Malcolm Blight wants 4 rule changes

[rjay 24,815]

16 a side...

Time to reduce the number of players on the ground.

Players are bigger, faster, fitter....

The ground size hasn't changed.

Reduce the number of players on the field.

Makes sense even if the so called traditionalists go a bit weak at the knees.

17 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

6. drop nominated ruckmen rubbish .... still just 1 per team but anyone

7. stricter interpretation of holding the ball (reduce time)

8. quicker ball-up in scrimmages as it used to be (reduce ugly maul)

Agree with these.

On point 8,  I would have the umpires bounce the ball.

No call back for a bad bounce...the unpredictability of the bounce is an ace that makes it harder to set up for.

Making the game predictable has been one of the big problems and has allowed coaches to set up plays.

Part of the beauty of the game is the oval ball with its  inherent  unpredictability.

[daisycutter 29,600]

3 minutes ago, rjay said:

16 a side...

Time to reduce the number of players on the ground.

Players are bigger, faster, fitter....

The ground size hasn't changed.

Reduce the number of players on the field.

Makes sense even if the so called traditionalists go a bit weak at the knees.

Agree with these.

On point 8,  I would have the umpires bounce the ball.

No call back for a bad bounce...the unpredictability of the bounce is an ace that makes it harder to set up for.

Making the game predictable has been one of the big problems and has allowed coaches to set up plays.

Part of the beauty of the game is the oval ball with its  inherent  unpredictability.

problem with 16 a side is coaches will use it as an excuse for even more interchanges

[rjay 24,815]

38 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

problem with 16 a side is coaches will use it as an excuse for even more interchanges

You need to limit the rotations 'daisy'...

That's a no brainer 16 or 18 a side.

There's no logical reason to keep the high level of rotations in our game.

The injury excuse is a furphy, high rotations leads to a more ballistic game and more injury to my mind.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

9 hours ago, one_demon said:

The players are so fit these days,  they're running machines so they will be able to follow the ball particularly in the first half. 

Really.?     2 on the bench,  and a cap of no more than 12 rotations per Qtr.   That'll slow them down,  especially if there is more physicality in the game,  where the players are constantly being hit/bumped, and corked all game. At every contest.

 The AFL keep on whimping out.

I remember we/AFL brought the interchange back to 3 players and a Sub..... the coaches (Roos) immediately complained,  and the AFL reneged on the idea. Wrong move yet again.

 

STOP listening to the coaches and players, AFL...  as the main stakeholders of this game are the patrons,  the supporters,  in the outer.

[deanox 9,894]

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

 

6. drop nominated ruckmen rubbish .... still just 1 per team but anyone

7. stricter interpretation of holding the ball (reduce time)

8. quicker ball-up in scrimmages as it used to be (reduce ugly maul)

 

These three are perfect and three best way to get rid of congestion. Use the whistle and stop congestion. 

Pay holding the ball as soon as someone is tackled with the ball. Don't grand stand the signal for the crowd. 

Quick whistle, run in and throw straight up within 1-2 seconds instead of waiting for teams to set up or for nominated ruckmen to arrive. The ruck becomes a "follower" again. The 8-15 seconds between calling for a ball up and actually doing it is what allows the congestion to continue. This will also shorten the quarter's, by reducing time on (what the tv wants) and have similar effect to reducing rotations by removing the players rest time. Also watch old games and they do this. 

If they want to retain nominated ruckmen for center bounces and throw ins, that could be ok, because they take time to set up. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

7 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

I remember we/AFL brought the interchange back to 3 players and a Sub..... the coaches (Roos) immediately complained,  and the AFL reneged on the idea. Wrong move yet again.

It was the coaches who wanted the sub in the first place. An injured player meant only 3 interchange compared to 4 ... unfair! Then when they got their sub, they didn't like it coz they couldn't interchange as much.

The coaches don't know what they want, except to win games at any cost.

 

7 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

STOP listening to the coaches and players, AFL...  as the main stakeholders of this game are the patrons,  the supporters,  in the outer.

As has been shown time and again, the coaches are the last people who should be influencing the direction of the game.

[daisycutter 29,600]

8 hours ago, rjay said:

You need to limit the rotations 'daisy'...

That's a no brainer 16 or 18 a side.

There's no logical reason to keep the high level of rotations in our game.

The injury excuse is a furphy, high rotations leads to a more ballistic game and more injury to my mind.

agree.........but getting coaches to agree will be difficult

[sue 9,096]

6 hours ago, deanox said:

These three are perfect and three best way to get rid of congestion. Use the whistle and stop congestion. 

Pay holding the ball as soon as someone is tackled with the ball. Don't grand stand the signal for the crowd. 

Quick whistle, run in and throw straight up within 1-2 seconds instead of waiting for teams to set up or for nominated ruckmen to arrive. The ruck becomes a "follower" again. The 8-15 seconds between calling for a ball up and actually doing it is what allows the congestion to continue. This will also shorten the quarter's, by reducing time on (what the tv wants) and have similar effect to reducing rotations by removing the players rest time. Also watch old games and they do this. 

If they want to retain nominated ruckmen for center bounces and throw ins, that could be ok, because they take time to set up. 

sounds good to me.  I'd add my usual hobby-horse:  If a player is tackled and a team member of the tackled player then jumps on the initial 2, pay a free against that third player.  They often tackle the oppo who does not have the ball, which is clearly a free kick under current rules  (though never paid). But I'd suggets a free regardless of who they 'tackle' as long as it is clear they are not trying to help extract the ball.

Edited April 17, 2020 by sue

[Macca 16,900]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

agree.........but getting coaches to agree will be difficult

They've ruined the sport as it is.  They should be told to shut up.  End of story.

Mind you the incompetent custodians (the AFL) have stood idly by and let them turn the sport into an unholy mess.

As for the 'leave the game alone' & 'let the game evolve' types,  that horse has well and truly bolted.   The coaches have redesigned the sport and have been allowed to do it

The issue is not the rusted on types ... to them it's just footy.  But those who have switched off or become disenfranchised are the real worry.

I agree with Blight but I'd go even harder.  25 metres for the length of the kick (for a mark),  rotations down to 10 or 15 per team (per match) and 16 a side.

Now,  I'm in the minority but that minority is growing.  And that minority needs to be brought back to the sport,  not criticised for their views.

And I find it interesting that this pandemic has created an air of change with footy. 

About time I say.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

Re the point on rules and congestion, is it still a problem? My main observation of this year’s round 1 games was that there was little congestion, few contests, just constant ball movement. Reminded me of a scaled up version of AFLX! Was this a one off because of no crowds and uncertainty of playing more games? 

[Moonshadow 17,673]

I like Blighty's suggestions, as long as last touch over is done using the SANFL method.

I'd also like to somehow see a team prior opportunity, though it may be a bridge to far to adjudicate. I'm sick of watching a player caught after receiving a hospital handball from a teammate under pressure.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

1 last KICK out of bounds

2 fewer rotations

3 less players on the ground

[Diamond_Jim 12,510]

58 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I'd also like to somehow see a team prior opportunity, though it may be a bridge to far to adjudicate. I'm sick of watching a player caught after receiving a hospital handball from a teammate under pressure.

that seems to be a particular skill of some Melbourne players. In their defence it is a legitimate tactic to avoid being called for holding the ball.

Left field..what about allowing throwing of the ball. The Bulldogs came close to it in 2016 and it did open things up a little

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

4 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

It was the coaches who wanted the sub in the first place.

It wasn't the coaches who first wanted injury subs.  It was many of us supporters initially,  before the idea caught on.  And then they didn't want it.

And Malthouse wanted 6 interchange.

2 will do, with 2 subs.   And rotations pegged right back. 

Stufff the rotations, they are stufffing our game.

[Moonshadow 17,673]

32 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

that seems to be a particular skill of some Melbourne players. In their defence it is a legitimate tactic to avoid being called for holding the ball.

Left field..what about allowing throwing of the ball. The Bulldogs came close to it in 2016 and it did open things up a little

That's called rugby, Jim!

[Macca 16,900]

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

that seems to be a particular skill of some Melbourne players. In their defence it is a legitimate tactic to avoid being called for holding the ball.

Left field..what about allowing throwing of the ball. The Bulldogs came close to it in 2016 and it did open things up a little

Yeah they did throw it DJ but there was this bit that started the ball rolling ...

The Bulldogs players let the ball dribble out of their hands once tackled (in congestion) 

Which in turn created more congestion with the process being repeated (the dribble bit) ... eventually the ball came out to an outside runner. 

So we got 5 minutes of a rolling maul and 30 seconds of actual football.  Great. 

Prior to the congestion era a player would win possession and simply handpass the ball to an outside runner who then kicked the ball to position in a positive fashion (without all the congestion and mindless possessions)

Edited April 17, 2020 by Macca

[rjay 24,815]

18 hours ago, Macca said:

Yeah they did throw it DJ but there was this bit that started the ball rolling ...

The Bulldogs players let the ball dribble out of their hands once tackled (in congestion) 

Which in turn created more congestion with the process being repeated (the dribble bit) ... eventually the ball came out to an outside runner. 

So we got 5 minutes of a rolling maul and 30 seconds of actual football.  Great. 

Prior to the congestion era a player would win possession and simply handpass the ball to an outside runner who then kicked the ball to position in a positive fashion (without all the congestion and mindless possessions)

It's a game for the people/fans 'Macca'...

Unfortunately as you and I probably agree the coaches seem to have made it their play thing and don't have any concern for the people who ultimately pay their wage, the fan.

Time to take the game back I reckon...

[Macca 16,900]

8 minutes ago, rjay said:

It's a game for the people/fans 'Macca'...

Unfortunately as you and I probably agree the coaches seem to have made it their play thing and don't have any concern for the people who ultimately pay their wage, the fan.

Time to take the game back I reckon...

The coaches should never have been given carte blanche

Cause & effect leaves the issue squarely in the AFL's court rjay

But they (the AFL) have had their eyes firmly fixed on the money ... and now the money is in jeopardy with them now having to borrow $600Million.

So now (finally) they are deeply concerned with state of the game ... proverbial hitting the fan will do that.

[Deemania since 56 6,605]

On 4/16/2020 at 11:54 AM, Demonland said:

I don't mind the last touch out of bounds but there is bound to be mistakes made.

Not phased about the 15m or 20m. Umps sometimes can't get that right so what's another 5 metres.

I like the play one for kicks backwards unless we're up with a few minutes to go and need to chip it around.

I was never a fan of fewer rotations so I don't like this one.

We do not need any of these changes. There have been enough changes in the recent past - these were allegedly more vital to our game and hence, implemented (already) to improve our game (but have largely failed). Those who have played or watched football, or both, still dream of the formative days now rendered inappropriate - yet the game was absolutely fantastic just a few years ago without such changes. The demise of the game to necessitate rule changes is now - and possibly often has been - in the hands of the umpires, their inconsistencies and their deliberate effect on the game/any particular game, including game levelling. Players adopt change and in the process, obviate a litany of rule changes that represent poor rule formation and limited application. IMO, 'Dirty' play rules may be excluded from this criticism for some player protection and team fairness; most of the rest seems to pan out in application as game-affecting umpire error and/or preference.

[jnrmac 20,046]

Fewer rotations solves all of those problems (well maybe not umps being unable to distinguish 15m)

Its the simple solution and the cause of most of the issues in football today.

Why add more stupid rules to cover for rotations? 

 

Like many I have been watching some old games and the flow of footy is fantastic. The umpires are rarely noticed because there aren't stupid rules to adjudicate.

[deanox 9,894]

On 4/17/2020 at 10:29 AM, sue said:

sounds good to me.  I'd add my usual hobby-horse:  If a player is tackled and a team member of the tackled player then jumps on the initial 2, pay a free against that third player.  They often tackle the oppo who does not have the ball, which is clearly a free kick under current rules  (though never paid). But I'd suggets a free regardless of who they 'tackle' as long as it is clear they are not trying to help extract the ball.

Yeah absolutely agree. Ive been banging that drum for years too.

At the moment the congestion around the ball is caused by players deliberately standing close enough to "tackle" their own team mate so that it becomes a ball up, rather than a free kick against. Coaches use this tactic to try and avoid ongoing contested ball situations, because they are uncontrolled and parts get drawn out of position. 

This will force the players wider because they'll need to knock it out quicker in contested situations. 

[Bobby McKenzie 2,379]

On 4/17/2020 at 8:29 AM, sue said:

sounds good to me.  I'd add my usual hobby-horse:  If a player is tackled and a team member of the tackled player then jumps on the initial 2, pay a free against that third player.  They often tackle the oppo who does not have the ball, which is clearly a free kick under current rules  (though never paid). But I'd suggets a free regardless of who they 'tackle' as long as it is clear they are not trying to help extract the ball.

Agree all the way Sue. Thats been my thoughts for a while. Even the umpires should be able to count to three. When I was umpiring footy matches at school I used this rule and the game flowed and this was twenty years ago! So simple to Interpret.  Very black and white.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

Rule change one for the future AFL.

# Time-On shall not be started,  until such time that the ball has been disposed of legally,  or bounced by the Umpire.

 

There will be no wasted time,  whist the clock is ticking.