The two simple rule changes that will fix footy

[NewMelbournian]

1. A significant reduction in the interchange
Lower it to 32. That sounds extreme but that is still more than it has been for most of AFL history. That's 8 per quarter, or turning your bench over completely twice every quarter. If you must I'd compromise and go as high as 40, but there is no reason to have more than 10 interchanges per quarter. The game survived and thrived and grew into the billion dollar industry it is now without mass interchange and it would thrive if we went back to how we played for most of the last century.

It comes down to what style of footy you prefer. The current midfield obsessed game where nearly everybody is a midfielder, where at times almost every player on the field is within a kick of the ball. The players shouldn't have enough energy to constantly follow the ball to every corner of the ground from the start of the match until the end.

Changing this brings us back to the old fashioned style. Having a sea of players around the ball is not possible and one on one match ups between forwards and backs become more important because we actually have forwards and backs instead of what is often now just 1 forward, 1 back, and 16 players churning and rotating through midfield roles.

This gives more of a role to the Buddy Franklins and Alex Rances of the game and less to the Tom Mitchells. That is a good thing in my opinion. I hate the inflation in disposals some players have gotten, it is undeserved, it is not a pleasant fad, and we would be better off without it.

2. All out of bounds should be a free kick against the team that last touched the ball.
I cannot stand the charade as a thousand times a game a player pretends he is trying to keep the ball in even as he deliberately takes it out. Make all out of bounds an automatic free and you take one judgement call out of the hands of the umpires, they won't have to try and mind read any more and it will be a fairer game. And then we'd see what players look like when they really do try and keep the ball in every time.

This would also help reduce congestion and speed the game up as we don't have to waste time throwing the ball in. Teams would look to take quick their free quickly and the game would also be better for it.

TLDR: Drastically reduce interchange and give free kicks for all out of bounds to make the game reach its potential.

 

[van peebles]

Interchange .=yes
OOBs=no
Only allow 4 players from each team in between the fifties and lets see who the real midfield champs are.

 

[Dazzler9]

Number 1, absolutely.

Number 2, not bothered. A freekick seems too harsh. Make it a free handball perhaps.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

Lol.

 

[Whiskers]

Allow 3rd man up and throw it up straight away. Stop wasting time asking who the rucks are.
That’s the big difference.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Does the theory of reducing interchange actually work? Players probably end up pushing themselves even more, rewarding endurance over skills.

Considering how much teams kick towards the boundary line, players will be even more spent with way less stoppages, non stop running back and forth. Stoppages gives them a breather and a chance to set up. No more emphasis on recovery.

 

[Dazzler9]

Does the theory of reducing interchange actually work? Players probably end up pushing themselves even more, rewarding endurance over skills.

Considering how much teams kick towards the boundary line, players will be even more spent with way less stoppages, non stop running back and forth. Stoppages gives them a breather and a chance to set up. No more emphasis on recovery.

There would be significantly reduced 'non-stop back and forth running'. That's the theory anyway.

 

[HTT]

Interchange will make players more tired - that will increase the scoring temporarily
Then coaches will start to bring in more athletes and it'll just be a more extreme version of what we have now.

Out of bounds free kicks are just stupid and will lead to players being less likely to use the space around the wings - that will lead to more congestion, which is exactly what people whinge about.

Coaches will figure out a way to do what they want to do - if they want pressure, there'll be pressure. If they want to beat the pressure, they'll beat the pressure. Lets stop trying to change it.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Watched the Tiges play yesterday... footy ain't broken.

 

[NewMelbournian]

Does the theory of reducing interchange actually work? Players probably end up pushing themselves even more, rewarding endurance over skills.

Considering how much teams kick towards the boundary line, players will be even more spent with way less stoppages, non stop running back and forth. Stoppages gives them a breather and a chance to set up. No more emphasis on recovery.

Interchange has so far only been restricted marginally. A significant change will force teams to change strategy.

As for the boundary, yes giving less incentive to kick out there is another benefit as more of the game will be played through the middle.

 

[NewMelbournian]

Watched the Tiges play yesterday... footy ain't broken.

The exception that proves the rule. The bottom and middle teams are generally ugly. Watching 1990s footy even the middle of the pack teams played exciting flowing footy.

 

[AcuteWhistle]

2 Players from each side in the 50's at all times plus interchange reduction should do it.

 

[deck]

Dropping interchange to 32 will only encourage sides with a decent lead to pack the defence as they tire.

 

[master bate]

Does the theory of reducing interchange actually work? Players probably end up pushing themselves even more, rewarding endurance over skills.

Considering how much teams kick towards the boundary line, players will be even more spent with way less stoppages, non stop running back and forth. Stoppages gives them a breather and a chance to set up. No more emphasis on recovery.

It's only a theory, no on one knows. But I'd bet that instead of having less running machine midfielders it goes the other way and all 18 on the field become midfielders rotating between positions instead of using the bench.

Want to fix congestion?

The current top 4 teams: Rich, WC, Adel and Hawthorn are the 4 teams who score the most per time in possession. That means that when they have the ball they are moving it quickly and either scoring or having the ball back in dispute or turned over.

Already the incentive is there to move the ball quickly. The rest of the league will either catch up or not win as much. That's a pretty good incentive.

 

[Dazzler9]

2 Players from each side in the 50's at all times plus interchange reduction should do it.

The 2 players inside 50 proposal will lead to situations where the full forward can't make a proper lead. We don't wanna see that I wouldn't have thought.

 

[Dazzler9]

The 2 players inside 50 proposal will lead to situations where the full forward can't make a proper lead. We don't wanna see that I wouldn't have thought.

Imagine a situation where the ball is bombed from half back, with 16 players from each team behind the ball, and you have two forwards and two defenders jostling on the edge of the fifty waiting for the ball to roll over the line because they're not allowed to leave the 50m arc. Would be farcical.

 

[deck]

Allow 3rd man up and throw it up straight away. Stop wasting time asking who the rucks are.
That’s the big difference.

3rd man up encouraged teams with inferior ruckman to use negative tactics against good ruckman.

 

[AcuteWhistle]

The 2 players inside 50 proposal will lead to situations where the full forward can't make a proper lead. We don't wanna see that I wouldn't have thought.

A genuine lead that took the player outside 50 could be accounted for by him having to return as soon as that contest was completed. I agree there could be some issues with it but it's not something that can't be successfully implimented I would have thought.

 

[Richo83]

Playing with 16 a side would help. It would reduce congestion and the zonal flood, and often teams are breaking down because one player in the chain can't execute skills properly. Getting rid of the four worst players on the ground would also possibly force teams to go more direct.

 

[Whiskers]

3rd man up encouraged teams with inferior ruckman to use negative tactics against good ruckman.

Yeah for 100 years

 

[JackFlash]

Number 1 down to 40 = 10 per QTR

Number 2 = Nope ( how can defenders defend on the last line with spoiling a mark? They beat their opponent and then get penalized?)

How about every Free Kick paid for infringements by an Umpire must be KICKED! Increase distance for a mark to 20 metres, that would make em' spread!
Use the 50 metre ARC, at least one player from each team in the forward Arc at all times.
Bring back 3rd man up!

 

[deck]

Yeah for 100 years

Up until 10 years ago only the 2 ruckman (occasionally a non ruck against a ruck would compete) would compete in ruck contests. Then teams who struggled to recruit a decent ruckman started using a 3rd man up. Basically you inferior ruckman would engage the opposition ruckman to allow the 3rd man up to clear the ball to advantage.

The rule in place now has gone back to allowing the best ruck to win the contest.

 

[Boxhead_31]

1. A significant reduction in the interchange
Lower it to 32. That sounds extreme but that is still more than it has been for most of AFL history. That's 8 per quarter, or turning your bench over completely twice every quarter. If you must I'd compromise and go as high as 40, but there is no reason to have more than 10 interchanges per quarter. The game survived and thrived and grew into the billion dollar industry it is now without mass interchange and it would thrive if we went back to how we played for most of the last century.

It comes down to what style of footy you prefer. The current midfield obsessed game where nearly everybody is a midfielder, where at times almost every player on the field is within a kick of the ball. The players shouldn't have enough energy to constantly follow the ball to every corner of the ground from the start of the match until the end.

Changing this brings us back to the old fashioned style. Having a sea of players around the ball is not possible and one on one match ups between forwards and backs become more important because we actually have forwards and backs instead of what is often now just 1 forward, 1 back, and 16 players churning and rotating through midfield roles.

This gives more of a role to the Buddy Franklins and Alex Rances of the game and less to the Tom Mitchells. That is a good thing in my opinion. I hate the inflation in disposals some players have gotten, it is undeserved, it is not a pleasant fad, and we would be better off without it.

2. All out of bounds should be a free kick against the team that last touched the ball.
I cannot stand the charade as a thousand times a game a player pretends he is trying to keep the ball in even as he deliberately takes it out. Make all out of bounds an automatic free and you take one judgement call out of the hands of the umpires, they won't have to try and mind read any more and it will be a fairer game. And then we'd see what players look like when they really do try and keep the ball in every time.

This would also help reduce congestion and speed the game up as we don't have to waste time throwing the ball in. Teams would look to take quick their free quickly and the game would also be better for it.

TLDR: Drastically reduce interchange and give free kicks for all out of bounds to make the game reach its potential.

So, the SANFL solution is what you're proposing?

 

[Cincinnatus]

Dont mind getting rid of umps asking who is going up and just throwing up but there should still be a penalty for third man up. Its up to players to figure it out in the moment.

Last touch is absurd. If it ever happened it would need to be only outside the 50 arcs (or ideally 60m+. Imagine the whinging we would all do when the ump got the call of last touched wrong. Should still be a throw in if in either 50. Winning a game by a free kick from a botched OOB call? D day for AFL. But really, dont bring the rule in at all, rucks will continue to be marginalised which is bad.

Interchanges make most sense. The number can be played with to get it right.

 

[david addison]

A significant reduction of the interchange? Clubs will start recruiting marathon runners instead of footballers. Games will be less skilled than they are now. I've seen games where both teams are buggered half way through the last quarter, and I can tell you that very little scoring occurs after that point. Reduce the interchange is a flawed argument. I reckon Ross Lyon should pay some hush money to KB.

What was the other thing? Oh yeah, last touch out of bounds. They're not even enforcing deliberate out of bounds this year, so last touch doesn't seem likely. I'm not for it. Here's an idea: whoever collects the ball in the crowd can kick it back into play.

All they need to do to clear congestion is pay 'incorrect disposal' at all times. Simple. And get rid of this 'protected area' crap. Was it ever a problem? Oh, and the 'nominate for the ruck' crap. Get rid of that as well. In fact get rid of all the rules implemented over the past decade, and all the imposters who dreamt them up should be prosecuted.

Speaking of congested, am I the only one who wants to hear Matt Thompson interview John Worsfold?