Stoppages and congestion?

[poppa x]

I agree congestion is killing the spectacle of footy.
And if you kill the spectacle, the fans will start to lose interest. For example, I left at 3/4 time last week. I'd seen enough and it was putrid to watch.
My suggestion?
Form a panel of recently departed senior AFL coaches and retired players and ask them to come up with rules or intepretaions to reduce the congestion.
If anyone knows how to do this it should be these guys.
We mugs in the outer are entitled to an opinion but we are really just clutching at straws.
My panel member ideas would be Malthouse, Voss, Knights and Ling.

My "mug in the outer" ideas are.....
Cap the interchange at 60.
Interchanges can only be made after a goal is scored.
Have two interchange players and two subs.
Umpires to ball it up at stoppages much quicker. (Time how long they take now - its 3 to 4 seconds. Reduce it to 1-2 seconds).
Each team must have at least two players in each 50 metre arc at all times.
Reduce all runners and water boys to one per team.
The 3rd player to lay on top of the stoppage gets penalised.

 

[TigerMad]

Baby steps.

Deliberate out of bounds by foot only.
Then there is no question about whether it was deliberate.

Would be tempted to have the resulting free kick be taken in line with where the infringement occurred, but further inside field of play.

 

[spook]

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.

I agree with all of that. Pay more frees, more quickly. Pay every throw, every hold. A third man in rule has merit. If a player is tackled and his teammate bear-hugs the tackler, pay holding the man. As does a stricter deliberate interpretation.

Umpires' very reticence to blow the whistle for a ball-up directly leads to rolling mauls and incorrect disposal. Watching the replay of our game against GWS, we won a free inside 50 after Buntine deliberately dropped the ball in the tackle to the advantage of his teammate, and the commentators questioned whether he had prior opportunity!

I do not ever want to see zones in our game. Can you imagine the farcical situation of the ball being a metre outside our 50 and Jack teetering on the line, unable to grab it? Ridiculous.

Interchange should definitely be reduced, perhaps even eliminated. Have subs, but once you're off, you're off. If that doesn't work, look at reducing numbers on the field before ever restricting where players can and cannot go.

I am loathe to change fundamentals. I am a student of the game will heal itself school. It always has so far. Maybe we are at the logical end point of having everyone within kicking distance of the ball. But good teams find a way through it. Smart coaches will work out an advantage to having players further away, especially if interchange restrictions mean they don't have the gas to constantly run into position.

I also think the current concerns are inflated to a degree by media paid to watch multiple games per week. "I wouldn't pay to watch this" is the cry of someone who never does. Most people just want to see their team win, and if that means causing stoppage after stoppage, so be it. The complaints to me smack somewhat of fat cravat-wearing food critics moaning about the consistency of their foie gras while the peasants outside struggle to put boiled spuds on the table.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

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 batsh!t crazy as it sounds IMO.

Of course KB wants the interchange done away with altogether. KB still wants footy to be played the way it was when he was running around in the '70's. Is he also going to take responsibility for players careers ending earlier because their bodies are so beaten down, or the game degenerating into a bunch of guys with skills affected by exhaustion? The pace of the game, which the AFL Rules Committee had a lot to do with, was artificially sped up, because there was a belief that the game moved too slowly, this made the interchange more necessary than before. KB doesn't seem to realise this. I'd like to see him have a good long chat with his old mate Kevin Sheedy, a successful AFL coach, and see what his opinion on getting rid of the interchange is.

 

[TigerForce]

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.

The game's at choking point but let it evolve again, otherwise, to kill stoppages, reduce the tackles by making only 1 player tackle the ball holder. No more piling up to keep the ball dead. If ball holder is still holding the ball while standing up when tackled, the dumpire has to have the nous to call it a free (holding the ball) or not (play on). A bit like touch football, as soon as the ball holder feels a hand on his body (about to be tackled), they have to push the ball on quickly.

 

[tigersnake]

I do not ever want to see zones in our game. Can you imagine the farcical situation of the ball being a metre outside our 50 and Jack teetering on the line, unable to grab it? Ridiculous.

While I'm not necessarily a big supporter of zones, this is a straw man argument. Its scare mongering. As has been proposed, the 6 defenders/ forwards being excluded from their opposite 50 arc for stoppages. Just like the exclusion from the square at centre bounces, which was a rule change.

 

[craig]

No need to bring in stupid zones and new rules the answer to this BS is simple and the most obvious.

15 Interchanges per Quarter will slow the game right down and lead back to one on ones as it was for 100 years.

They bring in zones and that will be it for the game.

OH YEAH AND BRING BACK DROPPING THE BALL !!!!!! This ability for players when tackled to now simply just drop the ball and not get penalised is a joke.

 

[TigerForce]

The MCG is ready for the 2022 season....

The Richmond Football Club helmet in 2022....

 

[spook]

While I'm not necessarily a big supporter of zones, this is a straw man argument. Its scare mongering. As has been proposed, the 6 defenders/ forwards being excluded from their opposite 50 arc for stoppages. Just like the exclusion from the square at centre bounces, which was a rule change.

I still don't like it. It will increase dead time while we wait for players to scamper back to their zones.

No need to bring in stupid zones and new rules the answer to this BS is simple and the most obvious.

15 Interchanges per Quarter will slow the game right down and lead back to one on ones as it was for 100 years.

They bring in zones and that will be it for the game.

OH YEAH AND BRING BACK DROPPING THE BALL !!!!!! This ability for players when tackled to now simply just drop the ball and not get penalised is a joke.

Yes.

Decrease interchanges and penalise players deliberately causing stoppages.

 

[tigersnake]

I still don't like it. It will increase dead time while we wait for players to scamper back to their zones.

Not necessarily, responsibilty on players, ump doesn't wait. Pay a free if 6 and 6 aren't outside, other ump could police it. No more dead time than now. Probably less once its bedded in. You don't have to like it.

 

[tigersnake]

OH YEAH AND BRING BACK DROPPING THE BALL !!!!!! This ability for players when tackled to now simply just drop the ball and not get penalised is a joke.

100% agree

and spooks post about the GWS incident, saw that. amazes me. Its like incorrect disposal doesn't matter much now, when did that happen? They talk about stuffing with the game, what about these weird incremental interpretations of rules? Like incorrect disposal and letting players have a week to get rid of it? It used to be whistle straight away if you didn't get rid of it straight away.

 

[jb03]

A lot of good ideas but really, all suggestions are aligned with KB in trying to bring the game back to some time in the past. We are becoming the old that we despised as youngsters. Young kids of today don't care and follow AFL regardless. Continually changing the rules makes it easier for kids to follow soccer which is a very simple concept of a sport that doesn't really change.

 

[artball]

A lot of food ideas

too much of it and you get stoppages and congestion

 

[jb03]

too much of it and you get stoppages and congestion

Thanks ab. Fixed.

 

[Chimptastic]

A lot of food ideas but really, all suggestions are aligned with KB in trying to bring the game back to some time in the past. We are becoming the old that we despised as youngsters. Young kids of today don't care and follow AFL regardless. Continually changing the rules makes it easier for kids to follow soccer which is a very simple concept of a sport that doesn't really change.

Yep. Although young people are calling for changes too :hihi I don't think it's the changing rules that threaten to turn people off the game, it's the diabolical officiating of the rules. The former is an attempt to solve the latter. No changes would repel a lot of kids to soccer too.

I remember going to games as a kid in the 90's. I'd sit behind the goals and watch Richo roam the F50 when I couldn't see the ball. As a kid, that was enjoyable. Now, I can't see any of the players properly! They're all 200 metres away. Who kicked it? Don't know. Why was a free kick paid? No idea. Multiplied by 100 over the course of the game.

If I don't watch the replay when I get home, I feel like I haven't really seen the match because I missed who did what. That's how congestion erodes enjoyment, anyway.

 

[The Don]

Back in the old days we had 18 players on the field and two subs. I never understood what was wrong with that concept.

Every now and again, maybe once or twice a year, a team finished with 17 fit players on the ground. This interchange and sub business must have been due to some workplace health and safety stuff, I guess.

 

[artball]

Thanks ab. Fixed.

sorry jb03. i couldn't leave it alone..

less 'umpiring', less whistle. some games are like an OHS convention.
2 interchange. 1 sub.

 

[Chimptastic]

sorry jb03. i couldn't leave it alone..

less 'umpiring', less whistle. some games are like an OHS convention.
2 interchange. 1 sub.

That leads to creative ducking and the like to exploit the lack of whistle blowing.

 

[artball]

That leads to creative ducking and the like to exploit the lack of whistle blowing.

very true chimp. the fine line between professional and schoolyard nous - across the board.

 

[jokershoppe]

20 metre circle right around all ball ups similar to centre bounces where only 3 mids and ruck can go in , can make it 3 mids plus ruck if wanted.