The Sensible Rule Changes Required

Remove this Banner Ad

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,897
10,611
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I know it's a very unpopular opinion but I have warmed to it. That is for teams to have 16 players on the field instead of 18.

This will make it much harder to defend zones and encourage more 1 on 1 contests.

I know Richmond would curently suffer from such a change with the way, but like any team they will learn to adjust to it over time.
I hate the idea of changing fundamental aspects of the game in order to manufacture an outcome, however as outrageous as reducing the amount of players on the ground seems - 18 players on the ground is not really all that fundamental.

In 1899 they reduced players from 20 to 18 on a field no longer than 182m.

In 1946 they first introduced the interchange - but if a player came off they couldn't come back on

In 1973 the centre diamond came in with four players only allowed in - two years later it became a centre square. Basically zones were introduced.



Somewhere along the line, footy was played for years at Waverley on a ground 200m long with 4 on the bench amnd no limit on interchange!

16 on the ground actually kind of makes sense given the pattern of rule changes relating to decreasing ground sizes and player number over the years.

Messing with that aspect of the game has happened fairly regularly over the past 150 odd years.
 
Last edited:

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,897
10,611
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Your post makes absolutely no sense, but I think you're using the protected zone as an example of a 'black and white' rule.

I watch a game on tv and can identify about 6 to 8 times when a 50m penalty should be awarded for breach of this rule. Umpires will occasionally reward the penalty on one of these occasions, with the occasional penalty also paid in error when it's not there.

You then get the variance when they occasionally crack down on it, and you see a handful paid per game (again 1 or 2 in error).

This exactly what we will see with the new 'manning the mark' rule. Nothing surer.
You're confusing yourself.

Protected Zone and dozens of other interpretations were precisely designed to make decisions black and white.

The 50m Penalty was introduced to stop intentional time wasting. The Protected Zone interpretation removes any grey and means the umpire doesn't have to use their own discretion when trying to guess whether someone is wasting time or not.

What you've described however is just poor umpiring.

Two very different discussions.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
7,033
5,615
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
You're confusing yourself.

Protected Zone and dozens of other interpretations were precisely designed to make decisions black and white.

The 50m Penalty was introduced to stop intentional time wasting. The Protected Zone interpretation removes any grey and means the umpire doesn't have to use their own discretion when trying to guess whether someone is wasting time or not.

What you've described however is just poor umpiring.

Two very different discussions.
Huh?

Black and white in the context of rules suggests they would be able to be consistently applied.

If then, the rules are not consistently applied, how on earth can they be deemed 'black and white'?

Unless you are suggesting ALL of our umpires are bad at umpiring ALL of the time?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,897
10,611
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Huh?

Black and white in the context of rules suggests they would be able to be consistently applied.

If then, the rules are not consistently applied, how on earth can they be deemed 'black and white'?

Unless you are suggesting ALL of our umpires are bad at umpiring ALL of the time?
That's just utter nonsense.

Off-Side in soccer is black and white. Refs get it wrong a lot of the time.

A goal in AFL footy is very black and white - Can't be touched, and must cross the goal line. Don't get any more black and white than that. But they still get it wrong a lot.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
7,033
5,615
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
That's just utter nonsense.

Off-Side in soccer is black and white. Refs get it wrong a lot of the time.

A goal in AFL footy is very black and white - Can't be touched, and must cross the goal line. Don't get any more black and white than that. But they still get it wrong a lot.
Great comparisons.

Goals in AFL and off-side in soccer - they get wrong 1 to 1.5 percent of the time.

Protected zone - they get wrong 75% of the time (when non-calls are considered).
 

a_fighting_fury

Premiership Player
May 7, 2007
3,129
2,600
Yarra Park
AFL Club
Richmond
I'm all for rule changes, as long as the rules are made easier to consistently apply, not harder.
The rules that protect the player yes I agree with (eg protecting the head), however, rules such as those that are trivial (but are technically correct) 50 metre penalties are just plain stupid.

What about incidences where rules have been easy to consistently apply but are NOT applied?

When you see this happening it makes you question whether umpires are either corrupt or incompetent.
 

a_fighting_fury

Premiership Player
May 7, 2007
3,129
2,600
Yarra Park
AFL Club
Richmond
Add 2 extra premiership points for kicking over 100 (adjusted for wet weather) and you might see the game go back to what it was.

Otherwise coaches are just going to adapt to each rule change and you won't see anything different.
I like your intention for introducing the rule change, but geez, it’s likely to end up being yet another rule change which would inevitably create another problem because as you said - coaches are just going to adapt to each rule change!
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,897
10,611
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Great comparisons.

Goals in AFL and off-side in soccer - they get wrong 1 to 1.5 percent of the time.

Protected zone - they get wrong 75% of the time (when non-calls are considered).
You've lost me. I don't know what your point is.

The Protected Zone is black and white. Clear cut.

But being black and white doesn't make it a better rule, and doesn't make it easier to consistently get right as an umpire.

It's a completely sh*t interpretation of an existing rule to penalise time wasting. But The AFL introduced it because they want black and white rules.
They introduce a black and white interpretation where a guy gets pinged for going within 10m of the player with the ball - yet still allow time wasting by guys' delaying giving the ball back, standing over the ball and not allowing the player to pick it up and letting guys creep a metre over the mark.

It's ridiculous. The introduction of black and white interpretations is always largely a fu** up.

I think you're confused between there being too many rules and too many interpretations - as opposed to not enough of them being black and white.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
7,033
5,615
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
After watching a fair bit of NRL it is clear to me the AFL is over umpired, esp regarding body contact.

So many soft frees payed.
This is spot on, and a soft free kick will be paid (say a 30/70 free), and then two minutes later a 'less soft' free (say 45/55), won't be paid.

It really is a raffle as a result of the extent of umpire interpretation required for most decisions.
 

TedDougChris

Premium Platinum
Mar 10, 2007
31,758
46,985
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Charlton Athletic, Roys FFC
The one that currently annoys me is when:

Player A tackles Player B. Player B tries to break tackle - eventually the tackle slides down, Player B is tripped by his own actions and a free given.

Player B has had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball - he didn't do so. Why should he then be rewarded ?? Tripping by hand was introduced to stop injuries - not to discourage tackling a player on the move. If it's not an intentional trip - targeting the ankles/feet/legs - then don't reward someone for failing to dispose of the ball when they had the chance. Reward the tackler....
 

GhostofJimJess

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 14, 2002
9,036
3,102
...
AFL Club
Richmond
The one that currently annoys me is when:

Player A tackles Player B. Player B tries to break tackle - eventually the tackle slides down, Player B is tripped by his own actions and a free given.

Player B has had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball - he didn't do so. Why should he then be rewarded ?? Tripping by hand was introduced to stop injuries - not to discourage tackling a player on the move. If it's not an intentional trip - targeting the ankles/feet/legs - then don't reward someone for failing to dispose of the ball when they had the chance. Reward the tackler....
Or Player B falls forward, the inertia of which brings Player A down on top of his back. Even though Player A has his arms wrapped around Player B, a push in the back is somehow paid.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TedDougChris

Premium Platinum
Mar 10, 2007
31,758
46,985
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Charlton Athletic, Roys FFC
Or Player B falls forward, the inertia of which brings Player A down on top of his back. Even though Player A has his arms wrapped around Player B, a push in the back is somehow paid.
Agreed. The in the back is meant (again) to stop injury. Self inflicting it should rule out the free.
 

GhostofJimJess

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 14, 2002
9,036
3,102
...
AFL Club
Richmond
I don't even know why this needs to be a free kick, it's not dangerous.
Agreed. The in the back is meant (again) to stop injury. Self inflicting it should rule out the free.
And yet the umpires will occasionally show real common sense by ignoring this when its a run-down tackle. As fellow rusted on footy supporters who like to think we're pretty attuned to the nuances of the game, I reckon we know the umps overlook it in these instances to avoid the wrath of the crowd, even for the visiting team. But when it's emerging from a pack, they ping it every time.
 

theyellowsash

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 9, 2009
11,775
14,991
Footscray
AFL Club
Richmond
See, this is the hard part for the AFL.

Personally, I find Richmond unwatchable.


This is why defining the problem statement is so difficult.
A lot of people complain about our game plan. But when you look at it, for the most part our game plan is to tackle until we get the ball, and then just move forward at speed at all costs and keep the ball moving, kicking long to 2 of the better contested marking forwards of the last 6-7 years with some talented smalls at their feet. That's essentially what everyone says they want, yet everyone complains about it when we actually do it.

I subscribe to the idea that the game is fine, that noone really knows what they want (other than their team to win), and that the people who complain about how footy was better in the olden days are the same fuddy duddys who say that music/tv/youth/society etc was better in their day.
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,897
10,611
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
A lot of people complain about our game plan. But when you look at it, for the most part our game plan is to tackle until we get the ball, and then just move forward at speed at all costs and keep the ball moving, kicking long to 2 of the better contested marking forwards of the last 6-7 years with some talented smalls at their feet. That's essentially what everyone says they want....
It's not that Richmond shouldn't be doing it. It's that it's dead boring to watch.

What you've described there is basically an entire game devoid of the traditional skills of AFL footy.


I'm not knocking Richmond. And I'm not knocking the coaches that implement the game plans. It's effective, so why would they do anything different?
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
23,264
18,550
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
After watching a fair bit of NRL it is clear to me the AFL is over umpired, esp regarding body contact.

So many soft frees payed.
Watching the State of Origin NRL I shake my head at the AFL.

In one game of top level rugby we see dozens of AFL high contact frees let go as in reality they are of low to negligable impact. You lay a finger on someones shoulder in the AFL it a free. 200cm kp player sprints, jumps and knees someone to the back of the head in a marking contest 'play on'.

Those interpretations simply dont add up at AFL level. Not allowed any contact head high by hand, but jump and knee to the head is fine.

Id be happy with 16 on the field. Reduced interchange rotations and add a 5th interchange player as a concussion / game ending injury sub. By providing an injury /concussion sub it means clubs will not be as disadvantaged losing a player to injury. Less players being asked to run back out their jabbed full of juice injuring themselves even more. Its more a WHS player welfare change than a change to help the look of the game.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,914
6,790
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
A lot of people complain about our game plan. But when you look at it, for the most part our game plan is to tackle until we get the ball, and then just move forward at speed at all costs and keep the ball moving, kicking long to 2 of the better contested marking forwards of the last 6-7 years with some talented smalls at their feet. That's essentially what everyone says they want, yet everyone complains about it when we actually do it.

I subscribe to the idea that the game is fine, that noone really knows what they want (other than their team to win), and that the people who complain about how footy was better in the olden days are the same fuddy duddys who say that music/tv/youth/society etc was better in their day.
And this is why system will always trump personnel, this premier team is better than the sum of it's parts. The list profile is not a giants or a wc talent laden type, that's not to say it's not a good list. It is good, very very good but more so better balanced then out and out talent laden.

I actually like the tigas play as much as their resultant success grates like nothing else. The team literally forces contest forward (not just the ball) until they suffocate the opposition into submission and turnover and then use outside receivers to transition with seeming fluidity.

Wish my sub standard mob would possess that sort of team culture, might actually amount to something.
 

theyellowsash

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 9, 2009
11,775
14,991
Footscray
AFL Club
Richmond
It's not that Richmond shouldn't be doing it. It's that it's dead boring to watch.

What you've described there is basically an entire game devoid of the traditional skills of AFL footy.


I'm not knocking Richmond. And I'm not knocking the coaches that implement the game plans. It's effective, so why would they do anything different?
And what are the traditional skills of AFL? Surely tackling is a key one, we've got that in spades. Quick ball movement seems to be desired, though not a skill, we do that. Long kicking, we do that. Contested marking, we do that, though better in the back half than forward half. Crumbing small forwards at the feet of tall forwards, we do that. Creative handballs both long and short, we do that. And it's not just us, most of the better teams do all those things in varying capacity.

That's my point. People make these broad sweeping statements of what they want but don't quantify them with anything other than 'the vibe'. Those broad statements then just don't stack up when you really look at them. People don't know what they want. They want both nothing to change and everything to change.
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,897
10,611
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
And what are the traditional skills of AFL? Surely tackling is a key one, we've got that in spades. Quick ball movement seems to be desired, though not a skill, we do that. Long kicking, we do that. Contested marking, we do that, though better in the back half than forward half. Crumbing small forwards at the feet of tall forwards, we do that. Creative handballs both long and short, we do that. And it's not just us, most of the better teams do all those things in varying capacity.

That's my point. People make these broad sweeping statements of what they want but don't quantify them with anything other than 'the vibe'. Those broad statements then just don't stack up when you really look at them. People don't know what they want. They want both nothing to change and everything to change.
The issue in that sense is that 'what people want' varies from person to person.

Some people enjoy watching Richmond play, I don't. The game descends into a chaotic scrap for 20 minutes each quarter, until the pressure wears the opposition down and Richmond then produce some level of control for the last 5-8 minutes.

I find that in Richmond games, the skill level of both teams seems to be far worse than in other games. Richmond want manic chaos. That's their strength. And they're really good at reducing the game to exactly that. Thank God they have Martin.

To be fair, all teams try to do it. They're just not as good as it. They can't smother the opposition as effectively as Richmond can.

I barely watch boxing any more, yet watch MMA almost religiously. The reason being is that about 75% of a 3 minute boxing round is spent hugging each other up against the ropes, before being separated by the ref. Rinse and repeat. Watching Richmond reminds me of this.

I admit, that what I like about footy is most likely very different from plenty of others. So it's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

theyellowsash

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 9, 2009
11,775
14,991
Footscray
AFL Club
Richmond
The issue in that sense is that 'what people want' varies from person to person.

Some people enjoy watching Richmond play, I don't. The game descends into a chaotic scrap for 20 minutes each quarter, until the pressure wears the opposition down and Richmond then produce some level of control for the last 5-8 minutes.

I find that in Richmond games, the skill level of both teams seems to be far worse than in other games. Richmond want manic chaos. That's their strength. And they're really good at reducing the game to exactly that. Thank God they have Martin.

To be fair, all teams try to do it. They're just not as good as it. They can't smother the opposition as effectively as Richmond can.

I barely watch boxing any more, yet watch MMA almost religiously. The reason being is that about 75% of a 3 minute boxing round is spent hugging each other up against the ropes, before being separated by the ref. Rinse and repeat. Watching Richmond reminds me of this.

I admit, that what I like about footy is most likely very different from plenty of others. So it's just my opinion.
At least you admit that last point. Too many 'experts' like Gerard Healy think they are the be and end all for footy opinions when in reality footy is more popular than ever.
 

MiguelM

Club Legend
Feb 22, 2014
2,118
1,839
AFL Club
Essendon
Watching the State of Origin NRL I shake my head at the AFL.

In one game of top level rugby we see dozens of AFL high contact frees let go as in reality they are of low to negligable impact. You lay a finger on someones shoulder in the AFL it a free. 200cm kp player sprints, jumps and knees someone to the back of the head in a marking contest 'play on'.

Those interpretations simply dont add up at AFL level. Not allowed any contact head high by hand, but jump and knee to the head is fine.

Id be happy with 16 on the field. Reduced interchange rotations and add a 5th interchange player as a concussion / game ending injury sub. By providing an injury /concussion sub it means clubs will not be as disadvantaged losing a player to injury. Less players being asked to run back out their jabbed full of juice injuring themselves even more. Its more a WHS player welfare change than a change to help the look of the game.
Also, NRL players rarely whinge at the decisions, so much more respect as there is less interpretation to worry about.

I like the 16 a side.

Do that and get rid of ruck nomination and just throw the ball up straight away. No need to wait for every player to arrive at the ball up. As long as only one player contests the ruck from each team. Doesn't matter if ruckmen or not.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
23,264
18,550
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
And what are the traditional skills of AFL? Surely tackling is a key one, we've got that in spades. Quick ball movement seems to be desired, though not a skill, we do that. Long kicking, we do that. Contested marking, we do that, though better in the back half than forward half. Crumbing small forwards at the feet of tall forwards, we do that. Creative handballs both long and short, we do that. And it's not just us, most of the better teams do all those things in varying capacity.

That's my point. People make these broad sweeping statements of what they want but don't quantify them with anything other than 'the vibe'. Those broad statements then just don't stack up when you really look at them. People don't know what they want. They want both nothing to change and everything to change.
Watch Collingwood play the Eagles.

The talls contest for the high ball, the good one's provide plenty of great marking or spoiling highlights, regularly.

Controlled kicking and plenty of run and carry.

Skills on show, not just manic kick and pushing the ball forward.

The smalls run, crumb off contested packs and kick goals. More man on man contested play within a traditional structure and game plan.

All reasons why the 2018 grand final was voted the best decider in decades.
 

Remove this Banner Ad