Taylor Walker... how's he going?

[Apsaalooke]

What AFL game these days isn’t congested? There is only one way to reduce congestion and that is reduce the number of players or increase the size of the fields, we both know which one is cheaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

16 players on field is the way to go. Reduces congestion and costs in one go.
The VFA had it for years with no wings, when field positions meant something.
No other sport I can think of has 18 players on the field.

 

[jenny61_99]

It may have been mentioned already, but the interesting flip side to The Tex v Hurn scenario is the Jack Martin v Ziebell situation. Martin hits the ball hard, turns his body side on to protect himself, but Ziebell dives in headfirst. Ziebell cops the high hit and Martin is reported(I hope he gets off).

The one difference probably that Hurn was also going side on, but you can perhaps understand the thought processes in Tex’s head re duty of care, not wanting to give away a free kick or risk suspension if the other mug happens to stick his head in the way.

Not saying it was the right call, but there’s a lot for players to consider these days.

And the fact that Hurn also hesitated... it gets me that people bitch about Tex hesitating, but say nothing about Hurn. The difference between the two is that Hurn recovered better than Tex. But make no mistake - they both paused because they could see it was going to involve head high clash.

 

[GROTTO]

Agree that there are some differences, but also some stark similarities. I have no problem with what Martin did, he was going for the ball and correctly, in my eye, protected his head in doing so. He showed grreat desperation. What I don’t like is when players, like Ziebell, lead with the head and get rewarded for it, whilst Martin gets punished.

Responsibility for limiting head knocks and hence concussion/head injuries lies with both the player getting hit and the player doing the hitting. Martin got to the ball first and had hands on the ball when Ziebell was hit.

At present our game rewards players for seeking head contact, yet we say we are serious about concussion and that the head is “sacrosanct”. We need to teach and encourage players to protect themselves.

What Fyfe and Ablett did should have met suspensions without a doubt. Once again the AFL’s bark is worse than it’s bite. Hitting or elbowing someone on the head/neck region has no place in our game, no matter the force. Fining a bloke on $500k+ a year $1k isn’t a deterrent. Suspend them 1st off and it largely gets rubbed out over night.

Correction I thought he led with his shoulder, Martin. in fact as you said going for the ball. He is totally fine.

 

[Simmo28]

I would expect players would less likely to grab the ball if umpires are too hot on HTB during congestion, which wouldn’t likely increase the spectacle of the game, and perhaps would still lead to more congestion!

I think what would work better is a rule in place to enforce say 2-3 forwards/defenders, to remain in their designated zones at ALL times (defensive/attacking half). Each week, the coaches can nominate who they want as these designated players.

So if the ball ends up to the opposite end, the above players aren’t allowed to follow the ball, thus creating more space.

Too hard to police


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BrissyCrow]

This idea won’t work unless all fans buy-in. Players appearing to not try hard, will get fans booing and more rants on forums eg.BF!

Also issues of likely worsening soft tissue injuries for less rotations and players effectively have to run harder for longer.

I am not sure what "unless all fans buy in" really means. All I hear is the issue of congestion coming from most supporters. The question needs to be asked "do we want the congestion?" If more fans say yes then I have to shut my mouth but if they say no then act on it. There will always be someone who doesnt like it.

I have no idea of the technical issues regarding soft tissue injuries so I cant comment but what I do know is that going back a few years there were no rotations. All a team had was 2 reserves and when one came on the player they replaced couldn't come back. The game back then wasn't so congested. Now I do appreciate the level of attention being given to being knocked unconscious (and rightly so) would need to be accommodated but take away the rotations will drop the level of congestions.

 

[Simmo28]

16 players on field is the way to go. Reduces congestion and costs in one go.
The VFA had it for years with no wings, when field positions meant something.
No other sport I can think of has 18 players on the field.

I think union is 15, although the all blacks play like they have 18


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John Who]

I am not sure what "unless all fans buy in" really means. All I hear is the issue of congestion coming from most supporters. The question needs to be asked "do we want the congestion?" If more fans say yes then I have to shut my mouth but if they say no then act on it. There will always be someone who doesnt like it.

I have no idea of the technical issues regarding soft tissue injuries so I cant comment but what I do know is that going back a few years there were no rotations. All a team had was 2 reserves and when one came on the player they replaced couldn't come back. The game back then wasn't so congested. Now I do appreciate the level of attention being given to being knocked unconscious (and rightly so) would need to be accommodated but take away the rotations will drop the level of congestions.

Reducing the number of rotations would likely either result in:
A. players to tire earlier and run less during the course of the match
Or
B. players still trying to run despite being knacked and can lead to more hammies and knee/feet injuries.

So what you’re hoping for is situation A and not B. However this does not necessarily stop congestion, but merely cause players to be less effective in the congestion (both ways running) as the game goes on. Remembering also that coaches are the cause of congestion, not the players.

Regarding the “all fans buy in” comment, fans need to be aware players would tire earlier if less rotations and are more prone for slowing down in speed, tackle less hard and more clangers also likely. Otherwise, expect some numbers of fans to boo and hiss when the quality of skills are looking less than if current rotations.

 

[Murray2503]

What about the idea of eliminating rotations. Players will be stuffed and will have to slow down or stop moving with the ball all the time effectively forcing them to stay more in their positions...less congestion around the ball.

This is the Kevin Bartlett argument. The guy is an old fool. It won't work. If anything the game will be more congested and the standard of the game will be worse. There is an easy way to fix congestion. Reduce players on ground to 16, make it play on if a team kicks backwards behind their 50 line (each team can still kick backwards in their own forward line), increase kick distance to 20m and lastly have the last touch rule (opposition kicks it back into play) over the boundary between the 50m arcs. The game instantly be more enjoyable and increase attendance and tv audience.

 

[marty36]

This is the Kevin Bartlett argument. The guy is an old fool. It won't work. If anything the game will be more congested and the standard of the game will be worse. There is an easy way to fix congestion. Reduce players on ground to 16, make it play on if a team kicks backwards behind their 50 line (each team can still kick backwards in their own forward line), increase kick distance to 20m and lastly have the last touch rule (opposition kicks it back into play) over the boundary between the 50m arcs. The game instantly be more enjoyable and increase attendance and tv audience.

I don't think the number of players matters as long as no mark for any kick behind the forward 50 if kicked backwards . It would create so much one on one footy

 

[GROTTO]

This is the Kevin Bartlett argument. The guy is an old fool. It won't work. If anything the game will be more congested and the standard of the game will be worse. There is an easy way to fix congestion. Reduce players on ground to 16, make it play on if a team kicks backwards behind their 50 line (each team can still kick backwards in their own forward line), increase kick distance to 20m and lastly have the last touch rule (opposition kicks it back into play) over the boundary between the 50m arcs. The game instantly be more enjoyable and increase attendance and tv audience.

I think its better to try and implement one rule at a time so you accurately gauge the effect it has on the game.

Kicking backwards and being called play on, would be a good place to start without really interfering in the fabric of the game.

 

[marty36]

I think its better to try and implement one rule at a time so you accurately gauge the effect it has on the game.

Kicking backwards and being called play on, would be a good place to start without really interfering in the fabric of the game.

Behind the forward 50

Needs to be tried in the trial matches if it works throw it straight into the season proper

Or a watered down version ball must travel 25 metres

 

[Murray2503]

I think its better to try and implement one rule at a time so you accurately gauge the effect it has on the game.

Kicking backwards and being called play on, would be a good place to start without really interfering in the fabric of the game.

I disagree. The Afl tried to fix the issue with this 666 rule as they were scared of the backlash. All they have done is make it more congested and less goals. Let's see what 16 a side looks like. Just means you have 6 on the bench at one time. The 20 m kick instead of 15m is a minor tweak. The kicking backwards rule is also a minor tweak. Also the last touch rule over the boundary (between the 50 arcs) will stop teams hugging the boundary playing the defensive territory game. Time to pull the bandaid off and start giving fans the game we grew up with. Fans want to see attacking football with high flying marks and goals. They don't want to see the rugby scrum tacklefeast with 30 players in a third of the ground it has become. I guarantee you Murdoch and Stokes will not pay up on the next rights deal if they can't sell ads due to a lack of goals. It's in the players and clubs best interests to make the game more free flowing with higher scoring.

 

[marty36]

I disagree. The Afl tried to fix the issue with this 666 rule as they were scared of the backlash. All they have done is make it more congested and less goals. Let's see what 16 a side looks like. Just means you have 6 on the bench at one time. The 20 m kick instead of 15m is a minor tweak. The kicking backeards rule is also a minor tweak. Also the last touch rule over the boundary will stop teams hugging the boundary playing the defensive terroitory game. Time to pull the bandaid off and start giving fans the game we grew up with.

THe kicking backwards is enormous it will change the way a side defends, if there is no safe release valve, it just needs to be everywhere on the ground besides the forward 50

 

[Southerntakeover]

Just stop stuffing around with the game. The idea that games must be a particular style to have worth is crap.

 

[marty36]

Just stop stuffing around with the game. The idea that games must be a particular style to have worth is crap.

I agree bring it back to one umpire 20 players 15 meyre rule

Be done with it all

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Jeffcrowe]

I think its better to try and implement one rule at a time so you accurately gauge the effect it has on the game.

Kicking backwards and being called play on, would be a good place to start without really interfering in the fabric of the game.

Introducing new rules appears to bring about unintended consequences - the 6-6-6 hasn’t helped goal scoring because there is now less overlap handball with the spare in the backline so less scores launched from D50

So the intent was good but the outcome
didn’t measure expectations

No mark for kicking backwards might mean more long down the line and more congestion = less scoring

 

[BrissyCrow]

This is the Kevin Bartlett argument. The guy is an old fool. It won't work. If anything the game will be more congested and the standard of the game will be worse. There is an easy way to fix congestion. Reduce players on ground to 16, make it play on if a team kicks backwards behind their 50 line (each team can still kick backwards in their own forward line), increase kick distance to 20m and lastly have the last touch rule (opposition kicks it back into play) over the boundary between the 50m arcs. The game instantly be more enjoyable and increase attendance and tv audience.

I hope your not calling me an old fool.

Having sensible discussions about the issue and trying to come up with sensible solutions to the issue is the first step.

Just looking at one of the suggestion was to reduce the number of players on the field to 16 but then have 6 players on the bench. I dont agree with increasing the bench numbers.

I like the idea of play on if you are in the defensive 50mtr arc and kick the ball backwards but if you are in the centre of the ground and you kick it backwards into the defensive 50mt arc would that be play on or treated as a mark?

One thing I would say though is that the number of changes should be limited. Multiple changes reduces the opportunity to evaluate the efects of those changes.

 

[Murray2503]

I hope your not calling me an old fool.

Having sensible discussions about the issue and trying to come up with sensible solutions to the issue is the first step.

Just looking at one of the suggestion was to reduce the number of players on the field to 16 but then have 6 players on the bench. I dont agree with increasing the bench numbers.

I like the idea of play on if you are in the defensive 50mtr arc and kick the ball backwards but if you are in the centre of the ground and you kick it backwards into the defensive 50mt arc would that be play on or treated as a mark?

One thing I would say though is that the number of changes should be limited. Multiple changes reduces the opportunity to evaluate the efects of those changes.

Don't know your age. Was talking about KB who has been banging on about reducing rotations for years. He feels this is the panacea for all ills of the game. I just don't feel it will do much if anything to help with congestion. If anything I believe it will overly fatigue the players leading to more injuries and the game will be a worse spectacle. The powers in charge need to speed up the game by making teams go forward instead of back and sideways. This will make it harder to flood. If they can force teams to attack more through the middle you are going to see more turnovers and goals and a better spectacle.

 

[BrissyCrow]

Don't know your age. Was talking about KB who has been banging on about reducing rotations for years. He feels this is the panacea for all ills of the game. I just don't feel it will do much if anything to help with congestion. If anything I believe it will overly fatigue the players leading to more injuries and the game will be a worse spectacle. The powers in charge need to speed up the game by making teams go forward instead of back and sideways. This will make it harder to flood. If they can force teams to attack more through the middle you are going to see more turnovers and goals and a better spectacle.

Smart arse

 

[Grenville]

Introducing new rules appears to bring about unintended consequences - the 6-6-6 hasn’t helped goal scoring because there is now less overlap handball with the spare in the backline so less scores launched from D50

So the intent was good but the outcome
didn’t measure expectations

No mark for kicking backwards might mean more long down the line and more congestion = less scoring

Footy's answer to the kane toad (looking forward to incoming Kane Cornes photoshop)

 

[radiojake]

And here i was checking this thread to see how people thought Tex went tonight -

 

[Mattrox]

Turns out he's not cooked after all.



On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jenny61_99]

The reports of Tex AND Eddie’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.

 

[AFC979810]

The reports of Tex AND Eddie’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.

And Jenkins.

 

[spenze]

And here i was checking this thread to see how people thought Tex went tonight -

Yeah so did I.

What I did like about it is he is flying for marks, needs to clunk more but it is a real change from what Tex has done in the last 18 months or so. Once he gets a bit more confidence, he'll be really effective