Jump to content

Ethan Tremblay

The AFL wants to reduce tackling

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Shocked 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Diamond_Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

  • Like 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Social Media

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles

    HOW FAR SOUTH? by George on the Outer

    It was appropriate that Melbourne was playing its last game of season 2019 in Hobart.  After all, how much further south could the team go? And much as it has done in many of the previous 22 games, the side managed to extract a loss from a winning position by simply giving the ball back to the opposition time and time again. In fact, they gave it back to the opposition to the tune of 53 points from turnovers while, by way of contrast North Melbourne contributed  only 17 points to their oppo

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    COOKED by The Oracle

    I can vividly remember when the Demons ventured onto Blundstone Arena for the first time in early 2016 only to lose to the Kangaroos by 20.11.131 to 21.10.136.    Melbourne was then a team on the up and up: young, enthusiastic and bold. It gave up a huge quarter time deficit after kicking against a strong wind but made that up by half time and fell dramatically short after an exciting high scoring affair.  The team lost no fans that day - they were willing to take the game on and attac

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    HELP by KC rom Casey

    The Casey Demons finished off their home and away season against Frankston at Skybus Stadium on Sunday with a narrow, unconvincing 6-point victory that left the door slightly open for a top eight berth when the VFL finals begin in a fortnight’s time. While sunny skies prevailed over Frankston in the morning, the skies became overcast by noon and heavy waves pounded the bay nearby as the rains came in to greet the players as the game started. And conditions stayed dark and dreary for the rem

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    THANKS BUT NO THANKS by George on the Outer

    Thanks, but no thanks! In a round where the club was supposed to thank their fans for the support during the year, the Melbourne Football Club chose to do otherwise with a 53 point loss to a team that sat 15th on the ladder.  Don’t give us cheap jumpers that can’t be sold in the Demon shop.  Don’t give us vouchers to shop there, give us something on the field, which is why we come to the football in the first place. It was a disgraceful performance, which started with a disgracefu

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    SLEEP OUT AT THE MCG by The Oracle

    Around about 12 months ago Melbourne and Sydney fought out an epic battle between two top eight teams fighting for the best possible ladder position in the lead up to the finals. The Swans triumphed by 9 points at the MCG after the Demons came back from five goals down at three quarter time. But for its poor kicking for goal, Melbourne might well have won the game and finished in the top four. Who knows what might then have happened for the club in September? As a consequence, the person re

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    A LITTLE RAY OF SUNSHINE by KC from Casey

    Two clubs that have been hard hit by injury recently took part in a dour battle under dark clouds and, with intermittent showers falling, it wasn’t a pretty game at Victoria Park on Sunday. Despite all that, the Casey Demons added a little ray of sunshine to their day to get the job done over a "traditional" rival with a 15 point victory over Collingwood VFL that breathed life back into their season. There were a few highlights at the ground that in past days has seen many titanic batt

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    THE RETRO ROUND by George on the Outer

    We have seen it all before… Yes, a wonderful idea to showcase what used to be in football.  Big crowds, umpires who knew how to apply the rules and not opinions, high marks, skilful players. But for the Melbourne supporters their retro is what it has been like for the past 10 years. Losing games, end on end, year after year.  Opportunities squandered in front of goal. VFL standard players running around at the MCG. Just more of the same, and the game against Collingwood was no ex

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    THE PEOPLE SPEAK by The Demonland Crew

    Thanks to Demonlanders for their input into this week’s preview. Ralphius Maximus is short and bittersweet: We'll crack in at the bounce to create a contest, win our share of the ball, butcher the forward movement and get scored on easily from the intercepts. Not that hard to predict. Big Demon says: Unfortunately Collingwood will win because they have a lot more to play for. We will be good in parts but really the season is well over so we will have to put up with those bell

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    WHAT, NO BLOOD? by George on the Outer

    The feeling when turning up to the MCG on a Saturday night to play a top four side in Richmond, while the Melbourne sits cemented in close proximity to the bottom of the table is like attending the Colosseum in Ancient Roman times. The expectation is that a bloodbath is about to occur. There are 100,000 Richmond members and 50,000 Melbourne members, and despite the fact that it turned out to be a wet night after half-time, a crowd of only 37K bothered to turn up. That should never have happ

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    A MAN’S ERRAND by KC from Casey

    A young and undermanned Casey Demons were sent out on Saturday to the Swinburne Centre in the shadows of the MCG on a man’s errand against a very experienced Richmond VFL combination which is the clear ladder leader and fielded no less than 18 AFL listed players. It was expected to be a rout and the Tigers made easy work of it in the early stages when they held a 26 point lead by quarter time. To their credit however, the Demons weathered the storm and kept their opponents within the range

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    THAT’S FOOTBALL by Whispering Jack

    As the season rolls on towards the finals and the football world witnesses the aftermath of the sacking of the league’s unsuccessful coaches, it’s almost  inevitable that the spotlight will turn firmly upon the complete and utter failure of season 2019 - the Melbourne Football Club.  For a team that finished in fourth place last year and was heavily touted as a premiership contender, the fall from grace has been dramatic. As things stand, the Demons look certain to finish 13 places down on

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    THE MOMENT OF TRUTH IS COMING by KC from Casey

    At half time in Sunday’s game at Trevor Barker Beach Oval, things weren’t looking too flash for the flailing finals prospects of the Casey Demons. Key forward Sam Weideman had suffered a concussion in his first contest and, with a few exceptions, the team was playing like a rabble rather than a finals contender. The Demons were 23 points in arrears to the Zebras and their season was headed towards oblivion. It was the skipper Mitch White who spurred his team on by word and by deed - he fini

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

×
×
  • Create New...