Congested & Less Interesting

[magnifisaint]

Leave the rules along. Reduce the number of interchange, scrap the sub

[barwonsaint]

Kingy has sugested last to touch the ball before over the boundary line between the 50 m arcs free to the opposition.
This will reduce stopages and maybe create more play through the corridor.
Thoughts ?

[WinnersOnly]

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 agree JO they do that in the juniors perhaps it is time. Particularky when watching live it is very ordinary to see every player in a 3rd of the ground!

[Sarkes]

If you're worried about congestion zones are probably the best way to go. Capped interchanges aren't going to help the mass of players at a contest as coaches will still want their players to outnumber the opponents. Not really fussed about how it affects the game as I think AFL will 'evolve' beyond it's current state.

[Teflon]

. 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.

This has merit.
While we have 2-3 in the goalsquare, we could have 2 more grab a hot dog from the vending machine for $35 a go and another could be climbing the goal post singing 'God Save the Queen'.....

This is why we need to leave the game alone because people start imagining......

[perfectionist]

Only drastic rule changes will save our game now, but as the man who answers every post has said, that's not going to happen. Once noted for its difference to soccer and rugby, it is now an amalgam of both. Kicking the ball around in the back half for ages or endless mauling, rolling scrums. It is only in completely one-sided games or late in the last quarter, when a team throws caution to the wind with all out attack, do we see vestiges of the game of the 70s, 80s, 90s and early 00s, when it reached its zenith.

A few coaches (ours was one of them) changed the game forever.

The quick solution would be to remove two players from the field. It would also even up the competition overnight. But would it be a lasting solution? Could players become even more "fit" to run harder, longer and further? Perhaps. But until then, the game would be a spectacle to enjoy again. I used to watch every game on TV once. Now, it is such a bore. Soon, they'll have to add a "crowd audio excitement track" like they do in rugby. Only the last 15 minutes of a close game is worth watching. But in the early stages, even Father Brown on the ABC is more exciting.

[Jacks Back]

Kingy has sugested last to touch the ball before over the boundary line between the 50 m arcs free to the opposition.
This will reduce stopages and maybe create more play through the corridor.
Thoughts ?

They are saying that boundary throw-ins have increased at an alarming rate recently. Instead of last touch between the arcs what about actually penalizing those deliberate out of bounds that we all know are done probably 10 or even 20 times a game? This would solve the increased amounts of boundary throw-ins (and the congestion that forms around that) without actually changing any rules.

[Old Mate]

. 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.

This has merit.
While we have 2-3 in the goalsquare, we could have 2 more grab a hot dog from the vending machine for $35 a go and another could be climbing the goal post singing 'God Save the Queen'.....

This is why we need to leave the game alone because people start imagining......

I don't mind this goal square idea although that's another thing for the umps to police...you know to make sure they remain in the square. Perhaps the forwards wear a necklace that gives out an electric shock if they cross the painted line?

[Sarkes]

. 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.

This has merit.
While we have 2-3 in the goalsquare, we could have 2 more grab a hot dog from the vending machine for $35 a go and another could be climbing the goal post singing 'God Save the Queen'.....

This is why we need to leave the game alone because people start imagining......

I don't mind this goal square idea although that's another thing for the umps to police...you know to make sure they remain in the square. Perhaps the forwards wear a necklace that gives out an electric shock if they cross the painted line?

I think the electric shock collar idea might be the best one to come out of this thread, my friends who hate sports would probably watch that

[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?

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.

i played in victoria late 80s and there were 16 in that league - worked very well, not that we were fit enough to cover the ground. leigh matthews has also suggested this change. makes most sense to me. would also increase the skill level across all clubs.

[skeptic]

personally I can't watch footy much anymore because of the umpires...

not specifically any anti-saints thing but rather there are so many piddling soft free kicks it's impossible to develop any type of consistency

Marking contest: Riewoldt Vs Lake - whistle blows: free for - Slapping the hands, over the shoulder, blocking, holding on, tunneling, corralling, push in the back, infringement from the front... blah blah blah
who wants to watch that

[minneapolis]

. 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.

This has merit.
While we have 2-3 in the goalsquare, we could have 2 more grab a hot dog from the vending machine for $35 a go and another could be climbing the goal post singing 'God Save the Queen'.....

This is why we need to leave the game alone because people start imagining......

I don't mind this goal square idea although that's another thing for the umps to police...you know to make sure they remain in the square. Perhaps the forwards wear a necklace that gives out an electric shock if they cross the painted line?

I think the electric shock collar idea might be the best one to come out of this thread, my friends who hate sports would probably watch that

So this idea is definitely coming. And the full-forward would be instructed to run over the line if he could get an advantage in the next contest.

How would you train for that? Mild shock treatment increasing in strength over the pre-season? Would the club need to hire a certified electrician? Is Sheeds and Clarkson already having closed door meetings?

Saints need to be pro-active I think.

[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.

i played in victoria late 80s and there were 16 in that league - worked very well, not that we were fit enough to cover the ground. leigh matthews has also suggested this change. makes most sense to me. would also increase the skill level across all clubs.

I don't think that will ever happen but if that was the only rule change it just means 32 around the ball instead of 36. Making less interchanges will mean players wont physically be able to get to ever contest and those resting on the ground will actually have to rest deep so they can regain some sort of breath to go again later in the quarter. I think they start at 80 interchanges next year and hopefully get down to 40 or 60 a couple of years later.

[Junction Oval]

An interesting article by Rohan Connolly in the Age today, on ZONING.

Stoppages - Av per game - 48 in '05, 60 in '10, 74 in '15.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/z ... z3foz3ERND

[arpstk]

yep drop the rotations and tiredness will open up the game wont be right back to the old days there will still be a maul but fatigue will set in sooner and that's when the space opens up

[SinCitySainter]

Why not scrap interchange altogether.
Switch to a bench of 5 substitutes or even 7 but only 5 can be used.
When a player goes off he cannot come back on except in a blood rule or concussion test scenario.

David King's idea of a free against the last team to touch the ball if it crosses the boundary is problematic.
I would hate to see sides training how to handball the pill against their opponent to ensure a free kick but if they brought that rule in that is precisely what would happen.

The idea of having no go zones for certain players would require extra umpires to police it and we should not be introducing rules that cannot be introduced at all levels.

They will drop the rotations and probably get rid of the sub and this may help depending upon how much they reduce the rotations by.

[Munga]

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

This is my other thought. Have a starting 18, no interchange, but four subs. One forward, back, ruck, mid. Or one per quarter or whenever you like. Less running around, more keeping to position, more footballers less athletes. Bring back the Pluggers and Piggy Dunstals and Mick Martyns.

[plugger66]

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

This is my other thought. Have a starting 18, no interchange, but four subs. One forward, back, ruck, mid. Or one per quarter or whenever you like. Less running around, more keeping to position, more footballers less athletes. Bring back the Pluggers and Piggy Dunstals and Mick Martyns.

Sounds ok but isn't that just like the sub now that people complain about. I think the options start with interchange and then if that fails then subs, then zones and finally and hopefully never, less players on the ground with zones. Interchange may work but we need to remember years ago when we thought footy was good we only got the best games on TV. Now we get every game so you get shockers but there has always been shockers. For a start nearly every game we played in the mid 80's were shockers and if it wasn't for Plugger there may have been no more than 10k at every game.

[SinCitySainter]

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

This is my other thought. Have a starting 18, no interchange, but four subs. One forward, back, ruck, mid. Or one per quarter or whenever you like. Less running around, more keeping to position, more footballers less athletes. Bring back the Pluggers and Piggy Dunstals and Mick Martyns.

Sounds ok but isn't that just like the sub now that people complain about. I think the options start with interchange and then if that fails then subs, then zones and finally and hopefully never, less players on the ground with zones. Interchange may work but we need to remember years ago when we thought footy was good we only got the best games on TV. Now we get every game so you get shockers but there has always been shockers. For a start nearly every game we played in the mid 80's were shockers and if it wasn't for Plugger there may have been no more than 10k at every game.

The sub is only complained about now because it is a single player who seems to be put in a lesser position than the interchange players.
They were talking about it as a punishment for Boomer Harvey last weekend.
If all the interchange were changed to a substitutes the attitude to them would change and the players on the bench would be there as a real alternative to the players on the field.
In soccer the bench is used as a strategic tool as well as a way of giving young players a taste of the game.
That is why I would suggest a 7 man bench with only either 4 or 5 substitutes allowed during the game.
That should be sufficient substitutes to allow for injury and allow for coverage in most positions for when injuries occur.
The other thing it would promote is game rotations whereby players, particularly midfielders, would start say 2 game and then play the next from the bench to remain fresh throughout the season.

[plugger66]

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

This is my other thought. Have a starting 18, no interchange, but four subs. One forward, back, ruck, mid. Or one per quarter or whenever you like. Less running around, more keeping to position, more footballers less athletes. Bring back the Pluggers and Piggy Dunstals and Mick Martyns.

Sounds ok but isn't that just like the sub now that people complain about. I think the options start with interchange and then if that fails then subs, then zones and finally and hopefully never, less players on the ground with zones. Interchange may work but we need to remember years ago when we thought footy was good we only got the best games on TV. Now we get every game so you get shockers but there has always been shockers. For a start nearly every game we played in the mid 80's were shockers and if it wasn't for Plugger there may have been no more than 10k at every game.

The sub is only complained about now because it is a single player who seems to be put in a lesser position than the interchange players.
They were talking about it as a punishment for Boomer Harvey last weekend.
If all the interchange were changed to a substitutes the attitude to them would change and the players on the bench would be there as a real alternative to the players on the field.
In soccer the bench is used as a strategic tool as well as a way of giving young players a taste of the game.
That is why I would suggest a 7 man bench with only either 4 or 5 substitutes allowed during the game.
That should be sufficient substitutes to allow for injury and allow for coverage in most positions for when injuries occur.
The other thing it would promote is game rotations whereby players, particularly midfielders, would start say 2 game and then play the next from the bench to remain fresh throughout the season.

Well I hope the last part doesn't happen if it does to the poorer mids. We want to see our stats play as often as possible. I still see huge problems with that. Firstly it wrecks the seconds, not that it really matters. Also players would lose fitness. Most of todays fitness is from games played. Also I think the sub thing about it being silly would still happen. And it clearly helps the side with more depth. Anyway lets face it they are just about certain to start with the number on interchanges because its the easiest thing to implement.