Stoppages and congestion?

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

The cynic in me suggests much of the noise on this subject is being made by Essendon and Carlton media spruikers, whose teams just happen to be *smile*.

The game has been in decline for a decade now. I say leave it as it is while Dimma has a handle on it. Happy to reconsider if we burn out and fall down the ladder.

 

[St Kevin]

The game has been in decline for a decade now. I say leave it as it is while Dimma has a handle on it. Happy to reconsider if we burn out and fall down the ladder.

My thoughts precisely L2R2R. Game has been going downhill for a while, but as long as we are winning I couldn't give a rat's tossbag.

 

[IanG]

I'm in two minds. Leave the game the way it is and the game will evolve and move our of this cycle.

Coaches and ex coaches believe the game has reached a point where it won't evolve out of the current cycle.

 

[DLR]

Coaches and ex coaches believe the game has reached a point where it won't evolve out of the current cycle.

Wonder how many times that has been said by coaches and ex-coaches. Perhaps by coaches down the ladder and ex-coaches now ex for a reason.

 

[IanG]

Wonder how many times that has been said by coaches and ex-coaches. Perhaps by coaches down the ladder and ex-coaches now ex for a reason.

Chris Scott, premiership coach is one who believes it, Leigh Matthews........

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

If the AFL was fair dinkum they would've established an aesthetics committee after Sydney won the flag in 2005. Don't come a-meddlin' now.

 

[Baloo]

Wasn't that long ago that Victorian teams would never win another Gramd Final

 

[TigerMasochist]

If the AFL was fair dinkum they would've established an aesthetics committee after Sydney won the flag in 2005. Don't come a-meddlin' now.

That's the trouble with all those high paid AFL suits with self importance to do. Bastards meddle n fiddle n have all these grand ideas n *smile* case studies on how to improve the game.
Then after they implement all their important little fiddles m meddles to justify their self importance. There's another ten years of studies n grand ideas on how to fix the game that they *smile* with all their self important fiddling, meddling n rule changing in the first place.
The game has never been broken, it's never needed fixing. Coaches have always tinkered with playing systems and the game has evolved n sorted itself out as necessary along the way. Executive flogs in suits trying to belatedly counter, manipulate n adjust the game every time there is a coaching trend or pattern evolving just open up another half dozen loopholes for the coaches to exploit.
Time for the executive suits to take some of the core structures back to what they were perhaps ten / fifteen years ago and then be barred from ever meddling with the game again.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

That's the trouble with all those high paid AFL suits with self importance to do. Bastards meddle n fiddle n have all these grand ideas n *smile*ing case studies on how to improve the game.
Then after they implement all their important little fiddles m meddles to justify their self importance. There's another ten years of studies n grand ideas on how to fix the game that they *smile*ed with all their self important fiddling, meddling n rule changing in the first place.
The game has never been broken, it's never needed fixing. Coaches have always tinkered with playing systems and the game has evolved n sorted itself out as necessary along the way. Executive flogs in suits trying to belatedly counter, manipulate n adjust the game every time there is a coaching trend or pattern evolving just open up another half dozen loopholes for the coaches to exploit.
Time for the executive suits to take some of the core structures back to what they were perhaps ten / fifteen years ago and then be barred from ever meddling with the game again.

They had this blueprint for the game where you'd have Koutoufides types running up and down the wings, free to demonstrate their athletic wares without any of this contested ball nonsense. As long as you can run fast, who cares whether you can actually play?

But the coaches shaped the game and it's become almost the inverse. It's absolutely laughable for the likes of David King to suggest the coaches should be the primary consultants on how to solve the mess!

 

[CarnTheTiges]

That's the trouble with all those high paid AFL suits with self importance to do. Bastards meddle n fiddle n have all these grand ideas n *smile*ing case studies on how to improve the game.
Then after they implement all their important little fiddles m meddles to justify their self importance. There's another ten years of studies n grand ideas on how to fix the game that they *smile*ed with all their self important fiddling, meddling n rule changing in the first place.
The game has never been broken, it's never needed fixing. Coaches have always tinkered with playing systems and the game has evolved n sorted itself out as necessary along the way. Executive flogs in suits trying to belatedly counter, manipulate n adjust the game every time there is a coaching trend or pattern evolving just open up another half dozen loopholes for the coaches to exploit.
Time for the executive suits to take some of the core structures back to what they were perhaps ten / fifteen years ago and then be barred from ever meddling with the game again.

:clap

 

[Chimptastic]

Frequent rule changes do make sense in a game with 360 degree freedom and no restrictions on player positioning.

Games like Rugby already have far stricter rules built into the fundamentals of the game, such as "everybody must stand in a line". Those sweeping, strict, structural rules reduce so many potential problems.

In a game with so much potential freedom for playing it however you wish, it's hard to imagine a legitimate stance from the 'suits' against rule changes. It would make things better for coaches and worse for fans to do nothing.

 

[IanG]

Interesting blogfrom Grant Thomas on this:

https://gthomo.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/media-ask-coaches-the-hard-questions/

"The problem with the current state of the game rests utterly and entirely with the media.

There are no other scapegoats so don’t bother searching for any.

Stoppages are killing the game – they have effectively doubled over the last decade. Coaches coach for stoppages.

Think of Linus and his security blanket – stoppages are the coaches personal blanket.

Unfortunately media, journalists and interviewers do not have the inherent skills, understanding, knowledge or ability to ask the right questions to coaches and are severely intimidated anyway.

Until a coach is questioned on his strategy – which is illogical and make little sense, but we will get back to that – they will continue to coach the game into the ground.

Why are more players being hurt when they are tackled into the ground? Simply because they are forbidden to release the ball and therefore have their arms pinned (they actually deliberately encourage tackler to pin their arms) so as to send a signal to the umpire that “the ball is pinned to me, so ball it up”. If they do not have their arms free they cannot brace for the fall and their head becomes the first point of contact. The art of lifting arms in the tackle and releasing it by hands is not allowed these days, is frowned upon and highlighted at game review sessions. We loved the player that seduced and incited the tackle only to raise his arms and release the ball to a moving player who was able to exit the congestion. Not any more. Players must keep it locked in, create a ball up or better still a boundary throw in. If my arms are free I will have to get rid of it so tackler, please lock my arms!!!

Why do coaches want 80 to 100 stoppages a game?

They have a sick and perverse view that they can control the game from the stoppage.

Sure it gives players a breather. It also allows them to restructure behind the ball (defensively) and more frustratingly fill the stoppage area with more players to congest and pressure the player with the ball into error either at the source or down the ground.

There are 2 things that coaches like to focus on; TIME & SPACE.

Reduce the time a player has to make a decision or execute skill AND minimise the space he has to do it and the zone he is delivering it to. Stoppages allow the construction of these facets.

So in the next after match press conference or when you have the coach in for a chat do this;

“So coach….. why do you encourage stoppages?

Then shut up and listen.

He will probably say;

“It’s not me” or “There are several factors that affect it” or some other divergent garbage.

Then ask;

Do you think stoppages allow for greater control tactically?

Then shut up and listen.

He will probably say;

“There is no doubt teams like to control that part of the game and it allows teams to get their structure in place”

Then say’

“So its a specific part of the strategy and tactics of the team to create a stoppage and go in search of a stoppage – its not what it was originated for, an outcome when a piece of play was deadlocked????” The shut up.

One answer is yes and the other is no.

If he answers honestly and says “yes”, ask;

WHY? Why would you create and encourage such a debilitating spectacle? Why do you think it assists your strategy when there is zero evidence it assists scoring and winning as proven by data? For example scoring has dramatically reduced with the increase in stoppages?

If he answers “no”, ask;

So you don’t want to create stoppages? So how do you explain stoppage numbers going from an average of 35 a game less than a decade ago to over 80 a game now? Don’t your players listen to your instructions or follow your orders?

Then shut up.

You see where this is going. We need to ask WHY several times to get to the root cause of why a particular phenomena occurs, and it traps the coach into disclosing his REAL driving focus and agenda.

I have said this many times over the last 10 years, coaching tactics are driving the game into the ground. Defensive mindsets and associated strategies such as creating stoppages are “un-Australian” and the curse of our game

Coaches are thinking more about their own coaching mortality than instilling a “dare-to-win” attitude. Stop the bleeding, minimise the loss, keep it close and we may snatch it, shut down, lock down, block space, set up zones, numbers at the contest, create a stoppage………….the list is growing.

Its up to the media to expose it."

Don't agree that its the media's fault but certainly they could do better in questioning coaches about tactics.

 

[poppa x]

Congestion occurs partially because players bring the ball to the Interchange half of the ground.
This means that players spend more time in half the ground = more congestion.

Want proof?

I did a stats excercise last weekend.
The Richmond game and the last qtr of the Hawthorn game.
I assumed the best way to determine which half of the ground is used the most - I counted the Boundary throw ins and OOF for each half of the ground.
Result?
Interchange side of the ground = 31 or 62%
Other side of the ground = 19 or 38%

Conclusion?
Coaches and players encourage using the Interchange side of the ground because it speeds up the interchange.
Therefore, make each team use opposite sides of the ground for the interchange bench and presto the game will open up.
OR
Only allow interchanges after a goal is scored and you'll achieve the same result.

I intend doing the same thing next weekend with more games.

 

[Harry]

Interesting blogfrom Grant Thomas on this:

https://gthomo.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/media-ask-coaches-the-hard-questions/

"The problem with the current state of the game rests utterly and entirely with the media.

There are no other scapegoats so don’t bother searching for any.

Stoppages are killing the game – they have effectively doubled over the last decade. Coaches coach for stoppages.

Think of Linus and his security blanket – stoppages are the coaches personal blanket.

Unfortunately media, journalists and interviewers do not have the inherent skills, understanding, knowledge or ability to ask the right questions to coaches and are severely intimidated anyway.

Until a coach is questioned on his strategy – which is illogical and make little sense, but we will get back to that – they will continue to coach the game into the ground.

Why are more players being hurt when they are tackled into the ground? Simply because they are forbidden to release the ball and therefore have their arms pinned (they actually deliberately encourage tackler to pin their arms) so as to send a signal to the umpire that “the ball is pinned to me, so ball it up”. If they do not have their arms free they cannot brace for the fall and their head becomes the first point of contact. The art of lifting arms in the tackle and releasing it by hands is not allowed these days, is frowned upon and highlighted at game review sessions. We loved the player that seduced and incited the tackle only to raise his arms and release the ball to a moving player who was able to exit the congestion. Not any more. Players must keep it locked in, create a ball up or better still a boundary throw in. If my arms are free I will have to get rid of it so tackler, please lock my arms!!!

Why do coaches want 80 to 100 stoppages a game?

They have a sick and perverse view that they can control the game from the stoppage.

Sure it gives players a breather. It also allows them to restructure behind the ball (defensively) and more frustratingly fill the stoppage area with more players to congest and pressure the player with the ball into error either at the source or down the ground.

There are 2 things that coaches like to focus on; TIME & SPACE.

Reduce the time a player has to make a decision or execute skill AND minimise the space he has to do it and the zone he is delivering it to. Stoppages allow the construction of these facets.

So in the next after match press conference or when you have the coach in for a chat do this;

“So coach….. why do you encourage stoppages?

Then shut up and listen.

He will probably say;

“It’s not me” or “There are several factors that affect it” or some other divergent garbage.

Then ask;

Do you think stoppages allow for greater control tactically?

Then shut up and listen.

He will probably say;

“There is no doubt teams like to control that part of the game and it allows teams to get their structure in place”

Then say’

“So its a specific part of the strategy and tactics of the team to create a stoppage and go in search of a stoppage – its not what it was originated for, an outcome when a piece of play was deadlocked????” The shut up.

One answer is yes and the other is no.

If he answers honestly and says “yes”, ask;

WHY? Why would you create and encourage such a debilitating spectacle? Why do you think it assists your strategy when there is zero evidence it assists scoring and winning as proven by data? For example scoring has dramatically reduced with the increase in stoppages?

If he answers “no”, ask;

So you don’t want to create stoppages? So how do you explain stoppage numbers going from an average of 35 a game less than a decade ago to over 80 a game now? Don’t your players listen to your instructions or follow your orders?

Then shut up.

You see where this is going. We need to ask WHY several times to get to the root cause of why a particular phenomena occurs, and it traps the coach into disclosing his REAL driving focus and agenda.

I have said this many times over the last 10 years, coaching tactics are driving the game into the ground. Defensive mindsets and associated strategies such as creating stoppages are “un-Australian” and the curse of our game

Coaches are thinking more about their own coaching mortality than instilling a “dare-to-win” attitude. Stop the bleeding, minimise the loss, keep it close and we may snatch it, shut down, lock down, block space, set up zones, numbers at the contest, create a stoppage………….the list is growing.

Its up to the media to expose it."

Don't agree that its the media's fault but certainly they could do better in questioning coaches about tactics.

Unfortunately this sums up our man dimma and his tactics. Even though we are winning it is not that enjoyable to watch.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Unfortunately this sums up our man dimma and his tactics. Even though we are winning it is not that enjoyable to watch.

Finals-type footy isn't generally great to watch and hasn't been for a long time. Even the great sides are tough and clinical rather than thrilling. It's an unpalatable truth, but nothing terribly new.

 

[TOT70]

It is the current interpretation of the prior opportunity rule/holding the ball/throwing the ball rule that causes congestion.

A player will always gather a loose ball in a pack if he can. Why wouldn’t he? He clearly hasn’t had prior opportunity if he is tackled immediately so he gets a free hit at manufacturing a free kick. Maybe he can force a head-high tackle, maybe he can roll forward and force a push in the back? Fortune favours the brave. He certainly won’t give away a free because he hasn’t had prior opportunity. The worst that can happen to him is that he will fall onto the ground with the ball locked in and his arms pinned in a tackle. So he squirms and pretends to try to hit the ball out but he can’t. No hands, ump, what can I do? Is there anyone who believes that he is making a genuine attempt at knocking the ball clear?

Should the tackler not pin the arms then most players are strong enough to stand up, look around, assess options and choose the best one. That is way too long. They should not get this opportunity. They are in a tackle and should dispose of the ball immediately, not when they feel like it. It it this arm-pinning motion that is leading to injuries. Pinning arms is only necessary if the player has an eternity to think about and execute the best way to dispose of the ball to his team's advantage. Shall I hand-pass it to Freddy? Shall I kick it to Benny? I could try to hand it to Juddy as he runs by. Quick Juddy, run by! Maybe I'll just hatch it and writhe around like I'm having a fit, that's always a good tactic. So many choices, so little time!

What should happen is that when a player gathers a loose ball, the ump should give him a second to break the tackle and another second to dispose of the ball legally if the tackle is too good to break. Otherwise it is holding the ball or it is a throw if he lets it fall like a hot potato. There is no need to pin the arms or grab the hand so he can’t handball because he won’t have time to assess options. Tackle, punch the arms, fail to break, attempt handpass, ball falls loose, holding the ball. Simple.

Eventually, this will force a player who is trying to gather a loose ball in traffic to punch the ball clear into space so someone can run onto it. If he doesn't then he will most likely give away a free. This will drive every coach in the AFL spare because what happens next will be too random for them, being the control freaks that they all are. Maybe one of ours gets the ball in space, maybe one of theirs does? Way too random.

This is the game's conundrum. The coaches want every 50/50 to end in a stoppage. That’s a nil-all draw for that play and they can set up again with no harm done. The spectators want the 50/50s to end with a ball bobbling around in space and fast, aggressive, skilful ball movement to follow. Maybe a super-skilful player like Juddy will get the opportunity to run and deliver? Do we want to see that or a bunch of players rolling around on the ground?

Don’t worry about interchange restrictions, putting bibs on players and forcing them to stay in certain zones, introducing new rules or anything else. All they have to do is police the humble holding the ball rule correctly and the game will open up like a jailed Mafia informant looking at 20 years in the slammer. Either he opens up and tells all to the judge or he opens up to his 150 kilo cell-mate named Bubba.


It was interesting that Alistair Clarkson had something similar to this to say on On The Couch last night. Without the hokey attempt at jailbird humour of course. That was all me.

 

[IanG]

I agree TOT revising that interpretation is one of the quick fixes that they must make.

 

[Ian4]

It is the current interpretation of the prior opportunity rule/holding the ball/throwing the ball rule that causes congestion.

its not the only reason but it is easily the number 1 reason. prior opportunity is a ridiculous rule... any player who takes on the tackler, but doesn't escape (irrespective of having enough time) should be pinged. as should incorrect disposal. pure reward for a good tackle doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Brodders17]

its not the only reason but it is easily the number 1 reason. prior opportunity is a ridiculous rule... any player who takes on the tackler, but doesn't escape (irrespective of having enough time) should be pinged. as should incorrect disposal. pure reward for a good tackle doesn't exist anymore.

i think the interpretation was heading that way at one stage and many complained that the player trying to make the play was penalised while those that sat back and jumped on them won the free.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

i think the interpretation was heading that way at one stage and many complained that the player trying to make the play was penalised while those that sat back and jumped on them won the free.

It was good for the first month and most people were happy. Don't know why Campbell's allowed them to slip back into their old ways.