"The AFL is examining the issue of excessive tackling, with football boss Steve Hocking saying the AFL wants to reduce the amount of tackling in the game."

Hocking said that tackling had become ‘‘a feature’’ of the game and that the AFL wanted to see the number of tackles reduced, although he did not specify the desired number.

‘‘I have a very strong view on that. It has become a feature of our game and all the stuff that we’re analysing is how to get a balance back in that so that it’s not a feature of the game."
 

Until Gil is gone I think I’m pretty much done with the AFL, is it even Aussie Rules anymore? 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-racing-to-build-new-review-centre-for-finals-20190717-p5284z.html#comments

I remember as a kid the old man talking about the good old days of footy (when we were sh. It) or of test match cricket and the new fangled ideas are ruining the game. I thought he was “old school” and didn’t see what I saw.

Geeeez I feel old as this game is so far removed from what I fell in love with and I don’t know if that feeling will come back.

(and we’re still sh. It)

Edited July 17, 20196 yr by Cards13
We’re still..

Hahahaha!!!

 

F Off Hocking....

 

just do it......NOW....

Who does he think he is? It's our game, not his. Time to invoke the "up yours" campaign again.

In any event, just paying more free kicks for extended possession when tackled eg. 360 or even 720 degrees, and eliminating the stupid rule that allows umpires to avoid ball ups so long as the ball is still moving that causes ugly rolling scrums to form will reduce the number of tackles and the punishment to the players and clean up the spectacle.

Watch replays from the 70s and 80s to see how the game should be played. Quick whistles and even quicker ball ups (umpires then took less time to prepare for a bounce than today umpires for a throw) kept the game open and moving.

 

Here's a thought reduce the interchange and make it a war of attrition were players can't cover as much ground and we get more 1 on 1

One of he most brutal games I recall seeing the 89 Grand final had a total of 72 tackles 

One thing is for sure we would rank #1 in the Comp for lowest tackles!

I give up

They are intent on bastardising what's left of our game

Shoot Gil, shock Hocking..slash the nuts of anyone that comes close to the game

THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. ..[censored] OFF

Edited July 17, 20196 yr by beelzebub

13 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Here's a thought reduce the interchange and make it a war of attrition were players can't cover as much ground and we get more 1 on 1

One of he most brutal games I recall seeing the 89 Grand final had a total of 72 tackles 

Would have been overly indexed in high, late, head high contact though.

Excessive tackling maybe occurring as there is no reward for a tackle result. No free for incorrect disposal, no free for holding it. A tackle can be ignored so players with the ball do and causes the rolling scrum that he wants to eliminate. Players can be swung around and even around again in a tackle and no free so tackles seem to be a feature as they are committed for a longer period.

players reactions are faster and tackles are applied more quickly and some players are assigned to close down so more tackles occur.

pay the free for an incorrect tackle, especially in the back, and tackles might be reduced. Perhaps a free for gang tackles would also eliminate the stoppages and allow the ball to be released.

granting frees would initially slow the game down but as players adapt and reduce the occurrence, less frees would be paid an the game would flow.

They need to reduce the number of players on the field. It's the only way to reduce congestion and bring it back to a more man on man style game.

Everything else is just shuffling deck chairs.

What the flying fig is he talking about? The game is difficult enough to adjudicate right now with all these open to interpretation rules and he wants to make it even harder for umpires. He brings up this idea that excessive tackling is a feature of the game now, but offers no solution or idea to how he intends to achieve his aim of reducing this. He sounds like a politician who throws out a thought about a likely policy for his party before the next election to test public opinion, and if there is an uproar, it will quietly disappear. Just like how the night Grand Final is mentioned every year. Fiddle, fiddle, fiddle.

No doubt as with the bump Gill the Dill sees tackling as an OH&S issue to be eradicated from the game.

I don't think there's been a rule change that's enhanced the game since they revived Out on the Full. Maybe the Centre Square but SFA after that

Hocking mentions people should take some confidence that they are looking at the right things. On the evidence here so far I think it’s the total opposite.

Even the people I speak to at work or elsewhere are fed up with the running of the game and constant changes, yet all we hear or read is that there is plenty of positive feedback from the public. Where are those people? I’m genuinely interested to hear if anyone thinks the AFL is doing a good job at the moment and why.

15 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

I don't think there's been a rule change that's enhanced the game since they revived Out on the Full. Maybe the Centre Square but SFA after that

It’s been all down hill since the interchange rotations.....

I thought the opening post was a clear joke for a minute there.

The rule changes are making it so hard for the umpires to keep up with. There are so many rules that can be interpreted a certain way at any given time. Once they started introducing rules where the umpire has to guess what the players intention was is where they really went wrong. Seeing the players pretend to hammer the ball out of their hands while dry humping the ground with an opposition player on top of him is a very difficult thing to explain to someone who is new to the game.

Just leave the game alone.

Ironically, they could reduce tackling by actually paying holding-the-ball and incorrect disposal more reliably.

If the penalty is there for being caught, then players and coaches will work harder to avoid it. More evasive tactics, less barging into tackles trying to mindlessly break through, more effort to get the ball to the outside of a pack rather than current acceptance of just having another ball up on the spot, and so on

Meanwhile, tackling remains every bit as much a part of the game and also becomes even more of a spectacle.

We can get through this round of HQ neurosis without wrecking the game, I swear.

FFS, what's next?

Please stop, just make them stop?

I watched the 1989 grand final recently, one of the 'great' grand finals and the almost complete lack of tackling that day annoyed the bejesus out of me.

Watching players with the ball waltz past opponents as though they were witches hats I started saying to myself, FFS tackle him!

And ..... while they are improving the game ..... I think the AFL needs to take a good hard look at this idea of kicking the football 

Far too much of it ATM 

Reduce interchange rotations. 

I'm thinking of how cooked we were against Carlton in the 4th in particular, and how we couldn't run, couldn't tackle etc. 

The players would have to conserve energy, throughout the rest of the match - there would be more one on ones...it would then be a spectacle.

Edited July 17, 20196 yr by Engorged Onion

Return to the Holding the Ball rule. If you are caught with it - free kick against you regardless of prior opportunity or any other bulldust open to interpretation. Yes, that means you can bounce it, drop it, tap it on in front of you, but not throw it. Most of us older blokes will think of Kevin Bartlett. This means you have to think before you tackle. 

2 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

And ..... while they are improving the game ..... I think the AFL needs to take a good hard look at this idea of kicking the football 

Far too much of it ATM 

Oliver thinks so.

Kylie Watson-Wheeler, Managing Director, Walt Disney Co Australia Pty Ltd: get me Gil McLachlan on the phone
Personal asistant to Kylie Watson-Wheeler: right away, ma'am
(ring ring)
Gillon McLachlan, CEO, AFL: Gil McLachlan
KWW: I watched one of your games and I don't like what I saw.
GM: ... who is this?
KWW: They just grab each other all the time.
GM: I ... 
KWW: I can't see what's on their shirts.
GM: Is this Kylie?
KWW: I want it fixed, and I want it fixed now!
GM: Kylie. Ms Watson-Wheeler. Have I done something to displease you? I apologise in adv--
KWW: This goddamned grabbing. It's becoming a feature of your game. Cut it out.
GM: Grabbing? ... do you mean tackling, Ms Watson-Wheeler?
KWW: Call it whatever the hell you want, but I can't see their shirts!
GM: Their shirts ... please tell me why, Ms Watson-Wheeler, that causes you concern?
KWW: I can't see if it's Iron Man, or Power Man, or Miss Dynamite, or who the hell has the pigskin!
GM: Iron Man? 
KWW: Gillon, are you listening?
GW: Yes, Ms Watson-Wheeler. I am listening, Ms Watson-Wheeler.
KWW: The player dressed as Iron Man. Or Power Boy. I can't see who it is with the pigskin.
GM: But the player isn't ... I mean, the players aren't dressed as Iron Man.
KWW: That comes in Phase 2. Try and keep up, Gillon! When the players are dressed as Wonder Lad or Macho Lady or who the hell, I want the consumers to see the branding of the product! Is that clear, Gillon?
GM: Yes, Ms Watson-Wheeler.
KWW: This grabbing, get rid of it. Now!
GM: Yes, Ms Watson-Wheeler. Right away, Ms Watson-Wheeler. Sorry, Ms Watson-Wheeler.
KWW: (hangs up)
GM: (yelling) Dianne! Get me Steve on the blower! Use the red phone! Immediately!

And so it goes Mazer down the proverbial.

Whats going to prevent this type of scenario? The Future Past.