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

[nameless]

Love their metrics for determining the success of the new rules is that attendance and TV viewers are up from last year.

Perhaps numbers are up due to not having Carlton on every Friday night like last year? (although they are starting to play better now)
More blockbuster games through Easter and ANZAC weekends.
Teams like Brisbane doing better and being exciting getting more crowds in QLD who may drop off when they are down.
Fremantle, at least initially, performing better so will likely get more crowd.
Perhaps Channel 7 has had better FTA games so natually more people are watching?

Oh no, it's the rules that has done it!

 

[Heisenberg_]

has Steve Hocking added anything positive in his current role?

He’s done the seemingly impossible and united supporters of every team in the absolute disdain they have for him?

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

The AFL should reduce thier excessive drinking.

 

[Grrr]

I've said it before, but if you want to get the game to where it was in the 80s/90s with free flowing 100 goal seasons then you need to force 3 forwards at a minimum into a fwd 70m zone. But only because the way the game has evolved naturally due to exploitation from coaches.

Not a bad idea, but the problem is the AFL don't seem to be capable of making subtle changes. I think even 2 in the 70m would help, be easy for players and umpires to work with, and would keep some of the congestion down. It's a very minor change, as it is very much like the old full forward days with a rover by his side.

 

[rhaz]

If millions of people can sign up to storm area 51, surely we can organise footy supporters to 'strike' from attending and watching footy for a round?

 

[PowerForGood]

I agree with this and have been saying it for a long time. And I know I'm on the unpopular side of this debate.

The increasing professionalism of the game has had its most marked improvement on the defensive actions and tackling most clearly.

No time, no space, gang tackles, benefits of being second to the ball, all detracting from the ball winning and quality disposal aspects of our game.

I think that tackling should be an action solely to stop the opposition player advancing the ball, not for gang tackling with the intent to win a free kick or as an alternative to getting the ball first.

All the advantages should be with the ball winner not the tackler. Holding the ball only in the MOST obvious of circumstances - if you have to guess it isn't HTB. Only one tackler at any time. In the back / high tackle / etc must be paid when it occurs for any tackle even when on the ground. Holding the man paid for any tackle not released once the ball goes loose, especially when on the ground. Incorrect disposal when tackled only for obvious throws only.

Unpopular opinion I know. There is a dislike button now for you all to go your hardest.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Hocking is an absolute dickead.

He is going to single handedly wreck this game

Sent from my SM-A505YN using Tapatalk

Hocking is the fall guy for Gill.

 

[KermitJagger]

I'm sure the surveys and polls they conducted show the common fan agrees with this stance on excessive tackling.

They do, and a the AFL enlisted the help of a third party (also the AFL) to verify that the polling was correct.

 

[Professor Knowall]

I agree with this and have been saying it for a long time. And I know I'm on the unpopular side of this debate.

The increasing professionalism of the game has had its most marked improvement on the defensive actions and tackling most clearly.

No time, no space, gang tackles, benefits of being second to the ball, all detracting from the ball winning and quality disposal aspects of our game.

I think that tackling should be an action solely to stop the opposition player advancing the ball, not for gang tackling with the intent to win a free kick or as an alternative to getting the ball first.

All the advantages should be with the ball winner not the tackler. Holding the ball only in the MOST obvious of circumstances - if you have to guess it isn't HTB. Only one tackler at any time. In the back / high tackle / etc must be paid when it occurs for any tackle even when on the ground. Holding the man paid for any tackle not released once the ball goes loose, especially when on the ground. Incorrect disposal when tackled only for obvious throws only.

Unpopular opinion I know. There is a dislike button now for you all to go your hardest.

Yep - a very unpopular post ... and one I completely agree with. Great post, against the tide.

 

[KermitJagger]

I agree with this and have been saying it for a long time. And I know I'm on the unpopular side of this debate.

The increasing professionalism of the game has had its most marked improvement on the defensive actions and tackling most clearly.

No time, no space, gang tackles, benefits of being second to the ball, all detracting from the ball winning and quality disposal aspects of our game.

I think that tackling should be an action solely to stop the opposition player advancing the ball, not for gang tackling with the intent to win a free kick or as an alternative to getting the ball first.

All the advantages should be with the ball winner not the tackler. Holding the ball only in the MOST obvious of circumstances - if you have to guess it isn't HTB. Only one tackler at any time. In the back / high tackle / etc must be paid when it occurs for any tackle even when on the ground. Holding the man paid for any tackle not released once the ball goes loose, especially when on the ground. Incorrect disposal when tackled only for obvious throws only.

Unpopular opinion I know. There is a dislike button now for you all to go your hardest.

What I don't understand is that the AFL has issues with things related to the congestion of modern day AFL football, but whenever a team or a coach has come up with a strategy to break through congestion and play more freely, they legislate against it.

1. Third man up rule - you made a bet that a third player could impact the ruck, risk and reward. Created free flowing footy.
2. 6/6/6 - coaches who used a spare down back throughout the majority of quarters used them for attacking purposes, it was only ever during red time that they were employed in more defensive ways.
3. Shepherding on the mark - again, it was a risk that you made yourself outnumbered down the ground to back an attacking player to take the game on.

It's ridiculous to want to reduce tackling by artificial means when they've helped create an environment that allows it to thrive.

 

[jatz14]

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

More fatigue would also mean fewer broken tackles, and less bursting into the clear from stoppages.

Allam McConnell from GWS identified in the women's football that they were not getting the benefit when pushing a +1 to the contest, because the women didn't have the same capacity to burst from congestion and then get a clean disposal as the men, so they got dirty ball and another stoppage.

Fatigue the men so they cannot do it either, you get the same effect, scrappy dirty clearances leading to more stoppages.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[00Stinger]

Hocking is the fall guy for Gill.

Both as bad as each other imo

 

[AvantGardener]

Simple, actually give the players the prior opportunity they enjoyed 20-30 odd years ago. Not enough time or risk V reward for players to take the game on and be creative, instead they are forced to give a quick handball to another player who is also under pressure. Give them the chance to step around a bloke before it is deemed prior opportunity. Prior opportunity should be prior opportunity to dispose of in a way that is beneficial to their team, not prior opportunity to do a handball to nowhere.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

I agree with this and have been saying it for a long time. And I know I'm on the unpopular side of this debate.

The increasing professionalism of the game has had its most marked improvement on the defensive actions and tackling most clearly.

No time, no space, gang tackles, benefits of being second to the ball, all detracting from the ball winning and quality disposal aspects of our game.

I think that tackling should be an action solely to stop the opposition player advancing the ball, not for gang tackling with the intent to win a free kick or as an alternative to getting the ball first.

All the advantages should be with the ball winner not the tackler. Holding the ball only in the MOST obvious of circumstances - if you have to guess it isn't HTB. Only one tackler at any time. In the back / high tackle / etc must be paid when it occurs for any tackle even when on the ground. Holding the man paid for any tackle not released once the ball goes loose, especially when on the ground. Incorrect disposal when tackled only for obvious throws only.

Unpopular opinion I know. There is a dislike button now for you all to go your hardest.

I agree but it will be unpopular because all the 'Hard men' on BigFooty (you know, the ones who played the game like Ron Barassi, never shirked a contest or took their eyes off the ball) will come out and say you are turning it into a girls game.

It's so bleeding obvious that the one factor that has made the game like a rugby scrum is unsurprisingly the increase skill and emphasis on tackling.

 

[Gypsy King]

Doesnt matter what the AFL do. Game is unplayable. I commend the players for trying. Once the AFL ruled out sliding or diving on the footy that was all she wrote. Now its just a flawed game to make a decent quid for anyone wanting to subject themselves to it. Half their luck, its hard enough to even watch.

 

[Cold Sober]

How do they get women into the mens game,?
Get rid of the tackling.
There is an agenda.

 

[shaqsuns]

I’m a strong believer that there’s to much tackling in the modern game. Hocking just wants to reduce congestion and one of the biggest factors of congestion is the tackling numbers.

When I was a kid I use to wear Abletts number 5 on my back and follow him from end to end to watch him kick goals, these days kids get to go to the footy to watch Selwood or crouch get 16 tackles a game. I feel sorry the modern generation of football fans.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nameless]

I agree with this and have been saying it for a long time. And I know I'm on the unpopular side of this debate.

So what's the solution then, how do you lower tackles?

Not allowing more than 1 tackler won't work, I've seen people cite rugby as an example of where 'stacks on' is an illegal tactic (I think), but Aussie Rules is very different to rugby in reasons why we tackle. 90% of rugby tackles are head-on and used to stop one player from moving forward.
In Aussie Rules a tackle is designed to not only stop a player moving forward, but to also stop them handballing or kicking. Allowing players an easier way to kick a goal because only 1 person is allowed to tackle them will look farcical.

Reducing interchange won't work, players may be more tired so can't tackle, but other players will be more tired to break tackles. You will just get players trying to slow the game down more by tackling so they can 'have a break' from running.

Being harsher on 'holding the man' or 'tackling without the ball' won't work, you will just get more players staging for frees or feigning to grab the ball in order to lure the tackler and get a free.

The AFL seems to not have learnt from the past AT ALL, the more rules that are introduced the more coaches exploit these rules. It is the Cobra Effect in action and until the suits at AFL house stop trying to justify their roles and their pay cheques by introducing rules every year we will only see the game get worse.

Btw, I respect your opinion, just looking for the solution.

 

[Coops93]

More fatigue would also mean fewer broken tackles, and less bursting into the clear from stoppages.

Allam McConnell from GWS identified in the women's football that they were not getting the benefit when pushing a +1 to the contest, because the women didn't have the same capacity to burst from congestion and then get a clean disposal as the men, so they got dirty ball and another stoppage.

Fatigue the men so they cannot do it either, you get the same effect, scrappy dirty clearances leading to more stoppages.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

They didn't seem to have a problem with it in the past when interchanges were barely used.

Comparing it to the women isn't a good example, they don't have the same power that men do to begin with let alone in congestion and when fatigued.

 

[nineteen eighty]

More goals = more advertising = more revenue from broadcast rights.

It’s a simple proposition for the morally corrupt, arrogant and borderline incompetent AFL administration. That includes the board in addition to the exec.

 

[Superstar swan]

Hocking should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute.. that comment of his was soley directed at the soccer mums.

Game will be unrecogniseable in 20 years

 

[Superstar swan]

Daniel menzel likes this

 

[D-N-R]

A stricter interpretation of htb would do it, as in if you take possession you must dispose of it or it's a free.

This would encourage players to tap the ball to space more rather than pick the ball up and getting wrapped up immediately.

Ruck contests would work better if the ruckman hit the ball to space rather than dropping it at his feet to a pack.

I'll see what Hocking means and does before I'll cast judgement but endless tackling and ball ups as perfected by Paul Roos has made the game unwatchable and congested.

 

[008_]

Relax, it won't happen. But, this is like the 18m goal square idea last year. While you are being distracted by something ridiculous over here, the real agenda is being progressed somewhere else.

 

[PowerForGood]

So what's the solution then, how do you lower tackles?

Not allowing more than 1 tackler won't work, I've seen people cite rugby as an example of where 'stacks on' is an illegal tactic (I think), but Aussie Rules is very different to rugby in reasons why we tackle. 90% of rugby tackles are head-on and used to stop one player from moving forward.
In Aussie Rules a tackle is designed to not only stop a player moving forward, but to also stop them handballing or kicking. Allowing players an easier way to kick a goal because only 1 person is allowed to tackle them will look farcical.

Reducing interchange won't work, players may be more tired so can't tackle, but other players will be more tired to break tackles. You will just get players trying to slow the game down more by tackling so they can 'have a break' from running.

Being harsher on 'holding the man' or 'tackling without the ball' won't work, you will just get more players staging for frees or feigning to grab the ball in order to lure the tackler and get a free.

The AFL seems to not have learnt from the past AT ALL, the more rules that are introduced the more coaches exploit these rules. It is the Cobra Effect in action and until the suits at AFL house stop trying to justify their roles and their pay cheques by introducing rules every year we will only see the game get worse.

Btw, I respect your opinion, just looking for the solution.

Thanks for the considered reply.
To clarify, one tackler should read "one tackler at a time" if that was ambiguous, and doesn't change your response I don't think. I believe there's something to be said about beating a player one on one.
I don't have an opinion on interchange, my playing experience was as a ruckman resting forward, what's an interchange?
I also agree with your point about rule changes and have started threads on the same, how coaches are always going to exploit new rules through defensive actions well before considering attacking strategies.