1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

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.

You don’t like freer flowing football, with Higher Scoring TU?

The 100 Goal Kicking Forward was such a huge part of the game going back when i was growing up  i say that not just in nostalgia. The anticipation of an upcoming Full Forward shoot out was fantastic, 3-4 players fighting for the Coleman  

Now i have no immediate interest in who is leading the Goalkicking, it doesn’t matter...

It is a huge hole in the modern game

 

13 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You don’t like freer flowing football, with Higher Scoring TU?

The 100 Goal Kicking Forward was such a huge part of the game going back when i was growing up  i say that not just in nostalgia. The anticipation of an upcoming Full Forward shoot out was fantastic, 3-4 players fighting for the Coleman  

Now i have no immediate interest in who is leading the Goalkicking, it doesn’t matter...

It is a huge hole in the modern game

that's the thing tho - regular 100-goals-a-year players were an anomaly not the norm prior to hudson coming into the afl in the late 1960s - prior to that it was only coleman in 1950 and 1952 that scored above the mark after ron todd in 1938 before hudson really kicked off the trend of full forwards being big goal kickers in 1968

the 70s, 80s, and 90s were definitely the time when full forwards booted lots of goals - even then, 12 of those 30 odd years had players not kicking over 100 in the home and away season

personally, i really don't care about big goalkickers etc. - i just want to see premierships

17 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

that's the thing tho - regular 100-goals-a-year players were an anomaly not the norm prior to hudson coming into the afl in the late 1960s - prior to that it was only coleman in 1950 and 1952 that scored above the mark after ron todd in 1938 before hudson really kicked off the trend of full forwards being big goal kickers in 1968

the 70s, 80s, and 90s were definitely the time when full forwards booted lots of goals - even then, 12 of those 30 odd years had players not kicking over 100 in the home and away season

personally, i really don't care about big goalkickers etc. - i just want to see premierships

Agree WWSW but the game was huge during those decades. 
Today’s Football is almost boring

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Agree WWSW but the game was huge during those decades. 
Today’s Football is almost boring

yeah see that i really don't agree with

modern footy gets a bad wrap, particularly by the media, but i think a lot of the criticism is overblown

 

Another way of handling the rotations issue is to change it from a total amount per team to a total amount per player or total amount per player per quarter. Or a total amount per team and a total amount per player.

For example, each player may be allocated a maxium of perhaps 6 rotations per match. If a player gets injured, that wouldn't count, but to stop that being abused, players who come off the ground for an "injury break" rather than a "rotation" would have to stay off the ground for something like 15 minutes before returning (with an exception to that for the blood rule).

I would have thought if this were to be introduced, coaches might have their players rest on the ground, such as in the forward pocket. 

54 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

yeah see that i really don't agree with

modern footy gets a bad wrap, particularly by the media, but i think a lot of the criticism is overblown

 

Too many times we see Teams have kicked 3 goals to 3/4 time, in fine weather conditions 

I turn it off and i would never have done that years ago...

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

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.

well, first  we should ask ourselves why the rotation system was brought in in the first place

It was because (some) coaches asked for it to increase the speed of the game arguing it would make for a better spectacle. Initially the number of rotations was much smaller then it got increased and increased.

So what did the coaches doing with this new change? They used the extra speed in 2-way running to increase the defensive nature of the game resulting in increased congestion, the rolling maul and more tackling and ball ups. It didn't add to a better spectacle.

Worse, it didn't really add to the speed of the game, except for 2-way running. Players in indulged in ring-a-rosy handball, moving the ball backwards,  switching play, dinky chip passing and kicking for the boundary when distance kicking was necessary, because so many players were out of position.

So, ask yourself, did the introduction of rotations improve the game, make a better spectacle, be more entertaining? Not to this little wood duck!

I'm not advocating no rotations, just vastly reduced numbers. There are other more legitimate reasons for interchange players.   

There's thirty-six players around the ball.  The fans don't like it but the coaches do.  So the solution is clear...stop the coaches!.

Anything else is tinkering around the edges.

 

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by one_demon

A good rule is to stop congestion. There must be at least 3 of your players in the back and forward 50 at all times.  

31 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

A good rule is to stop congestion. There must be at least 3 of your players in the back and forward 50 at all times.  

Yes.  This is what I mean when I say "stop the coaches".  There's no new rules for the on-field umpires to adjudicate. If you don't have three players in the fifty, you're docked rotations. 

 

 

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by one_demon

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You don’t like freer flowing football, with Higher Scoring TU?

The 100 Goal Kicking Forward was such a huge part of the game going back when i was growing up  i say that not just in nostalgia. The anticipation of an upcoming Full Forward shoot out was fantastic, 3-4 players fighting for the Coleman  

Now i have no immediate interest in who is leading the Goalkicking, it doesn’t matter...

It is a huge hole in the modern game

 

100-goal seasons are irrelevant to me.

Higher scoring football can be exciting. But it can also be boring. Our Round 2 game vs Essendon last year is a prime example.

Lower scoring football can be boring. But it can also be exciting. The 2005 and 2006 West Coast v Sydney Grand Finals are prime examples.

My point is this: free flowing, high scoring football does not, IMO, always result in a better product.

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well, first  we should ask ourselves why the rotation system was brought in in the first place

It was because (some) coaches asked for it to increase the speed of the game arguing it would make for a better spectacle. Initially the number of rotations was much smaller then it got increased and increased.

So what did the coaches doing with this new change? They used the extra speed in 2-way running to increase the defensive nature of the game resulting in increased congestion, the rolling maul and more tackling and ball ups. It didn't add to a better spectacle.

Worse, it didn't really add to the speed of the game, except for 2-way running. Players in indulged in ring-a-rosy handball, moving the ball backwards,  switching play, dinky chip passing and kicking for the boundary when distance kicking was necessary, because so many players were out of position.

So, ask yourself, did the introduction of rotations improve the game, make a better spectacle, be more entertaining? Not to this little wood duck!

I'm not advocating no rotations, just vastly reduced numbers. There are other more legitimate reasons for interchange players.   

I'm not nearly as interested in the history of the interchange bench as I am the consequences of a change.

Some of what you're advocating here relates to the position of players. IMO we're already seeing coaches moving towards holding forwards deeper and further away from stoppages - Brisbane and Richmond this year kept forwards deep to stretch the opposition's zone and defence.

If we accept that reducing rotations has the impact you're suggesting (which I don't think is a fait accompli), it runs the risk of unintended side-effects as I've outlined.

So I'd much prefer us look at less radical options which could assist in what is supposed to be the problem (keeping play moving and reducing "congestion") without opening pandora's box.

12 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

100-goal seasons are irrelevant to me.

Higher scoring football can be exciting. But it can also be boring. Our Round 2 game vs Essendon last year is a prime example.

Lower scoring football can be boring. But it can also be exciting. The 2005 and 2006 West Coast v Sydney Grand Finals are prime examples.

My point is this: free flowing, high scoring football does not, IMO, always result in a better product.

 

Yes i agree the 2005-2006 GF’s were exciting, i was at the 2006 and the tension in the last 10 minutes i still remember. 
But i was also at the 1989 and 1972 GF’s which were both high scoring shoot outs. 
I like seeing goals kicked (The 8 goal 3rd Quarter to break a game after a close first half) I remember those games. I don’t remember a 5 goal Ross Lyon style game of defensive Lockdown 

On 11/15/2020 at 8:31 PM, 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

 

On 11/16/2020 at 8:13 AM, daisycutter said:

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

rjay - can you elaborate please?

If you are referring to zones like in netball where players have to give up the chase if they come to a certain line, it would be a huge NO from me.  Or is this a certain number of players in a zone at stoppages, maybe, though if umpires cant adjudicate the current rules then how could they enforce yet another complicated rule correctly.

 

7 minutes ago, monoccular said:

...if umpires cant adjudicate the current rules then how could they enforce yet another complicated rule correctly

On-field umpires would NOT adjudicate the zones.  There would be an off-field umpire who docks rotations for every breach of the rule.

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by one_demon

 

That 50m penalty for failing to 'correctly' stand the mark is gonna be...interesting

Razor will be in his element: "You moved! That’s 50! Make it 100 for talking back in class!!"

11 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

So the ball is down one end and as usual 36 players in that half.The ball goes out in the back pocket so we wait while 6 players scurry back to the fifty metre zone at the other end.

What happens if one player from both sides fail to make it back.

Quick throw ins could be quite comical not to mention kick ins.

Actually I like it but not sure how it will play out in practice.

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by Diamond_Jim

18 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The ball goes out in the back pocket so we wait while 6 players scurry back to the fifty metre zone at the other end.

Nope, there's no waiting for players to go back into the zone.   If the six players are not in the zone the team is docked rotations. 

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by one_demon

The problems with interchange is teams will recruit ANB's and develop kick to kick game plans. It takes more running to attack than defend. 

The problem with zones is coaches will still want teams to flood back and flood forward, who gets the penalty for being out of place?

I'm pro trials of 16 a side but that's still a gamble.

There's 2 changes I truly believe will work:

1. PAY HOLDING THE MAN

Just pay it. Pay it. Then pay it some more. Then pay it again. And after about 4 weeks the players approach to a loose ball will be completely different. The ball winner will have time and space to gather, evade and dispose.

2. Revert holding the ball to something like the 80's and 90's interpretation.

Prior opportunity has to be a factor, but guess what, if you've got less holding the man you've got more players running free in space to begin with. Then once they are tackled it's a ball up or it's holding the ball - right away, immediately. No more attempts to dispose the ball or waiting to see if it spills out. A player tackled at all effectively is caught and done.

The game is run by [censored] idiots.

Modern footy is garbage and it will only get worse.   We need to win a flag in the next few seasons before Aussie Rules becomes unwatchable and unrecoverable.

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by Pickett2Jackson

So  trying to " put more time and space" into the game, as Hocking put it,  is surely going to favour the faster teams. Of which we are not one. Goodys heavily contested brand may be not looking like its the way forward . Hope Im wrong...as I also thought the 666 rule would work in our favour! 

 

 

I brought up this exact topic in my pocast earlier in the week. Once again not addressing the areas of the game that are slowing down the game. No idea what soever.

https://player.captivate.fm/episode/71256848-d8be-4fad-9465-d8e0c74ff853

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by inanunda
grammar

The 2021 rule changes are still tinkering around the edges but at least the AFL is acknowledging that congestion is a problem and still trying to do something.  Something is better than nothing.  

53 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The problems with interchange is teams will recruit ANB's and develop kick to kick game plans. It takes more running to attack than defend. 

The problem with zones is coaches will still want teams to flood back and flood forward, who gets the penalty for being out of place?

I'm pro trials of 16 a side but that's still a gamble.

There's 2 changes I truly believe will work:

1. PAY HOLDING THE MAN

Just pay it. Pay it. Then pay it some more. Then pay it again. And after about 4 weeks the players approach to a loose ball will be completely different. The ball winner will have time and space to gather, evade and dispose.

2. Revert holding the ball to something like the 80's and 90's interpretation.

Prior opportunity has to be a factor, but guess what, if you've got less holding the man you've got more players running free in space to begin with. Then once they are tackled it's a ball up or it's holding the ball - right away, immediately. No more attempts to dispose the ball or waiting to see if it spills out. A player tackled at all effectively is caught and done.

I agree with most of this but not reducing to 16 per side.

A possible major side effect of doing that is that, as you've eluded to with rotations, you put a further premium on fitness. You also may well find that the empty space isn't at the contest but is at either end of the ground. Clubs may sacrifice a forward to ensure they can add a number to a stoppage. IMO it's not even close to a guarantee to fix any of the problems we have.

Agree wholeheartedly with the two rules you've highlighted.

Sixteen a side will do bugger all because it only reduces the congestion from thirty-six to thirty-two