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

[The Chazz 4,077]

I have no idea if it will work or not, but I've often thought that at a centre bounce, that no player other than ruck, "ruck rover", rover, centre, are allowed in the centre until AFTER the ball has exited the centre square.

Won't help with congestion for general play stoppages, but it would eliminate the amount of repeated ball ups within the centre square after a goal.

The above would stuff our set play up of having a HFF running in to the centre from the half back line!

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,214]

I'm of the belief that the game was not as good as people claim it was 20, 30 years ago.  Every time this discussion comes up there seems to be a lot of the 'In my day... this' and 'when I was growing up... that'.  There are some bog-ordinary, congested games of footy nowadays, but there have always been terrible games of footy to watch, but they are not the ones that stick in our minds two decades later.

I'm not so convinced that things need to be changed to address congestion, there is and will continue to be plenty of great matches (mingled in with all the garbage.)

[Sir Why You Little 35,322]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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.

 

I am proposing to get rid of a rule that was introduced. Because it has created a whole lot of new problems. 

Again i say the only way to STOP congestion is through player fatigue. 

If players continue to rotate off the bench they will always have the energy to cngest the ball.  

Getting tired was part of our game for over 100 years and it might even get us a 100 goal kicker. 

[Roger Mellie 3,668]

A caller on SEN claimed the bulk of play (congestion) happened on the interchange side of the ground. His solution was to have one team's interchange on one side of the ground and the other on the opposite. It would end teams trying to keep play on one side of the ground to minimise the distance to the interchange. The flow-on would be less congestion. That's his theory anyway.

 

[Diamond_Jim 12,107]

4 minutes ago, Roger Mellie said:

A caller on SEN claimed the bulk of play (congestion) happened on the interchange side of the ground. His solution was to have one team's interchange on one side of the ground and the other on the opposite. It would end teams trying to keep play on one side of the ground to minimise the distance to the interchange. The flow-on would be less congestion. That's his theory anyway.

 

Interesting theory... On a related note I have always thought that the idea of the player coming on being able to immediately engage in the game is unfair. The player with the ball is entitled to assume he is only playing against the players on the ground and not one who suddenly emerges off the interchange bench. Bit like it is considered unsportsmanlike to move a fielder in cricket while the bowler is running in to bowl. Perhaps interchange players could be required to wait until there was a stoppage.

[whatwhat say what 20,421]

Would take reduction to 16 on field over zones any day.

[daisycutter 28,728]

25 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

Would take reduction to 16 on field over zones any day.

wouldn't consider either, andrew

prefer to keep reducing number of interchanges per game or per quarter until it bites hard

[biggestred 4,436]

Just make the number of interchanges 20 so the players have to rest on the ground in a pocket etc.

Simple

[John Crow Batty 8,376]

5 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I'm of the belief that the game was not as good as people claim it was 20, 30 years ago.  Every time this discussion comes up there seems to be a lot of the 'In my day... this' and 'when I was growing up... that'.  There are some bog-ordinary, congested games of footy nowadays, but there have always been terrible games of footy to watch, but they are not the ones that stick in our minds two decades later.

I'm not so convinced that things need to be changed to address congestion, there is and will continue to be plenty of great matches (mingled in with all the garbage.)

I remember games at places like the Western Oval or Glenferrie where games in wet or windy weather were played on one side of the ground for the entire game.  The only time the ball got near the middle was during centre bounces at start of quarters or after goals. Worst games ever to watch especially if stuck on the other side of the ground. 

10 interchanges a quarter is fine by me. That will clear congestion and allow only meaningful rest for players that really need it.  Just too bad if a player get injured and there are no interchanges left.  Teams deserve to play short for being profligate.

Edited February 9, 2017 by america de cali

[Biffen 12,567]

10 hours ago, Bossdog said:

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.

 

Total agreement .

Sport is about confidence.

[steve_f 40]

Trial in the pre-season no no prior advantage

[PaulRB 6,115]

In a contested ball sport, numbers around the ball are an advantage in winning and maintaining control of the ball and game.

It's the nature of our game.

I can't see why any of the suggested changes will alter that in any but a superficial way. 

And have no problem with the way the game is... 

Edited February 9, 2017 by PaulRB

[Macca 16,174]

I much prefer open, free flowing footy so I'd reduce the rotation numbers until the congestion is reduced to a point where it's not viewed as an issue.  The footy last season started off well in terms of open footy but as the year wore on, the congestion returned (but it wasn't as bad as in previous seasons)

I reckon reducing the rotations should work.  Anywhere from 20 - 40 should be enough for the coaches to work with.  They don't need 90 and they never needed 160+.  It's not ice-hockey (where unlimited rotations actually improves the sport)

Rugby league has only 10 rotations per team, per game whilst rugby union & soccer doesn't have rotations at all.

Those who don't mind the congestion will differ but that's ok ... each to their own.

[Palace Dees 2,069]

The VFA played 16 per side for over 30 years. As a kid in the 60's and 70's I followed the VFA over the then VFL because it was faster and more exciting.  This was despite the better footballers being in the VFL.  When it went to 18 per side in the 90's I dropped off because it lost it's aesthetic advantage. I would personally love to see it but I appreciate I am in the minority.  

 

[Skuit 9,382]

Claratyne.

[DeeMfc 621]

9 hours ago, steve_f said:

Trial in the pre-season no no prior advantage

Clarry would win the brownlow with that rule change.

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

Claratyne.

 Clarrytime!

[special robert 438]

two balls

[Skuit 9,382]

2 minutes ago, special robert said:

two balls

Now that would be a ballsy move.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Skuit

[AzzKikA 2,371]

33 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Now that would be a ballsy move.

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

Does anyone think the rule changes over the last decade in a supposed effort to "speed up the game" might have had a counter-intuitive effect? For example, allowing kick-ins immediately after a behind is kicked, four boundary umpires and the short period between when a mark is taken and play-on is called are all relatively new. But they have all reduced the amount of time players get to rest during play.

If the players had that extra rest, would there be a need to have as many interchanges?  Which then flows on to players having longer rests on the bench rather than in breaks in play on the field and therefore more burst speed. 

[Bobby McKenzie 2,269]

On 09/02/2017 at 8:23 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

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

I agree wholeheartedly DJ. Player A tackles player B and takes him to the ground. Player C jumps on the top and is penalised with a free against. Other players can gather round trying to get ball or receive a handpass. I'm sure this would help alleviate the ugly, scrums that are becoming far to prevalent today and spoiling our great game. Simply, third man on is penalised. Easy for umps as there is no grey area here. No need for an interpretation of the rules.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Bobby McKenzie

[ArtificialWisdom 3,965]

7 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

I agree wholeheartedly DJ. Player A tackles player B and takes him to the ground. Player C jumps on the top and is penalised with a free against. Other players can gather round trying to get ball or receive a handpass. I'm sure this would help alleviate the ugly, scrums that are becoming far to prevalent today and spoiling our great game. Simply, third man on is penalised. Easy for umps as there is no grey area here. No need for an interpretation of the rules.

So taking you back to the hawthorn win. When Watts was tackled by 2 players and he stood up in the tackle and kicked it to Tyson who snapped the sealer. You would have rathered that be paid as a cheap free kick because 2 players tackled him?

[Grimes Times 1,278]

16 a side wont fix anything. Just takes a FP or a BP away. Doesn't reduce numbers a round the ball.

[AzzKikA 2,371]

6 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

So taking you back to the hawthorn win. When Watts was tackled by 2 players and he stood up in the tackle and kicked it to Tyson who snapped the sealer. You would have rathered that be paid as a cheap free kick because 2 players tackled him?

Nah I think he means when the player gets tackled to the ground.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

1 minute ago, AzzKikA said:

Nah I think he means when the player gets tackled to the ground.

Actually, I thought he was talking about the third player in being from the team who already had possession of the ball to help hold it in.