Which of these rule changes would you favor to deal with congestion?

Which -if any- of these changes do you support to reduce congestion?

  • Reduce players on the ground to 16

  • Reduced number of interchanges per game

  • Starting positions at each stoppage

  • Larger goalsquare to kick out from

  • Last touch boundary free kick rule

  • Zero interchanges, substitutes only

  • Reinstatement of Third Man Up

  • Crackdown on illegal disposal in tackles


Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

Aug 27, 2015
28,016
86,990
🅱️🅰️🥇1️⃣3️⃣
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
🇦🇺
As per the poll, these are some of the measures being discussed by the AFL media as possibilities for next year.

Which ones strike you as good ideas? Also please free to add any alternative solutions I may have missed.
 
The coaches set up their game style to best play the game, to their advantage, within the rules. So no matter what new rule or rule change that is made, the coaches will set their style. My view is to get back to basics, the original rules worked fine for decades, get the umpires to enforce them!
 
I do feel he most effective is giving the afl the license to sack club coaches if they’re ruining 5he game
But let’s be realistic

Let’s just stick to bringing back 3rd man up, last disposal rule and reducing interchanges.
If it’s still an issue then bring in zones at all stoppages (centre ball ups is basically a waste atm)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Just reward tackles, holding the ball or incorrect disposals, like they're suppose to, & we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Leave the game alone FFS.

All these problems we supposedly need to address are due to changing the rules of interpretation to begin with.....Idiots.
 
Get rid of the ridiculous nominate a ruck rule which gives teams extra time to gather around the stoppage, throw the ball up/in ASAP.

Crackdown on incorrect disposal, it continually shits me how the ball spills out of the tackle:rolleyes:, no doubt in my mind that teams train the art of spilling the ball to their teams advantage. If the ball spills out after you have taken possession with prior or not it should be HTB. If you keep possession and have not had prior, ball up.
 
They have to reward the tackler more than they do.No wonder players are getting their head slammed in the ground.The umpire currently watches the tackle, with the whistle on his lips, counts to 3, then calls play on most times.If you go back to the 60's, the tackler was rewarded instantly and it opened up the game more.The current rule makes the game like rugby at times.
 
They have to reward the tackler more than they do.No wonder players are getting their head slammed in the ground.The umpire currently watches the tackle, with the whistle on his lips, counts to 3, then calls play on most times.If you go back to the 60's, the tackler was rewarded instantly and it opened up the game more.The current rule makes the game like rugby at times.

If you tackle a bloke who has possession & the ball spills free, then that's incorrect disposal/ dropping the ball, every day of the week.

The game is fine if the rules that are there are properly implemented.....What's required is a straight shooter In charge of umpiring, to keep it simple & return to the fundamental basics of our game.....Get rid of this bullshit interpretation crap.....The crowd know when it's dropping the ball or holding the ball, or incorrect disposal....and it's time the bleeding umpires did too.
 
Allow select players to carry a knife in their socks and only let them take them out when there is more than 4 players in a contest.

By only allowing some players to carry, it then forces you to make a decision before heading into that already congested situation.

Is he carrying or not, do I risk it or not?
 
Interchange is the main one for me as it was a mistake they not fixed. Whether it is just substitutes for whole 4 spots, return it to 2 on bench or simply make it maximum 30 or 40 for match, I not fussed so voted for both those options.


But the other main thing that you missed was other side of coin to this poll option you have...
'Crackdown on illegal disposal in tackles".
They equally got to crackdown on tackles above shoulders and anywhere below knees. If you do not clearly tackle towards waist area there should be no benefit of doubt and viewed as incorrect tackle method and paid free kick against to reward the guy going for ball more than guy second to ball jumping on him. We tighten up both sides of this and makes a huge difference. If umpires blow whilst more often for sloppy tackles we actually encourage players to go for ball more to dispose off as they will know they got some protection as they once did. At the moment though it has encouraged the tackling side of game to get the benefit which only increases players not doing it correctly and just jumping on guy with ball. I often see guys with arm over shoulder and not penalised which causes so much more congestion. If they pay more frees for sloppy tackles, just as much for incorrect disposal we reward getting ball more and disposing of ball more and discourage the gang tackling mentality the has grown in last 15 years in a big way due to way umpires have been told to umpire. If you look at video footages from before 1990's you clearly see an emphasis on umpires keeping ball in motion and discouraging gang tackling and congestion. They actually blew whilste more quickly once a few players were congesting the ball in any type of gang tacking approach. They also bounced or threw it up quickly soon after to get it moving again. Once the players realise that gang tackling to tie ball up in an area is not going to be so rewarded they will be encourage both to get ball, move it on with correct disposal and know no point doing sloppy tackles as they guy going for ball will rightly be favoured again.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Back
Top