18 minutes ago, one_demon said:

I'm not convinced by this idea because the players are so super fit these days that the'll still be able to congregate around the ball. 

No rotations and I bet by the last quarter things will be very different.

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The congregation around the ball all began after the interchange bench was changed completely. 
The midfielders will still run around

i want to see the Centre Half Forward be important again

the key position won’t run everywhere, but they still are allowed to 

i don’t like zones because it’s then Netball

i also don't see how you can enforce zones without turning every ball up/in into some sort of farcical circus. it would introduce long delays and give over-officious umpires too much power. the fans would get incensed and it would to more rule changes until the game became more unrecognisable in a different way

we need to wind back a lot of the rule changes made over the last few decades BEFORE we start just bringing in more revolutionary rule changes........and i keep thinking the interchange should be the first one for the biggest bang for buck. there are many other ones too, but not revolutionary changes likezones and 16 a side. these should be last resort type of changes   

4 minutes ago, old dee said:

No rotations and I bet by the last quarter things will be very different.

What about the previous three quarters?

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i also don't see how you can enforce zones without turning every ball up/in into some sort of farcical circus. it would introduce long delays and give over-officious umpires too much power. the fans would get incensed and it would to more rule changes until the game became more unrecognisable in a different way

we need to wind back a lot of the rule changes made over the last few decades BEFORE we start just bringing in more revolutionary rule changes........and i keep thinking the interchange should be the first one for the biggest bang for buck. there are many other ones too, but not revolutionary changes likezones and 16 a side. these should be last resort type of changes   

Yes exactly, how can it be officiated, without looking like Gridiron changing players. 
and what happens if the ball stops just before the 50 m arc, do the forwards and defenders just stand there waiting?

Zones cannot work, we need players to still have freedom, if needed

18 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Like many other Demonlanders, I am a long time footy tragic and Demon follower. I loved playing footy, watching footy, talking footy. A few weeks back, I found myself turning over to watch some house-flip show from the USA rather than the footy. That's how far footy has dropped as a spectacle.

Although I like ideas such as 16 players on the ground, returning to player substitution in preference to interchange (except for certain things well highlighted by others), incentives for higher scoring, etc... I don't think that is where the problem lies.

There has been a fundamental attitude shift over 4 decades, which began when our coaches began introducing ideas from other sports. Keeping possession is now the number 1. Everything else is a slave to it. So we "switch", do endless short kicks only to end up where we began 6 kicks ago, hand ball in "patterns" until a loose man is created, kick backwards and sidewards, and yes, even have no forwards who become "pressing up midfielders". Why? So there are numbers around the ball so we don't lose a contest and therefore keep possession.

In basketball they throw it around the key until they create an opening. As they do in hockey, soccer, netball and many other rectangle court/arena sports. In our great game, it is this padding, this slowly creating, this strategic cat-and-mouse that is the mind-numbing boredom that exists for 60% of the time.

The AFL can shuffle the deckchairs if they like, but until coaching emphasises the one-on-one contested nature of the game, in which we take risks by hand and foot and trust our teammates down the line in the next context, then our game is stuffed. 

Most of us will remember playing or even having kick-to-kick as kids. We wanted to kick, mark and do fancy footed crap around our friends, all with the risk of being tackled and bumped. Maybe delighting in these simple pursuits would remove the slow strategic strangulating chess game it has become.

If I have to watch another USA house flip show I really am going to puke.

The coaches will never emphasise the one on one contests. Ever.

When thinking of new rules, we need to consider why coaches have made these changes in the first place. The answer is always to reduce risk and uncontrollable situations: 

• Players are around the ball so they can more easily shut down the opposition if they win the contest; sure it reduces our own chance of breaking away from the contest and scoring, but that's fine, it's about risk.
• Maintain possession instead of kicking to contests: as above. It doesn't matter if that slows us down, we back ourselves to be more methodical in our attack.
• Zones instead of one on one? Exactly the same. Coaches love to get their forward line one on one and their defence in a zone. Why? Because it reduces risk of being scored against.

 

 

16 hours ago, one_demon said:

We still have the same problem.  There's too many players around the ball. 

Why?.., because that's what the coaches want

We all want the prayers to spread out, but the coaches won't do it.   

So the solution is to force the prayers to spread out.   How?... by having three or four players from each team in the forward fifties at every stoppage. 

It's a new rule that you won't even notice.   All you'll notice is that the players are spread out more.  

I think this will reduce congestion, but at the cost of more umpire involvement. The beauty of the game is its free flowing nature (contrast with rugby union of NFL with lots of referee related stoppages) and this rule will need to be policed heavily. It'll also result in very crappy tactics, like dropping a man over your 50 line near one boundary to release a player on the other side of the ground whose opponent can't follow him. That'll make it a farce when there are players who can't pursue their opponents. Imagine winning contested possession then stepping over the 50 line and they have to stop tackling you?

 

 

14 hours ago, one_demon said:

Does sixteen players per side stop the coaches from having everyone around the ball?

Not explicitly. BUT it makes guarding space much more difficult, and now kicking to leading players is much easier. So although it won't fix the congestion around the contest, it will help alleviate the full ground zone that stops teams attacking from half back. The ball will move through the midfield easier, and although there will still be a zone D50, it will be very hard to "build a wall" to hold the ball in your forward line with two less players. They already use all 18 players for that zone, so it isn't like the coaches can sacrifice any more attack to add to this defence.

 

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

For mine, the only solution that sees coaches change how they control the game: Extra premiership point if the winning team scores over 100 points.

 

I like this idea, but I don't think it will have an effect until late in the season when teams are desperate for points (roll the dice to try to sneak in). Otherwise it will benefit teams that go on a rampage against a weak opponent (which already happens randomly now).

The problem again is risk. Coaches would rather guarantee the win by playing dour than increase the chance of losing for a single extra point. 

 

 

 

I think the only way to reduce congestion around the ball/stoppages is to do the following:

• Call ball ups quicker. I mean really quick. If the ball is getting scragged and knocked and no one can get a clean possesstion: just blow the whistle before it gets locked in. The idea is that you never want the ball locked in or under a pack in a way that takes 3-10 seconds to get it back to the umpire.
• Scrap the nominated ruckman, and don't wait for the ruckman either. Umpire just blows whistle (much more regularly as above), runs in, grabs the ball and throws it straight up, regardless of who is there.
  • These two umpiring style changes alone will probably fix it: quick ball ups followed by 3rd man up will result in more clearances. If coaches can no longer control risk by creating congestion because clearances are faster and easier, coaches will need to control risk by keeping players out of congestion to defend.
     
• At the moment, coaches would rather wrap the ball up for a set play (low, controlled risk) than hack the ball out of a pack and risk turning it over on the rebound (high, uncontrolled risk). So switch this up through umpiring:  pay free kicks around the close contest more often. Pay holding the ball 20 times per game instead of 4. Pay it when someone takes possession at a stoppage and gets wrapped up. Giving an opponent a set play (free kick) at a contest is VERY bad for risk management. So suddenly the lower risk option will be to boot the ball out of congestion, even if it is to a 50/50 contest.
   
• Similarly, pay holding the man for the "3rd man in" to a tackle. Why should you be able to tackle the tackler? It's against the rules and creates congestion. Just pay it, then we'll either have the ball spill lose or a free kick, reducing the number of times the "ball is wrapped up".

Excellent post Deanox. 

One issue not addresed is the fitness of players enabling coaches to cause low-risk congestion.  We've had suggestions of fewer players, less rotations etc.  Here's a new one - longer quarters!  And increase the length again if players continue to get fitter.  Take that AFL.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes exactly, how can it be officiated, without looking like Gridiron changing players. 
and what happens if the ball stops just before the 50 m arc, do the forwards and defenders just stand there waiting?

On-field umpires don't officiate the starting positions.   It's officiated by an off-field umpire who docks the team rotations for every breach of the rule.  That way there's no extra whistles, no extra free-kicks and no new rules for the on-field umpire to adjudicate.

Edited July 5, 20204 yr by one_demon

24 minutes ago, one_demon said:

On-field umpires don't officiate the starting positions.   It's officiated by an off-field umpire who docks the team rotations for every breach of the rule.  That way there's no extra whistles and no extra free-kicks.

I don’t like starting and ending positions

It’s netball

Positional football can be achieved again if the Bench is used to replace injured players. 
that was its use before the mid 90’s

1 hour ago, one_demon said:

What about the previous three quarters?

it would force coaches and players to pace them themselves

just like in a 1500m race over 4 laps. if you treat the first lap like a 400m race you just aint going to be there at the end

not hard to understand

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don’t like starting and ending positions

Have you seen a game with starting positions? If the answer is "no" then how do you know that you won't love it?

1 hour ago, deanox said:

>>>>>>

I think the only way to reduce congestion around the ball/stoppages is to do the following:

• Call ball ups quicker. I mean really quick. If the ball is getting scragged and knocked and no one can get a clean possesstion: just blow the whistle before it gets locked in. The idea is that you never want the ball locked in or under a pack in a way that takes 3-10 seconds to get it back to the umpire.
• Scrap the nominated ruckman, and don't wait for the ruckman either. Umpire just blows whistle (much more regularly as above), runs in, grabs the ball and throws it straight up, regardless of who is there.
  • These two umpiring style changes alone will probably fix it: quick ball ups followed by 3rd man up will result in more clearances. If coaches can no longer control risk by creating congestion because clearances are faster and easier, coaches will need to control risk by keeping players out of congestion to defend.
     
• At the moment, coaches would rather wrap the ball up for a set play (low, controlled risk) than hack the ball out of a pack and risk turning it over on the rebound (high, uncontrolled risk). So switch this up through umpiring:  pay free kicks around the close contest more often. Pay holding the ball 20 times per game instead of 4. Pay it when someone takes possession at a stoppage and gets wrapped up. Giving an opponent a set play (free kick) at a contest is VERY bad for risk management. So suddenly the lower risk option will be to boot the ball out of congestion, even if it is to a 50/50 contest.
   
• Similarly, pay holding the man for the "3rd man in" to a tackle. Why should you be able to tackle the tackler? It's against the rules and creates congestion. Just pay it, then we'll either have the ball spill lose or a free kick, reducing the number of times the "ball is wrapped up".

all these are good and i agree, they are just examples of rolling the clock back to earlier times. some are just interpretation of rules and some are tweaking of existing rules

but we need to do more than just this

4 minutes ago, one_demon said:

Have you seen a game with starting positions? If the answer is "no" then how do you know that you won't love it?

Starting positions are what was played for 100 years Man on Man

That is Australian Rules

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

..,but we need to do more than just this

 Yes I agree.   We need to get serious. We need to stop the coaches ruining the game. 

Edited July 5, 20204 yr by one_demon

Just now, one_demon said:

 Yes I agree.   We need to get serious. 

and my main argument is

(progressively) roll back lots of the rule changes/interpretations made at the coaches behest which aid defensive tactics and athletic skills over individual intuitive skills. This could take 3-5 seasons.  announce initial changes as part of a master plan (blueprint) so all vested interests are aware of directions and reasons and can "get on board"

don't introduce new rules that have never been part of the game. only consider such changes if the first approach is not enough

finally all existing coaches are banned from participating in any way (i.e. committee, consultant, advice etc). coaches are what got us to this situation and have conflicting interests.     ex coaches are fine (within reason)

31 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

don't introduce new rules that have never been part of the game

All players around the ball has also never been part of the game

Edited July 5, 20204 yr by one_demon

1 minute ago, one_demon said:

All players around the ball has also never been part of the game

Only since the interchange bench was Bastardised...

It wasn't that long ago that the NRL wasn't even in the conversation with regards to our viewing habits 

For instance,  I watched the Roosters/Storm game and was messaging a few people during the match.

There was an AFL game on channel 7 but I can't recall who was playing who. 

Again,  there's no way the above would have happened 10 - 15 years ago.  And I'm not a Storm or Roosters fan - can't stand either team.

But my eyes were drawn to the NRL like others are being drawn. 

I now call the AFL an interesting sport rather than a spectacular sport.

And does 'Interesting' win out?  If the NRL can be classed as interesting as well then it's my belief that some AFL fans will embrace NRL when it suits

But will the NRL fans embrace AFL? (In its current form)

There was an article that came out a couple of years ago by Roy Masters which showed the AFL dropping to 90 million sets of eyes (per season) from 108 million (over a 4 year period) whilst the NRL went from 80 million to 98 million over the same 4 year time period.  18 million both ways is too much of a coincidence.

Real numbers that effect broadcast rights dollars.  And the just completed extended broadcast agreement resulted in a 14% drop in dollars. 

Watching AFL these days is like watching all the teams embracing the Atletico Madrid playing style.  Playing each other in the same way.

Flooding combined with 36 players being in one quarter of the arena (with numerous stoppages) is killing the sport as a spectacle.

Drastic change is needed to help improve the product. 

 

57 minutes ago, Macca said:

It wasn't that long ago that the NRL wasn't even in the conversation with regards to our viewing habits 

For instance,  I watched the Roosters/Storm game and was messaging a few people during the match.

There was an AFL game on channel 7 but I can't recall who was playing who. 

Again,  there's no way the above would have happened 10 - 15 years ago.  And I'm not a Storm or Roosters fan - can't stand either team.

But my eyes were drawn to the NRL like others are being drawn. 

I now call the AFL an interesting sport rather than a spectacular sport.

And does 'Interesting' win out?  If the NRL can be classed as interesting as well then it's my belief that some AFL fans will embrace NRL when it suits

But will the NRL fans embrace AFL? (In its current form)

There was an article that came out a couple of years ago by Roy Masters which showed the AFL dropping to 90 million sets of eyes (per season) from 108 million (over a 4 year period) whilst the NRL went from 80 million to 98 million over the same 4 year time period.  18 million both ways is too much of a coincidence.

Real numbers that effect broadcast rights dollars.  And the just completed extended broadcast agreement resulted in a 14% drop in dollars. 

Watching AFL these days is like watching all the teams embracing the Atletico Madrid playing style.  Playing each other in the same way.

Flooding combined with 36 players being in one quarter of the arena (with numerous stoppages) is killing the sport as a spectacle.

Drastic change is needed to help improve the product. 

 

Totally agree.   This is what I've been fearing for a while,  people turning to other sports that are more attractive to the eye

Edited July 5, 20204 yr by one_demon

4 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

More changed rules are Not the answer.   You younger guys are exactly the same as those AFL directors, who have changed all the old rules out,  across the past 25Yrs.  Unwittingly, altering the game away from what its uniqueness was.

 

The way to undo the mess,  is to undo all the rule changes over the past 25 years.  This will take the game back,  largely,  to what it was.

No, things won’t go back to the way they were because the way coaches coach, the fitness of players and defensive mindset that has taken over the game won’t change.

You could not be more wrong.

3 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

You could not be more wrong.

LoL. HaHaHa, OK.

I see your fixed, in thinking, so I can't help that.

cheers.

11 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

No, things won’t go back to the way they were because the way coaches coach, the fitness of players and defensive mindset that has taken over the game won’t change.

You could not be more wrong.

Agree.  Stop the coaches.

Edited July 5, 20204 yr by one_demon