The Sensible Rule Changes Required

Remove this Banner Ad

GhostofJimJess

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 14, 2002
9,036
3,096
...
AFL Club
Richmond
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.
And as long as they don’t go back to paying a free kick to any player who’s line of run is blocked when there is a ball up.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,914
6,790
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
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.
Collingwood are in general, slow and risk averse, the tigas are much better to watch!

The games you're talking about are rare for the Pies, got me thinking the Pies could actually be competitive if they 'risked' more.

For some twilight zone reason they won't / can't maintain ideal game, :shrug: so we're just sh1t.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
23,262
18,548
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
Collingwood are in general, slow and risk averse, the tigas are much better to watch!

The games you're talking about are rare for the Pies, got me thinking the Pies could actually be competitive if they 'risked' more.

For some twilight zone reason they won't / can't maintain ideal game, :shrug: so we're just sh1t.
They werent slow in that 1st quarter in the 2018 GF.

And one straight kick from being premiers.

Take that style of AFL game anywhere, anytime any sports fan would love it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,914
6,790
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
They werent slow in that 1st quarter in the 2018 GF.

And one straight kick from being premiers.

Take that style of AFL game anywhere, anytime any sports fan would love it.
Ok the reason we run all over the top was pressure in the contest, it allowed us speedy transition - same the optus game this year - pressured and allowed transition. Then jumped off a cliff after qtr one.
 
Last edited:

WilloTree

Premiership Player
Sep 16, 2015
4,608
4,871
Inside 50
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Claremont Tigers
Calculate the kms each team travels - then make it even.

Introduce two more teams (Tasmania Tigers/ Joondalup Falcons)

Play each other once.

Bang.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,914
6,790
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I've had a rethink on the 6-6-6 rule @ stoppages.

There's a theory that if we have this rule at stoppages instead of 'just' centre bounces that if players are forced to position at every stoppage they'll run themselves ragged. Yes, yes they will.

My guess is IF that rule is modified for every stoppage it will force coaches into being congestion averse and second guess trying to outnumber at the contest = open the game up. Because they'll have buggered players stuck at the contest while the oppo has outnumber down the line.

Remember in the 70's the centre 'diamond' was introduced to, for want of a better word, 'zone' off the centre at centre bounces (if I am correct)?

So now IF we have the rule at every stoppage I'd imagine there'd be less congestion to begin with? I'm sure I'm missing something, an adverse side effect if you will.

So instead of 'zoning' like they do in say netball, it's not enforced in play but it's incentive to have your players 'stay' in their zone.

Thoughts?
 

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,599
1,566
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond
I've had a rethink on the 6-6-6 rule @ stoppages.

There's a theory that if we have this rule at stoppages instead of 'just' centre bounces that if players are forced to position at every stoppage they'll run themselves ragged. Yes, yes they will.

My guess is IF that rule is modified for every stoppage it will force coaches into being congestion averse and second guess trying to outnumber at the contest = open the game up. Because they'll have buggered players stuck at the contest while the oppo has outnumber down the line.

Remember in the 70's the centre 'diamond' was introduced to, for want of a better word, 'zone' off the centre at centre bounces (if I am correct)?

So now IF we have the rule at every stoppage I'd imagine there'd be less congestion to begin with? I'm sure I'm missing something, an adverse side effect if you will.

So instead of 'zoning' like they do in say netball, it's not enforced in play but it's incentive to have your players 'stay' in their zone.

Thoughts?
I generally like what you post Carringbush2010 - usually very well thought out. I doubt you've posted this without considering all possible pros and cons.

What comes next may be very biased because I just plain don't like 6-6-6.

One rule cannot be introduced without considering all other effects it could have. One new rule won't fix a perceived defect (again, I'm biased as I see no issues with how football is played right now).

While I think what you are proposing could would my concern is after play hasn't stopped for a while. If there hasn't been a stoppage for 30+ seconds it allows enough time to have more than six players per side at the ball. Once the backs push up and the forwards push back it's conceivable to have roughly eight players per side within the ball's zone. Once the stoppage happens (let's say a relatively quick one like a ball up) who gets penalised? Both sides have even numbers, although more than six at the ball. Do we wait until each side has reset? Is a free kick too much of a penalty? Will the umpires be guessing at numbers in the zone or even the size of the zone?

My guess is that they have chosen to only do 6-6-6 after goals due to how hard it would be to umpire at any other time. I could see it working at throw ins but that may be as far as I go.

My concern if you introduced it for all stoppages would be turning the spectacle into something we don't want to see. Even that is subjective though. Who am I to say what is right or wrong to see?

The only issue I see at the moment is the AFL introducing new rules to combat perceived defects and the rule having the opposite effect. This is what we need to be mindful of knock on effects. Personally, I don't think the AFL should be the ones proposing and changing the rules. There needs to be some sort of panel like when Rugby Union trialed the Stellenbosch Rules.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,914
6,790
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I generally like what you post Carringbush2010 - usually very well thought out. I doubt you've posted this without considering all possible pros and cons.

What comes next may be very biased because I just plain don't like 6-6-6.

One rule cannot be introduced without considering all other effects it could have. One new rule won't fix a perceived defect (again, I'm biased as I see no issues with how football is played right now).

While I think what you are proposing could would my concern is after play hasn't stopped for a while. If there hasn't been a stoppage for 30+ seconds it allows enough time to have more than six players per side at the ball. Once the backs push up and the forwards push back it's conceivable to have roughly eight players per side within the ball's zone. Once the stoppage happens (let's say a relatively quick one like a ball up) who gets penalised? Both sides have even numbers, although more than six at the ball. Do we wait until each side has reset? Is a free kick too much of a penalty? Will the umpires be guessing at numbers in the zone or even the size of the zone?

My guess is that they have chosen to only do 6-6-6 after goals due to how hard it would be to umpire at any other time. I could see it working at throw ins but that may be as far as I go.

My concern if you introduced it for all stoppages would be turning the spectacle into something we don't want to see. Even that is subjective though. Who am I to say what is right or wrong to see?

The only issue I see at the moment is the AFL introducing new rules to combat perceived defects and the rule having the opposite effect. This is what we need to be mindful of knock on effects. Personally, I don't think the AFL should be the ones proposing and changing the rules. There needs to be some sort of panel like when Rugby Union trialed the Stellenbosch Rules.
Great post!

I guess I'm trying to perceive it from the mind of the coaches box. So I'll start with.........

'While I think what you are proposing could would my concern is after play hasn't stopped for a while' Isn't this what everyone is talking about though? To keep the play going? Or to stop what is perceived as 'congested'.

'Once the stoppage happens (let's say a relatively quick one like a ball up) who gets penalised?' Again, if the rule is to be 'in position' at every single stoppage then coaches will be averse to having players too far away from position, because it would be nigh on impossible to have your FF @ CHB (trying to clog up the oppositions forward - currently, we know this is a coaching tactic) run back to position in time before the throw in or ball up and therefore penalized.

This rule adjustment would just about eliminate forwards pushing up to the HB line to clog up the oppo's forward line - less congestion.

Yeah there is a possibility of even numbers but then that's back to who (team) gets back to position last is penalized with a free from where the ball is. I'd imagine coaches may 'test the waters' to see how this would pan out i:e how the oppo coaches would approach it.

The umpiring of it may be a little difficult I agree, just like picking out frees that they can't see now because of congestion.

Remembering all of this is not adjudicated in play meaning that the position rule only applies at stoppages. So it's not like netball where you have to be in your 'zone' for the whole game, or if the ball rolls back out of your 50 you can't chase it. You just have to be in position (or not the last) at every stoppage.
 

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,599
1,566
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond
This rule adjustment would just about eliminate forwards pushing up to the HB line to clog up the oppo's forward line - less congestion.

Yeah there is a possibility of even numbers but then that's back to who (team) gets back to position last is penalized with a free from where the ball is. I'd imagine coaches may 'test the waters' to see how this would pan out i:e how the oppo coaches would approach it.
Yeah, I think this possibly introduces the knock-on issue of time ball is out of play extending while players are moving around. Coaches are always going to test it which is why the setup Union did was almost perfect (four former coaches, a former player and a current [at the time] ref). A group like that should be able to anticipate knock-on effects and how it will be exploited.

I don't think it would eliminate forwards and backs pushing up (difference of opinion) but my biggest concern is if it would stop midfielders pushing into the forward or back 50. This would be more of a concern during the switch period of a midfielder resting forward. These changeovers typically happen at stoppages when the mid tells the forward to go into the midfield after a forward stoppage.

Again, coaches would work around this issue but the bigger issue I see is midfielders being reluctant to go either forward or back and offer support.

The umpiring of it may be a little difficult I agree, just like picking out frees that they can't see now because of congestion.

Remembering all of this is not adjudicated in play meaning that the position rule only applies at stoppages. So it's not like netball where you have to be in your 'zone' for the whole game, or if the ball rolls back out of your 50 you can't chase it. You just have to be in position (or not the last) at every stoppage.
While it isn't written the same as netball I think the outcome would be very similar with players becoming reluctant to exit their zone for fear of giving away a free kick. If no free kick is on offer then players may use the time getting back to position as a 'rest' and start to stray just to hold up play and get a rest mid-quarter. Whether we want this or not is for others to decide.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,914
6,790
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Yeah, I think this possibly introduces the knock-on issue of time ball is out of play extending while players are moving around. Coaches are always going to test it which is why the setup Union did was almost perfect (four former coaches, a former player and a current [at the time] ref). A group like that should be able to anticipate knock-on effects and how it will be exploited
At the moment the rules committee is made up of former players and coaches, umpires not sure but wouldn't be surprised if there is and yet the game is still congested. :shrug:*

but my biggest concern is if it would stop midfielders pushing into the forward or back 50. This would be more of a concern during the switch period of a midfielder resting forward. These changeovers typically happen at stoppages when the mid tells the forward to go into the midfield after a forward stoppage.
That seems to be the aim, stop players moving too far or too long out of position, the aim being to minimize congestion.

While it isn't written the same as netball I think the outcome would be very similar with players becoming reluctant to exit their zone for fear of giving away a free kick. If no free kick is on offer then players may use the time getting back to position as a 'rest' and start to stray just to hold up play and get a rest mid-quarter. Whether we want this or not is for others to decide.
The outcome maybe similar, but not so rigid as like I said earlier, say you're a forward and the ball in play bounces outside of your 50, that doesn't mean you can't exit your 50 and play as we do now, it just means IF and when there is a stoppage you have to back inside your arc (or not last inside).

As for the bolded, a bit off discussion, but a real gear grind for me is when penalized players (on the mark) deliberately hold up play by not letting the awarded player up to take the free, sitting on the ball etc. all in the name of letting their team structure up defensively.

*IF the rules committee could further penalize players who have given away a free who are obviously holding up play (like a 50m penalty), that would go a long way to 'speeding' up the game or 'outspeed' congestion for want of a better term.
 

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,599
1,566
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond
At the moment the rules committee is made up of former players and coaches, umpires not sure but wouldn't be surprised if there is and yet the game is still congested. :shrug:*
I put this forward poorly. Without knowing who is on the rules committee I have a feeling that there is current coaches (Clarkson maybe?) and I see this as wrong as they have a vested interest.

The union guys did it with a World Cup winner, two national coaches and the French guy was a national player and coach as well as a development manager (plus the ref). Having former coaches and the experience of the French guy seems like they had the right people to at least identify the issues.

Edit: I just looked it up - the AFL comprises current players, coaches, presidents (why???), footy managers plus AFL reps and an AFLPA rep (again, why?). All have vested interests in the current game in one way, shape or form.

That seems to be the aim, stop players moving too far or too long out of position, the aim being to minimize congestion.



The outcome maybe similar, but not so rigid as like I said earlier, say you're a forward and the ball in play bounces outside of your 50, that doesn't mean you can't exit your 50 and play as we do now, it just means IF and when there is a stoppage you have to back inside your arc (or not last inside).

As for the bolded, a bit off discussion, but a real gear grind for me is when penalized players (on the mark) deliberately hold up play by not letting the awarded player up to take the free, sitting on the ball etc. all in the name of letting their team structure up defensively.

*IF the rules committee could further penalize players who have given away a free who are obviously holding up play (like a 50m penalty), that would go a long way to 'speeding' up the game or 'outspeed' congestion for want of a better term.
And therein lies where I believe the evolution should be. Penalise 'professional free kicks', pay free kicks quicker, give the marking player less time to play the ball (maybe not that..), empower the umpires to pay free kicks as soon as they see them.

What is the eventual outcome though? Do we want less congestion? More scoring? a more aesthetic game? Personally, I don't think you can get all of these, maybe not any. The advances in player fitness have pretty much eliminated most of these and that isn't going backwards. The advances in tactics means we aren't going back to football of the 80's.

There's nothing wrong with tweaking the rules where there's a potential issue. The discussion around third man up is a great example - change it so the penalty goes to a player going third up, not the current nomination of rucks.

Like you have said, a forward can still exit the 50 but may have two choices - "Do I exit and risk a penalty if there's a stoppage (or not the last man back)?" or "Do I exit the 50 for a professional free kick to allow a rest?" The balance would come down to the penalty. Too lenient and you get the latter, to harsh and you get the former. I don't think either are wanted - especially if the ball is in dispute.

With anything I put forward I probably need to go back and firstly discuss what the issue is (e.g. what is too much congestion?). This certainly isn't having a go at you as I do like your idea on the surface, I just don't see it as being workable in practice. I don't really want to get into a discussion about what is congestion because as I said I don't see it as an issue (in general). Where I do see an issue is the extended time a ball is held under a pack and more and more players piling in because the umpires take too long to either ball it up or pay a free kick. Would your idea fix that? Possibly as we have discussed, but at what cost? I think the cost is just too much.
 
Last edited:

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,914
6,790
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
What is the eventual outcome though? Do we want less congestion? More scoring? a more aesthetic game? Personally, I don't think you can get all of these, maybe not any. The advances in player fitness have pretty much eliminated most of these and that isn't going backwards. The advances in tactics means we aren't going back to football of the 80's.
Well that seems to be the new black doesn't it. I'm merely putting forward a suggestion to counteract the congestion and I'm not the first to do so obviously.

Personally? Sometimes it is a little suffocating to watch at times, however I do like the skill of bursting out of congestion or a slick handpass to a running receiver out of congestion.

In all that, I'd rather the game evolve organically. Somewhere at some point a coach will get around what seems to be a defensive mind set game structure.

Like you have said, a forward can still exit the 50 but may have two choices - "Do I exit and risk a penalty if there's a stoppage (or not the last man back)?" or "Do I exit the 50 for a professional free kick to allow a rest?" The balance would come down to the penalty. Too lenient and you get the latter, to harsh and you get the former. I don't think either are wanted - especially if the ball is in dispute.
What you're talking about here is an immediate penalty as soon as there is a stoppage, that's not practical, it's probably more like a couple of seconds or so........... right now it's like 5 seconds by the time rucks are nominated anyway. And if there is a position rule then that would lessen the chance or a 3rd man up anyway which could abolish ruck nominations.

So old mate FF runs outside 50 chasing the ball and meets in a contest with the winger from the opp at the line at CHF, the whistle is blown and the ump calls for a ball up. By the time the ump gets to the ball up FF is already back in his arc. Because of the rule old mate FB is probably back or near enough to his own defensive arc and winger / mids are likely close to or already in between the arcs.

On the flip side, old mate FF runs outside 50 chasing the ball and meets in a contest and the opp winger gets a kick his way, old mate FF isn't going to run further outside his arc to chase that ball unless it is clear and evident he is the last defence the team has to the opps attacking move.
 

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,599
1,566
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond
Well that seems to be the new black doesn't it. I'm merely putting forward a suggestion to counteract the congestion and I'm not the first to do so obviously.

Personally? Sometimes it is a little suffocating to watch at times, however I do like the skill of bursting out of congestion or a slick handpass to a running receiver out of congestion.

In all that, I'd rather the game evolve organically. Somewhere at some point a coach will get around what seems to be a defensive mind set game structure.
We are in complete agreeance here - let the game change organically. My feeling is trying to force change has led us down the path we are at right now. I'm sure in 20 years time the game will not look like it does now because today's tactics will no longer be effective. Much how we don't see the mega-flood much anymore. It has purpose but overall it just isn't sustainable.

What you're talking about here is an immediate penalty as soon as there is a stoppage, that's not practical, it's probably more like a couple of seconds or so........... right now it's like 5 seconds by the time rucks are nominated anyway. And if there is a position rule then that would lessen the chance or a 3rd man up anyway which could abolish ruck nominations.

So old mate FF runs outside 50 chasing the ball and meets in a contest with the winger from the opp at the line at CHF, the whistle is blown and the ump calls for a ball up. By the time the ump gets to the ball up FF is already back in his arc. Because of the rule old mate FB is probably back or near enough to his own defensive arc and winger / mids are likely close to or already in between the arcs.

On the flip side, old mate FF runs outside 50 chasing the ball and meets in a contest and the opp winger gets a kick his way, old mate FF isn't going to run further outside his arc to chase that ball unless it is clear and evident he is the last defence the team has to the opps attacking move.

Probably being a bit pedantic but is that more or less not happening now? Using Richmond as an example, if Lambert charges from the forward flank to the wing then Pickett or McIntosh on the wing slips into the 50m on the other side. I feel to an extent it is happening now but it probably comes back to how many people we want around the ball. No side plays with 6 in the forward or back line but the flux of players does mean there is movement off the ball constantly. It's probably a matter of what the correct number is.

Can I through something else at you - would uncapping the interchange help? What I mean is the ball spends most of its time in the midfield but if players get to the midfield and can't get back to position due to the magic word 'fatigue' is it slowing the game in the wrong way? It's been a while but my memory of capping interchange was due to sides using plenty of them, not so much how it looked on the field with fresh players. I'm not saying this is true, more speculation but could it be the congestion is caused by Team A winning the ball then having nowhere to go due to lack of players physically able to be somewhere to kick to? Team B is then allowed to defend thus causing another stoppage and more congestion.

Just spitballing really.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,914
6,790
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
We are in complete agreeance here - let the game change organically. My feeling is trying to force change has led us down the path we are at right now. I'm sure in 20 years time the game will not look like it does now because today's tactics will no longer be effective. Much how we don't see the mega-flood much anymore. It has purpose but overall it just isn't sustainable.




Probably being a bit pedantic but is that more or less not happening now? Using Richmond as an example, if Lambert charges from the forward flank to the wing then Pickett or McIntosh on the wing slips into the 50m on the other side. I feel to an extent it is happening now but it probably comes back to how many people we want around the ball. No side plays with 6 in the forward or back line but the flux of players does mean there is movement off the ball constantly. It's probably a matter of what the correct number is.

Can I through something else at you - would uncapping the interchange help? What I mean is the ball spends most of its time in the midfield but if players get to the midfield and can't get back to position due to the magic word 'fatigue' is it slowing the game in the wrong way? It's been a while but my memory of capping interchange was due to sides using plenty of them, not so much how it looked on the field with fresh players. I'm not saying this is true, more speculation but could it be the congestion is caused by Team A winning the ball then having nowhere to go due to lack of players physically able to be somewhere to kick to? Team B is then allowed to defend thus causing another stoppage and more congestion.

Just spitballing really.
Uncapping interchange, hmmm........ Isn't that the Malthouse model that got us in this mess in the first place? At least in part? Kind of a double edged sword for mine.
  • Unseen interchange numbers allowed MM's team to have 'fresh' players apply their pressure brand around the boundaries (and keep the contest there), unlike the Dimma and Buckley (2018) (maybe add Goodwin here?) models where pressure is applied at contest wherever it lie. Through 'outnumbering' the opposition or out two way running if you will. Of course although similar but different at the same time Dimma = force the contest forward until submission, Buckley = outnumber at the contest AND on the outside for waiting receiver with outnumber. That latter two managed to work around interchange cap, and is the result of recruiters looking for endurance athletes over pure footballers. Probably a further ask for the modern footballer to be even more durable and have / develop 'tank'.
  • Capping interchange further increases fatigue and therefore DE late in qtr / game, I'm not so certain this is the silver bullet and would take away the amazing dexterity of the modern footballer at the cost of fatigue (optics). However Dimma (and the fitness staff at Richmond) have made this a mantra, a focus on all day two way running and it's paid off big time. Something in the water over the train line.............. lol.
So in short, capping interchange is slowing the game 'the wrong way' IMO.

'I'm not saying this is true, more speculation but could it be the congestion is caused by Team A winning the ball then having nowhere to go due to lack of players physically able to be somewhere to kick to? Team B is then allowed to defend thus causing another stoppage and more congestion.'

This this this! IMO, there is where the game will / should evolve organically. At some point the frustrated coaching panel may / will look to exploit the fatigue i:e instead having no one / nowhere to kick / handball (fatigue result) to the MC should / may look at instead of trying to outnumber and win possession at the source (contest) just provide a contest, and if need be concede territory and outnumber at the next contest. If they manage possession win at the original contest that's a win (in an even or outnumbered situation)

Right now, this is a risky risky proposition for any coach (certainly at this level) but I'm willing to bet the thought is at least in the minds of all the coaching panels. Someone may / should be willing to risk losing territory to have numbers at the next contest. There's lot's of talk of attack from D50 and some teams base their game from that..................... may already be in place somewhat yet still we have 20 odd players within 10 - 20 metres in or near the coalface:shrug: . A delicate balance, depending on the chess pieces you have OR the system you have or BOTH.

Bare in mind this is a very simplistic speculation from my view point. There's so many variables, one being the chess pieces you have, for example teams like wc or the giants have a ridiculous amount of talent yet the tigas are not as talented (purely) (not a dig, a compliment to the system). They've managed to defy the congestion to their advantage to eventually win transition purely on adapting to the current place in the evolution of the game.
 

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,599
1,566
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond
Uncapping interchange, hmmm........ Isn't that the Malthouse model that got us in this mess in the first place? At least in part? Kind of a double edged sword for mine.
  • Unseen interchange numbers allowed MM's team to have 'fresh' players apply their pressure brand around the boundaries (and keep the contest there), unlike the Dimma and Buckley (2018) (maybe add Goodwin here?) models where pressure is applied at contest wherever it lie. Through 'outnumbering' the opposition or out two way running if you will. Of course although similar but different at the same time Dimma = force the contest forward until submission, Buckley = outnumber at the contest AND on the outside for waiting receiver with outnumber. That latter two managed to work around interchange cap, and is the result of recruiters looking for endurance athletes over pure footballers. Probably a further ask for the modern footballer to be even more durable and have / develop 'tank'.
  • Capping interchange further increases fatigue and therefore DE late in qtr / game, I'm not so certain this is the silver bullet and would take away the amazing dexterity of the modern footballer at the cost of fatigue (optics). However Dimma (and the fitness staff at Richmond) have made this a mantra, a focus on all day two way running and it's paid off big time. Something in the water over the train line.............. lol.
So in short, capping interchange is slowing the game 'the wrong way' IMO.

'I'm not saying this is true, more speculation but could it be the congestion is caused by Team A winning the ball then having nowhere to go due to lack of players physically able to be somewhere to kick to? Team B is then allowed to defend thus causing another stoppage and more congestion.'

This this this! IMO, there is where the game will / should evolve organically. At some point the frustrated coaching panel may / will look to exploit the fatigue i:e instead having no one / nowhere to kick / handball (fatigue result) to the MC should / may look at instead of trying to outnumber and win possession at the source (contest) just provide a contest, and if need be concede territory and outnumber at the next contest. If they manage possession win at the original contest that's a win (in an even or outnumbered situation)

Right now, this is a risky risky proposition for any coach (certainly at this level) but I'm willing to bet the thought is at least in the minds of all the coaching panels. Someone may / should be willing to risk losing territory to have numbers at the next contest. There's lot's of talk of attack from D50 and some teams base their game from that..................... may already be in place somewhat yet still we have 20 odd players within 10 - 20 metres in or near the coalface:shrug: . A delicate balance, depending on the chess pieces you have OR the system you have or BOTH.

Bare in mind this is a very simplistic speculation from my view point. There's so many variables, one being the chess pieces you have, for example teams like wc or the giants have a ridiculous amount of talent yet the tigas are not as talented (purely) (not a dig, a compliment to the system). They've managed to defy the congestion to their advantage to eventually win transition purely on adapting to the current place in the evolution of the game.
All good points and I do agree with you that Richmond is a sum of the parts, although maybe a few of the lesser lights are a bit underrated (although all Premiership sides have these types of players that look better in a good system). I don't have much I can argue against what you have said.

I'd be interested to see if the Malthouse model would be emulated again if the interchange was uncapped. Has footy moved on from these tactics? Would Hardwick's model be more or less successful? From memory, scoring was at a higher rate with the uncapped interchange (I could check but didn't). I only have speculation why but a common theme has been congestion = lower scoring. If this is true (I'm not saying it is) then we should have seen higher scoring with a capped interchange. Maybe the cap is too high as people like Kevin Bartlett have consistently proposed. What I'd like to see is the AFL look at a few of these rules (not just this) and say "This didn't do what we expected it to do. We will unwind it and look at a different alternative." The AFL could also go harder on the cap and try and implement minimal interchanges which should provide the space without the 6-6-6 rule. Which would work? Who knows.

Sorry for steering this away from your original proposal.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,914
6,790
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
All good points and I do agree with you that Richmond is a sum of the parts, although maybe a few of the lesser lights are a bit underrated (although all Premiership sides have these types of players that look better in a good system). I don't have much I can argue against what you have said.

I'd be interested to see if the Malthouse model would be emulated again if the interchange was uncapped. Has footy moved on from these tactics? Would Hardwick's model be more or less successful? From memory, scoring was at a higher rate with the uncapped interchange (I could check but didn't). I only have speculation why but a common theme has been congestion = lower scoring. If this is true (I'm not saying it is) then we should have seen higher scoring with a capped interchange. Maybe the cap is too high as people like Kevin Bartlett have consistently proposed. What I'd like to see is the AFL look at a few of these rules (not just this) and say "This didn't do what we expected it to do. We will unwind it and look at a different alternative." The AFL could also go harder on the cap and try and implement minimal interchanges which should provide the space without the 6-6-6 rule. Which would work? Who knows.

Sorry for steering this away from your original proposal.
Yeah interesting discussion on the cap, I don't really have an answer and am only guessing. But it's fair speculation that fatigue will lower DE and fatigue would be a result of capping interchange further (in part at least).

That might be counteracted by a 6 6 6 rule at every stoppage, but then that's a two wrongs make a right kinda deal.

Again, I'd rather the game evolve itself organically out of the congestion dilemma instead of bringing in further rules that could have their own side effects.
 

threenewpadlocks

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 10, 2012
11,093
14,351
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I'm still unsure why the AFL doesn't bring in boundary throw in from the boundary. It's been used in pre-season games before and will do a bit to "solve" the congestion issue because the ball will be thrown in closer to the centre corridor, where there's more space and the ball can travel in 360 directions. And it's a rule change that most AFL fans will agree with or at worst won't be too angry about.
 

kickitolachie

Nogrey
Sep 19, 2011
127
266
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Man U
Wind back the rules to around 1975 and then start tweaking them from there.
I've just watched some games from the 70's, 80's and 90's. They were finals, so more pressured than roster games, and several were played in the wet. I was looking for signs of rule changes that had caused problems, and changes that could fix things. I noted the following.
1. The further back I went, the quicker the umpires acted to stop congestion. Ball ups and frees paid very quickly.
2. Holding the ball was mostly much more rigorously enforced, but not always. In some games, players blatantly dropped the ball when tackled and it was play on.
3. The brutality of hits on star players off the ball was truly appalling. Not sorry to see this nearly gone.
4. None of the games had any tactical interchange.
5. The kicking was decidedly worse than today, except in front of goal, where it was much the same.
6. There was a lot less handball.
7. Play was mostly one on one, and much more pleasing to watch.
8. The ball was never kicked into an empty half of the ground - there were always players in the vicinity to contest for it.
9. Ball ups took place very quickly.

My conclusion from the exercise was disheartening. There is no way back.
Professional players and coaches mean that too much time and effort is available for teams to organize themselves to close games down, and it is the ability of teams to perform shutdowns that is at the heart of the negative, tackle dominated game we have now.
Tactical interchange led to many of the structural weapons that coaches now use, but they will remain even if interchange is curtailed.
All of the changes Dimitriou brought in to speed the game up have contributed to the situation, but removing them won't change it back. The knowledge is out there and can't be removed.
I could not see any rule changes that could force the game back into the old mold. I'm sad to say it, but the game has suicided.
 

Remove this Banner Ad