If it Ain't broke? Just creating more problems and making the game harder for anyone new to understand, let alone the old timers 

16 a side fixes most of the problems.

20 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

16 a side fixes most of the problems.

What does that look like? No wingers or no flankers or no pockets? Or does it look like whatever you want it to look like?

What about losing one pocket at either end, with a 2 man FF line and 3 man flank.

Or some kind of rolling 5 man’s forward setup.

That would open up space and reduce 3rd man up 

6 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Will only work properly if 20 minute quarters are restored. Not the Geelong friendly 16 minute ones from this year.

Watch danger kick up big stink if rotation go down, Geelong will feel it the most, not good for those grandpa's

First posts Peeps so be kind.

If the issue is congestion (and making 16 players on the field isn't to peoples liking) and the aim so it make players more tired, why not have a 5 player bench and reduce the amount of bench changes to 48. This way the amount of players on the field spend more time playing and the rest phases for players can be expanded with the 5th player, as their is a 5th player to chop out for key players to rest longer hence (maybe) reducing soft tissue issues.

But obviously with fewer changes, Clubs will have to become much more tactical as to which players will need to be rested. If the issue is soft tissue injuries, then logically, you will want to have your mid-field being the one taking the majority of your changes.

Kind of a happy medium?

Edited November 15, 20204 yr by BoBo

Last team to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds - turnover!

It’ll stop congestion and you won’t need to reduce interchange cap because everyone will be kept moving. 
And it will eliminate any discretion or adjudication on the deliberate out of bounds fiasco. 
 

You’re welcome. 

I remembered the AFL being sure that the 6.6.6 and the “no need to kick in/man further back at kick ins” rules being the answer to all our problems. No matter what they do you can count on the coaches working around it. 

They keep tinkering with the rules to the point the game is now unrecognisable compared to its foundations. I liked the quirk or the defender having to kick the ball to themselves in order to take it out. 

51 minutes ago, BW511 said:

What about losing one pocket at either end, with a 2 man FF line and 3 man flank.

Or some kind of rolling 5 man’s forward setup.

That would open up space and reduce 3rd man up 

You could do that.

It really doesn't matter where the two players are taken from as they are only in that position for a few seconds while the ball is being bounced in the centre.

The real benefit is that it makes zoning etc just that little bit harder.

Also it is not a fundamental rule change.

Why do they have to change the rules nearly every season. What ever they do the coaches try and counteract it anyway and then other issues come up. 

Just leave it alone ffs. 

7 hours ago, rjay said:

I really don't understand why they don't just bite the bullet on this one and make significant changes to the interchange cap.

I guess they're getting there bit by bit...nearly like drawing teeth.

Because there’s a genuine chance teams end up with 15 Alex Neal Bullens per side and that is not watchable football.

Coaches aren’t going to stop asking players to perform defensive efforts no matter how fatigued they are. That’s the game now. 

3 hours ago, Rednblueriseing said:

If it Ain't broke? Just creating more problems and making the game harder for anyone new to understand, let alone the old timers 

It is broken though. There’s not enough goals. There’s not enough running and bouncing. There’s not enough one on one inside 50 contests. 
 

The best games are still great but the average game now is completely forgettable. 

1. 16 a side. Congestion is the problem. Remove some of it.

2. Pay the current rules, in particular pay holding the man. There’s way too much of it and it kills ball players and encourages defensive footy. Slower and second to the ball players have never been more looked after 

As always, they need to stop trying to legislate how the game is played and let the teams work it out for themselves.  Tactics evolve.  If you want higher-scoring, more free-flowing games all you need to do is wait for a team to win a flag playing that way and other sides will start copying them and/or working on ways to counter them.  Tactics are constantly evolving. 

8 hours ago, rjay said:

I really don't understand why they don't just bite the bullet on this one and make significant changes to the interchange cap.

I guess they're getting there bit by bit...nearly like drawing teeth.

 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Because there’s a genuine chance teams end up with 15 Alex Neal Bullens per side and that is not watchable football.

Coaches aren’t going to stop asking players to perform defensive efforts no matter how fatigued they are. That’s the game now. 

 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

1. 16 a side. Congestion is the problem. Remove some of it.

2. Pay the current rules, in particular pay holding the man. There’s way too much of it and it kills ball players and encourages defensive footy. Slower and second to the ball players have never been more looked after 

I don't mind 16 a side, but we're all guessing as to what the outcomes would be.

I think zones similar to TAC cup might be a better solution...at least it's been trialed even though only at junior level.

...it brings back some degree of positional football.

Who knows we might even see another 'Plugger'....

As to the rules, enforce the ones we have...I've thought about the idea of banning the gang tackling but even this could be enforced better. How many times do we see the 2nd man in go high in the tackle or scrag in other illegal means. It seems if the first tackle is close too legit the 2nd can do whatever he likes.

I do like the idea of banning gang tackles though, one ball carrier, one tackler

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

It is broken though. There’s not enough goals. There’s not enough running and bouncing. There’s not enough one on one inside 50 contests. 
 

The best games are still great but the average game now is completely forgettable. 

That's just the thing, there has and always will be good and bad games, it's just now the bad ones are scrutinized way more then enjoying the good ones. Sure there is more tactics and congestion and less high flying marks, but changing the rules every second ain't ganna help just let it settle and watch how coaches try something different to get the best out off their team.

2 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

 

I don't mind 16 a side, but we're all guessing as to what the outcomes would be.

I think zones similar to TAC cup might be a better solution...at least it's been trialed even though only at junior level.

...it brings back some degree of positional football.

Who knows we might even see another 'Plugger'....

As to the rules, enforce the ones we have...I've thought about the idea of banning the gang tackling but even this could be enforced better. How many times do we see the 2nd man in go high in the tackle or scrag in other illegal means. It seems if the first tackle is close too legit the 2nd can do whatever he likes.

I do like the idea of banning gang tackles though, one ball carrier, one tackler

I certainly wouldn't do 16 a side without more trials but I do see it as the logical solution. I'd be fine with at least 1 forward  and 1 defender inside 50 for each stoppage no matter where it is on the ground. Goal umpire has nothing to do most of the time. It wouldn't have a huge impact but it's a start and assess from there. You could move to 1 pair in the square, 1 inside 50 too. That would certainly spread players out.

I don't think we need to ban gang tackling, we just need the rules to go back to how they were in the old days that prevented gang tackling.

1. Holding - you just can't do it. No little grabs of the hips or anything. So many times the player about to pick up the ball has a man already grabbing him which then leads to ineffective or no disposal. Clayton Oliver is a great example. The guy gets sat on before he's picked up the ball so often and his disposals often have no value. Give him half a second more time and he'll do something with it.

2. Holding the ball - Once you've had prior if you're caught your caught. Straight away. No chance to dish out a shoddy half handball. Every time I watch old games I'm shocked at how harsh they are on holding the ball. You pick it up and as long as you've had a step if you get tackled that's it. The change they made this year was penalizing guys for not trying hard enough to break through tackles, that's completely wrong to me. Once you're tackled if the ball isn't spilt immediately it should be an automatic ball up or holding the ball. No more waiting an eternity for a player to force their arms free.

We've changed the game to evolve tackling in to a key skill. Tackling techniques, techniques to hand ball the ball. And it's not footy. We've found rules to legislate the scrum in to a better and fairer scrum when the focus should be to stop the scrum immediately.

10 minutes ago, Rednblueriseing said:

That's just the thing, there has and always will be good and bad games, it's just now the bad ones are scrutinized way more then enjoying the good ones. Sure there is more tactics and congestion and less high flying marks, but changing the rules every second ain't ganna help just let it settle and watch how coaches try something different to get the best out off their team.

Of course there's always been good and bad games, I'm arguing that it used to be a spectrum each round from the best to worst. Now you can go a whole much with about 4 good games and probably 1 or 2 of those were only good due to being close.

Hawthorn and Richmond in the last decade have played the kind of footy that would be brilliant in any era. The best coaches have managed to produce great things. But the vast majority of coaches barely been able to recreate the defensive systems of top sides and with inferior players. 

The rules changes that we've have are only tinkering so far. But at some stage the tinkering has to be upped to do something more substantial. 

16 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Of course there's always been good and bad games, I'm arguing that it used to be a spectrum each round from the best to worst. Now you can go a whole much with about 4 good games and probably 1 or 2 of those were only good due to being close.

Hawthorn and Richmond in the last decade have played the kind of footy that would be brilliant in any era. The best coaches have managed to produce great things. But the vast majority of coaches barely been able to recreate the defensive systems of top sides and with inferior players. 

The rules changes that we've have are only tinkering so far. But at some stage the tinkering has to be upped to do something more substantial. 

I understand your point and you are correct... I look at the world game which has only ever had minor rule tweaks to keep up with the times, ie. Goal line technology and V.A.R. but the core of the game, including game time, interchange, and general rules are kept the same this makes the game easy to follow so more people play it. This is how you teach kids system and skills so when they make the AFL the playing  standard is higher. In turn even the more inferior players/ teams will be better to watch. At the moment you have most team's with 5-8 VFL standard players playing AFL every week 

Edited November 15, 20204 yr by Rednblueriseing

12 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Does the extra 5m now mean the player taking the kick in can run all the way to the 50m line without bouncing the ball before taking their kick? 

So essentially no rule change for Shannon Hurn, but everyone else can do what he does?

Or is he now allowed to run end to end?

I am so sick of these stupid rule changes that make the game feel less and less like Aussie Rules with each passing year.

Just go back to  the exact rules we had in the 1990's  (the best decade of footy ever) and leave it at that.

6 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I certainly wouldn't do 16 a side without more trials but I do see it as the logical solution. I'd be fine with at least 1 forward  and 1 defender inside 50 for each stoppage no matter where it is on the ground. Goal umpire has nothing to do most of the time. It wouldn't have a huge impact but it's a start and assess from there. You could move to 1 pair in the square, 1 inside 50 too. That would certainly spread players out.

I don't think we need to ban gang tackling, we just need the rules to go back to how they were in the old days that prevented gang tackling.

1. Holding - you just can't do it. No little grabs of the hips or anything. So many times the player about to pick up the ball has a man already grabbing him which then leads to ineffective or no disposal. Clayton Oliver is a great example. The guy gets sat on before he's picked up the ball so often and his disposals often have no value. Give him half a second more time and he'll do something with it.

2. Holding the ball - Once you've had prior if you're caught your caught. Straight away. No chance to dish out a shoddy half handball. Every time I watch old games I'm shocked at how harsh they are on holding the ball. You pick it up and as long as you've had a step if you get tackled that's it. The change they made this year was penalizing guys for not trying hard enough to break through tackles, that's completely wrong to me. Once you're tackled if the ball isn't spilt immediately it should be an automatic ball up or holding the ball. No more waiting an eternity for a player to force their arms free.

We've changed the game to evolve tackling in to a key skill. Tackling techniques, techniques to hand ball the ball. And it's not footy. We've found rules to legislate the scrum in to a better and fairer scrum when the focus should be to stop the scrum immediately.

Yes, I think application of the current rules would be enough to fix gang tackling.

Handball...some of the things that pass for handball these days are a joke. What would Teddy Whitten be thinking, his old flick pass was more legit than some of what we see today.

8 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Coaches aren’t going to stop asking players to perform defensive efforts no matter how fatigued they are. That’s the game now. 

Agree. the defensive coaching mindset is here to stay. Players are much fitter as well. No amount of rule changes will make any difference. Coaches will adjust and come up with new defensive strategies.

Any idea if we’re going back to proper 20 minute quarters or are we keeping the Mickey Mouse format of 16 minute quarters?

We were the only league in the world that had shorten their games to get a season in, which the media seem to overlook, but at the same time heap praise on Gil for completing a season.

Any word when the season starts? 15 or 22 April?

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Any idea if we’re going back to proper 20 minute quarters or are we keeping the Mickey Mouse format of 16 minute quarters?

We were the only league in the world that had shorten their games to get a season in, which the media seem to overlook, but at the same time heap praise on Gil for completing a season.

Any word when the season starts? 15 or 22 April?

Last I heard was they were looking at 18 minute quarters. Dangerfield was advocating for it.