34 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

That Crows Port game was one of the best I've seen for some time.

These SA showdowns nearly always are great games Uncle but we never see them here on free to air! We are more likely to get Carlton vs St Kilda. 

I can't remember, why was the 3rd man up rule introduced? Was it because Blues/Pies didn't have a viable option?

I didn't mind it. A different tactic, another dimension in the game.

Why do we keep changing game rules to stop tactics? Zones, to stop tactics. 3rd man up rule to stop tactics.

Tactics change, the game evolves, the spectacle increases. I'd almost guarantee that the current game styles won't be used, or even viable, come 2025. Leave it the [censored] alone!

9 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i will miss seeing carlton being mercilessly destroyed on friday nights

very therapeutic and schadenfreudic

It's like getting drunk without having a drink......that's irish

9 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Even worse was when no-one nominated and the boundary umpire was told to throw it in again. 

I despise BT's commentary, but in this case he was absolutely right....throw the damn thing in and get on with the game.  No need to wait for rucks to walk over.  If no-one is allowed to ruck, then let the ball hit the ground.  Better still get rid of nominations, and only 2 people can contest. 

.....it ain't that hard! Except apparently for the AFL.

That was about the “worst look thing” I can recall at AFL.

Can anyone recall just what reasoning the pathetic AFL commission gave for introducing this totally ridiculous rule?   IIRC it was about limiting “third man up” contests: surely it would have been far easier and more efficacious to just penalize any second player from a team getting involved in the ruck contest. 

1 hour ago, Win4theAges said:

The game is continuing to make Gill and his clowns look like fools.

Yes the game has minor issues to clear up eg. Ruck nomination rule, running through the 5 meter protected area etc.

All this nonsense is all about the almighty dollar, not the state of the game.

Gil and his clowns seem to be doing that pretty well off their own boots. 

The game is looking very good at the moment, hard running, open footy, close finishes by less than a goal, not sure there is a problem Gil! 

Gil is the only problem 

3 minutes ago, MSFebey said:

Gil is the only problem 

'Solution' in search of a problem 

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

whilst close games are good for spectators, it doesn't mean the game is good. still plenty of areas that need fixing or setting the clock back

Do you mean "aesthetic" things, or dysfunctional things?

As to the dysfunctional, I agree - score reviews, protected zone, ruck nominations, the sliding tackle free, the holding the ball rule, all of that needs to be addressed.

As to the "look of the game", though, I don't agree one bit. 

Ridiculous round of footy.

14 hours ago, small but forward said:

Put the good teams on in the prime time slots and the crap teams at 6pm on Sunday night and a lot of this would be fixed.

The AFL needs to take accountability for poor Friday night games by firstly gifting Carlton/St Kilda so many games and then, mystifyingly, defending the decision. It really is amateur.

No it won't.

Because once a poor team, it'll take 10Yrs + to become a good team, in the current state of the game..  Just another recipe for power clubs, and also-rans.

Just like the past 50 years.

 

And we're losing too many kids from Pro-Footy,  because of all this over-professional state of the game...  and the lack of space, so many skilled kids cannot operate in such little time and space.

 

It should not be based on the ratings alone as this is merely the warning shot over the Bow.

 

It is the actual people leaving the game, and saying so for many years....  that MUST be listened to.

.

38 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Do you mean "aesthetic" things, or dysfunctional things?

As to the dysfunctional, I agree - score reviews, protected zone, ruck nominations, the sliding tackle free, the holding the ball rule, all of that needs to be addressed.

As to the "look of the game", though, I don't agree one bit. 

Still too many players around the ball 'titan'...sorting out some of the dysfunctional rules will help fix this.

Dropping interchange numbers may also help.

Close finishes add excitement but the look of the game still needs to be addressed.

“Stoppages” - What a Balls Up!

What happened to the iconic ball up? It used to be an effective tool used by umpires to clear congestion. Unfortunately balls up have become less effective at doing this due to delays caused by “stoppages”.

These stoppages allow players valuable time to catch their breath, return to pre-determined positional “structures”, occupy strategic territory and prevent opposition players from finding space on their own. Far too often the delays to balls up caused by stoppages contribute to the very congestion that balls up were designed to clear.

There are four kinds of stoppages that have crept into the game. I have listed the types, a short description of each and possible solutions to these below:

RUCK STOPPAGES: Balls up are delayed until each side nominates who will participate in the contest.  SOLUTION: Ball it up straight away! Abolish the nomination rule, allow any 2 opposing players to contest the ball up and penalise any 3rd man up.

COMMERCIAL STOPPAGES: “Balls up” at centre bounces are currently delayed after each goal is scored for a 30 second television commercial break. SOLUTION: Restrict after-goal television advertisements to a maximum time of 15 seconds.

VIDEO SCORE REVIEW (VSR) STOPPAGES: Play is far too often delayed waiting for the video referee’s inconclusive decision requested by a goal umpire unsure about a score. SOLUTION: Abolish VSR, double the number of goal umpires from 2 to 4.

IN PLAY STOPPAGES: Multi-player rugby style mauls occur far too often and are a blight on the game. SOLUTION: Ball it up and clear the congestion before disputed possession develops into a multi player scrum.

The “Ball Up” was designed to clear congestion. However it only creates further congestion if its use by umpires is delayed due to stoppages. Stoppages therefore must be reduced to allow balls up to occur when necessary and without delay. This will help to reduce the chronic congestion we too often see today and allow the great AFL game to flow more fluently.

9 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Do you mean "aesthetic" things, or dysfunctional things?

As to the dysfunctional, I agree - score reviews, protected zone, ruck nominations, the sliding tackle free, the holding the ball rule, all of that needs to be addressed.

As to the "look of the game", though, I don't agree one bit. 

agree about the dysfunctional

i don't understand why you think the dysfunctionals don't affect the look of the game.....they do

i would add to your list the reduction of rotations to reduce congestion and rugby style mauls. and the deliberate point and deliberate oob rules

anyway, my main point was to refute the populist media reaction that just because we had a round of very close results that this somehow proves the game is in a good condition. just a knee-jerk reaction without any serious analysis

p.s. i'm not necessarily supporting the afl's approach either

6 hours ago, Demonia said:

“Stoppages” - What a Balls Up!

What happened to the iconic ball up? It used to be an effective tool used by umpires to clear congestion. Unfortunately balls up have become less effective at doing this due to delays caused by “stoppages”.

These stoppages allow players valuable time to catch their breath, return to pre-determined positional “structures”, occupy strategic territory and prevent opposition players from finding space on their own. Far too often the delays to balls up caused by stoppages contribute to the very congestion that balls up were designed to clear.

There are four kinds of stoppages that have crept into the game. I have listed the types, a short description of each and possible solutions to these below:

RUCK STOPPAGES: Balls up are delayed until each side nominates who will participate in the contest.  SOLUTION: Ball it up straight away! Abolish the nomination rule, allow any 2 opposing players to contest the ball up and penalise any 3rd man up.

COMMERCIAL STOPPAGES: “Balls up” at centre bounces are currently delayed after each goal is scored for a 30 second television commercial break. SOLUTION: Restrict after-goal television advertisements to a maximum time of 15 seconds.

VIDEO SCORE REVIEW (VSR) STOPPAGES: Play is far too often delayed waiting for the video referee’s inconclusive decision requested by a goal umpire unsure about a score. SOLUTION: Abolish VSR, double the number of goal umpires from 2 to 4.

IN PLAY STOPPAGES: Multi-player rugby style mauls occur far too often and are a blight on the game. SOLUTION: Ball it up and clear the congestion before disputed possession develops into a multi player scrum.

The “Ball Up” was designed to clear congestion. However it only creates further congestion if its use by umpires is delayed due to stoppages. Stoppages therefore must be reduced to allow balls up to occur when necessary and without delay. This will help to reduce the chronic congestion we too often see today and allow the great AFL game to flow more fluently.

Let me add something to the "ball Up"...

I believe if they re introduced the bounce around the ground it would be a big help in addition to the points you have raised.

No calling it back if it doesn't go straight up.

The random nature of the the bounce makes it harder to set up plays & would open the game out a lot more.

Currently the predictability encourages the stoppage plays we now get.

We play with an oval ball not a round ball, it's by it's nature unpredictable.

21 hours ago, Demonland said:

Because the AFL and umpires would

if 4 men went up. /sarcasm

But yeah free against the 3rd man up solves it and stops wasting time and energy. 

 

My main concern with getting rid of the nominating of the ruck is that for sides that only play one designated ruck, when that ruck is off, how will the opposition know who is contesting?

We saw it happen first hand at Geelong when Dangerflog nominated late, and Brayshaw didn't realise so was blocking his run (which we know what that led to).

I've wondered whether the old school basketball jump ball rule would work where if there's a stoppage because of a tackle, that the person with the ball and the first tackler go up. Would mean the traditional ruck is only required for bounces after a goal and boundary throw ins, which would disadvantage us given we have the best ruck in the league. (I'm not totally sold on this idea for that reason alone!).

I'm happy to hear how not needing to nominate will work, but I can see the potential of teams exploiting the ruck rule by claiming a midfielder was going to go up but his tagger blocked his run.

Edited August 4, 20186 yr by The Chazz

10 hours ago, rjay said:

Still too many players around the ball 'titan'...sorting out some of the dysfunctional rules will help fix this.

Dropping interchange numbers may also help.

Close finishes add excitement but the look of the game still needs to be addressed.

I don't agree that players around the ball equates to "bad look". 

But assuming that to be the case, I don't agree with the argument that the AFL has to change rules to fix it.

We're already starting to see teams spread out across the field ever so slightly more than was the case at the start of the year. I'm confident the game will take care of itself whilst also providing exciting finishes.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

agree about the dysfunctional

i don't understand why you think the dysfunctionals don't affect the look of the game.....they do

i would add to your list the reduction of rotations to reduce congestion and rugby style mauls. and the deliberate point and deliberate oob rules

anyway, my main point was to refute the populist media reaction that just because we had a round of very close results that this somehow proves the game is in a good condition. just a knee-jerk reaction without any serious analysis

p.s. i'm not necessarily supporting the afl's approach either

Doesn't the reverse also hold true? Just because some of the games this year have been low-scoring and/or congested with lots of stoppages, that doesn't necessarily mean the game is in a "bad condition", does it?

I just do not agree that there is any sort of major problem associated with stoppages or congestion. I don't agree that it's a problem in the first place, but even if I did, I also wouldn't agree that rule changes are necessary to stop congestion/stoppages from occurring.

I'd be in favour of fixing/removing the aforementioned dysfunctional rules, and to the extent they reduce congestion then so be it. But I'm against changing the way the game is played fundamentally (e.g. 6-6-6 or a larger goal square) specifically to combat those "issues".

1 hour ago, The Chazz said:

My main concern with getting rid of the nominating of the ruck is that for sides that only play one designated ruck, when that ruck is off, how will the opposition know who is contesting?

We saw it happen first hand at Geelong when Dangerflog nominated late, and Brayshaw didn't realise so was blocking his run (which we know what that led to).

I've wondered whether the old school basketball jump ball rule would work where if there's a stoppage because of a tackle, that the person with the ball and the first tackler go up. Would mean the traditional ruck is only required for bounces after a goal and boundary throw ins, which would disadvantage us given we have the best ruck in the league. (I'm not totally sold on this idea for that reason alone!).

I'm happy to hear how not needing to nominate will work, but I can see the potential of teams exploiting the ruck rule by claiming a midfielder was going to go up but his tagger blocked his run.

Isn't the idea that each club sends one person up and if the club stuffs it up and more than one person goes up, it's a free against?

The overwhelming majority of the time it's obvious who the ruckmen are. 

16 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I

I just do not agree that there is any sort of major problem associated with stoppages or congestion. I don't agree that it's a problem in the first place, but even if I did, I also wouldn't agree that rule changes are necessary to stop congestion/stoppages from occurring.

I

i'm not suggesting new rule changes as such. more to remove(change) recent rule changes that are dysfunctional, too technical, difficult to interpret and with penalties that are too harsh.

the big one for congestion (imo) is the rotations. This is a (relatively) new rule and i would be happy to just reverse the clock. maybe not as far as 19th/20th man but certainly a big wind back

 

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Isn't the idea that each club sends one person up and if the club stuffs it up and more than one person goes up, it's a free against?

The overwhelming majority of the time it's obvious who the ruckmen are. 

Yeah, because sides that see Dangerfield floating around the pack are going to presume he's going up in the ruck?

Seriously, if the AFL change this, they will need to implement something to stop teams from exploiting it.  It will happen.

28 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Yeah, because sides that see Dangerfield floating around the pack are going to presume he's going up in the ruck?

Seriously, if the AFL change this, they will need to implement something to stop teams from exploiting it.  It will happen.

I think you are missing the point.  Banning the 3rd man up has nothing to do with what Dangerf did.    The idea is that anyone can contest the ball at a throw in or ball up (bar centre ball ups) - no nominations.  If a team is so stupid as to not sort out amongst themselves who is the ruckman for that contest and 2 of that team go up, then they need to sort out their internal communications, not change the rules to the nonsense we are currently seeing.  

One difficulty that I can see is when 2 from each team go up.  But then just pay a free against whoever appears to be #3, ignore #4.

The other problem without nominations is what if 2 from each team start wrestling before, or as a ball is thrown-in.  But that could have happened anytime in the last 150 years before nominations was introduced.  Why did it not happen then?   

Personally I'd like to see the wrestling banned at throw-ins.  Only the most egregious holding is paid at throw-ins whereas a minor arm wrap is paid against whoever starts it in a marking contest.   Pay it as is done for marking infringements and there will be less congestion.  The wrestling looks ugly and I suspect leads to taps which go no distance which adds to congestion.

Edited August 5, 20186 yr by sue

16 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

$2 an hour

I think that's fair

2 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I think that's fair

As long as they work hard for it...

Edited August 5, 20186 yr by Sir Why You Little

16 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

These SA showdowns nearly always are great games Uncle but we never see them here on free to air! We are more likely to get Carlton vs St Kilda. 

Far be it from me to question the integrity of our pollies Earl but wasn't it stated some years ago that major sport would always be available on free to air?

21 hours ago, sue said:

I think you are missing the point.  Banning the 3rd man up has nothing to do with what Dangerf did.    The idea is that anyone can contest the ball at a throw in or ball up (bar centre ball ups) - no nominations.  If a team is so stupid as to not sort out amongst themselves who is the ruckman for that contest and 2 of that team go up, then they need to sort out their internal communications, not change the rules to the nonsense we are currently seeing.  

One difficulty that I can see is when 2 from each team go up.  But then just pay a free against whoever appears to be #3, ignore #4.

The other problem without nominations is what if 2 from each team start wrestling before, or as a ball is thrown-in.  But that could have happened anytime in the last 150 years before nominations was introduced.  Why did it not happen then?   

Personally I'd like to see the wrestling banned at throw-ins.  Only the most egregious holding is paid at throw-ins whereas a minor arm wrap is paid against whoever starts it in a marking contest.   Pay it as is done for marking infringements and there will be less congestion.  The wrestling looks ugly and I suspect leads to taps which go no distance which adds to congestion.

All due respect, Sue, I think you are missing my point.

For example, if we are playing Geelong, and Gawn is on the ground but Stanley is off, leaving Geelong with no "dedicated" back up ruck.  At the next stoppage, Gawn is standing there, so we know that he will ruck, but who is he rucking against?  Let's say they only have Dangerfield, Selwood, Kelly, Duncan and Ablett around the stoppage.  Our midfielders line up on them, but the reality is, one of them (Geelong players) will be going up against Gawn.

The rules are that you are not allowed to block an opposition ruck from contesting.  In the scenario above, and with all the tagging/blocking that goes on amongst midfielders at a stoppage, how do we know who we can and can't block?  If they don't have to nominate a ruck, we will run the great risk of either blocking the guy that's "meant to be" going up in the ruck (thus giving away a ruck infringement free kick), or finding that their "ruck" takes a clear jump at the contest because our mids won't know which one they can and can't block.

So again, in the scenario above, you would presume Danger is going to take the ruck contest.  So that means we'll be able to put more touch on the their other players at the stoppage.  It'll only take Ablett being blocked for them to say that he (Ablett) was going to be the one going up, but one of our mids didn't give him a fair run at the ruck contest.  (Hope that makes sense).