More Rules Changes in 2021

[titan_uranus 22,209]

I'm something of an outlier but I don't believe the game's spectacle is so bad that rule changes are necessary to "fix" it.

I don't agree that scoring = better product, either.

But, if we are looking to reduce congestion, there are three things I would do before making changes that IMO will have unintended side effects (like reducing the game to 16 per side or capping interchange rotations):

1. Get rid of the ruck nomination rule
2. Properly adjudicate holding the ball and, possibly more importantly, holding the man. The biggest one here is gang tackles/stacks on. Make it one tackler allowed. If a team adds a second tackler, you're penalised. Why do we need two players jumping on top of the player with the ball? We don't. 
3. Start, within the current rules, penalising players for wasting time when they've conceded a free. How often do you see a player get caught holding the ball, but take an eon to get up, or pretends to be stuck on top of the ball without it, or whatever. All the while letting his teammates flood back. The rules prohibit time wasting so let's enforce them properly - if you don't get up, off the opponent and off the ball, immediately, you are penalised (either bring in a 25 metre penalty for these sorts of offences or just hit them with a 50 metre penalty)

[whatwhat say what 18,743]

i'm another that is a bit like @titan_uranus - i don't mind the modern game at all, which is obviously far lower-scoring than previous eras, but i'm not so sure that that's a bad thing per se

key rule changes / interpretation adjustments i'd make:

1. get rid of the ruck nomination rule - two go up from one team? free kick paid
2. reduce bench rotations down to 15 per quarter immediately
3. remove the bounce around the ground; throw it up, make play-on faster - i'd keep it for the centre square as i like the randomness and tradition of it after goals etc.
4. make field umpires fully professional at last and remove one per match; three is too random in terms of decision-making and even in their current semi-professional state they are all super fit and more than able to keep up with play

i am one of those who thinks that 16 players per side COULD work, but you'd want to 'test' it - i'd be reducing it to 5 per f50 / d50 rather than remove the 'wings' per se

the likes of kevin bartlett would fight that big time tho - it's sacrosanct in the game that it's 18 per side on the field

[Clintosaurus 6,394]

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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

So we know what is happening then. HQ must be as keen to get him a flag as the Cats are.

[The Chazz 4,077]

51 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i'm another that is a bit like @titan_uranus - i don't mind the modern game at all, which is obviously far lower-scoring than previous eras, but i'm not so sure that that's a bad thing per se

key rule changes / interpretation adjustments i'd make:

1. get rid of the ruck nomination rule - two go up from one team? free kick paid
2. reduce bench rotations down to 15 per quarter immediately
3. remove the bounce around the ground; throw it up, make play-on faster - i'd keep it for the centre square as i like the randomness and tradition of it after goals etc.
4. make field umpires fully professional at last and remove one per match; three is too random in terms of decision-making and even in their current semi-professional state they are all super fit and more than able to keep up with play

i am one of those who thinks that 16 players per side COULD work, but you'd want to 'test' it - i'd be reducing it to 5 per f50 / d50 rather than remove the 'wings' per se

the likes of kevin bartlett would fight that big time tho - it's sacrosanct in the game that it's 18 per side on the field

Point 4 is an interesting one, and compliments what I'm about to say.  The problem with continual rule changes is that it's making it harder and harder for umpires to adjudicate consistently, and with too much individual interpretation because of it (which frustrates fans).

I think something that could be looked at is kicking backwards is automatically play-on, unless it is within the forward 50m of the side kicking (ie finding targets on better angles is allowed).  Smart defensive sides will put more pressure on poorer kicking sides, which will possibly see sides less likely flooding back too much.

I like to idea of the above post (Point 1 and Point 3).

The other "nit-picking" things I think needs addressing.  Why do they start the clock at a centre bounce as soon as the umpire bounces it?  The clock should be restarted after any stoppage as soon as the ruck contest happens.  Means no time is lost if there's a bounce recall.

I'd also suggest having an extra arc up each end that is 15m from goal, so when teams are kicking in, the opposition (and umpires) know where the mark is.  It will also help the umpires know how far the defender has ran with the ball (as they often run 20-30m without bouncing it, which is just stupid.

I'd also love to see the re-introduction of a 15m penalty for minor infringements.  50m for small infringements is just too much of a penalty, especially for those infringements that often can't be helped.  Again though, very difficult for umpires to adjudicate.

 

[daisycutter 28,427]

11 hours 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

zoning would be a disaster.......ruin the fabric of the game......more debatable infuriating free kicks......confuse spectators

[tiers 2,761]

49 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

50 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

1. Get rid of the ruck nomination rule
2. Properly adjudicate holding the ball and, possibly more importantly, holding the man. The biggest one here is gang tackles/stacks on. Make it one tackler allowed. If a team adds a second tackler, you're penalised. Why do we need two players jumping on top of the player with the ball? We don't. 

 

+1. +1. Good suggestions. One tackler only should be allowed. Eliminate ugly mauls that are a feature of other inferior codes.

Improve adjudication of holding the ball. Remove the confusion and just call it incorrect disposal because it was either not in accordance with the rules ie dropped, thrown or it took too long. Why can a player be turned 360 and not be penalised but others get penalised for much shorter possession?

Make it a simple decision - players must dispose of the ball by the first option or be penalised if properly and fairly tackled ie retarded, not just touched, as it was once adjudicated without any fuss. If the ball is locked in or there has been no opportunity to dispose, ball up. Fair to everyone and much easier to adjudicate and for the supporters to understand and accept.

As for holding the man, when two players are both jostling eg defender and forward, there should be no penalty for arms around or insignificant jumper pulls. They are big guys and let them battle it out. Of course if there is obvious and significant interference in the contest then a free kick can be awarded. But not for tiggy-touch-wood to-and-fro between two big guys.

 

[rjay 23,840]

56 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

zoning would be a disaster.......ruin the fabric of the game......more debatable infuriating free kicks......confuse spectators

No it doesn't...

It helps bring the game back to being the positional game it was meant to be rather than a running maul type game it often is.

The basic idea of the zone is that a certain amount of players need to be in the forward half at any ball up or throw in.

Players can still access the whole ground but they will need to be aware and not everyone will be able to crowd a contest.

We already have limited zones in the game (centre square and kick out) and they've in my mind worked for the betterment.

People are too scared to change though...I get that.

Tinkering around the edges with interchange numbers and other minor rule changes is not going to make much difference...to really get the game working it zones are the answer.

Edited November 16, 2020 by rjay

[Jjrogan 1,189]

hope all those who favour to ease congestion by reducing the number to 16 and 'get players tired' wont be the same group that then complain about the skills that inevitably drop off.  Speeding up the game will also just mean more tired players. Players arent robots, expect the standard to deteriorate. If you're ok that, then sure, give it a go. 

As for zoning... for the majority of the history of the game players were effectively playing in a zone, without an explicit rule.  You think dunstall, jakovich and plugger left the forward 50m arcs?

The game was played with players that held their position allowing for an open midfield. It was definitely a better spectacle and yes, more goals were scored.   (More goals being scored didnt lead it to a better spectacle per se).

Mandating 2 players from each team stay within the forward 50 isnt going to be something new for the game. Its going to make the game look like something pre 2000.  You can debate how hard it to is official but to dismiss it without trying it first is shortsighted. 

I believe the game does need to change in line with other sporting codes progressions.  Those that argue for change still like tactical defensive battles, but we'd rather watch 5 free flowing games a round than 1. 

[tiers 2,761]

7 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

The game was played with players that held their position allowing for an open midfield. It was definitely a better spectacle and yes, more goals were scored.   (More goals being scored didnt lead it to a better spectacle per se).

That is why they created the centre square - because players weren't holding their positions so well. Check the history of Kennedy's teams in the 60s.

Today the problem is that the play can be so easily held up by mauls and stacks where the umpires are too afraid to pay quick frees. Go back a generation and a single umpire managed to keep the game open and flowing by using the whistle quickly and often. Did not harm the spectacle of the game. Watch black and white replays on Fox.

[one_demon 826]

At least they're still looking at it and not deluding themselves into thinking the game is fine. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by one_demon

[titan_uranus 22,209]

3 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i'm another that is a bit like @titan_uranus - i don't mind the modern game at all, which is obviously far lower-scoring than previous eras, but i'm not so sure that that's a bad thing per se

key rule changes / interpretation adjustments i'd make:

1. get rid of the ruck nomination rule - two go up from one team? free kick paid
2. reduce bench rotations down to 15 per quarter immediately
3. remove the bounce around the ground; throw it up, make play-on faster - i'd keep it for the centre square as i like the randomness and tradition of it after goals etc.
4. make field umpires fully professional at last and remove one per match; three is too random in terms of decision-making and even in their current semi-professional state they are all super fit and more than able to keep up with play

i am one of those who thinks that 16 players per side COULD work, but you'd want to 'test' it - i'd be reducing it to 5 per f50 / d50 rather than remove the 'wings' per se

the likes of kevin bartlett would fight that big time tho - it's sacrosanct in the game that it's 18 per side on the field

Point 3 is already happening, and is a step in the right direction. As to the centre bounce, I wonder whether we should get rid of the recall. If we're going to keep the bounce then we're at least in part keeping its randomness. If it skews off, who cares, just get on with it.

Point 2 I'm not sure about and would be holding off on capping rotations further until we've at least tried some other, less radical, things that might have fewer side effects.

Point 1 agree.

Point 4 is tough - I appreciate reducing randomness and trying to get consistency in decision-making is important, but the pressure on umpires is tough enough as it is. Increasing their physical workload by 17% (from 33% to 50%) might be a bridge too far. But, one way to assist might be to vest more power in goal and boundary umpires - don't get the field umpire involved in decisions about score reviews, just get the goal umpires to do it. Let boundary umpires make calls on out of bounds and again, keep things moving quicker.

[one_demon 826]

4 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

...i don't mind the modern game at all

You enjoy the congestion?

[Jjrogan 1,189]

1 hour ago, tiers said:

That is why they created the centre square - because players weren't holding their positions so well. Check the history of Kennedy's teams in the 60s.

Today the problem is that the play can be so easily held up by mauls and stacks where the umpires are too afraid to pay quick frees. Go back a generation and a single umpire managed to keep the game open and flowing by using the whistle quickly and often. Did not harm the spectacle of the game. Watch black and white replays on Fox.

So in the end, they created a zone (the centre square) to overcome the quagmire. Then for a few glorious decades it worked well. Anyway, 16 a side or zoning, just trial it in 'lower' grades and see how it looks. Nfl v college does that effectively. 

[Sir Why You Little 34,405]

13 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

So in the end, they created a zone (the centre square) to overcome the quagmire. Then for a few glorious decades it worked well. Anyway, 16 a side or zoning, just trial it in 'lower' grades and see how it looks. Nfl v college does that effectively. 

It all worked fine until Sheedy wanted to rotate off the Bench....

That is when congestion started...

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,095]

5 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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

Unlike Dangerfield to advocate less product while campaigning for higher player wage.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

6 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm something of an outlier but I don't believe the game's spectacle is so bad that rule changes are necessary to "fix" it.

I don't agree that scoring = better product, either.

But, if we are looking to reduce congestion, there are three things I would do before making changes that IMO will have unintended side effects (like reducing the game to 16 per side or capping interchange rotations):

1. Get rid of the ruck nomination rule
2. Properly adjudicate holding the ball and, possibly more importantly, holding the man. The biggest one here is gang tackles/stacks on. Make it one tackler allowed. If a team adds a second tackler, you're penalised. Why do we need two players jumping on top of the player with the ball? We don't. 
3. Start, within the current rules, penalising players for wasting time when they've conceded a free. How often do you see a player get caught holding the ball, but take an eon to get up, or pretends to be stuck on top of the ball without it, or whatever. All the while letting his teammates flood back. The rules prohibit time wasting so let's enforce them properly - if you don't get up, off the opponent and off the ball, immediately, you are penalised (either bring in a 25 metre penalty for these sorts of offences or just hit them with a 50 metre penalty)

What he said. Not only do the defending players make it hard to get the ball, they also continue to hold onto a player after a free kick has been given or a mark has been called stopping them from moving the ball on quickly. It is clearly intended to slow down play to let defenders flood back and is easily fixed with a 50m penalty. It may seem to be a harsh penalty, but it needs to be so defenders err on the side which makes the game more attractive. It won't take long for defenders to stop needlessly holding up play.

Edited November 16, 2020 by La Dee-vina Comedia
typo

[Grr-owl 1,075]

Tired players makes for a better game.

[daisycutter 28,427]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

....

Point 2 I'm not sure about and would be holding off on capping rotations further until we've at least tried some other, less radical, things that might have fewer side effects.

 

wth is "radical" about it?   the game went without rotations for a 100 years or more........radical!

introducing the rotation, now that was radical

[Little Goffy 12,487]

If we want to open the game up and add to the spectacle we would only need to make the midfielders tired. Fresh forwards competing one-out against fresh defenders is as edge of your seat spectacle of human contest as it gets in sport.

Alternatively, more skills in the midfield to tip the balance in favour of piercing attack rather than scragging defence.

The perfect example of that imbalance is the Women's game, where there's no question on the commitment and effort but the skills won't catch up until a generation of girls has grown up with a Sherrin in hand. As a result the women's game is missing a bit of the dynamisn and flow that we expect to see at the top level.

 

 

[BDA 19,978]

I think reduction in rotations is the obvious one to try. I’d be in favor but otherwise leave the rules as is. I can’t keep up otherwise.

It’ll be interesting to see what impact the reduction in soft cap has on coaching. I wouldn’t be surprised if the game IMPROVES as a result of less coaches justifying their existence. Over coaching is the bane of many sports, AFL being no exception. Less coaches may mean less time spent on systems, zones structures etc. Just trust good players to make the right decisions on the field. I’m not saying throw out the game plan but perhaps not apply it as rigidly.

[daisycutter 28,427]

some of the best rules changes.....

....are to remove(/change) a (largish) number of rule changes made by the afl over  the last 20 years....

....not all but probably most.....

....as they have little to no meaningful benefit to the game

 

besides, i was never consulted in the first place

[Pates 9,536]

On 11/15/2020 at 10:38 PM, titan_uranus said:

I'm something of an outlier but I don't believe the game's spectacle is so bad that rule changes are necessary to "fix" it.

I don't agree that scoring = better product, either.

But, if we are looking to reduce congestion, there are three things I would do before making changes that IMO will have unintended side effects (like reducing the game to 16 per side or capping interchange rotations):

1. Get rid of the ruck nomination rule
2. Properly adjudicate holding the ball and, possibly more importantly, holding the man. The biggest one here is gang tackles/stacks on. Make it one tackler allowed. If a team adds a second tackler, you're penalised. Why do we need two players jumping on top of the player with the ball? We don't. 
3. Start, within the current rules, penalising players for wasting time when they've conceded a free. How often do you see a player get caught holding the ball, but take an eon to get up, or pretends to be stuck on top of the ball without it, or whatever. All the while letting his teammates flood back. The rules prohibit time wasting so let's enforce them properly - if you don't get up, off the opponent and off the ball, immediately, you are penalised (either bring in a 25 metre penalty for these sorts of offences or just hit them with a 50 metre penalty)

I'm not against the two tackler thing but like you I hate the "stacks on" when the ball is buried at the bottom of the pack so what you've suggested is a really interesting idea. The game is so fast moving that I think you still need to allow two players to tackle someone with the ball but perhaps say that one needs to let go once they're grounded.

I also agree that a 25m penalty rule could be a good thing to bring in, this can be used for indiscretions such as all the time wasting tactics, encroaching in the protected area/crossing the mark, and general backchat that isn't offensive. The 50m penalty can be used for violent conduct, late contact after marks, and offensive chat back to the umpires. 

I would also like a sin bin to be considered where a player gets sent off for 5 minutes of game time leaving the other team short one for that period for clear rough/violent acts that leave the player unable to continue. These can also be directed to the on field umpires by the video review umpires. My biggest reasoning for that is that how often do we see a team do this and the only team that reaps the benefits are their opponents next week. The team on the day/night should be punished. As an example Nibbler would've been sin binned for 5min against Adelaide for his sling tackle.

I also hate the ruck nomination, as soon as the players are up and the ball is in the umpires hand they should throw it up. No nominations just get it moving, same with throw ins just get it going as quickly as possible.

[titan_uranus 22,209]

On 11/16/2020 at 4:37 PM, daisycutter said:

wth is "radical" about it?   the game went without rotations for a 100 years or more........radical!

introducing the rotation, now that was radical

Coaches and players have spent the last two decades developing a brand of professional football based on rotations.

It's absolutely radical to suggest we should diminish that substantially or entirely just so we can tire players out and see what comes of it.

Maybe, for example, clubs will turn their focus even more so to fitness, at the expense of, say, goal kicking or skills. The advantage to be gained will be in those players who can run harder/longer than their opponents. I can easily see clubs continuing to draft and recruit athletes with less football skill. It won't matter if you can kick it well if you can get to more contests with fewer rotations.

2 hours ago, Pates said:

I'm not against the two tackler thing but like you I hate the "stacks on" when the ball is buried at the bottom of the pack so what you've suggested is a really interesting idea. The game is so fast moving that I think you still need to allow two players to tackle someone with the ball but perhaps say that one needs to let go once they're grounded.

I also agree that a 25m penalty rule could be a good thing to bring in, this can be used for indiscretions such as all the time wasting tactics, encroaching in the protected area/crossing the mark, and general backchat that isn't offensive. The 50m penalty can be used for violent conduct, late contact after marks, and offensive chat back to the umpires. 

I would also like a sin bin to be considered where a player gets sent off for 5 minutes of game time leaving the other team short one for that period for clear rough/violent acts that leave the player unable to continue. These can also be directed to the on field umpires by the video review umpires. My biggest reasoning for that is that how often do we see a team do this and the only team that reaps the benefits are their opponents next week. The team on the day/night should be punished. As an example Nibbler would've been sin binned for 5min against Adelaide for his sling tackle.

I also hate the ruck nomination, as soon as the players are up and the ball is in the umpires hand they should throw it up. No nominations just get it moving, same with throw ins just get it going as quickly as possible.

I don't see the need for a second tackler. It's often designed to lock the ball in, so that the player being tackled doesn't drop it or let it out. Ostensibly that's to try to get a holding the ball free, but half the time (or more) it's a defensive move to slow play down.

There's no need for it. If a player's already being tackled, leave him be. If it comes out, that's good. If it doesn't, blow the whistle, throw it up and move on.

I'm not against a sin bin but it needs to be worked out fully before implementation. Using a video umpire could slow the game down if we're making calls to sin bin minutes after the indiscretion.

[daisycutter 28,427]

13 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Coaches and players have spent the last two decades developing a brand of professional football based on rotations.

It's absolutely radical to suggest we should diminish that substantially or entirely just so we can tire players out and see what comes of it.

Maybe, for example, clubs will turn their focus even more so to fitness, at the expense of, say, goal kicking or skills. The advantage to be gained will be in those players who can run harder/longer than their opponents. I can easily see clubs continuing to draft and recruit athletes with less football skill. It won't matter if you can kick it well if you can get to more contests with fewer rotations.

 

 

 

it's not just about tiring players. players get fatigued now. it's about forcing coaches to change expecting players to run relentlessly both ways for defensive purposes. without rotations (or greatly reduced) coaches will be forced to change. midfielders will get their rests by rotating on field (like they used to) to a fwd pocket or flank etc. other players will reduce the extent that they follow the ball so far out of their nominated positions.

plenty of other sports have reduced or no rotations. nrl has very few and many play a full 40 minute period. how often have you seen a long 5 set tennis match with the skills just as good in the 5th set as the first, and these guys are not just "athletes" they are skilled tennis players

as for favouring athleticism and more fitness, i don't think there is much more room now to move on this front. restricting rotation should in fact create more emphasis on natural skills and empower player and coaches to encourage initiative and risk taking rather than this increased tendency to defense, possession and turning players into robots who are not allowed to be creative.

sure it will force coaches to rethink game plans but i think it could mean a more skilled, less predictable and attractive game

[titan_uranus 22,209]

8 hours ago, daisycutter said:

it's not just about tiring players. players get fatigued now. it's about forcing coaches to change expecting players to run relentlessly both ways for defensive purposes. without rotations (or greatly reduced) coaches will be forced to change. midfielders will get their rests by rotating on field (like they used to) to a fwd pocket or flank etc. other players will reduce the extent that they follow the ball so far out of their nominated positions.

plenty of other sports have reduced or no rotations. nrl has very few and many play a full 40 minute period. how often have you seen a long 5 set tennis match with the skills just as good in the 5th set as the first, and these guys are not just "athletes" they are skilled tennis players

as for favouring athleticism and more fitness, i don't think there is much more room now to move on this front. restricting rotation should in fact create more emphasis on natural skills and empower player and coaches to encourage initiative and risk taking rather than this increased tendency to defense, possession and turning players into robots who are not allowed to be creative.

sure it will force coaches to rethink game plans but i think it could mean a more skilled, less predictable and attractive game

It's all about tiring players. The rationale is by reducing rotations, players fatigue, and the fatigue forces coaches to instruct them to run to fewer contests as a result.

Maybe it could mean a more skilled game. I've argued above why I think it could also lead to a less skilled game. I don't know what you mean by "less predictable", I don't think AFL football right now is "predictable". And the argument as to "attractive" is questionable - it relies on the assumption that freer flowing football is "attractive", and I disagree with that.