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

[Dr. Gonzo 24,203]

On 09/02/2017 at 3:15 PM, 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.

 

That's definitely happening. Teams play the interchange side so it's easier to switch players on/off the ground. Interchange benches on opposite sides of the ground would help.

[KingDingAling 3,752]

Just leave the rules as they are. I don't mind the congestion. Separates the go-getta's from the cherry pickers. If the AFL didn't change their rules try combat these issues, if the rules were left as they always have been, then coaches would find ways to exploit the congestion - to spread and find some outside ground. Wherever there is a trend in the game, there is always an opportunity to exploit it - and do what other teams are not doing.

[chook fowler 19,456]

Midfielders farting

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's definitely happening. Teams play the interchange side so it's easier to switch players on/off the ground. Interchange benches on opposite sides of the ground would help.

I like that rule change. It could have the biggest impact without actually changing the game.

[monoccular 17,417]

On 11/02/2017 at 8:40 PM, Forest Demon said:

I am onboard with the reduction/removal of the interchange. It isn't so much a rule change, as an adjustment to ensure the game is played the way it was intended, rather than the abuse of interchange rotations that crept in. KB is on the money.

16 a side and especially zones are ridiculous ideas. Imagine trying to enforce zones, plucking out random free kicks because of players out of position. It would be a disaster.

Surely it is not abuse, but rather exploitation.

And yes, I agree with a drastic reduction - say 40 a game.

 

[ickey_11 145]

I believe that by stopping the third man to the contest holding the ball in would allow the ball to come out a lot more. A rule could be where the 3rd 4th etc. man must keep on their feet and only try and extract the ball.

[Chris 2,892]

27 minutes ago, ickey_11 said:

I believe that by stopping the third man to the contest holding the ball in would allow the ball to come out a lot more. A rule could be where the 3rd 4th etc. man must keep on their feet and only try and extract the ball.

How does the ball come out legally though? Once you have the ball you can only dispose of it by a hand pass of kick, I am bloody sick and tired of seeing players just push the ball out of packs, or drop it, or let it go, all of which are free kicks to the opposition.

[ickey_11 145]

28 minutes ago, Chris said:

How does the ball come out legally though? Once you have the ball you can only dispose of it by a hand pass of kick, I am bloody sick and tired of seeing players just push the ball out of packs, or drop it, or let it go, all of which are free kicks to the opposition.

I am sure that it still would be difficult to get it our legally (but not impossible like it has become), but it would stop the situations where 1 guy is trying to get it out and 2 or more are stopping that or even pushing the ball back into the pack,

But you bring up a good point, when a player steals the ball in a pack, is the player originally with the ball then incorrectly disposing it?

Maybe the solution is for the umpires to police incorrect disposal; but then they cannot consistently get the prior opportunity aspect correct......

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, ickey_11 said:

I am sure that it still would be difficult to get it our legally (but not impossible like it has become), but it would stop the situations where 1 guy is trying to get it out and 2 or more are stopping that or even pushing the ball back into the pack,

But you bring up a good point, when a player steals the ball in a pack, is the player originally with the ball then incorrectly disposing it?

Maybe the solution is for the umpires to police incorrect disposal; but then they cannot consistently get the prior opportunity aspect correct......

Bingo! Do that one and the congestion would all but vanish.

[3Dee 1,153]

introducing a second football would surely clear up this congestion nonsense.

[monoccular 17,417]

5 hours ago, Chris said:

How does the ball come out legally though? Once you have the ball you can only dispose of it by a hand pass of kick, I am bloody sick and tired of seeing players just push the ball out of packs, or drop it, or let it go, all of which are free kicks to the opposition.

And, on the contrary, I am sick and tired of guys putting their bodies on the line the get the ball, only to be ridden into the ground - in the back - or jumped on in a stacks on the mill situation - again, in the back - getting pinged for holding.

IMO the first priority must be a legitimate tackle, then sure, HTB if not correctly disposed.

Edited February 14, 2017 by monoccular

[Chris 2,892]

54 minutes ago, monoccular said:

And, on the contrary, I am sick and tired of guys putting their bodies on the line the get the ball, only to be ridden into the ground - in the back - or jumped on in a stacks on the mill situation - again, in the back - getting pinged for holding.

IMO the first priority must be a legitimate tackle, then sure, HTB if not correctly disposed.

Agreed entirely. Umpire the game by the bloody rules, not some flavour of the month interpretation of a previous interpretation of some bloke at the pubs thoughts on the rules. 

[daisycutter 29,606]

third handball in a row (within 15m arc) - free kick. - kick it long fcs

just joshing

[Little Goffy 14,506]

One solution might be for coaches and players to develop the tactical insight that throwing yet more players onto the ball isn't always the most effective use of effort.

Personally, I'd rather have an extra unguarded player lurking around CHF/HFF with a good chance at turning even a panic kick out of congestion into a chance at the goals, compared to the dubious benefit of one extra player doing 50x50m sprints every game just to get thrown into a swamp on the wing.

You could probably justify one extra player forward AND one extra player back, as better 'percentage' options than player number 9 or 10 sucked to the ball.

The proof would come when your opposition follows your positional change. Which would null the benefits but also have the effect of reducing congestion at the ball. Football is the winner!

[Skuit 10,031]

3 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

One solution might be for coaches and players to develop the tactical insight that throwing yet more players onto the ball isn't always the most effective use of effort.

Personally, I'd rather have an extra unguarded player lurking around CHF/HFF with a good chance at turning even a panic kick out of congestion into a chance at the goals, compared to the dubious benefit of one extra player doing 50x50m sprints every game just to get thrown into a swamp on the wing.

You could probably justify one extra player forward AND one extra player back, as better 'percentage' options than player number 9 or 10 sucked to the ball.

The proof would come when your opposition follows your positional change. Which would null the benefits but also have the effect of reducing congestion at the ball. Football is the winner!

Wait. Isn't this the exact opposite of our Diamond Defence philosophy?

Edited February 14, 2017 by Skuit

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

So with all the arguments with congestion. Whats people's thoughts on this new ball up trial when it comes to a deliberate rushed. Personally I believe that a ball up is better than the free goal but it goes a bit against the whole reducing congestion thing.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-02-15/afl-to-trial-ballup-after-deliberate-rushed-behinds-in-jlt

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,710]

6 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

So with all the arguments with congestion. Whats people's thoughts on this new ball up trial when it comes to a deliberate rushed. Personally I believe that a ball up is better than the free goal but it goes a bit against the whole reducing congestion thing.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-02-15/afl-to-trial-ballup-after-deliberate-rushed-behinds-in-jlt

While football is sometimes a game of inches, in this instance a few inches can make a big difference. If the same action sends the ball over the line between the behind post and the goal post, it's a ball up. But if the ball happens to go to the other side of the behind post, it's a free kick. Therein lies a problem.  

[Sir Why You Little 37,011]

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While football is sometimes a game of inches, in this instance a few inches can make a big difference. If the same action sends the ball over the line between the behind post and the goal post, it's a ball up. But if the ball happens to go to the other side of the behind post, it's a free kick. Therein lies a problem.  

Free Kick to Whorethorn...

[monoccular 17,417]

 

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

skinny dipping with the Icebergers in mid winter?