling maul.

Port Adelaide did it well against us. They have bulls like Wines and Powell Pepper who were beating 4 or 5 opponents, and then isolating forwards while our players were all getting sucked into the play without influencing it. I think that could be the way forward.

 

[Finnishpie]

The biggest issue with the game is the way it's turned into a rolling maul with all players within 70 meters of the ball - and sometimes within 40 meters. And the way that means there are no one on ones.

Only way to save it is to bring down rotations to about 40 a game. Maybe even 20.

 

[Thaihawk]

Very interesting read, and I think you will find equally frustrating thoughts about the state of our game on most other boards. I sympathize with the umpires, and am critical of the administrators for making their job almost impossible to manage.

 

[DaVe86]

The biggest issue with the game is the way it's turned into a rolling maul with all players within 70 meters of the ball - and sometimes within 40 meters. And the way that means there are no one on ones.

Only way to save it is to bring down rotations to about 40 a game. Maybe even 20.

I just don't know if this will solve it. I think coaches will still demand the same style of game, they will just recruit more athletic players who can run longer (ie Scully who never comes off).

Or we'll just see more mauls because tired players will all just fall on the ball and there will be no breaking from the contest.

I don't think exhaustion is the answer to making the game more attractive. It may be more open, but skill level will be atrocious, and goal-kicking will be ordinary.

Reducing rotations may see more of a 'resting forward' type role which could help a little bit, but I don't think it will overall improve the aesthetics. Just my view.

 

[Darkyprotector]

I follow a number of sports, and each sport has endless complaints about umpires and referees. The one complaint that everyone makes is that games are over officiated.

Football fans seem to have this mindset that everything was perfect in the 80s/90s. How about taking of the rose colored glasses?

mate if you think alls kosher in AFL land
well you might still belive in santa, tooth fairy and religion
congrats

 

[Darkyprotector]

Opinion/s

1. The rolling maul we now witness every game is coach driven. Most coaches WANT to defend and keep their side in the game for as long as possible so they clog up the scoring opportunities and we get the maul. Limiting interchange even more will not change this, it will perhaps exacerbate it. As a child of the 50's I witnessed sides like Hawthorn and St.Kilda doing exactly the same things...(clogging up the play with numbers, rolling maul) to try and escape huge losses. Tiring players out only makes the problem worse because the team trying to make the play loses the energy to run...so MORE interchanges would be more beneficial (and WAS in 2010) and coaches have to be encouraged to play more attacking footy, rather than simply trying to be competitive.
2. My rule changes would be to deliberate out of bounce and to kicking backwards. I want to encourage kicking the ball forward so I would encourage players to kick it forward by removing the "deliberate" rule from any kick that goes forwards. Actually kicking to the boundary encourages certain skills and would allow backs to have one final chance to save their team from danger (at the moment they have none). Similarly I don't want to promote kicking backward so I would remove the "safety" of the backwards kick by making any kick backwards a "play on situation" where anyone receiving a backwards pass is fair game to be tackled. I'm not removing their right to kick backwards....I'm just making it less EASY to run down the clock.
3. I don't envy our umpires. With more and more TV coverage, slow mo replays and analysis by social media as well as click bait journalists....they're on a hiding to nothing. I'd encourage our umpires to be more proactive rather than reactive. I have no problem with umpires interpreting the rules provided they are consistent over the entire match. I currently think too many of our umps are REACTING to situations (eg. Neil Daniher's day on QB or interstate home games where 99% of the crowd is screaming for one side for the entire day). I want umps to call frees early in the game and then stick with their interpretations for the rest of the game. On Saturday Darcy Moore was savaged going for marks in the first quarter. Arms chopped, head high contact, pushes in the back and then smashed by two backmen whenever he fell to the ground. He didn't get frees for any of the contact made despite being in front and attempting to mark. Yet Callum Brown got a free kick for a player rolling over him in the goal square? If umps pay the first free kick and then show players what they're going to be penalised for by being consistent....then the game gets a lot easier to umpire.

was that arm chop on darcy at all similar to the one paid against Dunn you know the one that assisted the DEES,gee wouldhave loved those 4 points,

 

[Jasper84]

There's no doubt that game would be better off for having clear forwards, mids and backs. Unfortunately, the only way to really ensure the game goes back to this style is to set things like zones, or starting positions or even requirements to have certain amount of players inside 50 at a certain time.

Clearly, these are rules most AFL fans would not like to see, as one of the fundamentals of our game is freedom of movement and no off-sides.

I still think though that the game is severely over-coached. There's no reason why all 18 players need to be in the one quadrant of the ground at any given time. The better sides actually hold some players back. Richmond have had success this year but sitting a player like Martin at full forward. It's a really big call for a side to leave a player like Martin by himself ahead of the play.

I think players get very sucked into the play as well. The best teams keep a nice spread, and let their grunt players feed it out. I think we in particular have a habit of all drawing to the football.

I'm not a supporter of limiting interchanges or reducing it to 16 a side. I think all you're doing is trying to fatigue players, which isn't going to improve the spectable. You're just going to see more missed goals and less speed in the game.

It's hard to see how the game is going to be repaired. But it will mostly have to be coach driven. We need a coach with the bravery to play a more traditional structure and not the rolling maul.

Port Adelaide did it well against us. They have bulls like Wines and Powell Pepper who were beating 4 or 5 opponents, and then isolating forwards while our players were all getting sucked into the play without influencing it. I think that could be the way forward.

I think a big issue is the fans who want conflicting things at the same time. On one hand there is the eternal complaint of wanting footy to go back to how it used to be (ie no rolling mauls). When the obvious solution of zones is presented, the same folks complain that the game is turning into netball. It's the classic council gripe: "Fix what's wrong but don't tax me for it"

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Only way to save it is to bring down rotations to about 40 a game. Maybe even 20.

I would actually go the other way and have no cap on rotations.
Let tactics rule

 

[cleomenes]

The holding the ball rule needs to be clarified over the off-season.

I watched 7 games over the weekend, and there was absolutely no consistency with the holding the ball interpretation across those games.

The biggest issue is with dropping the ball I reckon. If there is no prior opportunity, the player is given leeway to just drop the ball or dispose of it by any means (legal or not). I understand if the ball is knocked out in a tackle, but a player should still have an onus of disposing the ball legally, whether he had prior opportunity or not.

it just seems like they've put the whistle away with holding the ball recently. It has to be blatantly obvious, and the player needs so much prior opportunity to get penalized.

I think the umps have to be hot on it. It clears the ball because it doesn't allow packs to form. If a player disposes the ball illegally, it's an automatic free kick. No question needs to be asked about prior.

Also, I hate seeing a guy tackles, then 5 jump on him. I'd also be banning the 2nd or 3rd opposition players jumping in. And I also think a players team-mate needs to be penalized for jumping in as well. The intention here is to ensure the ball is locked in and not cleared. If your own team-mate has the ball and is being tackled, you shouldn't be allowed to jump in and make a scrum. The onus is on the player to dispose of the ball.

In summary, no more 'stacks on' tackling'. If multiple tacklers or team-mates jump in, it's a free kick.

There is a lot to agree with here. At the start of the year, the sudden death interpretation that you favour was in operation and to my eyes was working pretty well. I suspect that pressure from the coaches dragged the interpretation back to where it is now.
I repeat my assertion that the umpires are better now than they have ever been, in the sense that they see most things, and don't get fooled very often. They are inconsistent because they are continually having to change how they inerpret the rules. The arrival and departure of the "hands in the back" focus is an example.
Your "stacks on tackling" comment is accurate. It is a rule change that will be forced on the game by the coaches, because they want the game closed up.
Congestion is the key to it all. For those citing the Hawthorn and St Kilda clogging tactics from the past, you should be aware that the centre square was introduced to deal with this, and it did so. Interchange has allowed coaches to regain that congestion, and in todays professional era, they are much more successful at it.
Football in the past was not always better than it is now. We don't miss the thuggery that saw Greening taken out, nor the sloppy grounds and umpires unable to keep up with the game because there was only one. Interchange seemed such a good idea when it was introduced, and it worked very well until coaches exploited it, and the purpose of reserves was lost. I believe that the time has come to face the fact that it has distorted the game and force coaches to use it only for the purpose for which it was intended: to allow an injured player to recover and come back on. If they can't bring themselves to do this, then we have to go back to injured players staying off once they are replaced.