16-a-Side to Fix Scoring

[Big Col 1,347]

On 3/12/2020 at 10:14 AM, Collar-Jazz-Knee said:

My idea to fix this is to bring in a bonus point every time a team scores over 100.

Coaches will then have an incentive to have an attacking gameplan.

Perhaps a less radical idea would be to say "Points for" ranks higher than percentage.

ie when 2 teams are on the same number of wins, the team with the highest number of points ranks higher. If they're the same number, then percentage comes into play.

The principal is the same though. Allow the coaches to come up with strategies that incentivise high scoring.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I knew that would be your answer. 
The Centre Diamond was a joke. It lasted one season

Go ahead and invent your new game, just don’t call it Australian Rules Football

 

But the centre square??? Out on the full? That's not Australian Football, not how it was played for the majority of the first 110 years anyway.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

7 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

But the great players always did play well late in a game That’s the whole point. 
Robbie Flower didn’t rotate off the bench every 8 minutes 

When did Tulip ever looked Fatigued?

The games congestion problems all ramped up in the 90’s after Sheedy’s rule was implemented 

Not all new rules work, and this is one of them

But the overpaid AFL Suits do not have the gonads to admit this one. They will implement 30 other new rules to hide the root problems 

Yes the increased interchange was a significant factor. But it wasn't the only factor. Total football, full team defensive zones etc these tactics coincided with the increased interchange. They are both contributing factors to the lack of flow in the modern game.

[Sir Why You Little 36,918]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But the centre square??? Out on the full? That's not Australian Football, not how it was played for the majority of the first 110 years anyway.

Semantics Hunter S

the game is 18 a side

Drop the Rotations and players will hold their positions a lot more. 
 

Coaches will just have to deal with it, as they did before Sheedy made so much noise

Edited March 13, 2020 by Sir Why You Little

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

7 hours ago, deanox said:

Bumping this, in case anyone wants to comment: I think it's a really different take that just reducing numbers and worth discussing.

They also need to pay free kicks against the scraggers holding/tackling players at contests before theyve taken possession of the footy. Every club does it.

[Sir Why You Little 36,918]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yes the increased interchange was a significant factor. But it wasn't the only factor. Total football, full team defensive zones etc these tactics coincided with the increased interchange. They are both contributing factors to the lack of flow in the modern game.

Yes agreed. But defensive zones will also drop off as teams get more fatigued. 
 

Rotations were not the only factor, but they are the root cause of such a massive change

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Semantics Hunter S

the game is 18 a side

Drop the Rotations and players will hold there positions a lot more. 
 

Coaches will just have to deal with it, as they did before Sheedy made so much noise

I'm not saying don't try that. I just don't think it will work.

[Go the Biff 3,412]

9 hours ago, deanox said:

Bumping this, in case anyone wants to comment: I think it's a really different take that just reducing numbers and worth discussing.

I largely agree with this. There's quite a few points to discuss but as I am a lazy Karmichael when it comes to posting, I'll just deal with one.

There's a significant proportion of tackles which would have been penalised as too high or in the back a decade or two ago. Especially when "third man" tacklers get involved. Every game you see blokes getting their heads wrapped up in a tackle but no free given. Penalise bad tackles rather than waiting and effectively making a "safe" non decision and going the ball-up option would remove a lot of the repeat stoppages that mar the game. Repeat stoppages draw more players to the contest area and you end up with a situation closely resembling that stupid game where one man tries to push two men's heads up three men's bums.

It's not adding new rules that the game needs, it's just correct application on the existing rules. 

As an aside I watched some of the 1996 "merger match" the other night (a "classic" game on Kayo). The footy was fast, frantic, skilled, tough and to my mind a far better "product" than what's currently on offer

[deanox 9,894]

11 hours ago, Go the Biff said:

I largely agree with this. There's quite a few points to discuss but as I am a lazy Karmichael when it comes to posting, I'll just deal with one.

There's a significant proportion of tackles which would have been penalised as too high or in the back a decade or two ago. Especially when "third man" tacklers get involved. Every game you see blokes getting their heads wrapped up in a tackle but no free given. Penalise bad tackles rather than waiting and effectively making a "safe" non decision and going the ball-up option would remove a lot of the repeat stoppages that mar the game. Repeat stoppages draw more players to the contest area and you end up with a situation closely resembling that stupid game where one man tries to push two men's heads up three men's bums.

It's not adding new rules that the game needs, it's just correct application on the existing rules. 

As an aside I watched some of the 1996 "merger match" the other night (a "classic" game on Kayo). The footy was fast, frantic, skilled, tough and to my mind a far better "product" than what's currently on offer

This is in line with my thoughts. We've had a perfect storm:

-AFL directive to "let the game go" because no one likes stop start football and they want it to flow, this umpires don't make quick calls on free kicks or even ball ups

- Coaches realising some really basic stuff: They want to be in control of the game, so they prefer a stoppage where they can set up, to a truly loose ball entire the outcome is left to chance. They want to prevent opposition taking possession - because that sounds them scoring - and therefore prefer to keep the ball contested, even if that means they don't win possession themselves. 

These two situations have meant the AFL has let the coaches turn AFL from fast flowing attack into bogged up scrums.

Instead of introducing new rules (which the coaches will just exploit) they should simply make it less valuable for coaches to have players around the ball. 

 

The switching of % to points for might be a good catalyst. But I do think that clubs play to win first with percentage a long way second, so it will have limited effect on most games, except perhaps to open up in the last quarter. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

On 3/12/2020 at 10:01 PM, Kiss of Death said:

John Lennon said it best:

Let it be, let it be

There will be an answer

but fgs let the rules be.

 

On 3/13/2020 at 8:40 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Paul McCartney, actually.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Lennon was remembering the way Australian football was played in the 1960s when he wrote 'Imagine'.

 

Imagine there's a bounce down
I wonder if you can
No nominated ruckmen
And third and fourth up man

Imagine all the football
Lighting up the 'G

Imagine there's no interchange
It's easy if you will
No athletes running everywhere
Just lots of football skill

Imagine all the football
Going on all day

You may say i'm a dreamer
But i'm not the only one
One day Clarkson will be sidelined
And the teams will score a ton

[Diamond_Jim 12,510]

Definitely worthy of a cood a beens rendition !!!

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,672]

I've always been against having a pre-season competition but if it's going to be played, why don't the AFL trial 16-a-side in next season's pre-season competition? If they do, I also think they should incorporate Peter Ryan's execllent suggestion in The Sunday Age that 16-a-side be played with a mandatory 5-6-5 starting position rather than 6-4-6.

And while I'm on the topic of the pre-season competition, I noticed in the scores of the pre-season's games that the 9-point goal still existed. I can't think of one good reason why that's still there.

 

 

[jnrmac 20,047]

On 3/13/2020 at 3:45 PM, Fifty-5 said:

You won't sell me with a boxing analogy.

Like I said earlier then - why don't we just get every player to run a half-marathon before the game and don't change any rules then.

Congratulations for the most stupid post on DLand.