The two simple rule changes that will fix footy

[basashi]

And dont waste another 2 seconds on top of that signalling that you are going to be running backwards. We all know it.

Stupid umpires

I am still waiting for an umpire to signal straight ahead, throw up the ball and then run underneath it to the other side.

 

[Dez!]

Went with OP is an idiot.

Anyone else who agreed that 32 interchanges a game is a good idea is also a massive idiot.

 

[Freoforever86]

Hows this for something different.

Award a team that score over 100 points in a game a bonus point

100% this.

1. Kicking backwards behind Centre is play on
2. Bonus point for kicking over 100 points (weather was mentioned as a deterrent if someone is undercover and someone is outdoors in melb - meh tough luck of the draw, weather is random)
3. Ball up and throw in straight away, no looking or nominating ruckmen
4. 3rd man up allowed (clears congestion)

 

[Roovolution]

3. Ban Cameron Ling

 

[afl genius]

1. Interchange yes but would make it 50 then drop it the following year (let teams get use to it) protects teams with injuries, keeps better players out on the ground. Take away the state of the game argument and it should be done regardless.

Out of bounds - no way too harsh

No nominating ruck men just throw it up

get rid of the sliding leg rule

optional - keep 6,6,6 in each area at every centre bounce

 

[iluvparis]

100% this.

1. Kicking backwards behind Centre is play on
2. Bonus point for kicking over 100 points (weather was mentioned as a deterrent if someone is undercover and someone is outdoors in melb - meh tough luck of the draw, weather is random)
3. Ball up and throw in straight away, no looking or nominating ruckmen
4. 3rd man up allowed (clears congestion)

Yes its completely random that Melbourne is generally than colder Perth every day of the year

 

[mxett]

Went with OP is an idiot.

Anyone else who agreed that 32 interchanges a game is a good idea is also a massive idiot.

Agree. It should be zero. Only players with the blood rule or injured should go off, and only blood rule players can return. I also agree with 16 players per side

 

[Furn2]

You need to encourage coaches or even a coach to try a gameplan that involves more positional play. By positional play i dont mean the 6-6-6 stuff from the past i juts mean keep 3-4 guys forward and back who are more than a kick from the ball, so instead of 18 guys per team around the ball you have 12-13, but more importantly they'll have someone to kick to when they get space and the game will flow better.

Coaches use the numbers game or congerstion because it works, its by far the most effective way to win games and positional play just cant compete with it.


So why does congestion work ? Well its because if you have a relatively equal amount of skill then you can get an advantage by getting more numbers to the contest, if you have less skill you can break even by getting more numbers to the ball and if you have superior skill you need to at least get even numbers to the ball to have that skill advantage work. Regardless you win by getting as much skill to the ball as possible, whether thats more players or more an even amount of more skilful players or both.

So to get coaches to stop playing like this you need to make the numbers game less effective.

Getting rid of interchange does that. Not reduced rotation but just subs for injury or tactically changes, not for rest and return.

Now if this happens team will have 3 options.

1. Change your game plan to one that involves running less and therefore getting to less contests and allows more onfield rest. eg more positional play.

2. Try to play a similar way to now and have your team gas 15mins into the 1st quarter and be terrible from there.

3. Recruit only middle distance runners and continue the same gameplan as now, this would mean you wouldn't be able to play guys lke Danger, Dusty, Rance or Fyfe as they simple couldn't keep up without rest. There are probably only 5-6 players in the AFL now that could keep up, the rest of your side would have to be from other sports.

Now all 3 of these options make the current gamelans less effective and therefore would encourage coaches to stop using it and while options 2 and 3 might by tried they aren't going to be effective imo and they are going be far easier to beat with option 1 than teams using congestion are now.

It wont just evolve by itself, as there's no need to evolve away from the most effective method, the same way the Great White hasn't changed in 300mil years. there's no need to and what it does works.

 

[legend166]

Since we're all throwing in ideas, here's what I'd do:

1. Definitely agree with severely tightening up interchanges. I'd be happy with 40 a quarter to start with, then see how it goes and drop it to 20 if necessary.

2. Something probably should change with regards to throw-ins. Last touch might be too drastic. One that's out of left field - what if it's the last touch rule but instead of the punishment being a free kick, you don't get to compete in the ruck at the throw in? Also, if you take possession with prior opportunity and then get tackled out of bounds, that should be holding the ball. This one always annoys the crap out of me.

3. Speaking of prior opportunity, it needs to be umpired much, much more harshly. The responsibility should be on the player with the ball to dispose of it. A tackler shouldn't have to complete a perfect tackle to win holding the ball.

 

[Freoforever86]

Yes its completely random that Melbourne is generally than colder Perth every day of the year

Weather in Melbourne. Rains in Perth too mate. I sat in the wet weather plenty of times last year, still worth the bonus point

 

[yeah_nah_yeah]

No no no.

How about we actually correctly police the rules we already have like incorrect disposals being a free kick against.
We can facilitate this by getting rid of that horrible crutch the umpires rely on to avoid stopping the game because the stupid AFL wants the game to have "continuous flow".

Guy get tackled & drops the ball, umpire says "knocked free in the tackle".
Wrong, there are only 3 possibilities, kick, handpass or incorrect disposal.

Bang, congestion fixed.

Agree with this.
It was always, "how did he get rid of the ball ump" free kick paid for incorrect disposal. Now it is "Knocked free in the tackle". Ok so he was tackled and the ball came free....therefore it must be incorrect disposal...surely!

100% frustrating when you see the ball knocked free 4 times in tackles (after clean possession) and then it finally dribbles to another player who kicks a goal. Very scrappy and resembles rugby...yuk.

 

[BEaston]

No no no.

How about we actually correctly police the rules we already have like incorrect disposals being a free kick against.
We can facilitate this by getting rid of that horrible crutch the umpires rely on to avoid stopping the game because the stupid AFL wants the game to have "continuous flow".

Guy get tackled & drops the ball, umpire says "knocked free in the tackle".
Wrong, there are only 3 possibilities, kick, handpass or incorrect disposal.

Bang, congestion fixed.

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.

Massively agree with these posts. We need to start paying incorrect disposal for effective tackles. I'm not sure when all this bs crept into the rules about "knocked out in the tackle" or "knocked off balance", etc etc. It's rubbish. If the player has prior and does not dispose of the ball correctly it is holding the ball or incorrect disposal.

On the theories put forward by the OP. I'm hesitant to change interchange rules because I think there's every chance it has the opposite effect. I think we'll see more endurance/less skilled players in the game in an effort to continue the same tactics, which won't change congestion and we'll also see poorer skills due to fatigue which will worsen congestion.
The last touch rule I could be open to but I think it would need very clear definitions on it. Generally though I think it is too much of a change and would rather see natual evolution rather than significant rule changes.
If there is one area where change could be made it's around the 3rd man up rule. It was stupid to ban the 3rd man up rule to begin with as it was one of the few legit tactics teams employed to clear congestion in itself, and secondly it's now made the time to restart from a ballup/throw in absolutely ridiculous with the idiotic nomination process. If they want to keep the ban on the 3rd man up, it's pretty *en simple. Just pay a free kick if the opposing team has more than one person contest it. It's not *en rocket surgery. Get rid of the nomination process and ball it up straight away. If two people from one team contest it, free kick.

 

[Dez!]

Agree. It should be zero. Only players with the blood rule or injured should go off, and only blood rule players can return. I also agree with 16 players per side

You should be fired out of a cannon into the ocean.

 

[Obeanie1]

Yes its completely random that Melbourne is generally than colder Perth every day of the year

It was raining in Brisbane and both teams nearly kicked 100 points

 

[Coasters7]

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.

Could possibly go down the path of having both teams nominate two players to ruck before the game and anyone that isn’t these two gets a free kick against. If neither are at the contest then no one goes up from that team. Would reduce a bit of tactical flexibility for coaches being able to switch up rucks during the game but I’m not sure what else would work.

 

[Cincinnatus]

Could possibly go down the path of having both teams nominate two players to ruck before the game and anyone that isn’t these two gets a free kick against. If neither are at the contest then no one goes up from that team. Would reduce a bit of tactical flexibility for coaches being able to switch up rucks during the game but I’m not sure what else would work.

Could be a bit extreme i reckon and might devalue the role of the ruckmen. I think it should remain integral.

I reckon the players should know who is going up from their side. Just get rid of nominations. If an ump sees 2 go up from same time, free kick against. Players should be smart and prepared enough to work it out between themselves who goes up.

Adelaide should know if Sauce is there he goes. Otherwise if Jenkins is there he goes. After that, during the week there might be a reserve from each area of the ground jn the rare event your 2 rucks arent there. Shouldnt be too hard with a bit of foresight.

 

[javaguice]

You need to encourage coaches or even a coach to try a gameplan that involves more positional play. By positional play i dont mean the 6-6-6 stuff from the past i juts mean keep 3-4 guys forward and back who are more than a kick from the ball, so instead of 18 guys per team around the ball you have 12-13, but more importantly they'll have someone to kick to when they get space and the game will flow better.

Coaches use the numbers game or congerstion because it works, its by far the most effective way to win games and positional play just cant compete with it.


So why does congestion work ? Well its because if you have a relatively equal amount of skill then you can get an advantage by getting more numbers to the contest, if you have less skill you can break even by getting more numbers to the ball and if you have superior skill you need to at least get even numbers to the ball to have that skill advantage work. Regardless you win by getting as much skill to the ball as possible, whether thats more players or more an even amount of more skilful players or both.

So to get coaches to stop playing like this you need to make the numbers game less effective.

Getting rid of interchange does that. Not reduced rotation but just subs for injury or tactically changes, not for rest and return.

Now if this happens team will have 3 options.

1. Change your game plan to one that involves running less and therefore getting to less contests and allows more onfield rest. eg more positional play.

2. Try to play a similar way to now and have your team gas 15mins into the 1st quarter and be terrible from there.

3. Recruit only middle distance runners and continue the same gameplan as now, this would mean you wouldn't be able to play guys lke Danger, Dusty, Rance or Fyfe as they simple couldn't keep up without rest. There are probably only 5-6 players in the AFL now that could keep up, the rest of your side would have to be from other sports.

Now all 3 of these options make the current gamelans less effective and therefore would encourage coaches to stop using it and while options 2 and 3 might by tried they aren't going to be effective imo and they are going be far easier to beat with option 1 than teams using congestion are now.

It wont just evolve by itself, as there's no need to evolve away from the most effective method, the same way the Great White hasn't changed in 300mil years. there's no need to and what it does works.

I like it.

 

[Juddernaut08]

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

Or, just nominate 2 players from each team who are allowed to contest the ruck. Ruck 1 is your main ruck. Ruck 2 is your backup/pinch hitter who can only contest if Ruck 1 is not within 15m of the ball up/bounce/throw-in spot.

Method 1 (allowing 3rd man up) works too, but the whole reason the dumb nominate rule was brought in was to preserve the need for ruckmen.

Method 2 (nominate 2 ruckmen every game) works to ensure ruckman are vital. If they be too slow to get to the contest, tough luck.

 

[HairyO]

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

And enforce 'dropping/holding the ball'.

Game fixed.

Done.

Lets move on !

 

[dave123]

Leave the game alone

What we have done is diluted the talent too much ,..18 teams means we have ten to 12 average teams ...meanining average games

We have maybe 6 good teams ,,,,they will produce good games

By having expansion we have produced crap footy

 

[Damon_3388]

I've never understood the logic behind the theory that more fatigued players will forgoe the current gameplan and defensive responsibilities, and play more attacking, skillful, high-scoring football when tired.

Can someone explain it to me?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

3. Speaking of prior opportunity, it needs to be umpired much, much more harshly. The responsibility should be on the player with the ball to dispose of it. A tackler shouldn't have to complete a perfect tackle to win holding the ball.

They made a big deal about letting everyone know that if you try to fend off a tackler, that is considered prior opportunity, but I've seen quite a few players lately put up an arm bar in the tackle and get caught, yet umpire throws it up because they had no prior.
I also think the tackler should be rewarded when they tackle a player with the ball and they go to kick it but get fresh air. Most of the time they call play on and say he made a genuine attempt. A genuine attempt is not a correct disposal, it's dropping the ball.
And lastly, when players just deliberately let go of the ball when they are tackled.
All of these things create rolling mauls in congestion. Pay a free and the congestion clears.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Went with OP is an idiot.

Anyone else who agreed that 32 interchanges a game is a good idea is also a massive idiot.

Why

 

[Ian Dunross]

Went with OP is an idiot.

Anyone else who agreed that 32 interchanges a game is a good idea is also a massive idiot.

Why

 

[Dez!]

Why

Running players into the ground is needlessly stupid and that's what 32 interchanges will do.