State of the game

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Apologies if there's a similar thread - please merge.

State of the game. It's not something I've typically engaged because much of it comes from the likes of KB who I can't stand, but I find myself not even really enjoying watching footy anymore.

It's just so dour. Scoring is obviously down but from an aesthetic point of view, I can't stand seeing 25-30 players camped in a forward line with blind kicks taken at goal or hack kicks out of D50. It feels like our game, at times, now has so little skill involved. It's more about having a 'surge' mentality to be more aggressive/intense in your actions than the opposition. It's basically rugby 2.0.

I remember watching footy on TV in the late 90s and early 00s and there seemed to routinely be some really attractive games to watch. More attacking but no less physical.

I don't know what they can do to fix it, but right now footy is a crap product. It's become too professional by nature, which has led to becoming far too defensive for the most part.

Thoughts?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I agree. I think its time to move to 16 v 16.

[Mofra]

There are just so many players around the ball, and 'locking it in' is now a legitimate tactic.

I actually think there should be consideration to multiple tacklers on the one ball carrier. So often we get repeat stoppages and as soon as one player gets the ball, three opposition mids tackle them and the ball is never coming out. If only one player was allowed to tackle an opponent at any one time the chances of the ball being released go up, and it could reduce the number of centre stoppages which would get the game moving again.

[comrade]

Reward higher scoring with extra points, binus premiership points etc. Give the coaches an incentive to score more.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

There are just so many players around the ball, and 'locking it in' is now a legitimate tactic.

I actually think there should be consideration to multiple tacklers on the one ball carrier. So often we get repeat stoppages and as soon as one player gets the ball, three opposition mids tackle them and the ball is never coming out. If only one player was allowed to tackle an opponent at any one time the chances of the ball being released go up, and it could reduce the number of centre stoppages which would get the game moving again.

It would reduce stoppages but I think it would add to the rolling pack problem and become more like rugby. You’d have players surrounding the pack waiting for the ball to come loose. Then rinse and repeat.

I think 16 v 16 to reduce congestion on the field is the way to go. I don’t want to get to permanent zones as that ruins the games freedom.

[jeemak]

Reward higher scoring with extra points, binus premiership points etc. Give the coaches an incentive to score more.

Thank you!

16 vs. 16 won't do enough, coaches will find a way to congest around the footy and will still be able to defend the ends of the ground. Changing the rules will only lead to further complications.

The only thing that hasn't been changed is incentivising what everyone wants to happen. Points, cash, whatever I really don't care. Just do the one thing the AFL has not been considering.

Imagine if you got a premiership point win lose or draw for kicking 100 points in a game. What would that do to the psyche of coaches?

[bornadog]

Unless you would like to change the game completely, there is nothing that can be done through rule changes that will actually make the game look different. Maybe 16 v 16 might help, but unless you have zones throughout the game where players can't cross, then we are stuck with what we have. I for one would not like to see permanent zones.

[GVGjr]

Reward higher scoring with extra points, binus premiership points etc. Give the coaches an incentive to score more.
I don't believe we need to change scoring as we have had this in place for years nor do we need to incentivise coaches to score more.
The solution has to be about having less congestion and maybe having 4 forwards and defenders locked into their areas

I'm not sure 16 v 16 is the way to go either

[comrade]

Thank you!

16 vs. 16 won't do enough, coaches will find a way to congest around the footy and will still be able to defend the ends of the ground. Changing the rules will only lead to further complications.

The only thing that hasn't been changed is incentivising what everyone wants to happen. Points, cash, whatever I really don't care. Just do the one thing the AFL has not been considering.

Imagine if you got a premiership point win lose or draw for kicking 100 points in a game. What would that do to the psyche of coaches?

It just seems kind of obvious, doesn't it?

No tinkering of rules, no transforming the game itself by reducing the players on the field.

Just provide rewards for high scoring and high scoring will happen.

[Happy Days]

Percentage. With. Points. For. Only.

[comrade]

I don't believe we need to change scoring as we have had this in place for years nor do we need to incentivise coaches to score more.
The solution has to be about having less congestion and maybe having 4 forwards and defenders locked into their areas

I'm not sure 16 v 16 is the way to go either

That completely transforms the game in a way that makes it more like netball.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Thank you!

16 vs. 16 won't do enough, coaches will find a way to congest around the footy and will still be able to defend the ends of the ground. Changing the rules will only lead to further complications.

The only thing that hasn't been changed is incentivising what everyone wants to happen. Points, cash, whatever I really don't care. Just do the one thing the AFL has not been considering.

Imagine if you got a premiership point win lose or draw for kicking 100 points in a game. What would that do to the psyche of coaches?

I don't think it would go far enough to address the problem. Coaches would still focus on winning first and foremost. They'd rather be assured of 4 premiership points than risk losing to gain 1 extra point. There are more cash incentives to simply win games of football than to score more. And in any case, high scoring teams are somewhat rewarded with prime time TV slots at the moment.

[Sedat]

Stricter HTB interpretations have helped but need to be enforced much more consistently - this weekend the rule was relaxed in some games and even between quarters in some games. Also it needs to be accompanied by much quicker throw-ups by the umpires instead of farting around waiting for nominated ruckman to put their hand up and asking for permission to compete - all that does is bring another 15-20 players into the stoppage. While we're at it, if there's a genuine 50-50 stalemate, umps need to call it and throw it up straight away and not wait a further 5 seconds to see if the ball gets out. Again that just promotes bees to the honeypot.

I tear my hair out listening to the likes of Gerard Healy crapping on about rewarding the person who gets to the ball first - his reward is being first to the ball and dictating the next play. Why should he be rewarded if he does nothing other than take the tackle and try to force a stoppage? Elite footballers are very capable of making decisions to either take possession if they know they are going to get tackled, or knock it on to space or towards a teammate - this will also make the tackler more accountable for their tackling rechnique, and also force them to make a decision whether or not to tackle (and potentially infringe) or to corrall.

Short kicks also destroy fast ball movement - make the limit 25m and be strict on enforcing this. I'm also big on last kick or handball out of bounds to be a free to the opposition - not last touch. This will promote more corridor play and reduce more boundary stoppages.

I honestly don't think we need to go nuclear options to get players to remain in position if we can keep the ball constantly moving through the above means.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Percentage. With. Points. For. Only.

Yeah i thought along these lines too. But it does become a bit of a problem when teams play in wet weather moreso than others. Fortunately with our home ground under a roof we actuall benefit from it

[comrade]

As far as tweaks go, I agree with Sedat that short kicking is a scourge and isn't enforced nearly enough. 15m is ok if the umpires actually enforce it, not sure how to do it consistently and accurately so maybe extending out to 20m will help.

I also think taking away 3rd man up was a big mistake for around the ground ruck contests. It allowed the ball to clear the immediate congestion and it's no surprise footy is crappier since it was abolished.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

As far as tweaks go, I agree with Sedat that short kicking is a scourge and isn't enforced nearly enough. 15m is ok if the umpires actually enforce it, not sure how to do it consistently and accurately so maybe extending out to 20m will help.

I also think taking away 3rd man up was a big mistake for around the ground ruck contests. It allowed the ball to clear the immediate congestion and it's no surprise footy is crappier since it was abolished.
Yes. I'm still unclear as to why this was abolished. The game has rapidly deteriorated since its abolishment. Was it really just to quell our influence? :confused:

[bornadog]

Stricter HTB interpretations have helped but need to be enforced much more consistently - this weekend the rule was relaxed in some games and even between quarters in some games. Also it needs to be accompanied by much quicker throw-ups by the umpires instead of farting around waiting for nominated ruckman to put their hand up and asking for permission to compete - all that does is bring another 15-20 players into the stoppage. While we're at it, if there's a genuine 50-50 ball up, umps need to call it straight away and not wait a further 5 seconds to see if the ball gets out. Again that just promotes bees to the honeypot.

I tear my hair out listening to the likes of Gerard Healy crapping on about rewarding the person who gets to the ball first - why should he be rewarded if he does nothing other than take the tackle and try to force a stoppage.

Short kicks also destroy fast ball movement - make the limit 20m and be strict on enforcing this. I'm also big on last kick or handball out of bounds to be a free to the opposition - not last touch. This will promote more corridor play.

I honestly don't think we need to go nuclear options to get players to remain in position if we can keep the ball constantly moving through the above means.

If constant ball movement can become the

I agree with most of this except doing away with boundary throw ins. There are some unique things in our game and one is the boundary throw in. However, the boundary umpire shouldn't wait for the rucks to set up, they should just throw it in.

We need to reverse some rules as they have not enhanced the game:

* Prior opportunity - need clarity, as Sedat said, has caused alot of the stoppages, but as usual umpires have gone too far the other way.

* The third man up needs to be back in to help clear the ball from ball ups.

* Kick out after a behind - just rubbish letting the backman to run out from the goal square. All teams do now is setup further down the ground and clog up the oppositions centre to half forward line.

* 6.6.6 - has done nothing for the game - just needs more officiating, waste of time.

* interchange - should be unlimited, bring on players fresh that can run, run, run

All these are reversing rules that came in that have done nothing to improve the game, and scoring.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Stricter HTB interpretations have helped but need to be enforced much more consistently - this weekend the rule was relaxed in some games and even between quarters in some games. Also it needs to be accompanied by much quicker throw-ups by the umpires instead of farting around waiting for nominated ruckman to put their hand up and asking for permission to compete - all that does is bring another 15-20 players into the stoppage. While we're at it, if there's a genuine 50-50 stalemate, umps need to call it and throw it up straight away and not wait a further 5 seconds to see if the ball gets out. Again that just promotes bees to the honeypot.

I tear my hair out listening to the likes of Gerard Healy crapping on about rewarding the person who gets to the ball first - his reward is being first to the ball and dictating the next play. Why should he be rewarded if he does nothing other than take the tackle and try to force a stoppage? Elite footballers are very capable of making decisions to either take possession if they know they are going to get tackled, or knock it on to space or towards a teammate - this will also make the tackler more accountable for their tackling rechnique, and also force them to make a decision whether or not to tackle (and potentially infringe) or to corrall.

Short kicks also destroy fast ball movement - make the limit 25m and be strict on enforcing this. I'm also big on last kick or handball out of bounds to be a free to the opposition - not last touch. This will promote more corridor play and reduce more boundary stoppages.

I honestly don't think we need to go nuclear options to get players to remain in position if we can keep the ball constantly moving through the above means.
How did this go in the SANFL? What was the feedback?

[comrade]

If you:

a) rewarded high scoring with bonus premiership points
b) enforced play on for short kicks under 15m-20m
c) brought back third man up

I think you'd see an overall improvement in the game, and it doesn't require a complete change to the structure of the game itself such as zones, reduced players on the field, only one tackler at a time etc.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I agree with most of this except doing away with boundary throw ins. There are some unique things in our game and one is the boundary throw in. However, the boundary umpire shouldn't wait for the rucks to set up, they should just throw it in.
I agree with Sedat on this. There would still be throw ins from non-kick or handball out of bounds. But i don't like keeping things for the sake of it if it deteriorates the game.

We need to reverse some rules as they have not enhanced the game:

* Prior opportunity - need clarity, as Sedat said, has caused alot of the stoppages, but as usual umpires have gone too far the other way.
Yes agree it certainly needs clarity. Something that was needed prior to a hasty change. Punish players wanting to keep the ball locked in but tink it through first so its clear to everyone.

* The third man up needs to be back in to help clear the ball from ball ups.
Agreed

* Kick out after a behind - just rubbish letting the backman to run out from the goal square. All teams do now is setup further down the ground and clog up the oppositions centre to half forward line.
Agree. As soon as a player lines up for goal everyone is dropping back. Its just leading to numbers in the middle of the ground as it's eliminated short passes up the ground to draw players in.

* 6.6.6 - has done nothing for the game - just needs more officiating, waste of time.
I think it's actually been good and has led to more scoring chances from centre bounces

* interchange - should be unlimited, bring on players fresh that can run, run, run
I actually think less rotations would result in less players being able to follow the ball for long periods of time. But it could also simply mean more midfielders get selected. It's an interest

All these are reversing rules that came in that have done nothing to improve the game, and scoring.

I agree with most of this except doing away with boundary throw ins. There are some unique things in our game and one is the boundary throw in. However, the boundary umpire shouldn't wait for the rucks to set up, they should just throw it in.
I agree with Sedat on this. There would still be throw ins from non-kick or handball out of bounds. But i don't like keeping things for the sake of it if it deteriorates the game.

We need to reverse some rules as they have not enhanced the game:

* Prior opportunity - need clarity, as Sedat said, has caused alot of the stoppages, but as usual umpires have gone too far the other way.
Yes agree it certainly needs clarity. Something that was needed prior to a hasty change. Punish players wanting to keep the ball locked in but tink it through first so its clear to everyone.

* The third man up needs to be back in to help clear the ball from ball ups.
Agreed

* Kick out after a behind - just rubbish letting the backman to run out from the goal square. All teams do now is setup further down the ground and clog up the oppositions centre to half forward line.
Agree. As soon as a player lines up for goal everyone is dropping back. Its just leading to numbers in the middle of the ground as it's eliminated short passes up the ground to draw players in.

* 6.6.6 - has done nothing for the game - just needs more officiating, waste of time.
I think it's actually been good and has led to more scoring chances from centre bounces

* interchange - should be unlimited, bring on players fresh that can run, run, run
I actually think less rotations would result in less players being able to follow the ball for long periods of time. But it could also simply mean more midfielders get selected. It's an interesting area

All these are reversing rules that came in that have done nothing to improve the game, and scoring.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

If you:

a) rewarded high scoring with bonus premiership points
b) enforced play on for short kicks under 15m-20m
c) brought back third man up

I think you'd see an overall improvement in the game, and it doesn't require a complete change to the structure of the game itself such as zones, reduced players on the field, only one tackler at a time etc.
Does this compromise the integrity of the ladder if some teams end up playing 2 or 3 games more in wet weather conditions? Surely Marvel teams would benef... oh i see what you did there :)

[comrade]

Does this compromise the integrity of the ladder if some teams end up playing 2 or 3 games more in wet weather conditions? Surely Marvel teams would benef... oh i see what you did there :)

The draw is compromised anyway, and given we've struggled through a dodgy stadium deal for years, let's consider this some pay back.

[bornadog]

* interchange - should be unlimited, bring on players fresh that can run, run, run
I actually think less rotations would result in less players being able to follow the ball for long periods of time. But it could also simply mean more midfielders get selected. It's an interesting area .

I have heard all the so called experts on this but there is no proof. All I know is when there was unlimited interchange, the scoring was high.

Rocket was one of the first coaches to push the interchange to about 160 per game and under Rocket, we were in the top three for scoring.

If you limit the interchange like now, or even drop the limit, the recruiting of players changes to more athletic, endurance runners, not real footballers, so they can run all day anyway.

[jeemak]

Teams have to travel more, yet get significant advantages for only sharing grounds with one other team, or no other teams. Teams get to play under the roof, others on the wide open spaces of the G where finals are played. The fixture isn't balanced, teams used to able to kick massive scores on shit grounds all the time, so I don't know what the problem is.

Finding a way to incentivise scoring is the least invasive way of having a go at something different that may yield a positive result. Everything else tried to date has either been ineffective or correlates with a reduction in scoring. I can't see how the current plan of doing more of the same is going to yield a positive result.

Teams will quickly change their behaviours if they see other teams putting on a big score and earning 25% more premiership points week in, week out. Teams in the top half of the ladder playing bottom half teams will try and rip the game open early, subsequently opening the game up for the opposition to score, or, they'll go hell for leather in the second half doing the same thing.

There's nothing to lose.

[EasternWest]

Apologies if there's a similar thread - please merge.

State of the game. It's not something I've typically engaged because much of it comes from the likes of KB who I can't stand, but I find myself not even really enjoying watching footy anymore.

It's just so dour. Scoring is obviously down but from an aesthetic point of view, I can't stand seeing 25-30 players camped in a forward line with blind kicks taken at goal or hack kicks out of D50. It feels like our game, at times, now has so little skill involved. It's more about having a 'surge' mentality to be more aggressive/intense in your actions than the opposition. It's basically rugby 2.0.

I remember watching footy on TV in the late 90s and early 00s and there seemed to routinely be some really attractive games to watch. More attacking but no less physical.

I don't know what they can do to fix it, but right now footy is a crap product. It's become too professional by nature, which has led to becoming far too defensive for the most part.

Thoughts?

I don't disagree with you, but Carlton seemed to have acres of space last night.