Rules What if a time limit was brought in to the rules like Basketball on possession? Stop watch minute initiated from taking a point.Shots at goal excluded

[Rob]

Interesting. In the old days they kicked to a contest and kicked more goals

They also wore woollen jumpers. Maybe we should change back to those to increase scoring?

Seriously, if teams were forced to consistently kick to contests, they'd set up more behind the play to prevent turnover goals, meaning larger imbalance numbers forward. Scoring would be a lot harder and scoring from turnovers would be a lot harder.

All IMO of course. If kicking to contests increased your chances of scoring a goal then clubs would do it more often.

 

[Kwality]

Interesting. In the old days they kicked to a contest and kicked more goals

& played by 18, not 22 interchanged ...

 

[Mr Magic]

They also wore woollen jumpers. Maybe we should change back to those to increase scoring?

Seriously, if teams were forced to consistently kick to contests, they'd set up more behind the play to prevent turnover goals, meaning larger imbalance numbers forward. Scoring would be a lot harder and scoring from turnovers would be a lot harder.

All IMO of course. If kicking to contests increased your chances of scoring a goal then clubs would do it more often.

I don't agree with that philosophy on face value.

I think they do not kick to contests because these days they can find link players not in contest to move it from one end to the other and go lateral chewing up time to do so.

It is interesting because kicking to a contest could mean the ball coming back. That would be a bigger issue for defences. It would be interesting if someone analysed play in the 1970's and 80's how many goals occurred from turnovers from contests shortly after leaving a teams defence. This does not happen as much these days with the stand rule

 

[Rob]

I don't agree with that philosophy on face value.

I think they do not kick to contests because these days they can find link players not in contest to move it from one end to the other and go lateral chewing up time to do so.

It is interesting because kicking to a contest could mean the ball coming back. That would be a bigger issue for defences. It would be interesting if someone analysed play in the 1970's and 80's how many goals occurred from turnovers from contests shortly after leaving a teams defence. This does not happen as much these days with the stand rule

It doesn't happen much these days because players are a hell of a lot fitter and can get back en masse much quicker. There were blokes that never left the forward or defensive 50 - nowadays if you play like that your opponent would get leather poisoning.

 

[PumpyChowdown]

No. No. No.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Basketball (talking NBA) has a lot of things it needs to fix, but it's practically hypnotised the entire planet into believing it's the holy grail of modern sport and can do no wrong. Having so many incredibly gifted athletes and marketable identities will easily mask questionable situations like multiple times out late in games, draft night trades and a bloated fixture.

 

[Juddernaut08]

turd

 

[AndyD]

Unbelievably impractical and illogical suggestion and one that makes me question if the OP has ever seen a game of football before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[maskmcgee]

Not paying a mark for a backwards kick would incentivse forwards to remain in the forward line manning up defenders to stop the switch, spreading out the players on the ground, removing some of the congestion and giving more one on ones.

 

[Mr Magic]

Unbelievably impractical and illogical suggestion and one that makes me question if the OP has ever seen a game of football before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I have.

It would not have affected me but I did not play like the Bulldogs.

Without labelling, why?? I find Bulldogs matches kind of boring

Off field umpires will happen due to pragmatism, and logic as well as efficiency and effectiveness and simply better use of resources

 

[Mr Magic]

Not paying a mark for a backwards kick would incentivse forwards to remain in the forward line manning up defenders to stop the switch, spreading out the players on the ground, removing some of the congestion and giving more one on ones.

They are not in the forward line because of the stand rule. To easy to run the ball out so scores are lower

I think backman should be able to use their skill and brains and go back but not forever so the people can see a football competition and not circle work

I think with such rules if it forced players to kick to space up the ground instead of switching forever it would open the game up, more goals would be kicked and the game would be more entertaining like it used to be

It means less goals because they run the ball out easier, more running because they are covering more space and still less goals because teams park the bus back in the backline.

If the minute ran out with the ball and you saw it on the screen all you would need to do is kick it to a contest before it was in your possession and the buzzer got you or kick it to space so it could bounce without a possession like a player bouncing the ball and your teammate had a advantage with the ball in space along the ground like a chaos ball and your teammate had a good chance to pick it up or force a throw in or ball up..

If a player had a shot for goal and the buzzer went they would have a goal attempt. If your teammate took a uncontested mark the ball would have to be turned over. That way teams would have to defend and attack using the football space far more efficiently rather than running around in groups

 

[Blackhawk42]

Not paying a mark for a backwards kick would incentivse forwards to remain in the forward line manning up defenders to stop the switch, spreading out the players on the ground, removing some of the congestion and giving more one on ones.

Unfortunately nobody considers the negatives whenever this is raised as a suggestion.

You'd have far more bombing to packs under pressure down the line. Once teams realised this is the only way to relieve the pressure from your back end all the numbers will congregate a kick away from the play and result in far more stoppages between the arcs.

 

[JackFlash]

All kicking backward should be called play on even if marked, no great change to a rule, you can still do it, but it's PLAY ON. They frig around with the rules so much they forget about the most obvious..? Stop worrying about the feelings of the Umpires and keep the game flowing, fans hate it when teams play "keepings off" by kicking backward and holding up play. Two rules i would implement: 15 metres for dissent not (50) and Play On for kicking backwards.

 

[AndyD]

Yeah, I have.

It would not have affected me but I did not play like the Bulldogs.

Without labelling, why?? I find Bulldogs matches kind of boring

Off field umpires will happen due to pragmatism, and logic as well as efficiency and effectiveness and simply better use of resources

You use those words like you know what they mean, but in the context of a game of football, it’s clear you have no idea. How is it more efficient or effective for someone to remotely stop the game for free kicks than the current way it’s done? Would players have individual communication devices to hear the call from the remote umpire or would it just be broadcast over the stadium speakers/scoreboard? Either scenario would lead to a much more significant delay in play for every umpiring decision, for little benefit at all. A remote umpire also couldn’t stop the play while they go back frame by frame to confirm if a fk should’ve been paid or not without significantly delaying the game. So it is difficult to comprehend how anybody who has had any sort of exposure to football previously would think this is a good idea.

That also ignores the logical inconsistencies such a clock would lead to. If the team in possession was too far away from being able to score before the time on the clock expired, why would the defending team bother contesting/pressuring the all carrier when they would get the ball at the expiration of the clock?

It would maybe help stop blowouts, as teams may just chip around and let the clock expire in the last qtr of blowouts, but ask Channel 7 how happy they would’ve been if the last qtr last night just had the teams chipping around and turning the ball over after every minute instead of the 11 goals (and ad breaks that go along with that). What you are proposing would very easily lose them money.

 

[Mr Magic]

You use those words like you know what they mean, but in the context of a game of football, it’s clear you have no idea. How is it more efficient or effective for someone to remotely stop the game for free kicks than the current way it’s done? Would players have individual communication devices to hear the call from the remote umpire or would it just be broadcast over the stadium speakers/scoreboard? Either scenario would lead to a much more significant delay in play for every umpiring decision, for little benefit at all. A remote umpire also couldn’t stop the play while they go back frame by frame to confirm if a fk should’ve been paid or not without significantly delaying the game. So it is difficult to comprehend how anybody who has had any sort of exposure to football previously would think this is a good idea.

That also ignores the logical inconsistencies such a clock would lead to. If the team in possession was too far away from being able to score before the time on the clock expired, why would the defending team bother contesting/pressuring the all carrier when they would get the ball at the expiration of the clock?

It would maybe help stop blowouts, as teams may just chip around and let the clock expire in the last qtr of blowouts, but ask Channel 7 how happy they would’ve been if the last qtr last night just had the teams chipping around and turning the ball over after every minute instead of the 11 goals (and ad breaks that go along with that). What you are proposing would very easily lose them money.

Obviously you are caught up in your on mind. The clock could count down from the scoreboard with a buzzer going off in the stadium. There would be little chip kick as they would not have time.

Its efficient and effective if those on the ground umpiring mainly do running and not need to waste time on extra rule interpretations done by others off-field with a big gut if so not needing to bounce and run 15 km. So a part timing can do the off field proficiently and do other jobs allowing multiskilling. Likewise fitness fanatics who can bounce on field would not need a lot of rule instruction. There is no going back frame by frame apart from what already occurs. The remote umpire does not stop anything, how could they from off-field? The on field umpire stops play does after being told and directed along with the audience.


If the defence applied no pressure the attacking team creates space and receives the ball from the ground in space chaos ball style so count down clock only applies once possession starts. So if some one taps ahead, etc... they are no longer in possession and the count down clock restarts when whoever is back in possession. Theoretically someone could tap ahead the length of the field with no activated count down possession clock if their was no defensive pressure and then kick a goal. Like Optus stadium the count down time could flash on the fence around the ground