WTF!? - AFL wants to reduce "excessive tackling"

[D-N-R]

There was plenty of congestion when they allowed 3rd man up in rucks. Congestion / flooding has been in vogue since the very early 2000s. Not sure why people think there is some correlation between the two.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I've found the answer...

Just watched a bloke from Richmond tackle a Port guy and the commentators were lauding his pressure. It caused a turnover and Richmond went inside 50.

On the replay however, the tackle came after he disposed of the ball.

It was 'holding the man' clearly.

I'd bet if they start pinging guys for laying tackles late, they wouldn't quite commit to the tackle as much. Hence reducing the amoubt being laid.

I just saw a Port guy do it too whilst typing this.

 

[p5ych00n5]

He'd lose his s**t if he ever attended a Union or League game where one player can smash twice the tackle count of both teams combined

 

[Professor Knowall]

He'd lose his s**t if he ever attended a Union or League game where one player can smash twice the tackle count of both teams combined

... and both these codes are comparatively crap to watch - as Tom Wills (who played rugby at Rugby School) famously said "not a suitable dame for grown men". Our code has (or at least had) far more skills and spectacular moments than the tedious tackle infested rugby codes.

 

[p5ych00n5]

... and both these codes are comparatively crap to watch - as Tom Wills (who played rugby at Rugby School) famously said "not a suitable dame for grown men". Our code has (or at least had) far more skills and spectacular moments than the tedious tackle infested rugby codes.

You do bring up some pertinent points, I raised the Rugby of either code to show the apparent disparaging difference between the three most physical sport codes without protection required. AFL now can be considered not as a whole but game by game as a somewhat rolling maul, so I can sort of see where they're heading. But to dull one of the main weapons of a player seems a bit disingenuous

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Just wait. Hocking will check and see that the Tigers handball a lot and Geelong don't.

"We don't see handball as a thing we want to promote. In particular we see the forward handball as a blight on the game and consider if anyone could keep up with it it would lead to congestion. We are looking at ways to curb this menace".

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Can someone point me in the right direction to find the fans survey who called for a more free flowing game? Since when do Football supporters care what it looks like, don’t you just want your team to win?
If they hadn’t of started fiddling with the rules 25 years ago we would not be in this situation.
The game was fine 25 years ago, no one discussed rule changes required, the look of the game etc. all that was discussed was did your team win or lose and who played well.

You're right but the game has fundamentally changed in that time with floods, presses, zoning etc

Stay at home forwards, 100 goal seasons, 10+ goal games all barely happen anymore. The spearhead full forward used to be a staple of the game now they barely exist.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Spot on - also the amount of so-called tackles where a player piles on to the back of a player with the ball at full pace, driving him head forward that once would have have been paid as in the back, but is now just let go. The interpretation of a legal tackle has become far too slack.

That's because players drop to their knees and dive forward as soon as they feel contact. I agree the ball player should be rewarded but it's harder on the tacklers these days with the diving, ducking, dropping the knees and shrugging the shoulders.

 

[Balance]

Reduced interchange would reduce tackles. More fatigue would mean more missed tackles and less intent to tackle.

Just make the players run on a treadmill for 30mins before the game, even more fatigue.

 

[Balance]

I mean why not, game's already ****ed. Won't make a difference.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You're right but the game has fundamentally changed in that time with floods, presses, zoning etc

Stay at home forwards, 100 goal seasons, 10+ goal games all barely happen anymore. The spearhead full forward used to be a staple of the game now they barely exist.

The big change has been rule changes and interpretation of rules changes. All the coaching tactics I could not care less about, I also have never cared how the game looks. I cared about whether my team won or lost and that’s all.
Having a beer with my mates after a game I never ever heard any comments about how many interchanges there were, or how often a runner went on the field. Those are just social media issues that are irrelevant.
I love how the players and the coaches have evolved, it is real evolution with them. The game has had manufactured evolution because of rule changes. And none of them were required.

 

[Hoops]

No posts from scats supporters I see

If you think Geelong fans have some unquestioning alliegence to Steve Hocking because he played and administered at the club then you're wrong

 

[Monkey King]

I'd vote we reduce excessive Steve Hocking tbh. He's too much of "a feature" of the game right now.

Plus a thousand more likes.

 

[Mercy Seat]

The bottom line is, the AFL is desperate for more goals each game so Chanel 7 can sell more spots to advertisers and therefore pay a lot more in television rights.

They’re gonna do whatever it takes and if reducing tackles is gonna help, that’s what will happen.

 

[shaqsuns]

The three biggest issues that needed to be address years ago as congestion was starting to be a thing is the interchange, holding the ball rule and any rule where the umpire has to interpret what the the player was intending to do.

1) We played this game for about 130 to 140 years without ever using it with part time footballers and guess what, no congestive mauls.....

2) Holding the ball has more people confused then not, they just need to make it a simple rule to keep the game moving. Once the ball has been incorrectly disposed of its a free kick, simple. (Dropping the ball as the old folks say)
Not let the ball spill out then another three players jump on the ball and then it spills out again and then another 5 players jump on the ball, whilst the other players get closer and closer to the contest so the ball has no chance of moving.

3) Just make both the rush behind and out of bounds the same rule or don’t enforce silly interpretations that no one understands




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The bottom line is, the AFL is desperate for more goals each game so Chanel 7 can sell more spots to advertisers and therefore pay a lot more in television rights.

They’re gonna do whatever it takes and if reducing tackles is gonna help, that’s what will happen.

I would much prefer the AFL say to the broadcasters, this is the product, we run it and it is what it is. Now how much will you give us to broadcast it as it is and you will have no say in how it’s run.

 

[Catsace]

Maybe if you'd tackled Brereton we'd have won the '89 premiership you useless campaigner SHocking.

Maybe, HHH if they paid 'man in front' then the Hawks might not have had Brereton's first inspirational goal. Still a bit flummoxed about how Steve was in front yet a non-jumping Dermie managed to get the footy over his outstretched hands from behind.