The answer to reducing congestion around the ball is...

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

Reduce the interchange numbers to a single figure. Put 6 on the bench. 

The answer certainly is not this bullsh!t

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-rules-16aside-footy-might-be-trialled-next-preseason-20170208-gu8is5.html

i am so sick of the suits changing rules every 10 minutes

The interchange numbers are way to high

Players do not fatigue anymore

[george_on_the_outer 7,603]

Or zones. They put in a centre square to stop congestion. Something like minimum 6 players in half the field is simple. Emergency umpire is doing nothing for most of the game, so they can administer it.

16 a side just means 32 players around the ball instead of 36. Problem not solved.

[thesleepinggiant 160]

Do what the umps did in my u10's..... stop play, take possession of footy and kick it to the nearest player away from the congestion and call play on lol

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

16 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Or zones. They put in a centre square to stop congestion. Something like minimum 6 players in half the field is simple. Emergency umpire is doing nothing for most of the game, so they can administer it.

16 a side just means 32 players around the ball instead of 36. Problem not solved.

But that takes away the essence of the game. Aussie Rules has a sense of freedom to move  

zones are too technical  

allow the players to get tired and rest up forward for 5 minutes

The interchange bench was introduced by Kevin Sheedy and has now outlived its use by date

[Maldonboy38 6,403]

2 minutes ago, thesleepinggiant said:

Do what the umps did in my u10's..... stop play, take possession of footy and kick it to the nearest player away from the congestion and call play on lol

A cunning plan! Leave Jayden Hunt 20m away, deliberately cause congestion, and when the ump kicks it to him, everyone yell "Run, Forrest, run!". 

I also wish the game's overseers would simply leave the game alone. However,  with the aerobic capacity of the post 2000 footballer, 16 a side would open things up. 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

It astounds me that for all everyone hated the sub rule we finally a rid of it and people are now sugesting that we should completly change the sport and have 4-6 subs! I hate the AFL changing rules all the time but this really suits the whole "the fans dont know what they want" argument.

Edited February 9, 2017 by ArtificialWisdom

[Chris 2,892]

The answer to me is quite simple. Firstly the umps need to umpire the game as per the rules. Pay frees for holding the ball and don't let players just drop it at will, and pay frees for the obvious throws we see in every game. Doing this will mean the players will need to spread faster and wider and the ball will move on and results in less congestion. Strangly the AFL seem to have loosened the 'interpretation' on these rules and now allow players to drop the ball at will and the AFL will say it is better for the game because it keeps the ball moving. It does the bloody opposite you bunch of half wits. Doing this would also tire the players faster as they would need to be running and spreading far more that they are now. 

Secondly the interchange needs to be capped at a lower point that it is. Somewhere around 40 may well be right, each player can then basically have two breaks at some point during the game.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

9 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

It astounds me that for all everyone hated the sub rule we finally a rid of it and people are now sugesting that we should completly change the sport and have 4-6 subs! I hate the AFL changing rules all the time but this really suits the whole "the fans dont know what they want" argument.

No. It is to drastically reduce the rotation numbers OR stop rotations all the way to the way it was. Why?

because it didn't work

the one concession i would make if necessary is to increase the bench to 6. 

I am not saying we go back to 70's Footy

but reducing the rotations WILL decrease congestion. 

16 a side will do nothing. Coaches will just flaunt the rule...

Edited February 9, 2017 by Sir Why You Little

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

Less players on the field is the answer. Fields haven't grown but players are exponentially fitter than 100 years ago. 

Fewer players also means defensive zones break down because the field is too big to cover

[DeeSpencer 25,713]

16 a side isn't a bad idea. You have to always have a few players forward or behind the ball. If a backline holds 3 back you need 2 to compete with them and same at the other end. So it will take players from around the ball. Players are too fit, too fast and kick too well for 18 on the ground. It's really a historical number and I'm glad they've changed it for AFLW.

Incorrect disposal has to be looked at. Certainly I think the Dogs got away with so much throwing last year. It helped them win in congestion and therefore encouraged them to keep the ball in congestion around stoppages and forward of centre. In the back half they are actually a really nice ball movement team.

Hawthorn beat congestion by raising the limits on what can be achieved in ball movement. They were so good at counter attacking from stoppages and turnovers that teams couldn't beat them by stacking numbers.

The modern culture of Australian Rules demands we use the bench as an interchange not subs and I'm all for that. Certainly there should be a cap but it's an interchange and I think that's a fair thing. I want to see 22 play each week not 18 (or 16) plus a few spares.

Overall I'd say why worry about this is Feb? 

Skills v congestion will be an endless battle at AFL level and it will ebb and flow.

[Diamond_Jim 12,590]

Would a "no third person in" help to clear the congestion. It might make the other players stand back and act as receivers rather than just adding to the pack.

I would be interested to see how many stoppages are caused by one on one tackles as distinct from group tackles.

A radical change could be the third ball up rule... if there are two consecutive ball ups that go nowhere then on the third occasion the person getting caught with the ball is pinged for holding no questions asked.In a way this a;ready happens when the umpire "plucks" a free kick from nowhere

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I hate the idea of zones, but I hate seeing all the players crammed up to one end of the ground.

Having said that, I still firmly believe that if a team such as Sydney left Franklin in the goal square, opposition teams would be reluctant to leave him there on his own, even if the ball was in their own forward line.

[Biffen 12,943]

There is no way to solve congestion around the ball.

It's a matter for the teams to conquer.

We have Viney,Jones and Oliver to fix it for us.

The only way teams will negate them in the future is by piling in and trying to hold the ball in a contested situation.

We will be extracting it and trying to score goals, then getting a centre clearance and scoring another.

the first games of Australian Rules went on for days often without any score.The rolling pack WAS the game.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

20 minutes ago, Biffen said:

the first games of Australian Rules went on for days often without any score.The rolling pack WAS the game.

The one thing that sets Australian Rules football apart from every other major football code more than anything is that there is no offside rule.

Yet for some reason coaches no longer exploit this advantage of being able to have players forward of the ball at all times.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Clint Bizkit

[Bossdog 2,002]

The coaches and the sports performace people are to blame

Last year I saw Jessie Hogan kick the first goal of a game at the 40sec mark and then came off for a rest......Really????

At one stage the entire midfield was interchanged after a goal.....One of them had only been on the ground for a minute

Years ago players could play a whole game and rest in pockets.

Soon players will limit their possessions so they can stay on the ground and play the game they love.

It's really a simple game stuffed up by high performance gurus.

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Bossdog
spelling

[rjay 24,929]

I'm not sure 16 a side would make a lot of difference.

The woman are using it now and there is still a lot of congestion around the ball and not much scoring.

Wouldn't seem to be a great advertisement for that change.

[AzzKikA 2,371]

But seriously, lower the interchange cap, the congestion around stoppages appeared to be reduced last year.

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by AzzKikA

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,787]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Reduce the interchange numbers to a single figure. Put 6 on the bench. 

The answer certainly is not this bullsh!t

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-rules-16aside-footy-might-be-trialled-next-preseason-20170208-gu8is5.html

i am so sick of the suits changing rules every 10 minutes

The interchange numbers are way to high

Players do not fatigue anymore

You do realise that in the one post you've proposed rule changes and indicated you don't like rule changes?

You're not alone. It seems most people oppose any rule changes...except for the ones they like.

 

[hells bells 2,023]

Get the umpire to throw it up as soon as he gets the ball.  Don't spend 15 seconds allowing both teams to get into their setups.

[hemingway 7,627]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I hate the idea of zones, but I hate seeing all the players crammed up to one end of the ground.

Having said that, I still firmly believe that if a team such as Sydney left Franklin in the goal square, opposition teams would be reluctant to leave him there on his own, even if the ball was in their own forward line.

sure we have some great games, the granny being a case in point. but for many of the home and away games we have to watch an unwatchable game of scrum rugby. it is killing the game. and the tagging of players around the ball where players are being blocked and checked by their opponent is a blight on the game, and should be penalized by the umps. 

actually I am not opposed to zones at least one with a line across the centre of the ground to ensure that teams have a minimum number of players in one half. it is an ugly spectacle to see all players in one half of ground with the other half completely empty.

[Brownie 5,981]

zoning will kill our game. 4 umps over offiaciting will too.

leave it alone and the coaches will sort out strategies to keep it moving

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Brownie

[tiers 2,840]

Enforce the rules sensibly. Watch replays of 70s and 80s games and the umpire blows the whistle as soon as the ball stops. Quick ball up (bounce) and play moves on. Change the interpretation so that once the ball is trapped and stopped its a ball up and eliminate the rolling scrums that only attract crowds.

If the AFl needs to change rules to be seen as relevant, then I propose the following:

No player can be interchanged more than once in a quarter (including injuries). Once and once only will build endurance or force players to rest on the ground.

No more than 2 players may tackle an opponent who's standing and only one if the player is on the ground. No more stacks on the mill holding the ball in and therefore distribution of the ball from packs will become easier to keep the ball moving.

At ball ups and throw ins the ruckmen are not to engage until the ball is in the air. Stop the pushing and shoving before the ball is even in play to encourage proper ruck work to clear packs (for those who remember Farmer and Nicholls were masters of the craft).

The 50m arc was introduced in 1987 as an aid to players and commentators, not as a zone. Any attempt to use it as a zone will be a grievous betrayal of the spirit of our great game that demands that free kicks be earned through contested play, not through over technical adherence to obscure rules or strict liability interpretations eg 50m penalties for inconsequentially standing on the wrong side of a blade of grass while on the mark.

We must protect the spirit of game that places our footy several orders of magnitude above all other sporting codes in the world.

 

 

[Fat Tony 5,231]

There is no harm trying things in the meaningless preseason practice matches.

I think going to 16 a side and a rule requiring 3 players from each side inside each 50 at stoppages & at kick ins would probably make the game a much better spectacle. But we wouldn't be able to know either way without trialing it.

[sue 9,107]

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

There is no way to solve congestion around the ball.

It's a matter for the teams to conquer.

We have Viney,Jones and Oliver to fix it for us.

The only way teams will negate them in the future is by piling in and trying to hold the ball in a contested situation.

We will be extracting it and trying to score goals, then getting a centre clearance and scoring another.

the first games of Australian Rules went on for days often without any score.The rolling pack WAS the game.

Many ball-ups occur after a player with (or not quite with) the ball, one or 2 guys tacking him and other players, usually on the side of the player with the ball jumping into the pack to tackle almost anyone.  Presumably they do this to lessen the chance of a holding free being paid or the ball spilling out.  If they paid a free kick when players blatantly tackle random people in the pack who do not ahve the ball, the game would open up.

Edited February 9, 2017 by sue

[daisycutter 29,616]

best way to beat pack congestion is to follow the lead of the bulldogs and just throw the ball out of the pack the instant you touch it