Stoppages and congestion?

[Tigers of Old]

Topical discussion.
Friday night's game against the Blues was not only an ugly win, it was an ugly game to watch.
I commented a number of times to the people I attended the game with that the entire field was empty and there were regularly 36 players within 40m of the football. I see this every week in the modern game.

Alex Rance (our 'fullback') was at half forward standing Henderson as the scrum in front of him unfolded in the forward pocket!
This is not how Australian Rules was designed to be played. It's gotten entirely out of control and stoppages are now dominating the sport.
Traditional positions are completely irrelevant and we have swarming players chasing the pill with ease like under 9s at Auskick for 120 minutes..

PREnders are a smart bunch. Stoppages are at an all time high and scoring is lower than its been for years.

What are some solutions to the problems facing Australian Rules Football as a spectacle or do we just do as some suggest and expect the game to just evolve again?

Discuss.

 

[Stylo]

Well, the obvious solution is to reduce the interchange cap. Make it harder for players to get from stoppage to stoppage.

KB wants the interchange done away with completely. Not as batshit crazy as it sounds IMO.

 

[ninjahaha]

what about an interchange points system?

Something like

Player as per match line ups get #points=#of interchange...
Or double it or more if more conservative

the follwers

1x ruck gets 3 per match
1x RR 3
2x R 2


2x C 2
2x wings 2


FWD or apposing Back

1x CHFwd gets 2 per match
2x CHFwd flanks 2
1x FFwd 1
2x Pocket 2
2x Cx2

Bench
3x2

1xsub

 

[Tigers of Old]

I also lean toward reducing the number of interchanges and think KB is on the right track..
However coupled with this I think the modern trend of coaches forcing the ball to the boundary to force the stoppage & reduce risk is killing the sport.
Merely reducing/capping the IC bench won't stop this tactic.
Rather than zones, I'd be leaning towards a rule change where the last team to touch the ball out of bounds gives away a free kick.
This rule was trialled a few years ago in the NAB cup and think it could be looked at again.
The idea of it is that players look to keep the ball in play rather than force the ball out of play and force the stoppage which slows the play down and allows teams to swarm around the ball.
It's only one step removed from deliberate OOB or OOTF so shouldn't change things too much like zoning would.
Yes at times it would be hard to officiate but I think we'd see more scoring and it would lead to a more positive approach if the ball remained in play as much as possible.

 

[Chimptastic]

Rule change --> Restrict opportunities to setup: Strict interpretation of deliberate OOB.

It's also interesting to consider no rule change; ie. Natural evolution of the game. I suspect the current trend may actually be the end-point evolution of the modern day game.

Once you start playing 36 players within a rolling 1-kick radius of the ball, it doesn't make any sense to ever take your player away from a dangerous part of the ground and place him in a non-dangerous part of the ground. It's about utilising 100% of your resources to combat an opposition utilising 100% of his resources. For example, in our situation we have Alex Rance, a handsome man with God-like double teaming ability... yet even we are reluctant to setup with even 1 player more than a 1-kick radius from the ball. We utilise 100% of our resources at Contest 1 or positioned for Contest 2 (one kick behind play).

Therefore, any solution that doesn't require a rule change must accept 36 players within a 1-kick radius of the ball, or require a team to fear Contest 3.

But higher fitness levels = less fear of Contest 3.

This leaves clever player positioning as the only possible solution under the banner of 'natural evolution of the game'. Due to the current explosion of coaching resources, the future of the game could evolve to employ highly technical, NFL-like precision within that 1-kick radius. That would work by forcing teams to concede Contest 2 and position someone in anticipation of Contest 3 (two kicks behind play). But with a highly unrestrictive game such as Aussie Rules, anything is possible really.

That's as far as I can get with this problem without evoking a rule change.

 

[ninjahaha]

add on...


No third man up in ruck contest. Nominated Ruck's(prior to bounce/ball up) only

4 players (each side) within 30 metres circumference, ball up

theoretical Line from free kick/mark, ball must go 15 metres fwd to pay next mark

last touch over boundry free kick against.

after the initial tackle (can be multiple at that contest) , no more players permitted to tackle those involved post initial tackle.

Stricter interp on holding/dropping the ball- incorrect disposal

Backs n FWDs not allowed into the 50 up the other end. Free kick penalty. Can nominate change from that position after a goal.

Tug on a jumper: free kick, 1 week suspension include in match review (the crowley Rule)

 

[23.21.159]

This is really killing the game. Players are just too fit and/or they can cover too much ground.
KB is on the money. Interchange needs to be seriously curtailed.
But I don't like capping interchange - just get rid of it or reduce it. Maybe to 2 and 2.
Don't like zones either. Lack of zoning type rules is one of the best things about Aussie Rules.
I also like the free kick for out of bounds rule but maybe they should limit it to untouched kicks being a free kick even if they bounce on the way out ... as it is now for a kick out from a point.

 

[joegarra]

Any rule change has to be simple to officiate, so my ideas are,
1. Reduce interchange to say 15 per quarter
2. Ban water boys
3, penalise third player who gets involved in a tackle
4. Call a ball up quicker

I don't like zones as it will require more officials to watch the game, and i don't like paying a free against the last player to touch the ball out of bounds as smart forwards will knock the ball onto opponents legs to win a free kick.

 

[tigertime2]

15 players on the ground 5 forward 5 back and 5 midfield. 8 on bench 4 subs one allowed each quarter max.

 

[Harry]

our man hardwick is one of the main culprits.

reducing the interchange will only create a slower rolling scrum, and teams will be looking for the boundary more to conserve energy.

free kick for out of bounds will only lead to players shepherding the ball out which was shown when it was tried in the NAB cup.

the rules and the umpires need to quicken the game up to reduce the time teams have to set up their defensive structures

- umpires need to throw the ball up much quicker at stoppages
- umpires need to pay holding the ball more
- kick backwards should not be paid a mark
- umpires should call play on quicker after a mark unless kicking for goal
- a mark should be paid when the kick travels 20m or more
- pay deliberate out of bounds when players are obviously looking for the boundary by paddling it over and not making an attempt to keep it in.

In saying all this, we will be one one the teams most disadvantaged with the above.

 

[Tiger Rob]

I think it was Leigh Matthews who had the idea of something along the lines of x number of players have to be in the defensive 50 at all times. Cant recall the exact details.

In principle I like the idea, in practice it would be hard to get right, but if you had to have 3 forwards and 3 back in your respective offensive/defensive 50 it would unclog much of the ground. Strategically you'd have to have half forwards hanging around the middle when the ball is in your defensive 50 so that if a forward led up, a half forward would enter the 50 to provide the third minimum player. Vice versa for backs. Effectively you'd have players all over much of the ground at all times to provide coverage for both ends. Would be terribly hard to police and I can see it being a total balls up, but perhaps you guys can come up with a workable rule to make it work?

 

[davidc0055]

I know it's probably not the preferred option for many, but simply reducing the number of players on the field would be the easiest way to reduce congestion. 16 per side, as the old VFA used to be, creates a lot more space. AFL coaches often use that number in practice games where the focus is on fitness rather than contests.

If it came down to a choice between zones and reduced player numbers, I'd favour the latter.

 

[TigerMasochist]

I know it's probably not the preferred option for many, but simply reducing the number of players on the field would be the easiest way to reduce congestion. 16 per side, as the old VFA used to be, creates a lot more space. AFL coaches often use that number in practice games where the focus is on fitness rather than contests.

If it came down to a choice between zones and reduced player numbers, I'd favour the latter.

Yep.
Superior burst running nowadays compared to the old fashioned marathon shuffling run from yesteryear, combined with massive rotations means we now get rolling mauls all game long. Either reduce the amount of players on field, to create gaps that can be exploited by players or reduce the rotations so simple tiredness opens the game up.
Having umpires adjudicate to the rules correctly might also help reduce congestion, as players simply letting the ball fall or passing the ball back as in union instead of disposing legally would result in a few free kicks. Or stopping tacklers mauling players who don't have possession, might also open play up a little.

 

[Tiger Pops]

No more Sub, reduce the interchange to 80.... and then possibly 60. Pace yourself and be more inclined to stay in the one area rather than the 36 up and down running.


I'd also like to see to see 2-3 defenders push up and their forwards not follow them. Granted they would have a numerical advantage up the ground but what if they don't win the ball, and all of a sudden you have 3 forwards with no opposition.

 

[tigersnake]

Adding 2 extra players to the bench is the root cause IMO. Thanks Sheeds

Why not just go back to 2 on the bench? Its un=messing with the game rather than messing with the game. If you've got 2 injured players thats just how it is.

another idea, the 6 fwds/ backs can't go into the opposite 50 arc for stoppages, and its their business to make sure they're out at ball ups/ throw ins, free paid if they aren't. Thats a minimal zone model that might work. Dunno what I really think about it

 

[Cotchin_4_brownlow]

Put bibs on every player and make them play within their assigned zones like netball... :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

 

[Tigers of Old]

Adding 2 extra players to the bench is the root cause IMO. Thanks Sheeds

Why not just go back to 2 on the bench? Its un=messing with the game rather than messing with the game. If you've got 2 injured players thats just how it is.

I think this definitely has merit Snake.
Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. The game survived 100+ years with that structure BS (before Sheedy)

 

[tigersnake]

It would also part help the dilution of the talent pool from the expansion clubs, take 36 players out

 

[TOT70]

Actually pay free kicks for holding the ball or illegal disposal instead of allowing players to let the ball fall clear; remove this prior opportunity nonsense which encourages a player who knows he has not had prior opportunity to fall to the ground with the ball and force a stoppage; put the onus on a player who is tackled to dispose of the ball immediately, not after he finds a suitable target, unless he can't because it is pinned in; penalise a player who runs in stacks on the mill style and jumps on top when players are lying on the ball; ban tackles in which the tackler grabs an arm to prevent the handpass but don't give the player time to execute a handpass to advantage, force him to dispose straightaway when tackled.

Ban coaches. They try to win games by shutting down contests.

Failing that, instruct the umpires to refuse to ball it up until everyone goes back to his position, like they do in Under 10s.

 

[mld]

Put bibs on every player and make them play within their assigned zones like netball... :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

I know this is said as a joke but...

Many of the proposed rule changes sound good in theory, but I have zero confidence that coaches won't find a way to game them and make the game even more unwatchable. Perhaps it really does have to be a case of rules directly preventing players from running into certain areas.