-
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
Im not an advocate for major rule changes.
But one that has not endeared the game is the sub rule and interchanges.
I would do away with the sub and return to the normal 4 on the bench.
Roations are a contentious issue and many have given their opinion on what the right number should be.
120 ? 80 ? 20 ? or as KB suggested ... none at all !!
Whats the right number ? and who is to say that it could be policed correctly anyway.
I believe we need a major change to the interchange... yet so simple in its application.
I believe interchanges should be limited to only after a goal is scored.
This would immediately increase the main purpose of the game... and that is to score goals.
If coaches want to create more interchanges... then by default they WILL have to produce more goals.
If average goals was increased to 15 per team per game... that's still 120 rotations anyway.
I would also reduce the uncontrolled congestion caused by multiple runners running onto the ground
initiating these rotations and standing around on the ground while the game is unfolding.
What other sport even allows non officiating people to enter the field of play ???
People will say "well what about injuries".
Well the answer to that is simple also. You go one man short until a goal is scored and only then can you initiate your interchanges.
Unfair ? Well that one man short will surely help with reducing that congestion and add that element of skill to the coach to try and score as quickly as possible so interchages can be completed.
You still have the abilty to initiate up to 4 rotations per interchange.... 4 men on 4 men off.
Lets make the game the way it should be played. .. with your best players on the ground most of the game and not continually resting on the pine.
But one that has not endeared the game is the sub rule and interchanges.
I would do away with the sub and return to the normal 4 on the bench.
Roations are a contentious issue and many have given their opinion on what the right number should be.
120 ? 80 ? 20 ? or as KB suggested ... none at all !!
Whats the right number ? and who is to say that it could be policed correctly anyway.
I believe we need a major change to the interchange... yet so simple in its application.
I believe interchanges should be limited to only after a goal is scored.
This would immediately increase the main purpose of the game... and that is to score goals.
If coaches want to create more interchanges... then by default they WILL have to produce more goals.
If average goals was increased to 15 per team per game... that's still 120 rotations anyway.
I would also reduce the uncontrolled congestion caused by multiple runners running onto the ground
initiating these rotations and standing around on the ground while the game is unfolding.
What other sport even allows non officiating people to enter the field of play ???
People will say "well what about injuries".
Well the answer to that is simple also. You go one man short until a goal is scored and only then can you initiate your interchanges.
Unfair ? Well that one man short will surely help with reducing that congestion and add that element of skill to the coach to try and score as quickly as possible so interchages can be completed.
You still have the abilty to initiate up to 4 rotations per interchange.... 4 men on 4 men off.
Lets make the game the way it should be played. .. with your best players on the ground most of the game and not continually resting on the pine.
evo said:
But there is a clause in the preamble that says the rules are set up to make the game continuos and something like free flowing. So all rule changes must not undermine this principle.
if as KB says there is no interchange at all it doesn't allow for minor injuries. I'm not happy with that.
Would hate to see a player like Cotchin have a head cut or a corked leg and be subbed off the park for the remainder of the match.
There needs to be some capacity to interchange players.
Would hate to see a player like Cotchin have a head cut or a corked leg and be subbed off the park for the remainder of the match.
There needs to be some capacity to interchange players.
Interestingly they were saying on SEN this morning that there is a misconception about the zones idea. Its not when there is a stoppage 3-4 players have to run back to their zone. Its that when the umpire bounces the ball if the team doesn't have the requisite number of players in each zone that there will be a free kick, there will be no waiting for players to run back.
I believe interchanges should be limited to only after a goal is scored.
This would immediately increase the main purpose of the game... and that is to score goals.
If coaches want to create more interchanges... then by default they WILL have to produce more goals.
If average goals was increased to 15 per team per game... that's still 120 rotations anyway.
I would also reduce the uncontrolled congestion caused by multiple runners running onto the ground
initiating these rotations and standing around on the ground while the game is unfolding.
this :clap
This would immediately increase the main purpose of the game... and that is to score goals.
If coaches want to create more interchanges... then by default they WILL have to produce more goals.
If average goals was increased to 15 per team per game... that's still 120 rotations anyway.
I would also reduce the uncontrolled congestion caused by multiple runners running onto the ground
initiating these rotations and standing around on the ground while the game is unfolding.
this :clap
tigerstrang said:
Yes, it's the most minimal change for the most effect I suspect, which is what everyone is searching for. Imagine a close game, does a coach remove a tiring Cotchin or leave him on because you may not get him back on - there will be outcries about this too, but that is management! Most games have a controlled interchange or substitution regime, not all, but most. Would be a good NAB Cup trial I think.
Interchange as per Sheedy days had a positive effect on the game, but when you have a multi-billion dollar industry, everything is exploited to the enth degree in search of the holy grail - on which careers and glory is judged. It is not these people like Eade or Dimma or even the boot-studder who should make these recommendations, but the persons with nothing to gain, regardless of how well intentioned they are.
games generally open up in second half of matches meaning players get tired and then cant or find it harder to get to a throw up, when has this problem been the worst in our history, yes now, so to think that we know better than a 400 afl gamer is just plain wrong or ignorant, why does this congestion not happen at centre bounces, well we dont allow every player in, so i think the answer is right up our backside, we just need to turn around and see.
I don't mind David King's suggestion of only doing boundary throw ins inside 50, and penalizing the last team to touch it between the arcs. Would keep the ball central and reduce stoppages, but without creating too much of an incentive to shepherd the ball out.
You just can't pay a free for the ball going over the lineStylo said:
This should be payed when kicked or hand balled and players walking over the line only
This should not penalise punching the ball over in a marking contests or ball ups near the boundary.
The game has changed drastically from the game we played as young kids from the game it is know.
It's not the game aesthetically I love to watch with enthusiasm. I guess if I didn't support the Tigers I wouldn't follow the game much.
Fridays game against Carlton/game against GWS/ etc were such poor spectacles it was horrible really that on a previous thread when topics about the way the game is going, the way it looks, the numerous ball ups, players around the ball and in one area of the ground themes were mentioned I wondered whether it was our coach with these tactics or the opposition applying these tactics.
The same style /game ( spectacle wise ) was when we played the Dogs and Melbourne!
Many people here who have no vested interest in the game have mentioned some worthwhile and interesting ideas, as have numerous coaches, ex players etc. what my concern is that coaches seem to also find a way around changes made to the game. The last 10 years the game started to change when coaches such as Rocket Eade(Sydney) Ross Lyon(St Kilda-Freo) and then Clarko(Hawks) brought certain tactics/strategies into the modern game.
I'm in two minds. Leave the game the way it is and the game will evolve and move our of this cycle.
Stop the many rule changes being implemented nearly every year and when a new rule is introduced the powers to be realise that they have to change/tinker with the rule because they didn't really think the rule change properly in the first place.
So what do we do?
-Drop interchanges all together. If players need rest they rest forward.
-Cap interchange rotations to say 15 a quarter.
-Increase the interchange numbers to 6. Players brought on if you got an injury.
-16 players on the ground(which is why I mentioned above - interchange numbers to 6.
-Zones- Forwards stay in the F50 arch, followers, wingmen, on ballers in the middle arc and Backman in the D50 arc. Neither ground ventures into the other and change can only be made after a goal is scored, or at end of quarters. I understand it may be hard to police though!
-Between the arcs if the ball goes OOB and is touched the opposition gets a free kick.
-No sideways/backwards kicking/hand balling Forces the opposition to move forward.
-No 3/4/5 etc man in when 2 players are on the ground or one tackles the other and go to ground. Free kick to the opposition team whose player/s have gone into the contest, tackled, jumped , tagged team etc.
-To move the game quicker is to throw the ball up a lot quicker and no third man up allowed. Nominated ruckmen go at the contest.
There are others but that's quite a few.
If I were , or if we were to make 1-2 changes to ease the congestion and to help the look of the game is to do away with interchange numbers all together. 16 a side on the ground and have 4-6 on the bench in case of injuries etc or if you wanted to make a change to your structure or bring/rest a player to bring on another you could. I guess you could say it's still like the sub rule now, but it isn't cause you don't nominate or are restrictive with the type of player you bring on as the game unfolds.
If you were to choose 1 rule/ adjustment what would YOU CHOOSE ?
OR WOULD YOU leave it as it is?
It's not the game aesthetically I love to watch with enthusiasm. I guess if I didn't support the Tigers I wouldn't follow the game much.
Fridays game against Carlton/game against GWS/ etc were such poor spectacles it was horrible really that on a previous thread when topics about the way the game is going, the way it looks, the numerous ball ups, players around the ball and in one area of the ground themes were mentioned I wondered whether it was our coach with these tactics or the opposition applying these tactics.
The same style /game ( spectacle wise ) was when we played the Dogs and Melbourne!
Many people here who have no vested interest in the game have mentioned some worthwhile and interesting ideas, as have numerous coaches, ex players etc. what my concern is that coaches seem to also find a way around changes made to the game. The last 10 years the game started to change when coaches such as Rocket Eade(Sydney) Ross Lyon(St Kilda-Freo) and then Clarko(Hawks) brought certain tactics/strategies into the modern game.
I'm in two minds. Leave the game the way it is and the game will evolve and move our of this cycle.
Stop the many rule changes being implemented nearly every year and when a new rule is introduced the powers to be realise that they have to change/tinker with the rule because they didn't really think the rule change properly in the first place.
So what do we do?
-Drop interchanges all together. If players need rest they rest forward.
-Cap interchange rotations to say 15 a quarter.
-Increase the interchange numbers to 6. Players brought on if you got an injury.
-16 players on the ground(which is why I mentioned above - interchange numbers to 6.
-Zones- Forwards stay in the F50 arch, followers, wingmen, on ballers in the middle arc and Backman in the D50 arc. Neither ground ventures into the other and change can only be made after a goal is scored, or at end of quarters. I understand it may be hard to police though!
-Between the arcs if the ball goes OOB and is touched the opposition gets a free kick.
-No sideways/backwards kicking/hand balling Forces the opposition to move forward.
-No 3/4/5 etc man in when 2 players are on the ground or one tackles the other and go to ground. Free kick to the opposition team whose player/s have gone into the contest, tackled, jumped , tagged team etc.
-To move the game quicker is to throw the ball up a lot quicker and no third man up allowed. Nominated ruckmen go at the contest.
There are others but that's quite a few.
If I were , or if we were to make 1-2 changes to ease the congestion and to help the look of the game is to do away with interchange numbers all together. 16 a side on the ground and have 4-6 on the bench in case of injuries etc or if you wanted to make a change to your structure or bring/rest a player to bring on another you could. I guess you could say it's still like the sub rule now, but it isn't cause you don't nominate or are restrictive with the type of player you bring on as the game unfolds.
If you were to choose 1 rule/ adjustment what would YOU CHOOSE ?
OR WOULD YOU leave it as it is?
Then you go one man down until such a time as a goal is scored... then you initiate your interchanges as per normal.Brodders17 said:
It puts the onus on team and the coach to score quickly.
If you're good enough then you score with one man down.
If the other team scores, then interchanges are restored as you would have intended anyway.
Surely this would help to clear congestion too.
Obviously if hes concussed, stretchered or seriously injured then hes off immediately like he would of anyway.Brodders17 said:
Or if not then you rest him in the forward pocket like we used to do for 80 years before interchange was even introduced.
