just stop the ruckmen having to put up their hands like they're in school and that'll be something
The two simple rule changes that will fix footy
- Thread starter NewMelbournian
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Disagree with the OP.
Interchange numbers are irrelevant. Less fatigue should = better skills. The last kick OOB will only encourage teams to clog the corridor.
My two
1. Abolish ruck nominations. Umpires get on with it. Only 1 player per team can contest it.
2. Increase the centre square by 5m. Will give a bit more time for the centre bounces clearance.
Out there idea 1. Increase the boundary umpires to three on each side. They run with a ball. As soon as it goes out they run to the cross over spot and throw it in. No waiting for rucks or any one else. See change 1.
Out there idea 2. Shot clock. Once a player indicates they are having a shot and take up to the 30 seconds it can't be used again by the attacking team until a shot at goal is had. So if they pass it the next player has only the 6 seconds or whatever it is until called to play on. If a player at 50 has a genuine shot but it falls short and is marked 3m out then the 30 seconds are allowed.
Interchange numbers are irrelevant. Less fatigue should = better skills. The last kick OOB will only encourage teams to clog the corridor.
My two
1. Abolish ruck nominations. Umpires get on with it. Only 1 player per team can contest it.
2. Increase the centre square by 5m. Will give a bit more time for the centre bounces clearance.
Out there idea 1. Increase the boundary umpires to three on each side. They run with a ball. As soon as it goes out they run to the cross over spot and throw it in. No waiting for rucks or any one else. See change 1.
Out there idea 2. Shot clock. Once a player indicates they are having a shot and take up to the 30 seconds it can't be used again by the attacking team until a shot at goal is had. So if they pass it the next player has only the 6 seconds or whatever it is until called to play on. If a player at 50 has a genuine shot but it falls short and is marked 3m out then the 30 seconds are allowed.
JohnnyFontane90
Norm Smith Medallist
- Feb 14, 2014
- 6,481
- 10,001
- AFL Club
- Carlton
rather than last touch then should do last possession out. so that way if it it's punched out in a marking contest or a player with the ball gets tackled over the line it's not a free kick. that would mean teams would be more methodical with their ball movement, they wouldn't just bomb it to the pocket and hope for a thrown in to set up their press.
no to reducing interchanges period. need to go back to unlimited
no to reducing interchanges period. need to go back to unlimited
- Aug 21, 2007
- 31,651
- 98,923
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
Capping interchanges so drastically will just push recruiting even harder towards distance runners and away from skills.
Personally I think the best way to reduce congestion is to increase the centre square by 5 metres, and make it so players can't run into the square at a centre bounce until such time as a Ruckman has touched the ball at the ruck contest, rather than when the ball is bounced. It will take longer for those outside the square to get to the centre square contest, meaning its more likely that the ball will be cleared from a centre square contest by possession by those 4 per side in the square at the bounce, and less likely that there will be another bounce required due to more than 4 per side being there at the first contest after the tap and congesting it all up.
And importantly, it won't screw with the fundamentals of the game.
I can also live with reduced interchange numbers. I'm not convinced that the last touch is a free kick to the opposition will work for our game.
And importantly, it won't screw with the fundamentals of the game.
I can also live with reduced interchange numbers. I'm not convinced that the last touch is a free kick to the opposition will work for our game.
Playing Masters footy in Canberra we used to have a local rule of last touch between the 50s. Used to work quite well with defenders in the last line still able to defend towards the boundary line.
- Oct 27, 2016
- 5,942
- 10,636
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Packers, Raptors, Renegades
Absolutely not. Last-touch rule works as much in practice as communism.
My vote goes to 16 a side or even 14 a side. Less congestion and take 2-4 of the worst players out of every team's lineup. Imagine that.
we have too many players at the "elite" level anyway with so many teams.
16 a team makes alot of sense, just drop out the players on the wing who are in reality playing as midfielders anyway.
If we go down the whole interchange cap route maybe look at only allowing interchanges after goal etc or something to that effect.
I reckon coaches will less likely want to use the bench as rotation if they knew it was not in their power to bring them back on
I reckon coaches will less likely want to use the bench as rotation if they knew it was not in their power to bring them back on
- Jul 22, 2016
- 3,418
- 5,219
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Why not consider just reducing players on field by 2 each side - that way zones wont cover the whole ground quite as effectively thus allowing skills to once again flourish a bit more? I'd consider also capping rotations to go with it as between the 2 it should open up games a bit more and start seeing more genuine 1 on 1's from time to time.
- Jul 22, 2016
- 3,418
- 5,219
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Didn't see your post before I added something similar. I think it's probably the best way forward to be honest.
I'd go further and remove interchange entirely. Six man bench, four substitutions a quarter.
Having a bench with two more than can be inserted in a quarter means that injuries can be covered.
Blood rule might have to be an exception to allow interchange for. Which is annoying but probably a necessity.
OOB - I think they've almost got the balance right now. I like the more stringent calling of deliberate, even though there will always be margin calls (and wrong ones) at times. Just as there is for any rule. The last touch rule (like being too hot on holding the ball) just invites players to hang out of the contest or not take the ball. That, for me, goes against everything the game is supposed to be - a contest for use of the ball.
Having a bench with two more than can be inserted in a quarter means that injuries can be covered.
Blood rule might have to be an exception to allow interchange for. Which is annoying but probably a necessity.
OOB - I think they've almost got the balance right now. I like the more stringent calling of deliberate, even though there will always be margin calls (and wrong ones) at times. Just as there is for any rule. The last touch rule (like being too hot on holding the ball) just invites players to hang out of the contest or not take the ball. That, for me, goes against everything the game is supposed to be - a contest for use of the ball.
Madness101
All Australian
Finally, some sanity.
I don't believe there is a rule saying that the game has to be played a certain way. Some teams play defensively, some more attacking, some rely on foot skills more, others on running power, others on KPP marking.
For whatever reason, whenever we see something 'aesthetically not pleasing' ( which is so subjective) we feel the need to rush in and start manipulating the rules. Which in turns causes other problems, which causes us to rush in again to change it even more.
Get rid of prior opportunity. If ya got the ball and don't or can't dispose of it correctly then its a free kick against. Less ball ups equals better footy.
Disagree entirely, it quickly gets to the point where being second to the ball is rewarded because you get to lay a tackle on a guy who hasn't had a chance. A few years back we almost got to that stage (some games I think we did).
Why not just mandate at least 6 players on each side of the ground and two in the forward fifty
Bang congestion gone
Ffs theyve tried a million things cant we at least trial it in the preseason
Bang congestion gone
Ffs theyve tried a million things cant we at least trial it in the preseason
No rule changes required, common sense required.
1) umpire at ball ups runs in picks up ball and throws it in air, no waiting for anyone and no need to tell anyone where he is backing up to as the players know he is backing up.
Same with boundary throw ins.
2) bit out of left field this but how about umpiring to the laws of the game, the game is littered with head high contact and incorrect disposals. Pay the free kicks and pay them quickly and the congestion disappears.
The game has become congested because of the AFL’s need to let the game flow. It doesn’t flow it gets congested. Umpire to the rules and it will change very quickly.
1) umpire at ball ups runs in picks up ball and throws it in air, no waiting for anyone and no need to tell anyone where he is backing up to as the players know he is backing up.
Same with boundary throw ins.
2) bit out of left field this but how about umpiring to the laws of the game, the game is littered with head high contact and incorrect disposals. Pay the free kicks and pay them quickly and the congestion disappears.
The game has become congested because of the AFL’s need to let the game flow. It doesn’t flow it gets congested. Umpire to the rules and it will change very quickly.
bumsonseats
Premiership Player
I umpired some under 10’s some years back, and the ump had to nominate the 2 kids to go up in the ruck so everyone got involved in the game.
It sort of reminds me a bit of that.
Tap or punch the ball to advantage. Clear the congestion and keep the ball moving.
I agree with what you say if players don't change but they will. That's the idea anyway.
bumsonseats
Premiership Player
Carlton wouldn’t be able to field a side
bumsonseats
Premiership Player
If the ball goes out inside the 50 arc, the ump gets to have a kick at goal.
