The density rule.

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Sep 13, 2015
18,683
48,481
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
Therein lies the real problem with the game.

Fix that, and the game will be fine.
Are you suggesting coaches should be coaching an entertaining style over a winning style? Please.

The only other way to fix that is to reduce the amount of rules that can be exploited, but I don’t think the whingers would agree with that.
 
The game is turning into Rugby Union, but not because of "density". There's already too many technical rules and free kicks no-one understands. Just like Rugby. Pile of blokes - whistle. No-one knows what for. Open flowing play - whistle. No-one knows what for.

Bring in more rules? Why?

Reckon we should get rid of a few rules.
 
Aug 25, 2005
11,642
16,690
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Are you suggesting coaches should be coaching an entertaining style over a winning style? Please.

The only other way to fix that is to reduce the amount of rules that can be exploited, but I don’t think the whingers would agree with that.

I'm suggesting that the AFL should worry less about rules to alter play - and more about restricting the coaches ability to turn it into a clogged up defensive mess.

No matter what rules the AFL introduce, the coaches will spend every waking minute to turn it into a defensive, clogged up mess. That's how you win games of sport. So I don't blame them.


I've said this before, and I'll continue to say it:

  • No runners
  • No quarter time and 3 quarter time addresses
  • Players to only have one rest each per half

Done.

Older, experienced players will be come invaluable and extend their careers. Hardcore defensive tactics will break down far quicker without the constant guidance and coaching from the box on game day. Therefore.....wait for it.....players will actually have to play football and think for themselves!

Old school football would return immediately, as coaches would then have to spend their time teaching players how to kick, how to kick goals, how to mark, and basically how to execute the fundamental skills of Australian rules football rather than spending all week teaching them where to stand and where to run to.


IMO, it's very simple. The coaches have hijacked the game, and the AFL has facilitated it.
 
Aug 25, 2005
11,642
16,690
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
The game is turning into Rugby Union, but not because of "density". There's already too many technical rules and free kicks no-one understands. Just like Rugby. Pile of blokes - whistle. No-one knows what for. Open flowing play - whistle. No-one knows what for.

Bring in more rules? Why?

Reckon we should get rid of a few rules.

I tend to agree.

I was watching the other day and saw Curnow juggle it over the boundary and the mark wasn't paid.

Seriously, he marked the pill, but because he juggled it slightly - it wasn't paid. It was highly debatable as to whether he juggled it or not anyway, but the commentators spent 5 minutes arguing about it whilst the players all stood around looking confused as to WTF happened.

Just pay the mark. Why complicate it?

There's plenty of these situations that for some reason, are just over complicated.
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
I tend to agree.

I was watching the other day and saw Curnow juggle it over the boundary and the mark wasn't paid.

Seriously, he marked the pill, but because he juggled it slightly - it wasn't paid. It was highly debatable as to whether he juggled it or not anyway, but the commentators spent 5 minutes arguing about it whilst the players all stood around looking confused as to WTF happened.

Just pay the mark. Why complicate it?

There's plenty of these situations that for some reason, are just over complicated.

Because he hadn't completed the mark before it was out of play?
 
Aug 25, 2005
11,642
16,690
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Because he hadn't completed the mark before it was out of play?
Yes.

Although it was so debatable as to whether or not he had in fact juggled it before or after the line, which even on replay couldn't really be determined, that you wonder why even bother?

Would it make everyone's life easier if it was simplified to something like 'if your first touch is within the boundary, then it's a Mark'?
 
Last edited:
I was watching the other day and saw Curnow juggle it over the boundary and the mark wasn't paid.

Seriously, he marked the pill, but because he juggled it slightly - it wasn't paid. It was highly debatable as to whether he juggled it or not anyway, but the commentators spent 5 minutes arguing about it whilst the players all stood around looking confused as to WTF happened.

Good example of what I think is wrong. Plenty of talk about the umpiring. Not so much talk about the actual play.

The best thing the rules and umpires can be is invisible. "PLAY ON" instead of a whistle.

But every year, this debate about how to which rules to bring in, or interpretation of certain rules, how many rotations, or how many umpires is the right amount...
 
Sep 13, 2015
18,683
48,481
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
I'm suggesting that the AFL should worry less about rules to alter play - and more about restricting the coaches ability to turn it into a clogged up defensive mess.

No matter what rules the AFL introduce, the coaches will spend every waking minute to turn it into a defensive, clogged up mess. That's how you win games of sport. So I don't blame them.


I've said this before, and I'll continue to say it:

  • No runners
  • No quarter time and 3 quarter time addresses
  • Players to only have one rest each per half

Done.

Older, experienced players will be come invaluable and extend their careers. Hardcore defensive tactics will break down far quicker without the constant guidance and coaching from the box on game day. Therefore.....wait for it.....players will actually have to play football and think for themselves!

Old school football would return immediately, as coaches would then have to spend their time teaching players how to kick, how to kick goals, how to mark, and basically how to execute the fundamental skills of Australian rules football rather than spending all week teaching them where to stand and where to run to.


IMO, it's very simple. The coaches have hijacked the game, and the AFL has facilitated it.
You are suggesting we remove the tactical side of the game. That’s simply ridiculous. By making it all about skill, you basically make it an individual sport. Win the most one on ones and you win the game. For me that’s missing something. There’s a lot of beauty in 22 players all completely synchronised, and it’s no easy feat like it’s suggested.

In any case, removing coach contact during the game won’t do much. Players aren’t being guided on where to run. They know their system. The only way to stop that would be dictating training. There’s a great chapter in Konrad Marshall’s book about our 2017 season where he sits in our coaches box for the Anzac Day eve game. A lot was going wrong and a lot was happening but the messages out of the box to the players were simple.
“Raise the fight”
“Tell them to kick it”
“Lift.. surge.. hunt.. win”
There’s a couple of player movements but they don’t really change the way the game is played, and there’s only 1 actual tactical piece of advice - getting our players to flood back in the last minute. That night, the only thing that would have broken down without coaching is our offence - gifting Melbourne’s - wait for it - DEFENCE a win.
If you remove those things, the style of game is honestly not going to change.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chief Ten Beers

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 11, 2008
8,941
12,206
AFL Club
Collingwood
The game is turning into Rugby Union, but not because of "density". There's already too many technical rules and free kicks no-one understands. Just like Rugby. Pile of blokes - whistle. No-one knows what for. Open flowing play - whistle. No-one knows what for.

Bring in more rules? Why?

Reckon we should get rid of a few rules.

But the committees and various AFL bureaucracies will have nothing to do over the summer.
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood


Would have been tough for Buddy to do this if he started in the F50.. this goal still haunts me though!


Technically, because its a kick out not a stoppage, it could have happened (assuming "starting positions" won't be applied to kick ins)

BUT

The key is how are they going to police the starting positions? If you need two players back in the 50 arc within 5 seconds of a ball up being called or the other team gets a set shot at goal than you would think some players would need to stay pretty close to the attacking 50 arc at all times. If it's a case of the umpire doesn't restart until two players from each team are in the opposite 50 arc than.....well it could easily still happen but that will be almost comically asking for trouble
 
Technically, because its a kick out not a stoppage, it could have happened (assuming "starting positions" won't be applied to kick ins)

I assumed it applied to kick ins - wouldn't make sense if it didn't. The whole thing is silly though.
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
I assumed it applied to kick ins - wouldn't make sense if it didn't. The whole thing is silly though.

Could do, though I was under the assumption the options were either just centre bounces (6-6-6) or at stoppages as well (ie at least 2 from each team in each 50 arc))
 
But the committees and various AFL bureaucracies will have nothing to do over the summer.

The whole thing has a whiff of Innovation KPIs for some executive.

Attendance up. Participation up for community, juniors and females. Really needs the change...
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2009
2,376
2,556
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
I tend to agree.

I was watching the other day and saw Curnow juggle it over the boundary and the mark wasn't paid.

Seriously, he marked the pill, but because he juggled it slightly - it wasn't paid. It was highly debatable as to whether he juggled it or not anyway, but the commentators spent 5 minutes arguing about it whilst the players all stood around looking confused as to WTF happened.

Just pay the mark. Why complicate it?

There's plenty of these situations that for some reason, are just over complicated.
Yes.

Although it was so debatable as to whether or not he had in fact juggled it before or after the line, which even on replay couldn't really be determined, that you wonder why even bother?

Would it make everyone's life easier if it was simplified to something like 'if your first touch is within the boundary, then it's a Mark'?

How is that over-complicated? Either you took the mark within the field of play, or the ball crossed the boundary for a throw in: it's literally that straightforward. Your proposal adds far more complexity to it: if a defender gets a clean fist to the ball and it goes over the boundary in the air, for example, it can't be called out of bounds yet now, because he can still theoretically mark the ball until it lands somewhere. Beyond that, all you've done is substituted one grey for another - instead of "did he complete the mark before he went over?", you've made it "did he start the mark before he went over?". How exactly does that make "everyone's life easier"?

The last thing we need to be doing is junking rules (like this one) that make perfect sense. Frankly, with the amount of daft 'solutions' to imagined 'problems' I've seen lately, maybe the people peddling all these rule changes should apply an anti-density rule to themselves first...
 
Aug 25, 2005
11,642
16,690
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
How is that over-complicated? Either you took the mark within the field of play, or the ball crossed the boundary for a throw in: it's literally that straightforward. Your proposal adds far more complexity to it: if a defender gets a clean fist to the ball and it goes over the boundary in the air, for example, it can't be called out of bounds yet now, because he can still theoretically mark the ball until it lands somewhere. Beyond that, all you've done is substituted one grey for another - instead of "did he complete the mark before he went over?", you've made it "did he start the mark before he went over?". How exactly does that make "everyone's life easier"?

The last thing we need to be doing is junking rules (like this one) that make perfect sense. Frankly, with the amount of daft 'solutions' to imagined 'problems' I've seen lately, maybe the people peddling all these rule changes should apply an anti-density rule to themselves first...
I think the term is 'common sense'.
 
Aug 25, 2005
11,642
16,690
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
How is that over-complicated? Either you took the mark within the field of play, or the ball crossed the boundary for a throw in: it's literally that straightforward. Your proposal adds far more complexity to it: if a defender gets a clean fist to the ball and it goes over the boundary in the air, for example, it can't be called out of bounds yet now, because he can still theoretically mark the ball until it lands somewhere. Beyond that, all you've done is substituted one grey for another - instead of "did he complete the mark before he went over?", you've made it "did he start the mark before he went over?". How exactly does that make "everyone's life easier"?

The last thing we need to be doing is junking rules (like this one) that make perfect sense. Frankly, with the amount of daft 'solutions' to imagined 'problems' I've seen lately, maybe the people peddling all these rule changes should apply an anti-density rule to themselves first...
Besides, that wasn't a solution for anything really as such.

More of an observation of an unnecessary complication that takes resources away from actual important things.
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2009
2,376
2,556
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
Besides, that wasn't a solution for anything really as such.

More of an observation of an unnecessary complication that takes resources away from actual important things.

Is whether a mark was in the field of play or not really unimportant, unnecessary, or a complication? For a game with marking and a boundary line, that rule is about as simple as it can be. Of all the possible faults one could find with the present laws, it just seemed bizarre that you'd pick out something like this.
 
Aug 25, 2005
11,642
16,690
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Is whether a mark was in the field of play or not really unimportant, unnecessary, or a complication? For a game with marking and a boundary line, that rule is about as simple as it can be. Of all the possible faults one could find with the present laws, it just seemed bizarre that you'd pick out something like this.
It's simple - but incredibly hard to adjudicate.

As the impact is generally very minor - why not simplify it?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back