The state of footy

[DLR]

I agree hence the 4 per quarter. You can come back on at the start of the next break or as one of the 4 changes in the next quarter.

Blood rule changes wouldn't count.

Send your idea in KB - if he likes it he'll bang on about it until it gets traction. I like it too. As Tiger of Old says, the game has become unrecognisable as we knew it, which is not always bad, but in this case it is according to enough people it seems. How else could an Olympic level Steeplechaser get so much game time so quickly. Will it mean we miss out on the next Plugger if he can't make it up an back the ground as is done now.

 

[Bunnerz]

I'm finding our recent style of play quite boring - similar to the saints under ross. think dimma has gone too far with the strangle, skinny side, get it to the boundary etc style. he needs to balance it out with some run and flair corridor football.

disagree, i enjoyed watching it

 

[mld]

I'd be happy with severely reduced interchanges.

 

[Chimptastic]

I'd love to see severely reduced interchanges too.

 

[seven]

Take tackling out of the game.
Players should have a red rag hanging out the back of their shorts.
When it's pulled out it should be registered as a tackle.
Opposition gets the ball

 

[1eyedtiger]

Take tackling out of the game.
Players should have a red rag hanging out the back of their shorts.
When it's pulled out it should be registered as a tackle.
Opposition gets the ball

Sad thing is, is that it's hard to tell if that is a serious suggestion or not.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I'd go further. 4 interchange and once you are taken off in a quarter you can't come back on. That leaves 4 changes per quarter effectively.

just on this Jimbob, what's your thinking on the IC bench/reserves? 4?

 

[DLR]

Interchange rotations are a bit of a quandary sometimes. Many times I have seen players run hard 3/4s the length of the ground to interchange, and after the ball is delayed for TV advert plus about 60secs of play the player sprints nearly 3/4s of the ground to get back on just to satisfy the Team's rotation plan - the result a possibly more tired player then before the rotation.

 

[jb03]

just on this Jimbob, what's your thinking on the IC bench/reserves? 4?

Yep. No subs, just 4 interchange players that are brought on once each quarter (but you don't have to start each quarter with the same 4 obviously).

 

[Baloo]

Coaches will start slowing down the clock. Backwards chip kicking etc.

I've always thought a simple rule change to keep the game moving would be a kick in your =defensive have is not a mark unless it moves forward. That would keep the game moving when the interchange is restrcited

 

[MorrisMinor]

How about interchanges only allowed after a goal is scored?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

If you want a better spectacle - ban coaches. I'm only half joking.

 

[AMPS]

Would reduced interchange merely make the games more defensive as coaches stack the backline semi-permanently?

It may be that zones are the only way to restrict numbers in certain areas.

 

[22nd Man]

You have three kicks to get it out of your defensive 50. More *smile* Clay kick ins lobbing in the centre circle.
If you kick backward out of F50 its play on. Kick backward into D50 play on.
Forward 50 stoppages including boundary throw ins only the 6 backs, 6 defenders and 3 on ballers each = 18 players that's a step up from 30+ in there now.
Mid field stoppages and throw ins could be only the 6 centre line and on ballers.

 

[Brodders17]

You have three kicks to get it out of your defensive 50. More *smile* Clay kick ins lobbing in the centre circle.
If you kick backward out of F50 its play on. Kick backward into D50 play on.

i wonder if rules like that would have the opposite effect. sides would be forced to kick long down the line more often, meaning more players would mass there leading to more packs on the wings.
allowing chips around the backline open play up IMO as they may switches easier.

 

[mld]

i wonder if rules like that would have the opposite effect. sides would be forced to kick long down the line more often, meaning more players would mass there leading to more packs on the wings.
allowing chips around the backline open play up IMO as they may switches easier.

Agree, I reckon any tampering with on-field rules will lead to unintended consequences by coaches gaming the changes, in ways that would deliver the opposite of what we would hope.

 

[RemoteTiger]

I reckon the old VFA had it right- 16 man teams on the paddock at any given time - no wingers.

Add a limitation of 80 interchanges and you will get a more open game with many more one-on-one contests again.

Paul Roos openly admitted he drops both wingers back into defence and then brings the half forwards up the ground - standard practice when wanting to clog the opposition forward line.

Well - if there are no wingers they cannot do this and that opens the game up.

By further limiting the interchange as well that will bring back true stamina into our game - many will remember in Richmond's golden era of the late '60s early '70s - stamina was one of our many weapons against the opposition.

By reducing the number of players on the field by 4 in each game - we reduce the number of players required by all the clubs by 36 players - this will create a stronger players pool for the whole league and help with the diluting of talent across 18 clubs.

The game due to defensive structures has become more a mobile wrestling match than the fast open game we all yearn for. The league has to do this suggestion or something similar or our great spectacle will wane.

 

[tigertim]

I reckon the old VFA had it right- 16 man teams on the paddock at any given time - no wingers.

Yeah, I like the 16 man a side concept.

 

[22nd Man]

Agree, I reckon any tampering with on-field rules will lead to unintended consequences by coaches gaming the changes, in ways that would deliver the opposite of what we would hope.

By on field you mean like zones for stoppagesetc? I would agree, unintended consequences.

Why not a shot clock... It's probably that and the 3 point rule which fundamentally improved the game over last 40 years.
Shot clock stops the possession game.
For footy it could be 30 seconds to get ball inside 50 and or 45 to have a shot. Would encourage play on and when the clock was running down the long Bombs from outside 50 would come into play.

But dreaming aside I say go to 4 subs or even 6 if you are paranoid about injuries. Players have to learn to pace themselves not work as burst athletes.

 

[Carter]

The ball can move so quickly these days by hand and foot. Skills are sublime, grounds are hard.

With interchange caps none of this would change.

Coaches would simply be forced to spread players across three zones for cover.

Specialists would return.

Endurance runners would still be at a premium, but small forwards and old fashioned ball winners would have their place.

A healthy football ecosystem.