Roast State of the game

[JOELY]

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.

Yeah, and I've noticed if you've got the arm pinned, it's like catnip to the umpires. If the arm is pinned you don't get prior opportunity, while if the arm isn't pinned you can either get a ball up, or shovel the ball out however way you like. It's always struck me a little unfair. If you arm is pinned it's pretty hard to get rid of the ball properly so you should get some leeway, while if you have two hands free you really should get rid of it properly and there's no excuse.

 

[Finnishpie]

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.

Yeah, it's hard to tell what the effect will be. But when you look at late 80s-90s footy, it's just so much better to watch. Actual battles between players. One on ones everywhere. Actual positions. I think the aim would be to get back to that.

 

[Robroy22]

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

I respectfully disagree with your appraisal that it would cause more "clogging up"... random ball movement is far less likely to be predictable for defensive players and kicking quickly to a contest often favours the forwards more than the defenders. If more players did it we'd have far more goals kicked and far less time to develop packs.
I'm also not against stoppages (though the AFL is) provided the playmakers at these stoppages are being "protected" and encouraged to make play. As it currently stands players hang back at stoppages waiting for a ball to be released to them whilst playmakers such as Pendles are constantly being groped by their "taggers" around the stoppage. This forces the stoppage to compress on itself and we get multiple stoppages. A few free kicks paid around a stoppage for holding or blocking violations and the problem could be solved rather quickly. PROTECT the players going for the ball....don't discourage them by paying trivial holding the ball freebies against them.

 

[Robroy22]

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.

Couldn't agree more....reducing interchange will just result in "aerobic athletes" being recruited at the expense of footballers.
Hockey has unlimited interchange and the game flows at the same speed all game.

 

[cleomenes]

Couldn't agree more....reducing interchange will just result in "aerobic athletes" being recruited at the expense of footballers.
Hockey has unlimited interchange and the game flows at the same speed all game.

There is only one player at present who runs on the ball all game. In the days of 19th and 20th men, only Kevin Bartlett ran on the ball all day without resting in the pocket. The fear that this type would be recruited preferentially is groundless. They are already (Phillips and Sidebottom for us) but still can't do the whole game in nearly every case. Ruckmen and, dare I say it, rovers, would have to rest if there was no interchange. The disposal skills and fitness of modern players are vasty improved over those of the old days, so the game would not revert to what it was then, but there is a good chance that some of the congestion would be removed. Something has to be done, and if not removal of interchange, then zones will have to be introduced. This is choosing more complication rather than less, and is not the first solution that I would recommend. Removing the change that caused the problem is my first option.

 

[mike123]

I respectfully disagree with your appraisal that it would cause more "clogging up"... random ball movement is far less likely to be predictable for defensive players and kicking quickly to a contest often favours the forwards more than the defenders. If more players did it we'd have far more goals kicked and far less time to develop packs.
I'm also not against stoppages (though the AFL is) provided the playmakers at these stoppages are being "protected" and encouraged to make play. As it currently stands players hang back at stoppages waiting for a ball to be released to them whilst playmakers such as Pendles are constantly being groped by their "taggers" around the stoppage. This forces the stoppage to compress on itself and we get multiple stoppages. A few free kicks paid around a stoppage for holding or blocking violations and the problem could be solved rather quickly. PROTECT the players going for the ball....don't discourage them by paying trivial holding the ball freebies against them.

Except ball movement is going to be less random the what it is now.

I agree with your last point though.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[mike123]

There is only one player at present who runs on the ball all game. In the days of 19th and 20th men, only Kevin Bartlett ran on the ball all day without resting in the pocket. The fear that this type would be recruited preferentially is groundless. They are already (Phillips and Sidebottom for us) but still can't do the whole game in nearly every case. Ruckmen and, dare I say it, rovers, would have to rest if there was no interchange. The disposal skills and fitness of modern players are vasty improved over those of the old days, so the game would not revert to what it was then, but there is a good chance that some of the congestion would be removed. Something has to be done, and if not removal of interchange, then zones will have to be introduced. This is choosing more complication rather than less, and is not the first solution that I would recommend. Removing the change that caused the problem is my first option.

You're comparing apples to oranges though, back then players didn't have to run as much as now. If you want congestion to go pay free kicks that are there don't let the play go on just for sake of it. Protect the player makers and punish the scraggers. That will solve the problem.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[cleomenes]

You're comparing apples to oranges though, back then players didn't have to run as much as now. If you want congestion to go pay free kicks that are there don't let the play go on just for sake of it. Protect the player makers and punish the scraggers. That will solve the problem.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I don't think so. Take a look at any long shot of a boundary throw in in any game. Every player is within one kick of the throw in. This is nothing to do with scraggers. It is how the coaches are instructing their players to position themselves. They can only set up like this if they can run flat out to where the ball goes at any time. Without interchange, this would lead to exhaustion and inability to get to the ball. Therefore without interchange, some of the congestion would be removed. Scragging is another issue.

 

[Robroy22]

There is only one player at present who runs on the ball all game. In the days of 19th and 20th men, only Kevin Bartlett ran on the ball all day without resting in the pocket. The fear that this type would be recruited preferentially is groundless. They are already (Phillips and Sidebottom for us) but still can't do the whole game in nearly every case. Ruckmen and, dare I say it, rovers, would have to rest if there was no interchange. The disposal skills and fitness of modern players are vasty improved over those of the old days, so the game would not revert to what it was then, but there is a good chance that some of the congestion would be removed. Something has to be done, and if not removal of interchange, then zones will have to be introduced. This is choosing more complication rather than less, and is not the first solution that I would recommend. Removing the change that caused the problem is my first option.

Again I regretfully disagree. Bob Rose, Bob Skilton, Bill Goggin, Gary Wilson....all played pretty much all day on the ball (and many others as well) KB was not the only one. Jim Stynes too I think from memory. The difference between those blokes and Tom Scully (whom I assume you mention as the only player today that does it) is that THEY were all multitalented footballers who could get and deliver the ball at will as well as scoring goals themselves. Today the ATHLETES being groomed to be aerobic masters of the lesser runners in the latter part of the game....are just runners. Blicavs, Scully, Phillips (Sidey is actually a bit more of a player than an athlete) they all can run but can they win a game for their team BEFORE everyone else is exhausted?

I don't want to watch 85 minutes of rolling maul before we get to the part of the game where one side gets on top of the other. I want to see players beating other players based on skill and teamwork and I want attacking footy rather than clogged up quasi-rugby. Tiring players out by further reducing rotations will cause more injuries, more suspensions as players get tired and make dumb decisions and it will cause more clubs to "manage" their players even more-so than they do already.

I also agree with Mike. If umps pay the free kicks that are actually there....the game will free up pretty quickly.

 

[mike123]

I don't think so. Take a look at any long shot of a boundary throw in in any game. Every player is within one kick of the throw in. This is nothing to do with scraggers. It is how the coaches are instructing their players to position themselves. They can only set up like this if they can run flat out to where the ball goes at any time. Without interchange, this would lead to exhaustion and inability to get to the ball. Therefore without interchange, some of the congestion would be removed. Scragging is another issue.

Which leads coaches to pick less skilled players that can run allot so they keep numbers around the ball, the players are also worse at clearing this congestion. Tired players also means players will have less energy to clear the ball, less anergy to spread from the contest
And their foot skills will be worse so less interchange will probably just compound the problem.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[cleomenes]

In replying to my interchange rants, most posters are talking exhaustion and lost skills. I don't think this is how it would pan out. Players would have to run less from the start to conserve enough energy to see the game out, and coaches would have to adjust their instructions to reflect what their players can do. "resting" in the pocket was only ever a partial rest: they still had to play when the ball came down there.
The great rovers of the past that robroy mentions all had second rovers in the pocket to give them an occasional break. Even Bartlett had Brown there, but he never got a run on the ball. I don't question the quality of these players, particularly the astounding Skilton, but these were all exceptional. They were not playing in an environment where everyone around them was able to run the length of the ground repeatedly, then go off for a rest. It is this running capacity in the whole team that is the problem. I believe that interchange was the cause, and its removal an at least partial solution.
The over arching point in the discussion is that there is a problem, and if it is not solved, the game will continue its descent into an unwatchable spectacle free tackle fest. Zones would be a pain for both spectators and umpires, but if they are what it takes to reintroduce some chaos into the game, bring them on.

 

[Robroy22]

Been watching any of the U/18 comp Cleo?
They have two forwards constantly in the fwd 50 and no tagging or defensive zones allowed. Gee its a good game to watch!
So if coaches are "instructed" not to be defensive and to "allow all players to be viewed at their utmost potential" the game doesn't suffer at all.
Oh and they don't have massive interchange restrictions either.

Now will the AFL be brave enough to tell coaches that....in order to save the spectacle of the game?

 

[welshm69]

I find its about every 3rd or so actual infringement, as per the black and white rule book is paid.

 

[ColinMochrie]

Again its the inconsistency that has turned me off. Every free gets paid 1/3 of the time it occurs.

I can deal with rule changes but they need to be consistent with the rules. It shouldnt matter if it's finals. Shouldnt matter that its a close game in the last quarter.

I just dont know how the game works at the moment. I see players dropping the ball constantly. Players getting dragged away from the contest. I see the deliberate rule (or is it insufficient intent, oh wait its back to deliberate) being paid very haphazardly.

I would rather we have 2 umpires with missed frees but more consistent decisions rather 4 different rule sets every game.

 

[Maggie5]

I used to watch every free to air game now I barely watch any unless it is a team I dislike and they are getting beaten. The umpiring this has been confusing for me and even when it is a clear mark I am never sure it is going to be paid.
Just watched the replay of our game and can't believe the free kicks that weren't paid (not using this an excuse). There were some shockers, marks, too high, HTB and the Dunn 50!
I wonder how the players feel?
Was surprised that it was 11/4 at 3qtr time, not sure what it ended up as.

 

[Vicky Park]

Very well said. People were complaining about umpiring and rule changes as long ago as the 1890's. Chances are it'll still be happening 100 years from now! MRP/tribunal, tv commentators, those running the AFL etc. are all said to be clueless, the worst ever etc!! People today are probably whinging more than ever (not just about football matters), perhaps it's just the way of the world these days, sadly it's not likely to go away.

This year we are seeing one of the truly great years of (VFL/AFL) football, there's been so many close games, so many upsets, to have an 18-team competition yet know that even the bottom teams are capable of beating the top ones is fantastic. The game/competition isn't perfect but it's bloody good and I still absolutely love it as well.

Collingwood fans were known for their - ahem - 'raucous' behaviour as early as the 1890s. And for booing the referee. And for booing the opposition. Not much has changed, other than the clothes.

And of course the internet, which has amplified the focus on these issues by about 1,000,000%.

 

[Vicky Park]

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

The 15 metre rule is the most frustrating for me. Marks are sometimes paid when the ball has barely travelled 5 metres!

 

[Hardas]

I find its about every 3rd or so actual infringement, as per the black and white rule book is paid.

Yep - frustrating, but I don't think more frees would feel much better, given how hard the game is to umpire.
.
I wonder whether the umps are told to only pay the really obvious ones that they see to 'keep the game moving'
.
So then, you (and the players) start to get used to minimal frees, and players start taking more liberties, holding etc; leading to umpires 'cracking down' mid-game (or mid-round), leading to more inconsistencies, and on and on it goes.

 

[Hardas]

The 15 metre rule is the most frustrating for me. Marks are sometimes paid when the ball has barely travelled 5 metres!

Incorrect disposal for me, by a long way (especially when they said they would crack down on throws and half-handballs), but would making the minimum kicking distance for a mark 20 metres help?

 

[jonbe54]

Allowing a player to run off the mark whilst the umpire is instructing the opposition player on the mark is the biggest load of horseshit of all time. Frustrates the hell out of me.

 

[magpie_marty]

A great thread and input and views.
I still come back to the 16 players on the ground and a reduced interchange perhaps 40 a game ?
Would hate to see zones as happens at lower levels