Possible solution

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

with all the ideas being considered for reducing congestion and defensive play perhaps the best philosophy won't be one which restricts coaches options but instead a philosophy to discourage coaches from ultra defensive mindsets.

What if the percentage on the ladder was removed and the weighting to ladder position was purely premiership points and then 'points For."?

Perhaps it might be a case of coaches backing themselves in to in more games by being defensive and therefore the points for wouldn't be an issue of them but i do believe the AFL should be looking at ideas to encourage coaches in to offensive mindset rather than negative rules to restrict options.

[daisycutter 28,564]

with all the ideas being considered for reducing congestion and defensive play perhaps the best philosophy won't be one which restricts coaches options but instead a philosophy to discourage coaches from ultra defensive mindsets.

What if the percentage on the ladder was removed and the weighting to ladder position was purely premiership points and then 'points For."?

Perhaps it might be a case of coaches backing themselves in to in more games by being defensive and therefore the points for wouldn't be an issue of them but i do believe the AFL should be looking at ideas to encourage coaches in to offensive mindset rather than negative rules to restrict options.

don't think it will work munga. winning the 4 points will take precedence by a country mile

anyway i don't see reducing the interchange limits as a negative rule. after all it is not so long ago that we didn't have an interchange

firstly it was interchange with 2 players then 3 players then it escalated again to 4 players until we created this current mess and changed the game for the worst

i don't see winding it back as a negative

some form of zoning would be a mess and difficult/controversial to manage

last touch out of bounds free kicks would stir up a hornet's nest and not be well received by the fans

i wouldn't be averse to marks being increased from 15m to 20m. some marks paid are ridiculously short

i would only look at backward kicking marks being play on (in certain parts of the field) as a very much last resort

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

don't think it will work munga. winning the 4 points will take precedence by a country mile

anyway i don't see reducing the interchange limits as a negative rule. after all it is not so long ago that we didn't have an interchange

firstly it was interchange with 2 players then 3 players then it escalated again to 4 players until we created this current mess and changed the game for the worst

i don't see winding it back as a negative

some form of zoning would be a mess and difficult/controversial to manage

last touch out of bounds free kicks would stir up a hornet's nest and not be well received by the fans

i wouldn't be averse to marks being increased from 15m to 20m. some marks paid are ridiculously short

i would only look at backward kicking marks being play on (in certain parts of the field) as a very much last resort

Yes DC I'm a strong adocate of restricting interchange. Have been for years to be honest. It may come down to a series of changes

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

i was referring the zones as being negative changes. It just isn't footy. Perhaps set starting positions and maybe at each stoppage there must be no more than 4 from each side with in a set distance from the ball up. ?

[radar 1,851]

Maybe it's a phase thing.

Look at the number of sub 60 point scores each week. Many feature us.

One day cricket had a few phases

250 in the 70s was good

190 in the 80s and 90s was defendable.

Then those two Sri Lankan openers blew it apart helping themselves to century partnerships off 10 overs.

Give me 70s footy - kicking to packs, Phil Baker and Peter Knights flying one on one.

Losing 23 goal Grand finals, forwards kicking bags and the ton every season.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,636]

Reducing stoppages isn't so hard.

1st. Pay the deliberate out of bounds. Most games we are lucky if we see 1 in 5 of these paid. Enforcing this rule, will lead to a lot less out of bounds.

2nd. Ball up quickly, none of this nominate a ruckman, clear a path BS, it just slows the game down, letting more players get to a stoppage and normally leads to more stoppages as no clearance is made.

3rd. Stop blowing the whistle when there is a chance of an advantage, wait a few seconds, look if there is an advantage or not, if there is, let play go, if there isn't, blow the whistle and pay the free.

None of these require a rule change as such and would make the game a lot more free flowing. It's not rocket science, but unfortunately the obvious is often too hard for the intellects at the AFL.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Rod Grinter Riot Squad

[Skuit 9,181]

with all the ideas being considered for reducing congestion and defensive play perhaps the best philosophy won't be one which restricts coaches options but instead a philosophy to discourage coaches from ultra defensive mindsets.

What if the percentage on the ladder was removed and the weighting to ladder position was purely premiership points and then 'points For."?

Perhaps it might be a case of coaches backing themselves in to in more games by being defensive and therefore the points for wouldn't be an issue of them but i do believe the AFL should be looking at ideas to encourage coaches in to offensive mindset rather than negative rules to restrict options.

The problem is differing weather conditions Munga. If you look to rugby league where there's a pure points differential rather than percentage - a team coasting to a 40-20 win on a dry day is unfairly better off than a team winning 18-0 in a wet slog. I also wouldn't want to see bonus points awarded for say scoring over 100 as this would unduly reward already better teams as well as be dictated to a degree by the weather again. But I like your line of thinking rather than the intro of zones and/or greater interchange restrictions. Maybe the percentage formula could be tweaked a little to give greater weighting to points for somehow (too early in the morning for me to conduct any mathematical analysis right now).

[Forest Demon 4,681]

Reducing stoppages isn't so hard.

1st. Pay the deliberate out of bounds. Most games we are lucky if we see 1 in 5 of these paid. Enforcing this rule, will lead to a lot less out of bounds.

2nd. Ball up quickly, none of this nominate a ruckman, clear a path BS, it just slows the game down, letting more players get to a stoppage and normally leads to more stoppages as no clearance is made.

3rd. Stop blowing the whistle when there is a chance of an advantage, wait a few seconds, look if there is an advantage or not, if there is, let play go, if there isn't, blow the whistle and pay the free.

None of these require a rule change as such and would make the game a lot more free flowing. It's not rocket science, but unfortunately the obvious is often too hard for the intellects at the AFL.

Just on that first point, one thing that annoys me that would have the flow on effect of a few less stoppages, is when a player has prior opportunity and they use the boundary as a bit of a safe haven. IMO, if you have had prior and you are tackled over the boundary, it should be holding the ball. Players almost get a free pass to have a crack at taking someone on, and if they get tackled, it is just a throw in. Minor in the grand scheme of things, but just something that has annoyed me for a while.

[Oneday 248]

I like the thread, how about this for an idea. Seeing as our last premiership was 1964 (51 years this year and long before I was even born), for every year it is since you have won a premiership (say 20 years being the trigger) we get an extra player on field for those minutes. As an example we would be able to sub in our 19th player for 51 minutes of active game time.

And before anyone asks, yes I am bored shiteless!

[Dr. Mubutu 694]

1st. Pay the deliberate out of bounds. Most games we are lucky if we see 1 in 5 of these paid. Enforcing this rule, will lead to a lot less out of bounds.

IMO, this would be the easiest way to reduce stoppages with a simple rule enforcement. How many times, every game, do you see a player blatantly go searching for the line, only for it to be 'benefit of the doubt'?

Heaven forbid, actually making the ball be out of play an unfavourable option!

[daisycutter 28,564]

Reducing stoppages isn't so hard.

1st. Pay the deliberate out of bounds. Most games we are lucky if we see 1 in 5 of these paid. Enforcing this rule, will lead to a lot less out of bounds.

2nd. Ball up quickly, none of this nominate a ruckman, clear a path BS, it just slows the game down, letting more players get to a stoppage and normally leads to more stoppages as no clearance is made.

3rd. Stop blowing the whistle when there is a chance of an advantage, wait a few seconds, look if there is an advantage or not, if there is, let play go, if there isn't, blow the whistle and pay the free.

None of these require a rule change as such and would make the game a lot more free flowing. It's not rocket science, but unfortunately the obvious is often too hard for the intellects at the AFL.

all valid points rgrs, but personally i doubt they would make more than a minor difference. it would just be tinkering at the edges

[monoccular 16,081]

Reducing stoppages isn't so hard.

1st. Pay the deliberate out of bounds. Most games we are lucky if we see 1 in 5 of these paid. Enforcing this rule, will lead to a lot less out of bounds.

2nd. Ball up quickly, none of this nominate a ruckman, clear a path BS, it just slows the game down, letting more players get to a stoppage and normally leads to more stoppages as no clearance is made.

3rd. Stop blowing the whistle when there is a chance of an advantage, wait a few seconds, look if there is an advantage or not, if there is, let play go, if there isn't, blow the whistle and pay the free.

None of these require a rule change as such and would make the game a lot more free flowing. It's not rocket science, but unfortunately the obvious is often too hard for the intellects at the AFL.

I would also add - protect the ball player at all times. For a 'holding the ball' to be paid it must be the result of a totally legitimate tackle on a player who has had ample opportunity to dispose the ball.

I get absolutely sick of seeing, against all teams, the guys who goes in and gets the ball being pinged for HTB when he is driven into the ground and sat upon - in the back every time.

So often the maggot takes the easy way out and balls it up or pays HTB.

Pay the free to the guy who gets the pill.

[jnrmac 18,980]

I would also add - protect the ball player at all times. For a 'holding the ball' to be paid it must be the result of a totally legitimate tackle on a player who has had ample opportunity to dispose the ball.

I get absolutely sick of seeing, against all teams, the guys who goes in and gets the ball being pinged for HTB when he is driven into the ground and sat upon - in the back every time.

So often the maggot takes the easy way out and balls it up or pays HTB.

Pay the free to the guy who gets the pill.

We had 12 of those paid against us last week.

I have given up on the AFL . They have far ked up the game.

and ps, its all about the interchange. Keep cutting it back.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

This might not quite belong here (although it does contain one suggestion about improving the game) since it picks up on a few other threads/arguments, mainly Munga's observations about responses by strangers to the game and Special Robert's spoonful of sarcasm about a nineteenth century 'golden age' ... maybe there was a golden age closer to us, and maybe someone unfamiliar with the game could see what we certainly can't now.

I came across this in doing some research on spiritualism in Australia (don't ask, but no I wasn't desperately looking for a more radical solution to the MFC's woes). It's from Arthur Conan Doyle, perhaps paradoxically a spiritualist despite his famous creation's obsessive rationalism. Conan Doyle visited Australia in 1920 and was at the grand final that year:

One of my first afternoons in Melbourne was spent in seeing the final tie of the Victorian football cup. I have played both Rugby and Soccer, and I have seen the American game at its best, but I consider the Victorian system has some points which make it the best of all—certainly from the spectacular point of view. There is no off-side, and you get a free kick if you catch the ball. Otherwise you can run as in ordinary Rugby, though there is a law about bouncing the ball as you run, which might, as it seemed to me, be cut out without harming the game. This bouncing rule was put in by Mr Harrison who drew up the original rules, for the chivalrous reason that he was himself the fastest runner in the Colony, and he did not wish to give himself any advantage. There is not so much man-handling in the Victorian game, and to that extent it is less dramatic, but it is extraordinarily open and fast, with none of the packed scrums which become so wearisome, ad with linesmen who throw in the ball the instant it goes out. There were several points in which the players seemed better than our best—one was the accurate passing by low drop kicking, very much quicker and faster than a pass by hand. Another was the great accuracy of the place kicking and of the screw kicking when a runner would kick at right angles to his course. There were four long quarters, and yet the men were in such condition that they were going hard at the end. They are all, I understand, semi-professionals. Altogether it was a very fine display, and the crowd was much excited. It was suggestive that the instant the last whistle blew a troop of mounted police cantered over the ground and escorted the referees to the safety of the pavilion. (Arthur Conan Doyle: The Wanderings of a Spiritualist, Chapter 4)

This is an expanded version of Conan Doyle’s thoughts given in an interview with The Herald at the time, which can be found at http://australianfootball.com/articles/view/%27The+best+game%27+says+Conan+Doyle/1080

While some things change, some stay the same. The rapid entry of mounted police at the end of the game might have amused/bemused Conan Doyle, but since it was a Richmond-Collingwood game it seems through local eyes entirely normal.

But the spirit of Harrison’s ‘equalisation policy’ might productively be revived by the AFL, whose own view of equalisation is hardly as ‘sporting’ (there’s a lost word nowadays) ... although perhaps Conan Doyle's suggestion might help bust the game open again (though not yet ... not until we've got some runners).

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

The interchange is the biggest change seen in our game.

Out on the full and other changes over the years have not changed the essence of the game.

Interchange was meant to provide relief from injury.

Not intended to become the athletics carnival it has become, with players constantly dashing on and off in twos threes and fours, like kids running after an ice cream van. Except in some coach's wet dream. (Which then came true.)

Restricting interchange ... and I don't mean from 9,000 per game down to 8,500 ... has to happen.

Only interchange at quarter breaks. Only 8 per quarter (or some other nominal number). None at all -- only subs. Take your pick.

But that's the thing that has made our game unrecognisable.

Zones, limiting backwards kicks ... these are against the spirit of the game, so well summed up by Conan Doyle in the doc's post above.

Kill or maim the interchange.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

It's a coaching thing, pure and simple.

I hate deliberate out of bounds as it stands now so making it even more strict won't change things because most congestion comes from having 30 players around the ball, which is a coaching directive.

[loges 6,062]

I would also add - protect the ball player at all times. For a 'holding the ball' to be paid it must be the result of a totally legitimate tackle on a player who has had ample opportunity to dispose the ball. Absolutely correct it is the most ignored rule in every game. Always used to be in the back. Pay the free no ball up play moves on

I get absolutely sick of seeing, against all teams, the guys who goes in and gets the ball being pinged for HTB when he is driven into the ground and sat upon - in the back every time.

So often the maggot takes the easy way out and balls it up or pays HTB.

Pay the free to the guy who gets the pill.

[loges 6,062]

See above absolutely correct, less ball ups play moves on

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,443]

don't think it will work munga. winning the 4 points will take precedence by a country mile

anyway i don't see reducing the interchange limits as a negative rule. after all it is not so long ago that we didn't have an interchange

firstly it was interchange with 2 players then 3 players then it escalated again to 4 players until we created this current mess and changed the game for the worst

i don't see winding it back as a negative

some form of zoning would be a mess and difficult/controversial to manage

last touch out of bounds free kicks would stir up a hornet's nest and not be well received by the fans

i wouldn't be averse to marks being increased from 15m to 20m. some marks paid are ridiculously short

i would only look at backward kicking marks being play on (in certain parts of the field) as a very much last resort

Instead of "last touch out of bounds" what about "last kick, last handpass or last deliberate punch out of bounds free kicks". Such a rule would not penalise players who are trying to gather the ball but fail to do so. It also wouldn't penalise a player who has the ball and is tackled over the line. But it should encourage teams not only to try to play through the corridor but also to kick, handpass and punch the ball towards the centre corridor and not towards the boundary line.

In effect, this removes the discretion from the umpires who now have to judge whether the player who kicked, handpassed or punched the ball did so deliberately.

[daisycutter 28,564]

Instead of "last touch out of bounds" what about "last kick, last handpass or last deliberate punch out of bounds free kicks". Such a rule would not penalise players who are trying to gather the ball but fail to do so. It also wouldn't penalise a player who has the ball and is tackled over the line. But it should encourage teams not only to try to play through the corridor but also to kick, handpass and punch the ball towards the centre corridor and not towards the boundary line.

In effect, this removes the discretion from the umpires who now have to judge whether the player who kicked, handpassed or punched the ball did so deliberately.

that's certainly better and definitely easier to adjudicate

i can still see a problem when a mark is contested virtually on the boundary line. what is the spoiler supposed to do, specially when in distance of opposition goals?

as for kicks and handpasses (untouched) going out of bounds i can see players just allowing themselves to be tackled and taken over the line instead of risking a tricky disposal

still, i need to think more on it, certainly better than last touch though

also, i'm thinking it is just a fringe approach which in itself won't make a big enough difference

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,443]

I should have added that my preference is not to introduce new rules but to start with unwinding changes made in the last 20 years which may have been well intentioned at the time but perhaps, instead, are the source of the problem. These include changes to interchange/substitute; kicking in after a behind is scored; hands in the back rule; various rules associated with ruck contests; deliberate rushed behinds, etc. I'm not suggesting every one of these rules has contributed to the problem directly, but some may have had a downstream, or indirect, effect which has contributed to the problem.

[monoccular 16,081]

This might not quite belong here (although it does contain one suggestion about improving the game) since it picks up on a few other threads/arguments, mainly Munga's observations about responses by strangers to the game and Special Robert's spoonful of sarcasm about a nineteenth century 'golden age' ... maybe there was a golden age closer to us, and maybe someone unfamiliar with the game could see what we certainly can't now.

I came across this in doing some research on spiritualism in Australia (don't ask, but no I wasn't desperately looking for a more radical solution to the MFC's woes). It's from Arthur Conan Doyle, perhaps paradoxically a spiritualist despite his famous creation's obsessive rationalism. Conan Doyle visited Australia in 1920 and was at the grand final that year:

One of my first afternoons in Melbourne was spent in seeing the final tie of the Victorian football cup. I have played both Rugby and Soccer, and I have seen the American game at its best, but I consider the Victorian system has some points which make it the best of all—certainly from the spectacular point of view. There is no off-side, and you get a free kick if you catch the ball. Otherwise you can run as in ordinary Rugby, though there is a law about bouncing the ball as you run, which might, as it seemed to me, be cut out without harming the game. This bouncing rule was put in by Mr Harrison who drew up the original rules, for the chivalrous reason that he was himself the fastest runner in the Colony, and he did not wish to give himself any advantage. There is not so much man-handling in the Victorian game, and to that extent it is less dramatic, but it is extraordinarily open and fast, with none of the packed scrums which become so wearisome, ad with linesmen who throw in the ball the instant it goes out. There were several points in which the players seemed better than our best—one was the accurate passing by low drop kicking, very much quicker and faster than a pass by hand. Another was the great accuracy of the place kicking and of the screw kicking when a runner would kick at right angles to his course. There were four long quarters, and yet the men were in such condition that they were going hard at the end. They are all, I understand, semi-professionals. Altogether it was a very fine display, and the crowd was much excited. It was suggestive that the instant the last whistle blew a troop of mounted police cantered over the ground and escorted the referees to the safety of the pavilion. (Arthur Conan Doyle: The Wanderings of a Spiritualist, Chapter 4)

This is an expanded version of Conan Doyle’s thoughts given in an interview with The Herald at the time, which can be found at http://australianfootball.com/articles/view/%27The+best+game%27+says+Conan+Doyle/1080

While some things change, some stay the same. The rapid entry of mounted police at the end of the game might have amused/bemused Conan Doyle, but since it was a Richmond-Collingwood game it seems through local eyes entirely normal.

But the spirit of Harrison’s ‘equalisation policy’ might productively be revived by the AFL, whose own view of equalisation is hardly as ‘sporting’ (there’s a lost word nowadays) ... although perhaps Conan Doyle's suggestion might help bust the game open again (though not yet ... not until we've got some runners).

Interesting observations.

The phrase that I have highlighted is one big difference between the very enjoyable spectacle once so common and the rolling mauls and scrums that are completely ruining the modern game as a spectacle. Wearisome indeed.

I am no expert, but this blight needs addressing urgently - and maybe our coach's tactics in his previous role have been partly at fault.

I would hate to see zoning but it may well have to come to that in some form or other.

The umpires are not intelligent, competent or impartial enough to fairly and consistently enforce a "no go zone" (e.g. 20m metres) around ball ups around the ground as has been suggested, though the idea does indeed have some merit. They can't even consistently interpret the length of a kick for a mark, nor the distance ran without a bounce. Imagine them having to interpret something similar though in two dimensions?

Severe interchange restrictions would most probably reduce congestion late in games as the players find that they just cannot run repeatedly to the mauls and scrums, and in time they may learn that they need to pace themselves throughout the game with the reductions in congestion coming earlier.

But once again i reiterate the absolute need to reward only properly executed tackles on a player who has missed his disposal opportunity, and to penalise all other non-legitimate tackles / pushes in back etc (other than the Selwood specials).

[rjay 23,922]

I think the AFL and fans need to be careful with what they ask for.

I don't like the current state of play either but it needs to be addressed with changes to equalisation of the competition.

Why?

Well, with the skill levels of teams like Hawthorn if the game is opened out more we will start to see a lot more 20 plus goal margins in the future.

The AFL, media and supporters are living in a fools paradise if they think the competition is levelling up. It's not and Friday night was a glimpse into the future where the umpires under instruction opened up the game.

I want to see a good open contest, but I want all 18 clubs involved in it.

[Demonised 1,210]

Let's get rid of the 'No Prior Opportunity' rule. It might be counter-intuitive, but think about it.

If we get rid of NPO, it'll stop the dreary repetition of players grabbing the ball, clutching it to their chests, going to ground, making feeble pretend efforts to punch it, then having the umps ball it up again.

With NPO gone, if you grab the ball, you're fair game. You have to keep it moving - otherwise you'll be tackled, pinged and someone else will keep the ball moving via a free kick.

[boydie 653]

Let's get rid of the 'No Prior Opportunity' rule. It might be counter-intuitive, but think about it.

If we get rid of NPO, it'll stop the dreary repetition of players grabbing the ball, clutching it to their chests, going to ground, making feeble pretend efforts to punch it, then having the umps ball it up again.

With NPO gone, if you grab the ball, you're fair game. You have to keep it moving - otherwise you'll be tackled, pinged and someone else will keep the ball moving via a free kick.

Our turnover count will go from 50 to 150 a week, players will just grab it and boot it