Congratulations to Dr Gonzo for a supremely well argued summation of why it should happen, what it would achieve and why there should be no fear/paranoia about doing it.

Sadly you have to put up with the meathead -"Clarko's just saying it because his team's no good" response, but your response should win a Demonland award - if such things existed.

Well done, I'll keep an eye out for your learned comments in future.

 

 

Removing players from the field is the only logical solution to congestion and should have happened 10-15 years ago

AFL grounds remain the same size as 120 years ago yet players are exponentially fitter not to mention the constant rotations

Removing players from the field will break up defensive zones because the area each defender will need to cover between opponents will be too large and so will force teams into man on man game plans

There will always be "loose defenders" but removing players from the field will limit their impact as there will be greater space for players to move into which they will not be able to cover

It will have a dramatic impact on the flow of the game without changing any fundamental rules relating to how the game is actually played.

16 a side is the minimum, I would consider taking it down to 15 or 14 or perhaps even further.

I would still keep the wings but remove one midfielder, one forward and one defender to start with (5-5-5) fewer midfielders at centre bounces will make it easier to clear the ball

Or we can refuse to change this, keep implementing rules that alter the fundamental nature of the game which have unintended consequences and don't address the issues they were brought in for and watch the game continue to devolve into an unentertaining rolling scrum of players with little room for individual brilliance and skill

He is on the money in that article, but not for the reasons quoted in the headline.

“We probably need to look at the way the games officiated and say to ourselves: ‘How can we reduce the congestion? Do we reward holding the ball more regularly, so that we don’t have three, four or five stoppages in a row where as many as 20 players, 25 players get to that area of the ground and it gets really congested?’” Clarkson asked.

 

Nothing needs to change, just play the rules as written:

-Pay holding the ball when players are caught.

-Pay holding the man against the 3rd player in who locks a contest up by "tackling a tackler".

-Pay shepparding in the mark, every time someone prevents an opponent marking by bodying them out of the way, instead of trying to contest the ball in the air. 

Terrible interpretations are the problem, not numbers of players. 

2 minutes ago, Deespicable said:

Congratulations to Dr Gonzo for a supremely well argued summation of why it should happen, what it would achieve and why there should be no fear/paranoia about doing it.

Sadly you have to put up with the meathead -"Clarko's just saying it because his team's no good" response, but your response should win a Demonland award - if such things existed.

Well done, I'll keep an eye out for your learned comments in future.

 

 

Removing players from the field is the only logical solution to congestion and should have happened 10-15 years ago

AFL grounds remain the same size as 120 years ago yet players are exponentially fitter not to mention the constant rotations

Removing players from the field will break up defensive zones because the area each defender will need to cover between opponents will be too large and so will force teams into man on man game plans

There will always be "loose defenders" but removing players from the field will limit their impact as there will be greater space for players to move into which they will not be able to cover

It will have a dramatic impact on the flow of the game without changing any fundamental rules relating to how the game is actually played.

16 a side is the minimum, I would consider taking it down to 15 or 14 or perhaps even further.

I would still keep the wings but remove one midfielder, one forward and one defender to start with (5-5-5) fewer midfielders at centre bounces will make it easier to clear the ball

Or we can refuse to change this, keep implementing rules that alter the fundamental nature of the game which have unintended consequences and don't address the issues they were brought in for and watch the game continue to devolve into an unentertaining rolling scrum of players with little room for individual brilliance and skill

No. Just reduce the interchange bench Rotations, thus reintroducing Fatigue as part of the game. 
As it was for 100 years, before Sheedy bought in a new rule that was way too radical and has caused the game to be unrecognisable as to what it was before. 
 

Deleting players from the field only makes it less of the great game it was...

10 hours ago, Demonland said:

Just Great!!! Just when the cavalry arrives and we finally get some decent wingmen they want to take them away from us.

‘We don't want to be like soccer’: Alastair Clarkson’s radical solution to fix AFL scoring drought

Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson has urged the AFL to “pull a lever” and consider trialling 16-a-side rules to address the league’s dramatic scoring drop – because “we don't want to be like soccer”.

And the four-time premiership coach admits he and other coaches with a defence-first attitude have played a role as to why “no bugger can score anymore”.

Despite a raft of changes that were originally intended to promote goalkicking, AFL scoring reached a historic low in 2019, with the average team score being just 80.4 points – the lowest since 1967, when teams averaged 78.8 points.

This man does not believe in 16 a side, he saw his team get smashed by a side with 2 hard running wingman, team will play through their wingers more against his ageing side, Clarkson does not care about the game only himself and his team 

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Removing players from the field is the only logical solution to congestion and should have happened 10-15 years ago

AFL grounds remain the same size as 120 years ago yet players are exponentially fitter not to mention the constant rotations

Removing players from the field will break up defensive zones because the area each defender will need to cover between opponents will be too large and so will force teams into man on man game plans

There will always be "loose defenders" but removing players from the field will limit their impact as there will be greater space for players to move into which they will not be able to cover

It will have a dramatic impact on the flow of the game without changing any fundamental rules relating to how the game is actually played.

16 a side is the minimum, I would consider taking it down to 15 or 14 or perhaps even further.

I would still keep the wings but remove one midfielder, one forward and one defender to start with (5-5-5) fewer midfielders at centre bounces will make it easier to clear the ball

Or we can refuse to change this, keep implementing rules that alter the fundamental nature of the game which have unintended consequences and don't address the issues they were brought in for and watch the game continue to devolve into an unentertaining rolling scrum of players with little room for individual brilliance and skill

 

Your a crack pot down to 15 14 player might as well change the game to AFLX

9 hours ago, My name is legion said:

Let’s have five a side then. Why can’t we leave the rules alone and stop wrecking the game? It was a great spectator sport before all the rule changes. Go back to the rules in the 1960s.

Not having a crack here, but can you tell us what the rule differences were in the 60s that made things better, because scoring wasn't any higher* then than it is now. Every year of the 60s except '69 had a lower average score than last year - and the change that spiked scoring that year was paying out on the full, which is already in now.

* Not that scoring should = good footy, but that's what many people are looking for. At least until it starts being 140-130 every week and they complain the defending's not good enough.

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by Supermercado

The game needs to open up for more scoring but the style of footy played in the State of Origin recently was as boring as it gets.

9 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Coaches will still find a way to stop the opposition scoring.

This is a terrible idea. As said earlier, Clarko is trying to find a way to help his team who cannot run up big scores.

Why is it a terrible idea?

8 hours ago, jnrmac said:

All these problems started when the interchange numbers went through the roof. Players could run all day.

Kevin Bartlett and Channel 7 effected a raft of rule changes over a 10yr period to speed up the game create more breaks for TV ads etc. That plan has morphed into the scrum we have today

The solution is staring them in the face

 

8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Just drastically reduce rotations off the bench

that will fix all these little problems. 

because that’s when all these problems started

The increased interchange has certainly been a factor bit it's not the only factor. The change in coaching strategies that have evolved over the last 2 decades won't go away just because you cap the interchange though. Coaches did a lot of research in the 90s and 00s into other sports and realised there was nothing forcing them to keep players in their traditional positions on the ground. This led to total defense strategies such as the Flood, Clarkos Cluster, the Press the Eagles Web etc Coaches aren't going to abandon these strategies just because rotations are limited. In fact it would likely see them become even more defensive as they would want to preserve their players energy so would stack the defense/maintain possession soccer style and try and score on a fast break. Additionally they would revert to focusing on recruiting athletes over footballers again which would be a shame considering the pendulum seems to have swung back to getting genuine footy players over the last 3-5 years.

Having said that I'm not opposed to capping interchange first and see if it works. I just don't think it will and eventually we'll end up still needing to reduce players on the field

I would reduce player numbers (maximum 16 a side but maybe less)

Cap rotations at 5 per quarter (or even revert back to substitutions instead of interchange such as with the old 19th man rule)

Consider a "last touch" rule between the 50s, similar to what they had in the 1920s-40s. This would prevent teams reverting to defensive tactics of playing the boundary line

Get rid of ruck nomination rule

 

5 hours ago, sue said:

Scoring like soccer?  We are so far off that that any talk of having to increase scoring is stupid IMO.   Personally I find basketball boring because it is too high scoring.  AFL has the balance about right.

It's on the decline. During the 80s and 90s you would frequently see triple figure scores and both teams topping the tonne. That is a rarity these days. Even as little as 5 years ago over/under lines for matches were generally set at around 190-192 points now it's usually around the 170 mark.

John Lennon said it best:

Let it be, let it be

There will be an answer

but fgs let the rules be.

 

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I find everything about Richmond offensive.

Seriously, though, I have to concede you make sense. Nevertheless, I like the idea of an "attcking first" rather than "defending first" mindset. And it's precisely because coaches' interests in "not losing" outweigh any consdieration they have for the "look" of the game, that we cannot entrust the rules of the game to the coaches.

Defense generally wins championships and it's the same the world over.

Look at the NFL. The Rams had an offense that was seen as so high powered and revolutionary that anyone who ever had a coffee with McVay was offered a head coach role. In the Superbowl their high octane offense was brought to a screeching halt by one of the best defensive minded coaches of all time, Bill Belichick and they only scored 3 points for the whole game!

This year the high powered offense overcame the brutal defense when Mahomes turned the game around in the final 7 minutes scoring 3 Touchdowns. But up to that point the 49ers defense had them covered leading 20-10 and were only brought undone by a combination of conservative playcalling, laissez faire officiating and a generational player catching fire.

Coaches will always want to build off a solid foundation of defense, it's in their nature.

42 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The game needs to open up for more scoring but the style of footy played in the State of Origin recently was as boring as it gets.

Reduce the interchange bench to two.  That will fatigue players and stop so much of the 2way running.   Putting more pressure on defences.   And opening up scoring opportunities.

14 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's on the decline. During the 80s and 90s you would frequently see triple figure scores and both teams topping the tonne. That is a rarity these days. Even as little as 5 years ago over/under lines for matches were generally set at around 190-192 points now it's usually around the 170 mark.

May be so but doesn't change my view that we don't need more scoring now. 

12 minutes ago, sue said:

May be so but doesn't change my view that we don't need more scoring now. 

Fair enough, I don't necessarily disagree. More scoring isn't necessarily the aim for me it's more the aesthetic of the game. Opening up the play to remove the rolling scrums and providing some space for the game to breathe and players to be able to show off their talents instead of being suffocated by 25-30 players around the ball is the aim. Higher scoring is just a consequence of that.

If you like the game as it is now that's fine. The best games are still great. But for me they're few and far between and I often find myself bored for large patches of games which never happened previously. Maybe I'm just getting older but I don't think so, the more open game of the 90s and early 00s is still great to look back on and watch

2 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

Your a crack pot down to 15 14 player might as well change the game to AFLX

Why do you say that? Aflx had fewer players on the ground yes, but there were a multitude of other rule changes/factors that meant that abortion of a publicity stunt was never going to succeed. There will still be bumps, tackles, ovals etc It's just that there will be more space for the players to play in instead of being suffocated by a scrum of players when they take possession of the ball

47 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 

The increased interchange has certainly been a factor bit it's not the only factor. The change in coaching strategies that have evolved over the last 2 decades won't go away just because you cap the interchange though. Coaches did a lot of research in the 90s and 00s into other sports and realised there was nothing forcing them to keep players in their traditional positions on the ground. This led to total defense strategies such as the Flood, Clarkos Cluster, the Press the Eagles Web etc Coaches aren't going to abandon these strategies just because rotations are limited. In fact it would likely see them become even more defensive as they would want to preserve their players energy so would stack the defense/maintain possession soccer style and try and score on a fast break. Additionally they would revert to focusing on recruiting athletes over footballers again which would be a shame considering the pendulum seems to have swung back to getting genuine footy players over the last 3-5 years.

Having said that I'm not opposed to capping interchange first and see if it works. I just don't think it will and eventually we'll end up still needing to reduce players on the field

I would reduce player numbers (maximum 16 a side but maybe less)

Cap rotations at 5 per quarter (or even revert back to substitutions instead of interchange such as with the old 19th man rule)

Consider a "last touch" rule between the 50s, similar to what they had in the 1920s-40s. This would prevent teams reverting to defensive tactics of playing the boundary line

Get rid of ruck nomination rule

 

Capping the interchange to a single Digit number will stop the continuous up and back running, particularly in the 2nd Half when games will open up. Fatigue will become part of the game again to manage. 
 

It is the root cause to the game changing since the 90’s

Players are rotated and juiced up and sent out again

This is the part of the game that needs to be stopped 

Until it is, all these other changes you and others mention to open the game up, will just take us further away from what Football was and what made it great

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Capping the interchange to a single Digit number will stop the continuous up and back running, particularly in the 2nd Half when games will open up. Fatigue will become part of the game again to manage. 
 

It is the root cause to the game changing since the 90’s

Players are rotated and juiced up and sent out again

This is the part of the game that needs to be stopped 

Until it is, all these other changes you and others mention to open the game up, will just take us further away from what Football was and what made it great

How will taking two players from each team off the field take us further away from what football was and what made it great?

Coaches are the last people to decide this stuff.

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How will taking two players from each team off the field take us further away from what football was and what made it great?

It’s an 18 player a side game

That is Australian Football

32 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How will taking two players from each team off the field take us further away from what football was and what made it great?

Dermie on SEN today said that the players of his era were just as fit as Bob Murphy's era except that they started running out of steam close to half time. 

He went on to say that if the players of his era were afforded the same amount of rest (because of rotations) then they'd have been on equal footing.

Someone else here once mentioned that players were getting short rest time at all the stoppages.  It all helps in a mini endurance sport (AFL)

Youtube up 1976 Collingwood vs Melbourne and check out the pace of the game 44 years ago ... its frantic.  There's a classic 2.30 video which is fascinating viewing (I was there btw)

So less rotations can convert to less rest and (hopefully) less congestion and therefore less rest at the stoppages because there are fewer of them.

But as you've correctly pointed out Gonzo,  the coaches are not going to abandon their defensive tactics.  That's here to stay.

But we can make it hard for them to implement those defensive tactics by taking away the tools required. 

Dramatically decrease rotations and 16 per side for starters.  Do that and it might become clearer on what to do next.

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by Macca

Fatigued players does not provide a better game, it means more skill errors and a poorer spectacle where players are unable to perform at their optimum.  How can this be better? Maybe we should make all the players run a half marathon before the bounce eh?

Less congestion because there's less players per square metre is a far superior solution.

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by Fifty-5

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

Fatigued players does not provide a better game, it means more skill errors and a poorer spectacle where players are unable to perform at their optimum.  How can this be better? Maybe we should make all the players run a half marathon before the bounce eh?

Less congestion because there's less players per square metre is a far superior solution.

Depends on your definition of fatigued.  Players throughout the history of the game paced themselves.  With rotations,  players can go flat out knowing they are going to get rest.

I can't remember ever seeing a game where even a small percentage of players were unable to complete basic football tasks right up to the final siren.

Before the advent of the explosion in rotations,  the naturally fit skilled players played out of the middle and on the wings and the rest played forward or back and were often burst players.  Nowadays nearly every player is required to be an endurance athlete.

It's a completely different sport but it is losing its appeal as a TV sport ... 108 million eyes down to 90 million in a 4 year stretch where as Rugby League has gone from 80 million to 98 million.  The information is easy to find too ... try google to confirm (NRL trumps AFL in TV ratings war)

And the AFL are duly quite concerned.  666 and the raft of changes last season and the further talk this season (reduced half time? etc) is designed to make the sport more attractive to TV viewers.  Footy has to be entertaining long term,  not just a contest.

They need to at least maintain the Broadcast rights income but realistically,  that money needs to be substantially higher to help grow the game.  Going backwards just can't be part of the agenda.

By contrast attendances are up and so are membership numbers.  It's a much better sport live than it ever was. 

Rugby League is built for TV on the other hand and one could argue that that's where the disenfranchised AFL fans have gone to.  It's where I've gone and I know more than a few who have done the same.  An 18 million cross-over in the space of 4 years?  Quite possibly. 

If not,  it's quite a coincidence.

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by Macca

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

Depends on your definition of fatigued.  Players throughout the history of the game paced themselves.  With rotations,  players can go flat out knowing they are going to get rest.

I can't remember ever seeing a game where even a small percentage of players were unable to complete basic football tasks right up to the final siren.

Before the advent of the explosion in rotations,  the naturally fit skilled players played out of the middle and on the wings and the rest played forward or back and were often burst players.  Nowadays nearly every player is required to be an endurance athlete.

It's a completely different sport but it is losing its appeal as a TV sport ... 110 million eyes down to 90 million in the last 5 years where as Rugby League has gone from 80 million to 100 million.  The information is easy to find too ... try google to confirm. 

And the AFL are duly quite concerned.  They need to at least maintain the Broadcast rights income but realistically,  that money needs to be substantially higher to help grow the game.  Going backwards just can't be part of the agenda.

By contrast attendances are up and so are membership numbers.  It's a much better sport live than it ever was. 

Rugby League is built for TV on the other hand and one could argue that that's where the disenfranchised AFL fans have gone to.  It's where I've gone and I know more than a few who have done the same.  A 20 million cross-over in the space of 5 years?  Quite possibly. 

If not,  it's quite a coincidence.

Sense but if you are arguing TV coverage the faster the game the worse the TV coverage unless they give viewers control of the TV coverage

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Sense but if you are arguing TV coverage the faster the game the worse the TV coverage unless they give viewers control of the TV coverage

Back in the day we used to get more of a wide angled view of footy without the needless close-ups.

With all the congestion,  there's no need for a wide-angled view because the ball often stays in one part of the ground for a prolonged period of time.  So we get a close up view of way too much congestion.

It's any wonder people are switching off.

 

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by Macca