Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Unfortunately, the research and knowledge gained in recent years that has enabled coaches to throttle the game won't go away, nor will the pressure on coaches to win and therefor to use low risk tactics. To regain some of the spectacle the game used to have, the capacity of players to get to the places that allow them to has to be reduced. Their fitness can't be, nor can their skills, so the rules of the game have to me massaged to keep the coaches at bay.
1. Zones. They may help, but, the risk is creating something like Soccer's offside rule, where an umpire's judgement on where a player's feet are during the heat of a game becomes crucial and contentious. The advantage is that the necessary lines are already on the field.
2. Holding the ball. Penalizing players who try to barge through tackles unsuccessfully would seem to be necessary. Allowing players to seek a good option, rather than insisting that they dispose of the ball when tackled or give up a free was a bad change, made, as I recall when frees were given against super strong players in the Fyffe mold who, almost at the time the whistle blew, got clear. An apparent unfairness that would just have to be lived with.
3. Interchange. Tactical interchanges have to be scrapped. The return of players to the field after they have gone off was intended to allow injuries to be treated. Blood rule and concussion rule have complicated things, but giving players a rest has to be stopped. Return to the "rest" in the forward pocket.
4. Tackling players on the ground. The current technique of piling onto players on the ground to stop the ball getting out has to be stopped. Free kick against the extra player who does not stay on his feet, but tackles a pair or more already on the ground fighting to get the ball out. Difficult to enforce consistently, but worth serious consideration.
5. Reduce numbers. I think coaches may be able to work around this one and keep the game controlled, but I may be wrong.
6. Backward kicks not paid as marks. On the surface, seems sensible, but could reduce the cross ground switches that produce the few bits of attractive football that we see.
7. Increase the distance for a kick to be a mark. Again, reducing the legal passing opportunities could congest the game even more as the areas of the ground that can be reached are restricted, so that players congregate in those areas even more than they do now.
8. Shepherding players going for marks, and pushing them in the back. Two similar blights on the game that have been allowed in and should be ushered out. Umpires are well aware of both of these, but mostly let them go. Make players compete for marks or keep out of the area the ball is dropping in. Occupying space to prevent the high flyers from getting to the ball needs to be purged from the game. This would make the much lauded "intercept" mark much more difficult, and the result of marking contests much less predictable. Structured setups then become more problematical. Less structure = more open.
Couldn't agree more. Gerard H was on about them penalising the guy going for the ball but if the guy taps it on he won't be penalised. If he taps it to a player from his own team he's 'invented' a new skill.The improved umpiring on HTB is a great improvement. They have to keep the game moving
Marvel and its roof makes this a completely unfair addition. Not having to deal with rain and adverse conditions greatly helps scoring.- Additional premiership points for scoring 100+. Self-explanatory really. You give yourself a much better chance of finals or top-4 if you gain an additional 1 or 2 premiership points for scoring 100+, hopefully encouraging coaches to develop attacking game plans.
Marvel and its roof makes this a completely unfair addition. Not having to deal with rain and adverse conditions greatly helps scoring.
Its not a matter of Marvel as a fast deck compared to other grounds. Its Marvel, with its roof closed guarantees that the clubs playing there will not have to play in a downpour. I can guarantee you that games played in heavy rain are lower scoring than those played in perfect conditions.I don't disagree with the sentiment but I think you may find the notion that Marvel stadium is a "fast deck" and promotes high-scoring affairs is actually a myth. Marvel Stadium's dimensions make it a lot easier to defend and, without having stats in front of me, I believe the difference in scoring in comparison to other grounds is absolutely negligible.
Fair point, although I'd argue it's just another case of variance that is present at all games throughout the season. How many games a year are played in a downpour? A Friday Night game in July at the G is much more likely to be extremely dewy thus lower scoring, compared to a Saturday afternoon game at Adelaide Oval. Where do you draw the line with weather? Wind affects games much more at smaller ground like Geelong, Hobart, Canberra and Ballarat compared to the Gabba, MCG etc. I'd be interested to know how many games a year at Etihad would have been rain affected if they were played at the MCG. I think it would be lower than we think.Its not a matter of Marvel as a fast deck compared to other grounds. Its Marvel, with its roof closed guarantees that the clubs playing there will not have to play in a downpour. I can guarantee you that games played in heavy rain are lower scoring than those played in perfect conditions.
You've listed a whole bunch of things that may possibly occur at grounds. They're guaranteed to not occur at Marvel. Thats the difference.Fair point, although I'd argue it's just another case of variance that is present at all games throughout the season. How many games a year are played in a downpour? A Friday Night game in July at the G is much more likely to be extremely dewy thus lower scoring, compared to a Saturday afternoon game at Adelaide Oval. Where do you draw the line with weather? Wind affects games much more at smaller ground like Geelong, Hobart, Canberra and Ballarat compared to the Gabba, MCG etc. I'd be interested to know how many games a year at Etihad would have been rain affected if they were played at the MCG. I think it would be lower than we think.
I'm with Bucks.... get rid of the prior opportunity rule.
This will break up congestion because all players will adjust their game when they know that if they're caught with the ball or don't dispose of it legally with a kick or handball they'll give away a free. And what happens when there's a free ? Players spread.
With this rule gone players should be encouraged to take on the tackler and try to baulk or whip away the tacklers hands because they know with certainty
if they can get a kick or handball out they'll be right. The ball will be moved on quicker even by tapping it to advantage to outsmart the waiting tackler.
Umpires won't have to interpret if a player had enough "time" to dispose of the ball so there will be more consistency in adjudicating decisions.
Even if a player is grabbed by the jumper and swung around, they still have the opportunity to either kick or handball.
So for the umpires its simple its either holding the man, holding the ball, or dropping the ball (incorrect disposal).
Obviously like now if two or three players are grabbing the ball then its a ball up stoppage.
Coaches can't coach players to hold onto the ball and not let it spill out so as to create a stoppage.
Coaches want stoppages because it gives them control in setting up their 18 man zone defence which slows the game down.
The game will be less predictable for coaches and players with some disposals being under pressure.
If there are less stoppages then players don't get as much of a rest which should lead to less congestion and so no need to bring in all these other silly rule changes like reducing interchange rotations or zones or reducing players on the field or play on when kicking backwards play etc.
Rant over.
I respectfully disagree. Slapping and tapping should not be commonplace 'possessions' or tactics. The opposite should occur, where mids can take on the game to get clean disposals and clearances by taking on their opponents not fairying the ball around like volleyball. The key is to reducing numbers around a stoppage.
There are no issues with center bounces, because the numbers are restricted. Post bounce is where it gets ugly
Nah, players can still have their clean disposals and clearances, your argument isn't relevant to someone being tackled and a stoppage occurring. If you can dispose of the ball you should. It's only when they're going to be tackled that they should tap it on. Some of them (eg, Richmond) already do.I respectfully disagree. Slapping and tapping should not be commonplace 'possessions' or tactics. The opposite should occur, where mids can take on the game to get clean disposals and clearances by taking on their opponents not fairying the ball around like volleyball. The key is to reducing numbers around a stoppage.
There are no issues with center bounces, because the numbers are restricted. Post bounce is where it gets ugly
Thoughts on a middle of the road zoning solution? Its effectively how the set up in the 80's/90's anyway.
1. Halve the oval with a center-line boundary to boundary.
2. At every stoppage all forwards and all opposing defenders need to be in their related half.
3. As soon as open play resumes free to go anywhere.
4. 4 boundary umps to enforce this.
5. 5 seconds only to allow for players to get back to position while the umpire resets the ball up/throw in (usually takes that anyway).
6. Free kick to opposition if one player is in wrong half at time of ball up. If both aren't - wait again till reset has occurred.
As I play still, I feel like this would be a happy medium rather than strict zoning in play, and in keeping with how the game is (and has been) played. It still allows for full ground movement, you just have to work your ass off to get back once the stoppage occurs.
A few other outcomes might be:
Enhanced forward and defensive crafts.
Definitely would redefined tactics.
Center-line structures at the ball-up/throw in could spread the entire width of the ground as teams look to stretch the field.
The midfield role would be reinvigorated with more space and reward for clean disposal - thus better delivery and aesthetic of the game.
1v1 battles would be imperative. (there might even be the return of the hulking FF).
This will have the opposite effect.
First off, players are coached to take the safe option.
Pushing players further back will just encourage more zoning, and more stop-start footy
Less interchange will see slower play for the majority of the game, as players conserve energy
Just gonna bump this, have campaigned this on a few forums with the 3v3 in the 50 a clear option I have presented also.
The VFL is going to be fascinating to watch. It will be a great litmus test for the elite game. Fingers crossed the structured set up returns footy to some thing close to game I first fell in love with.
My prediction - a forward will kick 70+ goals for the first time in nearly a decade