Congested & Less Interesting

[Junction Oval]

Anyone getting the feeling that across the board, games are becoming far more congested and far less interesting to watch?

Any support for a Rule that says that at least 4 players should be behind the Centre line at all times ??

[plugger66]

Anyone getting the feeling that across the board, games are becoming far more congested and far less interesting to watch?

Any support for a Rule that says that at least 4 players should be behind the Centre line at all times ??

I give no support at all for zones that players can enter. I do give support to a maximum of 80 interchanges and then see if that improves the game.

[Life Long Saint]

Anyone getting the feeling that across the board, games are becoming far more congested and far less interesting to watch?

Any support for a Rule that says that at least 4 players should be behind the Centre line at all times ??

I give no support at all for zones that players can enter. I do give support to a maximum of 80 interchanges and then see if that improves the game.

No need to change the rules.
The game will evolve...just like it always does.

Not that long ago everyone was crying out to stop flooding even trialling the "play on if you kick backwards rule". As it turned out everyone worked out how to get through the flood.

Leave the game alone.

Uncapped interchanges, no sub and let the game sort itself out.

[plugger66]

Anyone getting the feeling that across the board, games are becoming far more congested and far less interesting to watch?

Any support for a Rule that says that at least 4 players should be behind the Centre line at all times ??

I give no support at all for zones that players can enter. I do give support to a maximum of 80 interchanges and then see if that improves the game.

No need to change the rules.
The game will evolve...just like it always does.

Not that long ago everyone was crying out to stop flooding even trialling the "play on if you kick backwards rule". As it turned out everyone worked out how to get through the flood.

Leave the game alone.

Uncapped interchanges, no sub and let the game sort itself out.

That last part wont happen. There will be capped interchanges. It isn't even really a rule change as such. And now they don't flood back. You are correct on that. They flood all over the ground. The game wont sort itself out whilst players can run for 4 minutes and then get a couple of minutes rest and then run again. They have to try capped interchanges and if that doesn't work we need to look at other options. The other reason we need capped interchanges without the sub is because an injury makes the game unfair to the side with the injury. It then becomes 22 on 21. At least now its 21 on 21 unless you get 2 injuries.

[Munga]

Cut three players from each team on the field, so 15 each. Players cover too much ground these days. Even at local footy I thought the grounds were too small and congested. But the game has been stuffed for ten years.

[mambo2706]

Cut three players from each team on the field, so 15 each. Players cover too much ground these days. Even at local footy I thought the grounds were too small and congested. But the game has been stuffed for ten years.

Was just about to mention this. The VFA used to have 16 players per side (no wings) and the play was very open. There were some huge scores as well (Not saying I'd like to see this happen)

[plugger66]

Cut three players from each team on the field, so 15 each. Players cover too much ground these days. Even at local footy I thought the grounds were too small and congested. But the game has been stuffed for ten years.

Was just about to mention this. The VFA used to have 16 players per side (no wings) and the play was very open. There were some huge scores as well (Not saying I'd like to see this happen)

Well things like that are never going to happen. I think we need to come up with realistic alternatives.

[bergsone]

If interchange caps come in,say 20 per quarter,if a player cops say a knock near end of quarter does he stay on if 20 used ,or do you play one short or keep one up your sleeve?

[plugger66]

If interchange caps come in,say 20 per quarter,if a player cops say a knock near end of quarter does he stay on if 20 used ,or do you play one short or keep one up your sleeve?

Same as now. There is a cap now. Clubs don't risk getting that close to the cap and I think it will be a whole game cap anyway.

[mambo2706]

With the current rules, if a player comes off with the blood rule does that count as an interchange rotation??? I assume no but have never really thought about it.

[plugger66]

With the current rules, if a player comes off with the blood rule does that count as an interchange rotation??? I assume no but have never really thought about it.

No it doesn't.

[Sobraz]

The game is unrecognisable from past era's. Probably for the worse. Yesterdays game was downright ugly, not taking into account the scoreboard. However I think many of us forget how many s*** games there used to be in what a considered great era's, as we only really remember the best matches. But it is certainly a game which is more influenced by coaches than ever before. To its detriment.

The flood has not been worked out. It is worse than ever and has just taken over the whole field of play as opposed to each forward 50.

Agree with P66, interchange cap is the best way to go, and at a minimum of 80. Preferably 60, but that won't happen.

Zones is something that could be considered, but I worry about the penalty if a zone is breached? Shot on goal from the goal square like the interchange infringement? Ridiculous.

[plugger66]

The game is unrecognisable from past era's. Probably for the worse. Yesterdays game was downright ugly, not taking into account the scoreboard. However I think many of us forget how many s*** games there used to be in what a considered great era's, as we only really remember the best matches. But it is certainly a game which is more influenced by coaches than ever before. To its detriment.

The flood has not been worked out. It is worse than ever and has just taken over the whole field of play as opposed to each forward 50.

Agree with P66, interchange cap is the best way to go, and at a minimum of 80. Preferably 60, but that won't happen.

Zones is something that could be considered, but I worry about the penalty if a zone is breached? Shot on goal from the goal square like the interchange infringement? Ridiculous.

And unlike Netball that has zones they play the game with their feet on the ground so they can see the zone. What happens if a pack forms on the line. Do we really want players hanging back on their side of the line instead of going in and under to try and get the ball. It cant possibly work. The centre squares works because the game hasn't started yet.

[saintsRrising]

. It cant possibly work. The centre squares works because the game hasn't started yet.

While not advocating it, you could easily have a rule that whenever there is a ball-up around the ground that each team has to have say 2/3 players in each goal square (is already painted and so next extra work or lines).

By being in the goalsquare in maximising the spread of players, and due the extra running is more likely to not have them run continually back to the ther end of the ground due the extra mileage involved from having to go back to the goal square regularly.

[plugger66]

. It cant possibly work. The centre squares works because the game hasn't started yet.

While not advocating it, you could easily have a rule that whenever there is a ball-up around the ground that each team has to have say 2/3 players in each goal square (is already painted and so next extra work or line).

Surely we start with interchange before we go to those sort of ideas?

[desertsaint]

caps on interchanges? restricted zones? why overcomplicate things?
why not just reduce the bench size to two or reduce the number of players to 16?

[Con Gorozidis]

Definitely more congested.
Does anyone have the average scores over a season? I think it peaked about 10 years ago?

[plugger66]

caps on interchanges? restricted zones? why overcomplicate things?
why not just reduce the bench size to two or reduce the number of players to 16?

Because that is by far the biggest change to the game in 120 years. Well the 16 players is. And only have 2 on the bench would hugely effect a side with an early injury especially with no restrictions on interchanges. I don't think the cap this year has complicated anything. Don't think there has been one free paid yet for going over the cap.

[poatina]

I haven't posted for a long time . I've been enjoying the Saints under Richardson, they are allowed to show a bit of flair. But games are awful now live, they are actually better on TV where you can see the close skills and quick thinking. I've been to two games in the past month, Saints v Dogs in Melbourne and this weekend the so called blockbuster Freo v Hawks, . What you notice on the ground is that apart from the centre bounce, every player is within a 60km radius of each other and the ball. It's like the Auskick or kiddies soccer, a roving maul following the ball everywhere. Zoning or compulsory minimum numbers in each fifty at all times , or reducing the number of players has to happen; the game is robotic, boring and no spectacle at present and it is fanciful to think it will fix itself when two favourites to play in the grand final both see this as the way to play and lesser sides follow the same pattern.

[Toy Saint]

Reckon it's more congested because the interchange allows players to maintain the stamina to flood back.

In the old days we only had 19th & 20th man and they were substitutes not interchange.

And in the old days there was less congestion. Players typically played their position, there were more one on one contests and I'd say there was more contested marking.

So logic says that if you want to reduce congestion you should reduce the interchanges. There are plenty of ways to do this which have already been discussed.

One idea that may be considered is for the player comming of the ground to stay off for the remainder of that quarter. This would ensure the elite running midfielders would probably only interchange toward the end of the quarter. This would limit interchanges to 16 per match.

Footy was good in the old days

[plugger66]

I haven't posted for a long time . I've been enjoying the Saints under Richardson, they are allowed to show a bit of flair. But games are awful now live, they are actually better on TV where you can see the close skills and quick thinking. I've been to two games in the past month, Saints v Dogs in Melbourne and this weekend the so called blockbuster Freo v Hawks, . What you notice on the ground is that apart from the centre bounce, every player is within a 60km radius of each other and the ball. It's like the Auskick or kiddies soccer, a roving maul following the ball everywhere. Zoning or compulsory minimum numbers in each fifty at all times , or reducing the number of players has to happen; the game is robotic, boring and no spectacle at present and it is fanciful to think it will fix itself when two favourites to play in the grand final both see this as the way to play and lesser sides follow the same pattern.

Unfortunately for you I don't think what you have suggested will happen for a long time. I certainly never think they will change the numbers on the ground. And funnily I loved the WB game. It was so fast and bugger all packs. The skills of both sides just let the game down. Also I think the game you watch must be on huge playing field.

[wolfpup]

Anyone getting the feeling that across the board, games are becoming far more congested and far less interesting to watch?

Any support for a Rule that says that at least 4 players should be behind the Centre line at all times ??

Its funny i was talking about this exact topic today, must be a common theme.
I just love footy and my saints and watch a lot of neutral games but on Friday night i changed channels and have been doing a lot of that this year.
I dont agree with zones and perhaps reducing the interchange cap might help, the exciting times of scrappy games to me is when there is a turn over and a counter attack

anyways, i think there needs to be a bit of food for thought for the afl, i am not sure about junior numbers but my 6 year old wants to try soccer next year instead of ozkick because of his mates at school.

[mambo2706]

[quote="poatina"What you notice on the ground is that apart from the centre bounce, every player is within a 60km radius of each other and the ball. [/quote]

60m?

[mildurasaint]

Could investigate ways to increase scoring which usually makes games more open and interesting - e.g. use 'points for' instead of percentage for ladder position; award bonus points for teams winning with a score of higher than 15 or 20 goals so it is possible to receive 5 or 6 points for a win instead of always 4 etc.

[AdelaideSainter]

Congestion and seemingly declining skill levels (not enough talent to spread across 18 clubs) certainly are impacting negatively on the game. Some matches can be a real chore to watch and 'shot-gun' footy grows boring quickly as a spectacle.

I'd prefer a reduction in cap over zones at this stage.