Possible solution

[Chris 2,892]

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

I think if you reduce the interchanges down to 50 or so then it would go a long way to fixing it. They should also start umpiring to the rules and stop the interpretation crap. The rules worked, just umpire to them. They actually did this to a large degree on the weekend and it stood out like a sore thumb, not because the ump were wrong (although they made some howlers), but because the players are playing to the new interpretations. Give everyone a full preseason warning that the rules are going back to what they were and things will change dramatically. As we saw on the weekend when they took the rules part way back it was teh defensive teams that got hammered, not so much the offensive teams.

[Dr. Mubutu 694]

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.

Why remove the discretion?

How many times a game do you see a player blatantly dispose of a ball into space, hoping for the boundary? I wouldn't be surprised (apropos of nothing) if it removes 10-15 stoppages a game. 3-4 per quarter. It's a start, isn't it? And all with no rule change required!

[sue 8,457]

I don't see enforcing the deliberate out of bounds is a solution. There are many cases where a player would endanger his knees to turn suddenly to avoid being deemed deliberate. So we'd be back in the interpretation black-hole or have a lot of injuries. And most often a ball is paddled towards the line - the deliberation is often there followed by a contest in which the player can easily appear to be trying to keep it in, but in reality OoB is his aim. Too much room for interpretation for me.

Not having read the rules for years (not much point since the AFL re-interprets them so often) I'm not sure why it is not deliberate to punch a ball to the boundary as long as it is in a marking contest and sometimes regardless of a contest. Seems to be interpreted as if it was related to the height of the ball when punched. Anyone know what the rule says?

[daisycutter 28,624]

another fairly recent facet of the game is man on the mark positioning

it is common now on the flanks and pockets for the man on the mark to stand 5-10m to the fat side of the mark (to try to force the player to kick to the skinny side and to reduce the ability to play-on to the fat side)

a simple change would be to force the man on the mark to stay on or behind the mark but not to the side

this should minimise the amount of times the kicker kicks to the boundary side and might allow more play-on to the fat side

just a thought.....it's only a minor change and more of an interpretation but might help a little

[Skuit 9,268]

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.

It always strikes me as an odd notion to reduce interchange rotation numbbers in order to tire players - i.e. make them play poorer in an effort to improve the game. Although I understand this is a facet of other sporting contests. The worry for me is then it may become even more of an athletics carnival as endurance players will be favoured over more pure footballs. I'd argue that professionalism is actually the greatest change seen in our game and the reason it seems so homogenised now. Looking back at older games they certainly seem more entertaining and a greater spectacle but it's due I think to the lack of professionalism - defenders not knowing where to run and in patterns as much along with greater freedom and creativity in attack etc. (not to mention more interesting characters and a bit of biff). I don't know what the solution is.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

It always strikes me as an odd notion to reduce interchange rotation numbbers in order to tire players - i.e. make them play poorer in an effort to improve the game. Although I understand this is a facet of other sporting contests. The worry for me is then it may become even more of an athletics carnival as endurance players will be favoured over more pure footballs. I'd argue that professionalism is actually the greatest change seen in our game and the reason it seems so homogenised now. Looking back at older games they certainly seem more entertaining and a greater spectacle but it's due I think to the lack of professionalism - defenders not knowing where to run and in patterns as much along with greater freedom and creativity in attack etc. (not to mention more interesting characters and a bit of biff). I don't know what the solution is.

Some good points Skuit. Im keen for the interchange restrictions but I think MFC would be one of the most affected teams if it came in as Roos is building a side for hard contested/congested footy. Suddenly we would need more Cale Mortons! I would take that setback for the MFC for the greater good of the game though to be honest.

Secondly i totally agree with the comment on the lack of professionalism years back. I watched the Carlton / Melbourne game in 1998 last night - the 2nd game in that string wins the dees had which put them in to the finals. It was a great game to watch and definitely more 'shelter skelter'. Clearly no "structures'. Just blokes playing on pure instinct. It was amazing how noticeable it was. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Some great long handballs from fullback straight up the guts. The ball was going end to end in 4 possessions.

Professionalism has definitely changed the game and will be the hardest thing to overcome when trying to open the game up. Th players and coaches are just so bloody good now.

[daisycutter 28,624]

well i'm a great fan of conan doyle but i don't think we should let a long dead scribbler who saw one game of footy dictate to us on the spirit of the game - LOL

on the other hand if we could resurrect sherlock holmes we might be able to unravel the great mystery of the diabolical congestion and why the mfc is so pathetic

[daisycutter 28,624]

It always strikes me as an odd notion to reduce interchange rotation numbbers in order to tire players - i.e. make them play poorer in an effort to improve the game. Although I understand this is a facet of other sporting contests. The worry for me is then it may become even more of an athletics carnival as endurance players will be favoured over more pure footballs. I'd argue that professionalism is actually the greatest change seen in our game and the reason it seems so homogenised now. Looking back at older games they certainly seem more entertaining and a greater spectacle but it's due I think to the lack of professionalism - defenders not knowing where to run and in patterns as much along with greater freedom and creativity in attack etc. (not to mention more interesting characters and a bit of biff). I don't know what the solution is.

it's not really to tire the players skuit

it is to make it physically impractical for 36 players to follow the ball within a kic all game long

this realisation would force the coaches to develop a new game plan which was more positional and therefore more open

players won't be more exhausted than they are now

[Skuit 9,268]

Fair enough point DC. It still worries me when they tinker though as there's the possibility of unforeseen consequences that may do more worse than good and then the tinkering with tinkerings has a cumulative effect and we end up with the sub rule et al.

[daisycutter 28,624]

Fair enough point DC. It still worries me when they tinker though as there's the possibility of unforeseen consequences that may do more worse than good and then the tinkering with tinkerings has a cumulative effect and we end up with the sub rule et al.

yep, that's a reasonable concern

but in this case they are not really doing anything new, they would just be unwinding previous bad tinkering

of course, winding back the interchange isn't going to solve all problems of congestion and it will take time as game plans adjust to new realities

it's not a panacea but i'd be pretty confident that it would be the single best solution to reduce the congestion

[sue 8,457]

While I like winding back interchanges, I wonder if some congestion could be broken up by penalising players who jump of a pack with no attempt to tackle the guy at the bottom who may have the ball. For a start, they should be penalised under the current rules when they tackle a player who does not have the ball or fall into his back. But they also tackle team mates just to add bodies to the mess - no attempt to get the ball or the player with it. Regardless of whether it fixed the congestion problem or not, I'd like to see both penalised - it is a terrible look and I do not see what purpose it serves except preventing any chance of the ball coming out.

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

Here's the out of bounds rule. (16.1.2) Part © is the interesting one.

15.6 FREE KICKS – RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS
15.6.1 When Awarded
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds on the Full;
(b) in the act of bringing the football back into play after a Behind
has been scored, Kicks the football over the Boundary Line
without the football first being touched by another Player;
© intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over
the Boundary Line without the football being touched by
another Player;
(d) having taken the football over the Boundary Line, fails to
immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop
the football directly to the ground;
(e) touches the football after the boundary Umpire has signalled
that the football is Out of Bounds, except for a Player who has
carried the football over the Boundary Line under this Law 15.6.1
or a Player awarded a Free Kick under these Laws; or
(f) hits the football Out of Bounds on the Full from a boundary throw
or a field bounce or throw by a field Umpire.
15.6.2 Taking Free Kick
A Free Kick awarded under Law 15.6.1 shall be taken at the point where
the football crossed the Boundary Line.

And while we're at it, here's another non-existent rule.

16.1 STANDING THE MARK AND TEN-METRE PROTECTED AREA
16.1.1 Standing the Mark
When a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick or is Kicking into play
after a Behind has been scored, one Player from the opposing Team
may stand at the position on the Playing Surface where the Mark or
Free Kick was awarded or where the field Umpire otherwise directs
the Player to stand. The position on the Playing Surface where the
opposing Player stands is known as “the mark”.
16.1.2 Protected Area
The Protected Area is a corridor which extends from 5 metres either
side of the mark to 5 metres either side of, and a 5-metre radius behind,
the Player with the football, as illustrated in Diagram 2. No Player shall
enter and remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls
“Play On” or the Player is accompanying or following within 5 metres of
their opponent.

Drinking game. Take a sip every time you see a player in the 5 metre zone.

[Skuit 9,268]

Didn't JKH get pinged for the latter against the Bears?

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Didn't JKH get pinged for the latter against the Bears?

They paid it all the time 3-4 years ago and the ONLY time I've seen it paid this year was against JKH

Uncontested, double handed tap out of bounds should be deliberate I think. Saints did it a couple of times. One of the worst application of a rule has been the rushed behind rule, it was brought in to combat the Hawks and Bowden's tactic in 08, so they paid it a lot in 09-10 and that's about it. I don't see why it should be different to taking the ball out of bounds, wasn't that the intention behind that rule? Also, it makes the play near the goal line a lot more exciting.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Je Roos Salem

[sue 8,457]

Thanks for posting the rule. So it seems clear punching the ball over the line deliberately in a marking contest is forbidden.

Even (e) is ignored (mercifully) because that outlaws most players from picking up the ball and handing it to the umpire.

As for the rushed behind issue, I think the current rule/interpretation is OK. It was brought in to stop a team wasting time with a minute to go, for example a team is 11 points ahead and to ensure there is no time for the opponent to kick 2 goals a player could easily waste a minute kicking in to himself and then walking back over the line. That is quite different than concede a point under real pressure.

It is bad that an attempt to rush a behind which misses and goes out of bounds is awarded deliberate. Clearly there is no advantage in putting it out so near to goal. The player was deliberately trying to ensure his team had possession after the point. So how could he be putting it OoB deliberately?

If we must make it a rule, then the free should be awarded in the centre of the ground somewhere. But best left alone.

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

Even (e) is ignored (mercifully) because that outlaws most players from picking up the ball and handing it to the umpire.

Agree. But they should either ping the players, or remove the rule from the rule book.

It's just one more example of how the umpires/umpiring panel pick and choose which rules they will enforce.

That's without even considering the bugbear of "interpretation". (How many games can you think of where "interpretation" of rules is a thing?)

[Skuit 9,268]

So I've softened on the idea of reducing interchange rotations (and thanks to all the contributors here for making this one of the most reasonable discussions I've encountered to date on DL) as I can't imagine now it would result in any crazy unexpected harm to the game - does Hogan really need to have a spell after slotting one 30 seconds in? We could drastically reduce without a major impact but hopefully a small beneficial one. But I still wouldn't want to see the interchange spots lowered for the variety and flexibility it adds on game-day. Anyway, back to Munga's OP premise of carrot over stick - evaluation of result changes over rule changes - any ideas?

Only brief thought I had, and it's not well thought out as yet, but if you switched the W and % percentage columns to some degree on the ladder it could make a major difference in encouraging an open attacking game-plan. Say if you placed percentage into percentiles (rounded within groups of 10% for example) as the first ladder position determination and then-after relied on games won to split the difference within brackets. So, on current standings, the Hawks in the 170-180% bracket would be on top, followed by WC on 150-160% and then Freo (120-130%). These brackets can be adjusted obviously but the onus on playing a more attacking style would be there as there's more of a margin for error in boosting percentage here by developing an attacking sensibility over playing shut-down and hopefully teams wouldn't go into cruise mode either or simply give up. Apologies if I haven't explained this very well.

But best of all, it would be great to hear a player in a post-match interview say, 'we're just happy we came away with the 120 points'.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Skuit

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,481]

Here's the out of bounds rule. (16.1.2) Part © is the interesting one.

15.6 FREE KICKS – RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS

15.6.1 When Awarded

A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:

(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds on the Full;

(b) in the act of bringing the football back into play after a Behind

has been scored, Kicks the football over the Boundary Line

without the football first being touched by another Player;

© intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over

the Boundary Line without the football being touched by

another Player;

(d) having taken the football over the Boundary Line, fails to

immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop

the football directly to the ground;

(e) touches the football after the boundary Umpire has signalled

that the football is Out of Bounds, except for a Player who has

carried the football over the Boundary Line under this Law 15.6.1

or a Player awarded a Free Kick under these Laws; or

(f) hits the football Out of Bounds on the Full from a boundary throw

or a field bounce or throw by a field Umpire.

15.6.2 Taking Free Kick

A Free Kick awarded under Law 15.6.1 shall be taken at the point where

the football crossed the Boundary Line.

And while we're at it, here's another non-existent rule.

16.1 STANDING THE MARK AND TEN-METRE PROTECTED AREA

16.1.1 Standing the Mark

When a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick or is Kicking into play

after a Behind has been scored, one Player from the opposing Team

may stand at the position on the Playing Surface where the Mark or

Free Kick was awarded or where the field Umpire otherwise directs

the Player to stand. The position on the Playing Surface where the

opposing Player stands is known as “the mark”.

16.1.2 Protected Area

The Protected Area is a corridor which extends from 5 metres either

side of the mark to 5 metres either side of, and a 5-metre radius behind,

the Player with the football, as illustrated in Diagram 2. No Player shall

enter and remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls

“Play On” or the Player is accompanying or following within 5 metres of

their opponent.

Drinking game. Take a sip every time you see a player in the 5 metre zone.

You'd think enforcing rule 15.6.1 © more strictly might help. How often do players from all teams punch the ball over the boundary line when they spoil a marking contest? Because of the problem of umpires being asked to determine whether the players' intentions were deliberate, though, it might just be easier to pay a free kick whenever a player punches the ball and it goes over the boundary line without being touched by another player, whether intended or not. That would encourage players who punch to try at least to punch the ball inboard, keeping it in play.

[Skuit 9,268]

You'd think enforcing rule 15.6.1 © more strictly might help. How often do players from all teams punch the ball over the boundary line when they spoil a marking contest? Because of the problem of umpires being asked to determine whether the players' intentions were deliberate, though, it might just be easier to pay a free kick whenever a player punches the ball and it goes over the boundary line without being touched by another player, whether intended or not. That would encourage players who punch to try at least to punch the ball inboard, keeping it in play.

Would be an excuse to trade Garland and Dunn at least.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,481]

Would be an excuse to trade Garland and Dunn at least.

Whatever reasons might exist to keep or trade Garland and Dunn, I'd be willing to bet their punching the ball over the line is a direct instruction from the coaching panel.

[Skuit 9,268]

I reckon in tandem with reducing the rotations, removing the prior opportunity rule may help keep the packs spread out a bit. If you are tackled its holding the ball. I can't remember when prior opportunity came in (was it early 80s)?

Felt like much later. Or at least in its current interpretation. They could retroactively assess prior opportunity and deem the passing possession the prior - if a player takes the wrong option and handballs to player who is immediately tackled the first possession was the prior. We would be doomed.

[Skuit 9,268]

Whatever reasons might exist to keep or trade Garland and Dunn, I'd be willing to bet their punching the ball over the line is a direct instruction from the coaching panel.

Without a doubt. It was the first thing I was ever taught in junior football and used to get great applause every time I did so. Just have to wonder how many old school defenders like Fletcher would fall by the wayside without the arsernal to do much else against bigger-bodied forwards.