-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Stoppages and congestion?
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
They make changes and then wind up making more changes to fix the effects of the changes they made. They should have listened to Dennis Pagan years ago when he asked them to let the game evolve to sort itself out. Now we have rules committees so former players can still feel like they're relevant.rosy23 said:
rosy23 said:
I'm with you rosy. I reckon the game was better before the expanded the interchange especially. The was the key tinkering of the game that led to many of the current issues.
Time to tune into The Winners - rebooted on Fox.
Watched the Winners tonight, 1985 Prelim between Hawks and Dogs.
You never see more than about 8 players on the screen at any time. There are pairs of players everywhere, sometimes two or three pairs form a pack. The play is never allowed to stagnate. If the players don't move it on, the Ump gives a free or pays a dodgy mark. Ball ups are called quickly and there is no time for big numbers to congregate.
The more I think about this the more I think that the overuse of the interchange bench has nothing to do with the congestion. It is really simple. Pay a free kick every time a player is caught holding the ball or throws it away and the congestion will clear itself up.
There won't be any opportunity to go to ground and pull others down or for multiple players to tackle each other. Don't change anything, just police all the rules that are already there correctly.
You never see more than about 8 players on the screen at any time. There are pairs of players everywhere, sometimes two or three pairs form a pack. The play is never allowed to stagnate. If the players don't move it on, the Ump gives a free or pays a dodgy mark. Ball ups are called quickly and there is no time for big numbers to congregate.
The more I think about this the more I think that the overuse of the interchange bench has nothing to do with the congestion. It is really simple. Pay a free kick every time a player is caught holding the ball or throws it away and the congestion will clear itself up.
There won't be any opportunity to go to ground and pull others down or for multiple players to tackle each other. Don't change anything, just police all the rules that are already there correctly.
Leave the game alone? Hm... Evolution is not a cycle, it's refinement. The current game is a consequence of natural selection of successful tactics.
Next year, players will be fitter again and we'll be able to sustain a rolling 18 player 1-kick radius game plan for even longer periods of time. If old-fashioned / one on one / traditionally-positioned football led to winning, coaches would position players in their traditional spots. But it doesn't lead to winning. Probably because it's an extremely wasteful use of resources in the professional era with elite fitness.
Why won't the game return to traditional player positioning? Fundamentally, Aussie Rules has always been a game with 36 players and no rules on player positioning, and coaches have figured out that utilising 100% of your resources within 1 kick of the ball is more effective than utilising only 50% of your resources at Contest 1 (contested ball) or Contest 2 (1 kick/handball away) and the other 50% waiting multiple kicks outside of the play. If you think about it, it doesn't make any sense to position 6 of your players on the FF and FB lines when there is a throw-in on the wing (since fitness allows them to 'expand' their influence). It never will make sense to position players far away from the ball in the future unless there is intervention.
I'd prefer 16 players and only 2 on the bench instead of zones. Unlimited interchange, since it would be a farce to officiate, and the reduction of 2 + 2 players should create the desired effect without changing how fans expect the game to look on-field. The modern game can still produce good matches, but if we leave the game alone then this congested method won't go away (for the reasons I've stated previously).
Next year, players will be fitter again and we'll be able to sustain a rolling 18 player 1-kick radius game plan for even longer periods of time. If old-fashioned / one on one / traditionally-positioned football led to winning, coaches would position players in their traditional spots. But it doesn't lead to winning. Probably because it's an extremely wasteful use of resources in the professional era with elite fitness.
Why won't the game return to traditional player positioning? Fundamentally, Aussie Rules has always been a game with 36 players and no rules on player positioning, and coaches have figured out that utilising 100% of your resources within 1 kick of the ball is more effective than utilising only 50% of your resources at Contest 1 (contested ball) or Contest 2 (1 kick/handball away) and the other 50% waiting multiple kicks outside of the play. If you think about it, it doesn't make any sense to position 6 of your players on the FF and FB lines when there is a throw-in on the wing (since fitness allows them to 'expand' their influence). It never will make sense to position players far away from the ball in the future unless there is intervention.
I'd prefer 16 players and only 2 on the bench instead of zones. Unlimited interchange, since it would be a farce to officiate, and the reduction of 2 + 2 players should create the desired effect without changing how fans expect the game to look on-field. The modern game can still produce good matches, but if we leave the game alone then this congested method won't go away (for the reasons I've stated previously).
TOT70 said:
agree. reducing the interchange will have the opposite effect as players would be looking for stoppages and the boundary line to conserve energy. The umps need to ball in up quicker, pay holding the ball, and pay deliberate OOB against players obviously looking for the boundary.
You can get slung for 360 degrees and still have an earl grey before squeezing a handpass out at the moment.
The umps current interpretation is far, far too lenient.
I reckon the coaches get too much scope to whinge, moan and whisper in the umpires ears.
As much as I love campbo, I don't think the umps director should be an ex player. It should be someone who knows to how to keep the game moving.
The umps current interpretation is far, far too lenient.
I reckon the coaches get too much scope to whinge, moan and whisper in the umpires ears.
As much as I love campbo, I don't think the umps director should be an ex player. It should be someone who knows to how to keep the game moving.
if they started playing deliberate out of bounds and incorrect disposal then you reduce more stoppages and if they protect the ball getting and pay the free kick on the players who jump on them there will be also less stoppages. The rules are there to prevent stoppages they just need to use them.
TOT70 said:
agree with all that, except this: 'the interchange bench has nothing to do with the congestion.' The game then had 2 on the bench, ergo interchange did have something to do with it. Agree with the rest.
When did prior opportunity come in? Why did it come in? Was it a reaction to better tackling, tackling and wrestling coaches etc? Or just Gerard Heally's pet project? The paddling the ball is a marked difference.
Glenn Luff from Champion Data was on SEN this afternoon and FWIW he leans towards KBs thinking of perhaps not removing the IC altogether but at least slashing it dramatically.
I'm not sure who's idea it was but I like the idea of 4,6 or even 8, players on a substitutes bench. Say there are 6 then there can 6 substitutes a quarter. Once a player is off during the quarter he remains off for the quarter. The exception being injury, maybe, but even that shouldn't be an issue unless the injury is in th last few mins of a quarter.
6 subs a quarter is a third of the team, in 20 mins of play. One every 3mins 20secs of play. Broken down like that it really does seem to be more than enough changes in a game.
or we can go the other way and when a team loses possesion then can replace the entire onfield team with a defensive team. Win it back, throw the offensive team in. Win a free kick or mark, bring on the designated kicker.
6 subs a quarter is a third of the team, in 20 mins of play. One every 3mins 20secs of play. Broken down like that it really does seem to be more than enough changes in a game.
or we can go the other way and when a team loses possesion then can replace the entire onfield team with a defensive team. Win it back, throw the offensive team in. Win a free kick or mark, bring on the designated kicker.
I genuinely think less kicking to force a stoppage would be a good start. Thats a team directive many clubs adopt but I am not sure how you can police it, teams know it's at least better than 50/50 to get the ball if you clog up that area of the ground and have your sweepers playing predominantly LMD's.
On the whole issue I dont know what is worse, the old kick and hope style of play where you see this sort of tennis like rebound between the arcs unless your fwds are freaks (like the Carey's, Richos, Lowes, Rooeys etc) or this new styled scrum rubbish. Skills are better than ever and they are so much better today than they have ever been without question. So much so that many champions of yesteryear would find it hard to compare.
I think above all the game is like this because the gap between the top and bottom is so huge. Free flowing corridor play would just leave the majority of the competition unable to match the sides with the ilk of the Hawks, Freo, Sydney etc.
This is bang on. Holding the ball and hence the issue of dangerous tackles and congestion could be easily lessened by paying the frees for holding the ball.
On the whole issue I dont know what is worse, the old kick and hope style of play where you see this sort of tennis like rebound between the arcs unless your fwds are freaks (like the Carey's, Richos, Lowes, Rooeys etc) or this new styled scrum rubbish. Skills are better than ever and they are so much better today than they have ever been without question. So much so that many champions of yesteryear would find it hard to compare.
I think above all the game is like this because the gap between the top and bottom is so huge. Free flowing corridor play would just leave the majority of the competition unable to match the sides with the ilk of the Hawks, Freo, Sydney etc.
Carter said:
This is bang on. Holding the ball and hence the issue of dangerous tackles and congestion could be easily lessened by paying the frees for holding the ball.
