Lots of talk about the game being substantially reduced as a spectacle due to the manic press that so many clubs are employing.

Draining on spectators and draining on players. Sure there are some stars that can adapt but perhaps we are being robbed of witnessing the skills of  the lesser players. (Think our own Jayden Hunt in this regard.)

Are the players of the future the tough aerobic runners who just push the ball forward or more likely crowd the ball carrier.

As an AFL member I often avail myself of free entry to the less crowded games and watch as a neutral observer. I also watch one or two matches a week on TV. The strange thing is that perhaps the television hides the lack of spectacle because it concentrates on the ball carrier. In the "old days" we used to complain that the TV did not show the up the ground movement etc. Not to worry anymore because almost all the players are within 70 metres of the ball.

Pressure is on the AFL to do something.

Any ideas:

• less players
• Zones
• Change holding the ball to two chances for disposal

What do the experts and the watchers on this forum suggest.

For the tacticians... an even harder question ... how do you negate the press other than by the quick kick which more often comes back at you anyway.

Less interchange rotations perhaps? Would that aid in some way?

Funny, the game is better to be watched on TV now that live at the ground.  Take away the atmosphere of the crowd, watching the game is like watching an U9s local game of football with 36 players within 60ms of the ball. 

Your last point changing Holding the ball rules, they don't need be altered they need to be enforced.  You get the ball you need to dispose of it, soon as you take a couple of steps your done and if you don't handball or kick the ball pay the kick no matter where abouts on the ground it is.

 

4 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Less interchange rotations perhaps? Would that aid in some way?

would not do any harm to trial an aggressive drop in the number of interchanges.. say halve them.

Over time however it will perhaps just favour the stronger run all day players as they get fitter and stronger.

A caller to the radio this morning mentioned that Richmond are better at the press because they are fitter and can thus maintain the pressure in the last quarter. The last two weeks and the perhaps the GF are good evidence of that theory.

Professional umpires would be a welcome addition to the game.

3 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Funny, the game is better to be watched on TV now that live at the ground.  Take away the atmosphere of the crowd, watching the game is like watching an U9s local game of football with 36 players within 60ms of the ball. 

Your last point changing Holding the ball rules, they don't need be altered they need to be enforced.  You get the ball you need to dispose of it, soon as you take a couple of steps your done and if you don't handball or kick the ball pay the kick no matter where abouts on the ground it is.

 

Is the tackler being rewarded too easily these days relative to the play maker. Remember that the ball player gets the ball surrounded by usually 2-3 opposition players. A requirement for immediate disposal serves perhaps to reduce the exposition of skills.

2 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Professional umpires would be a welcome addition to the game.

perhaps we have too many umpires leading to the game being over umpired and thus more stoppages.

Professionalism.. why not.. what should they be paid?

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

perhaps we have too many umpires leading to the game being over umpired and thus more stoppages.

Professionalism.. why not.. what should they be paid?

I would say bananas, but that would be rude.

 

Richmond won a flag implementing the manic forward press

Don't reckon they'd be happy with any changes, particularly anything that mentions the word 'zone'

Or go back to the old days a la soccer, whereby when you come off the ground, you can’t go back on. Have 6-8 on the bench.

richmond have also been blessed by a lack of injuries

8 minutes ago, small but forward said:

Or go back to the old days a la soccer, whereby when you come off the ground, you can’t go back on. Have 6-8 on the bench.

or perhaps only allow subs if there is an injury.... drastic and of course it would require third party objective certification as no club could be trusted.

By the way ... when is soccer going to get rid of the sub and coach's huts along the sidelines... makes for lousy spectating in many stadiums.

drastic cut in rotations

professional umpiring  +  documented clearly defined change in rule interpretations (holding ball, tackling, handball/throwing etc)

zones won't work

other more minor points: 

ball up quicker when ball locked in (as it used to be)

allow deliberate points (as it used to be)

allow deliberate out of bounds if not on the full (as it used to be)

allow 2nd man up except at centre bounces (as it used to be)

25m (minor) + 50m (major) penalties

It's honestly been a bloody boring season, due mostly to the fact that every team has been average at best (except Richmond). 

 

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

drastic cut in rotations

professional umpiring  +  documented clearly defined change in rule interpretations (holding ball, tackling, handball/throwing etc)

zones won't work

other more minor points: 

ball up quicker when ball locked in (as it used to be)

allow deliberate points (as it used to be)

allow deliberate out of bounds if not on the full (as it used to be)

allow 2nd man up except at centre bounces (as it used to be)

25m (minor) + 50m (major) penalties

some good points dc... the one about deliberate points is interesting.... what about moving the kick out line to say 25 (50 probably too far) to make the next play a genuine 50/50.

Would you consider zones at centre bounces and kick outs from behind ?

TBH centre bounces don't require zones as it is usually the only time the players are spread to somewhere near their positions.

Perhaps for any bounce in the centre square area the number of players should be limited in a manner similar to the initial centre bounce.

18 minutes ago, Jaded said:

It's honestly been a bloody boring season, due mostly to the fact that every team has been average at best (except Richmond). 

 

You're right Jaded but the game plan makes them look average is what the commentators are saying. Love or loathe them, GWS are full with great skills but Pies and St Kilda closed them down very well.

46 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

richmond have also been blessed by a lack of injuries

Richmond are blessed by an incredibly capable and expert medical, fitness and support staff. I think that their list is better managed than any other team at the current time. 

Zones WILL work.

We only introduced a centre square to stop too many players crowding the ball at centre bounces.  There isn't a problem any more there is there. All we need is a line down the middle and each team has to have a minimum of 6 players on either side...Simples! 

We have an emergency umpire sitting on the bench all game doing stuff all, who can hopefully count and adjudicate. 

8 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Zones WILL work.

We only introduced a centre square to stop too many players crowding the ball at centre bounces.  There isn't a problem any more there is there. All we need is a line down the middle and each team has to have a minimum of 6 players on either side...Simples! 

We have an emergency umpire sitting on the bench all game doing stuff all, who can hopefully count and adjudicate. 

I'm inclined to agree.

6 players minimum on either side of the line who cant cross that line, sounds like netball rules

lets put bibs on them and call it a day

22 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Zones WILL work.

We only introduced a centre square to stop too many players crowding the ball at centre bounces.  There isn't a problem any more there is there. All we need is a line down the middle and each team has to have a minimum of 6 players on either side...Simples! 

We have an emergency umpire sitting on the bench all game doing stuff all, who can hopefully count and adjudicate. 

6 from each team is the whole fwd + backline. this is far too restrictive

if you did do it, 4 would be a more practical number 

27 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Zones WILL work.

We only introduced a centre square to stop too many players crowding the ball at centre bounces.  There isn't a problem any more there is there. All we need is a line down the middle and each team has to have a minimum of 6 players on either side...Simples! 

We have an emergency umpire sitting on the bench all game doing stuff all, who can hopefully count and adjudicate. 

Does sound simple but let me ask... Jayden Hunt tackles Riewoldt just inside the 50 line .. the ball falls free.. he picks it up off the ground, goes racing down the centre, bouncing as he goes and kicks  the torpedo for a goal and we win.

No wait... when Hunt ran out that left only four behind the line and the emergency umpire has pushed her little red button and the play is disallowed.

Edited April 30, 20186 yr by Diamond_Jim

33 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Zones WILL work.

We only introduced a centre square to stop too many players crowding the ball at centre bounces.  There isn't a problem any more there is there. All we need is a line down the middle and each team has to have a minimum of 6 players on either side...Simples! 

We have an emergency umpire sitting on the bench all game doing stuff all, who can hopefully count and adjudicate. 

Have you ever seen or heard of any trial of this type of zoning of players?

It'd be an interesting thing to try.

I have a wild idea:

Let it play out and allow teams to adjust.

The same thing was said of Sydney's style in the mid 2000s. The league adjusted.

AFL will always be chasing its tail on this issue 

irrespective of the rule it will take the coaches next to no time to develop a system to manipulate the rules. 

That what coaches do - it’s their job.