A mate of mine who is also a PE teacher suggested this possible rule change to rid footy of what he describes as its present 'malaise'.( Constant, ugly packs being formed) 'PLAYER 1 IS FAIRLY TACKLED BY PLAYER 2 AND THEY BOTH GO TO GROUND. If a THIRD player jumps in forming a pack HE is IMMEDIATELY PENALISED with a free kick awarded against him'.

Wouldn't this keep the game moving with a simple one on one situation? Less ball ups and no dicey holding the ball situations. I think it has merit. What do you think?

just what we need. more rule changes and free kicks.

I wish we would leave the bloody game alone for just one year.

just what we need. more rule changes and free kicks.

When the current rules and interpretation are stupid, yes it is just what we need. Suggestions and discussion and trials are the way to go.

This idea has merit. One-on-one. Very simple. Easier for the ump to make right decision.

Indeed maybe no decision is needed. If the ball comes out it is play on. If not it is holding the ball regardless if it is held in by the tackler. This rewards a good tackle. It could be argued that is too hard on the ball getter, but on average it might work out OK by making it more likely that the man with the ball will get away when gang tackles are banned. Also no large pack will form.

Perhaps the main interpretation problem would be when the tackle starts to slip and another tackler starts to make a second tackle. At what point is it called as 2 people tackling?

Certainly it is no good when there are 4 players on the ground and more players throwing themselves onto the pack. A way to stop that would be great.

The diving on the ball free kick was introduced to make the play flow. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to work. Play doesn't seem to flow more than it did before and we get all these dubious decisions, players pushing the ball in etc. which is driving everyone from senior players, coaches to fans mad.

I've actually been suggesting just such a change with my mates. The current situation is an absolute disgrace and my blood boils every game of AFL I watch at the moment. The fact that the only player who is actually trying to get the ball can be penalised when he's basically 'framed' by the opposition turns me right off.

I've heard of worse suggestions.

But the game has enough rules and rule changes already.

That rule would leave 20 odd blokes zoning around a tackle, so it would still be nigh on impossible to get a clear possession out.

Personally, since the club has recruited specifically with a view to the game evolving into this rolling scrum, I'd prefer it keeps heading in that direction.

Rather than we be left with a group of players a la McLean who the game has passed by in it's evolution.

No that would not work. I think the issue is part of the modern game and its not as bad as people perceive. The game is actually getting quicker not slower. How much quicker do you want it?

If you seriously want to change that aspect of the game (I am not in favour) then you have to consider doing the following:

1. Limit the interchange bench use to prevent the ability of team to have players around the ball for 4 quarters

2. Penalise player tackling the ball carrier by making the interpretation so loose in favour of the ball carrier that it detracts from tackling.

3. Bring a zone off side rule where you must at all times have a minimum number of players in your forward/defensive 50 at all times.

4. Prevent the players from doing more than 4 weeks pre season training and let them enjoy unhealthy diets. They wont be running too hard after that

I know I have a better idea....lets just keep it as it is.

There is nothing wrong with the current rule. It's just being poorly interpreted at present due to players/coaches inevitably working out ways to exploit the rule - i.e. diving on players and forcing the ball in.

The idea of penalising this behaviour has merit in the sense that the rationale behind it is in the interests of keeping the game flowing. If you think about it logically, not penalising players who keep the ball in will simply create lots more ball ups, something the interpretation was trying to avoid.

As contradictory as it might sound given my previous statement, the easiest solution to this, in my humble opinion, is for the umpires to

a) call for ball ups a lot quicker when packs form, and

B) bounce it (or throw it up) as quickly as possible - don't bother waiting for ruckmen to arrive.