The AFL wants to reduce tackling

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,563]

There is one change they can make that will solve all their problems.

Reduce the interchange cap to 10 per quarter. Players will then have to play more to a position and there would be a lot less rolling scrums resulting in less tackles because there isn't 12-15 players all around a stoppage.

We don't need the 6-6-6 rule, that's all they need to do.

Back in the 70's and 80's the interchange was more used as a substitute, with players on the been playing very few minutes. If they want to have more 1 on 1 contests then that is the answer.

[jnrmac 19,324]

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

Rubbish. The interchange is the reason players can run up and down all day. Couldn't do that in the past.

Wind back the interchange and the game becomes more one on one.

[DubDee 21,264]

Can we reduce administrators influence on the rules of our game?

there should be a list of core values/ rules that cannot change. 

Gil and Hocking can manage aflX and leave us the [censored] alone!!

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,533]

26 minutes ago, Collar-Jazz-Knee said:

There is one change they can make that will solve all their problems.

Reduce the interchange cap to 10 per quarter. Players will then have to play more to a position and there would be a lot less rolling scrums resulting in less tackles because there isn't 12-15 players all around a stoppage.

We don't need the 6-6-6 rule, that's all they need to do.

Back in the 70's and 80's the interchange was more used as a substitute, with players on the been playing very few minutes. If they want to have more 1 on 1 contests then that is the answer.

If the AFL wanted to be really courageous, they could get rid of interchange altogether and have four substitutes. The substitutes are needed in case of injuries and would likely all get played in the final quarter, whether there are injuries or not. On first blush it might seem "old-fashioned" but the more I think about it, the more I see merit. I think it would result in the following:

• it would keep the best players on the ground with ruckmen and onballers resting forward
• players would not be able to run over the whole ground at high intensity so it should reduce "flooding"
• tackling would still occur, but it would be more likely only one player doing the tackling (because of the previous point)
• goal scoring should increase because there will be fewer players in the defensive zone
• quality full forwards will have a better chance of kicking 100 goals in a season because most of the time they'll be not only playing on the same player, but there will be fewer defenders helping out their defensive colleague
• team lists would seem to have more apparent depth because instead of having 22 players all expected to be of equal fitness and ability, teams would really only need to have 18 with the four players on the bench being less important than they are now  

I have no doubt the coaches will squeal, but they're the source of every on-field problem so while they shouldn't be ignored, their opinions should not count for as much as the coaches themselves expect that they should.

[praha 10,360]

2 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

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.

We don't tackle in the first quarter and now you want to introduce a rule to reduce tackling further lol

[Engorged Onion 9,499]

17 minutes ago, praha said:

We don't tackle in the first quarter and now you want to introduce a rule to reduce tackling further lol

Zing, as soon as wrote that - I thought someone would pass this comment

[waynewussell 4,125]

While we are on the topic of reduced interchange... Kevin Bartlett has been the most vocal critic of the current inflated interchange rules for some time now... Oh, yes, ..... he got the flick... more AFL interference or just another conspiracy crackpot?

[wrecka45 92]

I think we all need to take a wider view with this.

The vast majority of us posters on demonland, and people around our age, are no longer the target audience of the AFL. We, apparently, are already "rusted on". So they don't really care about us anymore. 

The AFL needs our children and parents of kids who haven't grown up with football to watch and become engaged with the sport. To do that they need see the AFL as the elite version of the game they/their kids play, which is.....Auskick. 

Auskick is;

- played in zones

- The skills of stopping and hindering an opponent (e.g. bumping and tackling) are not permitted and limited at the older age groups

- players are encouraged to be of equal size and skill (sorry Max you're too big and too good so we have to penalise you to make it even when the opposition ruck is too small/sh!te)

- Having watched many games of Auskick disposal doesn't really matter, just keep the ball moving.

Mark my words the AFL/Hocking will continue to push the game towards Auskick over the next few years.

[chook fowler 18,392]

the AFL want to reduce tackling - the big issues.

[picket fence 15,553]

4 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 

Clarry Choo Choo says hi fives!!

[Moonshadow 16,409]

10 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

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.

Make the prior opportunity rule include team prior opportunity. If a teammate handballs to you it removes the notion of prior opportunity, regardless of how quickly you are tackled. 

Means that every handpass received by teammate is holding the ball if tackled

[pineapple dee 2,892]

10 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

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.

Of course the AFL are doing a good job at the moment for precisely the reasons everyone has mentioned so I wont repeat what they are.

In fact, the AFL are doing so well they should give themselves a real challenge like

- reconcile the Israelis and the Palestinians or

- get people on the Gold Coast or Western Sydney to care one jot about AFL football or

-return Aussie Rules to some semblance of what it once was or what we'd like it to be  or ( most difficult of all )

- Get the game out of the death grip of gambling companies

All these things will happen about a fortnight after Hell freezes over

[Sir Why You Little 34,926]

1 hour ago, Collar-Jazz-Knee said:

There is one change they can make that will solve all their problems.

Reduce the interchange cap to 10 per quarter. Players will then have to play more to a position and there would be a lot less rolling scrums resulting in less tackles because there isn't 12-15 players all around a stoppage.

We don't need the 6-6-6 rule, that's all they need to do.

Back in the 70's and 80's the interchange was more used as a substitute, with players on the been playing very few minutes. If they want to have more 1 on 1 contests then that is the answer.

I have been saying this for years

only need to change 1 rule....

[Diamond_Jim 12,017]

Interchange reduction at AFL level plus at VFL level reduction in player numbers on field  by two players per team. Trial for two years. One could even trial the reduced player numbers on alternate weeks to get a better sample.

It's not rocket science. (VFA used to play with 16 players on ground at once.)

Edited July 18, 2019 by Diamond_Jim

[daisycutter 28,684]

• severely limit interchange
• scrimmage time allowed to be greatly limited (as it used to be)
• reduced time limit for holding the ball decisions when prior opportunity (as it used to be)
• get rid of nominated ruckmen and also allow 3rd man up (as it used to be)
• get rid of new 8m extended area for kickouts (achieved fa)
• min 20m kick for a mark
• (maybe?) playon for backwards kicks, except in team's forward 50
• big crackdown on what is a legitimate handpass (after an extensive slo-mo video study of archives)
• reduce protected area from 10m either side to 5m either side
• more generous interpretation of protected area violations (i.e. common sense)
• have a 25m and 50m penalty (and allow umpire more discretion to ignore inconsequential technical breaches)
• free kick reversal to result in a ball-up (i.e. no double penalty)
• completely re-write the ruck rules, both for bounce-ups and boundary throw-ins

and that's just for starters

[chook fowler 18,392]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

• severely limit interchange
• scrimmage time allowed to be greatly limited (as it used to be)
• reduced time limit for holding the ball decisions when prior opportunity (as it used to be)
• get rid of nominated ruckmen and also allow 3rd man up (as it used to be)
• get rid of new 8m extended area for kickouts (achieved fa)
• min 20m kick for a mark
• (maybe?) playon for backwards kicks, except in team's forward 50
• big crackdown on what is a legitimate handpass (after an extensive slo-mo video study of archives)
• reduce protected area from 10m either side to 5m either side
• more generous interpretation of protected area violations (i.e. common sense)
• have a 25m and 50m penalty (and allow umpire more discretion to ignore inconsequential technical breaches)
• free kick reversal to result in a ball-up (i.e. no double penalty)
• completely re-write the ruck rules, both for bounce-ups and boundary throw-ins

and that's just for starters

the 50m penalties are a blight on the game. It is beyond me how the AFL allows the current situation to continue.

[Diamond_Jim 12,017]

1 minute ago, chook fowler said:

the 50m penalties are a blight on the game. It is beyond me how the AFL allows the current situation to continue.

the 50m penalties were brought in because Hawthorn decided in a finals series during the late 80's that it was better to give away the 15 metre penalty than to allow the opposition to play on.

The problem with removing the protected areas is that players will deliberately run through a particular area to increase the zone strength. These days they even use the umpire as part of the zone (remember the runners).

I suppose I am saying that the coaches will always bend the rules to the max.

[ArtificialWisdom 3,932]

Player is tackled (assume legally) one of 3 things happen:

Ball is held in: Ball up

Ball spills out: Dropping the ball, free kick

Ball is correctly disposed of: Play on

Remove the 'he tried' bs that just causes a 30sec scrap, would result in many fewer tackles and fewer throws. 

[loges 6,238]

30 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

the 50m penalties were brought in because Hawthorn decided in a finals series during the late 80's that it was better to give away the 15 metre penalty than to allow the opposition to play on.

The problem with removing the protected areas is that players will deliberately run through a particular area to increase the zone strength. These days they even use the umpire as part of the zone (remember the runners).

I suppose I am saying that the coaches will always bend the rules to the max.

Thought it was Kevin Sheedy and Essendon

[chook fowler 18,392]

53 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

the 50m penalties were brought in because Hawthorn decided in a finals series during the late 80's that it was better to give away the 15 metre penalty than to allow the opposition to play on.

The problem with removing the protected areas is that players will deliberately run through a particular area to increase the zone strength. These days they even use the umpire as part of the zone (remember the runners).

I suppose I am saying that the coaches will always bend the rules to the max.

yes, but the penalty is disproportionate.

[Smokey 4,146]

Will reserve my outrage until I see concrete details on what appears to be more invasive rule changes. 

We have enough to worry about at the moment 

[Brownie 5,427]

13 hours ago, dpositive said:

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.

This is spot on.

No such thing as incorrect disposal now.

Also, it drives me nuts watching players tackle someone to ground and then pin the ball into their opponent. It's effectively holding the ball by the tackler.

Can't wait for boundary umpires to be paying frees as well. So over officiated.

They should go back to two central umpires and just put their whistles away.

The NRL and soccer must be laughing at this.

Hocking is a [censored]. Our game is becoming a joke.

[Brownie 5,427]

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Rubbish. The interchange is the reason players can run up and down all day. Couldn't do that in the past.

Wind back the interchange and the game becomes more one on one.

Yeah I think players would just try to engineer more stoppages to try and conserve energy.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,628]

13 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

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.

The people running (ruining?) our game are politicians now mate, nothing more.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,628]

5 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

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. 

Prior opportunity is fine as long as they pay a free kick if you fail to dispose of it by hand or foot. Too often now a player has prior, gets tackled but no free kick against him because the ball spills free. The holding the ball interpretation was fine 15 years ago, not sure why the change.