Roast State of the modern game; Clarkson

[RichLeMonde]

couldnt agree more. It's the lack of rules dictating where players can go that has allowed coaches to introduce these tactics. Going back to 'rules of old' wont do a thing.

Most other team sports have some sort of rule to dictate where players can go during the game.

In basketball it's a key, plus it's illegal to return to the defensive half. Plus they have a shot clock so they cant dick around with the ball forever. In soccer it's off side, same as in rugby, same as in hockey. Even cricket has rules to make the game more interesting, such as power plays and restrictions on how many players can defend near the boundary.

In AFL coaches are free to have all 18 players behind the ball. Up until 2000 that wasnt an issue because fitness levels were not sufficient to allow all 18 players to roam the ground for the entire game. Now fitness and tactical use of the bench have resulted in this zoning debacle and it's killing the game

I'd like to see a trial where:
- 3 deep forwards and backs can't leave their 50
- 3 half-forwards and half-backs can leave their 50 but can't enter the other 50
- 6 mids can go anywhere.

So basically netball with kicking and tackling. That way you'd never have more than 12 players from each team in either 50 and in the area between the arcs. You'd get more one-on-one contests and more space for mids to break into

 

[Consolaçao]

Flooding was happening in 1996 too with Eade coached Swans at times. The difference was in early 2000's and late 1990's it might happen for a quarter or a half.
Once rotations became a thing during mid 2000's it has grown and grown and clubs can maintain it longer by just rotating to have the freshest of their 22 players on the field at any point in time. In essence in the coaching box is has become a game of 22 v 22 even though 18 only on field at any point in time of a game. Plus the emphasis on pre-season training has become to the state that the main aim is to have every player so fit that they can run and up both ends of ground as much as possible to keep the zone defence and floods as much as possible.

You're right - it's effectively 22 v 22. Besides the point you make about fatigue being managed out of the game, I'd also add that the current system is grossly unfair when teams are reduced through no fault of their own to 1 or 2 on the bench.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Yes I think it's peoples obsession with the game looking like it did in the 80s and 90s (only the classic games they remember though, not the dogshit boring ones they have rightly forgotten about) that is the reason of the rule changes.
That being said would you really still enjoy watching AFL if your team started just getting a goal in front then making it impossible for the opposition to score for the entire game.

It won't matter what the rules are you will always get 4-5 average games a weekend, its been like that in every sport for ever and it will forever remain so. It is not an obsession with what the game looked like in the 80's.
If you could freeze a person from the 80's and awake him today he would say they are not even playing the same sport. He would be confused what has happened to and where is the great sport of Aussie Rules gone.
I watch the AFL to see if my side wins, if they do I am happy, if they lose I am less happy. I get it that coaches are defensive, it's there job to be competitive and remain employed and you won't stay around long playing shootout footy. That the AFL think their people will be able to stay a step ahead of the coaches and think they can implement rule changes to stop the coaches is almost laughable.
Why can't people just accept the sport for what it is, continually changing rules has only made things worse, made it harder to umpire and caused the game to clog up.
Your club had a great win on the weekend playing entertaining footy, why do you care if other clubs are not playing the same brand? Your team won, you should be happy or sad. I am thinking your happy, who cares what it looks like. The AFL changed the rules, not the coaches.

 

[Consolaçao]

Interesting also that despite all this talk of the game being horrible, TV audiences are up in a big way.

I have to say I watched Richmond v Swans yesterday, and while for the most part I hated what I saw, a small part of me was intrigued. I loved that there was actually an attempt by C7 commentators to explain what was happening tactically.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

Keep four on the bench but only allow four interchanges per quarter (so a max of 16 per game).

100% This

Majority of the issue has been with the game moving to more athletes than footy players, and especially with using the bench as an extended midfield.
Coaches will no doubt scream blue murder about injuries, but its only a problem if they dont adapt...

A side effect would be the increased importance of big forwards again... would be great for the game

 

[footyfan1978]

100% This

Majority of the issue has been with the game moving to more athletes than footy players, and especially with using the bench as an extended midfield.
Coaches will no doubt scream blue murder about injuries, but its only a problem if they dont adapt...

A side effect would be the increased importance of big forwards again... would be great for the game

I'd be fine with a simple rule of a player can got the bench once during the game and return but if you send him to bench a second time, he is out for the game.
Which in effect gives you 22 interchanges for full game plus the 4 extra ones where a player you bench a second time is out of the game.
26 total in effect. About the same as would have been normal during mid 90's at a guess.
But coaches should be free to swap the team around with no limit at quarter and half time breaks and not be counted as interchanges.
Unlike 1970 grand final when a guy from starting 18 did not start on ground after half time so his game was over. Effectively then you just had 2 subs and no interchanges at all. Do not thin we need to go that extreme but a player each gets one interchanges a game seems a good start.

 

[Hallstrom]

It won't matter what the rules are you will always get 4-5 average games a weekend, its been like that in every sport for ever and it will forever remain so. It is not an obsession with what the game looked like in the 80's.
If you could freeze a person from the 80's and awake him today he would say they are not even playing the same sport. He would be confused what has happened to and where is the great sport of Aussie Rules gone.
I watch the AFL to see if my side wins, if they do I am happy, if they lose I am less happy. I get it that coaches are defensive, it's there job to be competitive and remain employed and you won't stay around long playing shootout footy. That the AFL think their people will be able to stay a step ahead of the coaches and think they can implement rule changes to stop the coaches is almost laughable.
Why can't people just accept the sport for what it is, continually changing rules has only made things worse, made it harder to umpire and caused the game to clog up.
Your club had a great win on the weekend playing entertaining footy, why do you care if other clubs are not playing the same brand? Your team won, you should be happy or sad. I am thinking your happy, who cares what it looks like. The AFL changed the rules, not the coaches.

I don't think we disagree that someone from the 80s would be confused watching a modern game but it's not the rule amendments that caused the change. I'm not saying I agree with them messing around with the rules either,but whether they did or didn't tweak rules along the way the game would still look more or less as it does now.

 

[almuz]

Would rather 16 a side than zones.

Less is more.

 

[D-N-R]

Surely between goal umpires and boundary umpires, someone could could count to 12 for each 50m arc - or, in this day and age, shouldn't be that hard to have it electronically monitored with a device worn under the guernsey or something. Of course it would take practice and refinement to get it right - there's plenty of time and opportunity to do that.

It wouldn't be confusing for fans - they'd know why the freekick was awarded in each case, even if they didn't see it themselves.

Fans would get over their frustration so long as teams adapted and, more importantly, it actually cleared congestion - can you imagine what the game would look like if for every stoppage that occurred between the 50m arcs, there was a maximum of 18 players around the ball instead of 36? The game right now is absolutely horrible - they have to try something radical (starting with a good trial in pre-season).

I don't disagree that 36 around the ball is a problem.

What happens when the ball is on the other side of the 50 and players can't leave their zone to pick it up? Or they bump their oppont out of the zone, which can be done legally, then get a free for it? Getting your opponent out of his zone would be tactic.

Or there is a pack of players - some from the central zone, others in the 50 m arc zone fighting for the ball as it goes from one zone to the other with players leaving and entering zones. It would be a ******* nightmare to umpire.

What about a player charging out for a mark, but fumbles the ball then leaves his zone due to momentum and now it's a free to the opposition? Sounds s**t to me.

Netball works because there is no contact, players play one on one because if you don't you'll get smashed, and there are only 7 a side. And they wear bibs so you know who's who.

 

[RUNVS]

Would rather 16 a side than zones.

Less is more.

15 or 16 a side is also the easiest fix. It won't put extra pressure on the umpires and won't be hard to understand either.

 

[almuz]

That's an improvement on the stacks on the mill that we've become used to. At least the ball is still alive and players can choose to kick off the ground and move it forward if they want.

The 'dive on the ball = HTB' rule is great but often creates more stoppage. How many times do we see the tackler drag the ball back in trying to win the free kick?

Bang on with kicking off the ground. The Carlton/Dogs game was a perfect example, kicking off the ground into space really helped open up that one.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

One thing I think most can agree on, is that all these rule changes over the last 20 years have not improved the game. They've made it worse. The worst ones being the larger bench and allowing HTB 'interpretations' to change. The AFL would never allow it but going back to Mid-90s rules and 2 on the bench would be interesting. Oh but what about injuries? Who cares. How about if you get injuries you're allowed to lose? Too much pandering to coaches and media is how we've got into this mess in the first place. Roll it all back. It won't be the same as it was, but I guarantee it will be different and it can't be any worse than this rubbish we have now.

 

[Sicks Bux]

1989 gave us the greatest Grand Final we've ever seen. Just go back to the 1989 rule book and leave it at that.

 

[Bungeye]

Flooding was happening in 1996 too with Eade coached Swans at times. The difference was in early 2000's and late 1990's it might happen for a quarter or a half.
Once rotations became a thing during mid 2000's it has grown and grown and clubs can maintain it longer by just rotating to have the freshest of their 22 players on the field at any point in time. In essence in the coaching box is has become a game of 22 v 22 even though 18 only on field at any point in time of a game. Plus the emphasis on pre-season training has become to the state that the main aim is to have every player so fit that they can run and up both ends of ground as much as possible to keep the zone defence and floods as much as possible.

Flooding was never part of the game in the 90s! It started in the year 2000 in a one off game, than became permanent in 2002 with every match.

 

[footyfan1978]

Flooding was never part of the game in the 90s! It started in the year 2000 in a one off game, than became permanent in 2002 with every match.

So you were not watching in 1996. Got it....

 

[Strahany]

They were far too hot on HTB decisions, this weekend. I saw a number of HTB calls paid with zero prior opportunity. There was one particular call, in front of goal, where a player was decked the moment they had possession, with a great 1-arm-pinned tackle. As the player hit the ground, the ball spilled out from the force of the ground impact, and was called "incorrect disposal".

I'd love the AFL to explain how the ball bobbling out in a tackle is a 'disposal', yet the ball bobbling out when a player hits the ground after marking is not. A forced dispossession from ground impact is either disposal of the ball, or it isn't; they're trying to change the definition for different circumstances.

I can get behind calling HTB, for a spilled ball, if they actually had prior. I don't have any sympathy for a player who could have disposed of it, rolled the dice, and then lose the ball in the tackle. In fact, I hated that this was often called 'play on' since the player simply got lucky in that the ball was knocked free by the tackler instead of pinned in. But to make the same call after immediate possession is absurd, and something that needs to be changed ASAP, otherwise players will not want to take possession.

 

[Bungeye]

So you were not watching in 1996. Got it....
I can't remember them calling "flooding" in 1996. From my memory of the swans that year, playing an exceptional final series beating Hawthorn and Essendon, no flooding whatsoever.

 

[footyfan1978]

Your memory....rofl

 

[Wallaby]

Keep four on the bench but only allow four interchanges per quarter (so a max of 16 per game).

Bring back 20 minute quarters.

Allow the third man up in the ruck.

Get rid of interchange entirely.

 

[footyfan1978]

Calm down KB

 

[Bungeye]

Your memory....rofl

Playing an extra couple of players in defence is not the same as a full on flood! If your memory is so good name the match in 2000 that coined the term "flooding".

 

[Sirlemsip]

I think we can all agree that the issues with the game at the moment are flooding and congestion. Too many players around the ball, too many stoppages which lead to too many opportunities for a poor umpiring decision (regardless of what the correct rules/interpretation are at the time).

If that is the case, then we need to come up with rules to fix the issues of flooding/congestion.
The main suggestions appear to be:
- 'zones' to require a certain number of players in each region of the field
- reduce/remove rotations from the bench (to increase fatigue and reduce ability of players to follow the ball and set up defensively)
- reducing total number of players on the field, but no 'zones' (to increase the 'space' on the field and make defensive zoning more difficult)

The problem is that all of these 'solutions' have their own inherent issues
- Zones would be difficult to track if you allow players to enter/exit at any time, if not do interchanges need to swap directly into each zone?
- Removing rotations may have the opposite effect where tired players may prefer to have stoppage after stoppage to recover. Fatigue also reduces skill level
- Reducing players on the field may just alter the structure of defensive zones, rather than remove them completely

Whatever changes are suggested need to be trialled - in pre-season or otherwise. That is for sure.
But the long term effects of any of these changes cannot be known for multiple seasons as coaches/players learn to adapt
Further attempts to 'fix' the game may in fact make it worse...

 

[RUNVS]

One thing I think most can agree on, is that all these rule changes over the last 20 years have not improved the game. They've made it worse. The worst ones being the larger bench and allowing HTB 'interpretations' to change. The AFL would never allow it but going back to Mid-90s rules and 2 on the bench would be interesting. Oh but what about injuries? Who cares. How about if you get injuries you're allowed to lose? Too much pandering to coaches and media is how we've got into this mess in the first place. Roll it all back. It won't be the same as it was, but I guarantee it will be different and it can't be any worse than this rubbish we have now.

I don't like the assumption the rule changes have made things worse. Just because there have been rule changes, and the game has gotten worse does not mean the two are related. I would argue the game would have gotten worse with the old rules too simply because players are much more professional now days, and coaches much smarter tactically. Having the old ruck rule would not suddenly make the coaches want to coach like it was the 1980's.

 

[RUNVS]

- Removing rotations may have the opposite effect where tired players may prefer to have stoppage after stoppage to recover. Fatigue also reduces skill level

I am of the strong opinion that trying to make the players more fatigued will just make teams recruit endurance athletes over footballers, meaning players being drafted will have less skill, but they will be able to run all day.

 

[Spacedog]

15 or 16 a side is also the easiest fix. It won't put extra pressure on the umpires and won't be hard to understand either.

16 on the field with 3 on the bench. That will reduce congestion and get some of the bad fringe players off the field. I'm not sure why anyone would be against it. Zones will ruin the game