Ending congestion

[HairyO]

Call throws. Ball up immediately with no more nominating rucks and allow 3rd man up.

Congestions ends.

But that would be too simple. And would be admitting all the meddling failed spectactularly.

 

[kickazz]

They really need to actually reward the tackler.

HTB is a penalty, not a reward

 

[kickazz]

Very. People for some reason don’t realise this. Almost every player who is tackled immediately gets rid of the footy. This wouldn’t change.

Are you sure?

The change in rule would change tackling - the emphasis would become holding the ball to the player, which is not that hard to do. I think a tackled player getting rid of it would become a fair bit less common.

Another thing that is comparatively easy to do is knock the ball out of the player's hands when you tackle them. If that was to be "rewarded" tacklers would try it on all the time. I know it's a different game, but there is a reason rugby league have a rule against stripping the ball from the opponent - it's too easy to do for the reward it brings.

 

[kickazz]

It's worth considering in that it would simplify officiating and hopefully open the game up by having fewer players around ball ups etc.

My only real concern is that it would turn the game into a bit of a messy "tap-a-thon" with players just knocking the ball around. Less skill and dare, more mess and randomness. Watch some footage from old games and players look uncoordinated not wanting to pick up the ball.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Are you sure?

The change in rule would change tackling - the emphasis would become holding the ball to the player, which is not that hard to do. I think a tackled player getting rid of it would become a fair bit less common.

Another thing that is comparatively easy to do is knock the ball out of the player's hands when you tackle them. If that was to be "rewarded" tacklers would try it on all the time. I know it's a different game, but there is a reason rugby league have a rule against stripping the ball from the opponent - it's too easy to do for the reward it brings.

But why would the 'knocked out in the tackle' rule change? That would just be play on like it is now wouldn't it?

Same as 'held to him'. Don't see what either has to do with removing prior opportunity.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It's worth considering in that it would simplify officiating and hopefully open the game up by having fewer players around ball ups etc.

My only real concern is that it would turn the game into a bit of a messy "tap-a-thon" with players just knocking the ball around. Less skill and dare, more mess and randomness. Watch some footage from old games and players look uncoordinated not wanting to pick up the ball.

Well that's the trade off, isn't it.

Scrappy and chaotic contests, or rolling mauls, heaps of stoppages and a clogged up game.

I guess it comes down to personal preference.

 

[NoobPie]

Prior opportunity is not what delivers contested football. I don't know what to say to people who think it does. It's an interpretation of the holding the ball rule that was only introduced 20-odd years ago.

It wasn't a non-contested game before then and it won't be after.

All it has served to do is allow players to hold the ball without penalty and thus, delivered a stack more ball-ups.

That's right.

Contest is not the same as congestion.

"Contested football" has become way to messy primarily due to the prior opportunity rule. There will be just as many contested ball situations if you get rid of prior opportunity, it's just that far less of them will result in repeat tackles and stoppages

 

[kickazz]

But why would the 'knocked out in the tackle' rule change? That would just be play on like it is now wouldn't it?

Same as 'held to him'. Don't see what either has to do with removing prior opportunity.

I thought that was the point of the prior opportunity law - as it currently stands, if you has a decent opportunity to get rid of it, then you are tackles and the ball is knocked out or held to you, it's HTB.

e.g.

1. If you have 3 running bounces down the wing and are then tackled and the tackle knocks the ball out or holds the ball to your body, it is HTB every time.
2. If you have 3 running bounces down the wing and are then tackled and after being tackled you kick or handball it is play on.
3. You are sitting under a hospital handpass and take the ball and are immediately tackled, or bend over to take the ball in congestion and are immediately tackled - under the current rules the only way it is a free against you is if you make no attempt to dispose of it or deliberately dispose of it illegally.

I assume under the proposed removal of prior opportunity then scenario 3 would be judged as scenario 1 every time.

 

[kickazz]

That's right.

Contest is not the same as congestion.

"Contested football" has become way to messy primarily due to the prior opportunity rule. There will be just as many contested ball situations if you get rid of prior opportunity, it's just that far less of them will result in repeat tackles and stoppages

Yep. There may well end up being more contested situations as the ball will be "in dispute" more often due to the fact that taking possession becomoes a less attractive option.

 

[sprockets]

Are you sure?

The change in rule would change tackling - the emphasis would become holding the ball to the player, which is not that hard to do. I think a tackled player getting rid of it would become a fair bit less common.

Another thing that is comparatively easy to do is knock the ball out of the player's hands when you tackle them. If that was to be "rewarded" tacklers would try it on all the time. I know it's a different game, but there is a reason rugby league have a rule against stripping the ball from the opponent - it's too easy to do for the reward it brings.

If you don't get rid of it before you're tackled you deserve a free against. That's the essence of the whole thing.

 

[sprockets]

Tapping the ball in yours or your team's favour would become a skill, if it isn't already.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Tapping the ball in yours or your team's favour would become a skill, if it isn't already.

In this situation, almost all players these days would've just grabbed the ball initially and sat on it, been taken down by Broad, and we'd have had yet another stoppage.



But it's no good because apparently it's not contested footy.

And look... when he had half a second longer, he DID take possession and dispose of it in the tackle, which is fine... because the game keeps moving.

 

[kickazz]

In this situation, almost all players these days would've just grabbed the ball initially and sat on it, been taken down by Broad, and we'd have had yet another stoppage.

View attachment 1133313

But it's no good because apparently it's not contested footy.

And look... when he had half a second longer, he DID take possession and dispose of it in the tackle, which is fine... because the game keeps moving.

This example demonstrate the point quite well, thanks for sharing.

I'm still not yet convinced on the ball up / tagger situation. Will we get the situation where the ruckmen tap the ball down to the rovers, who then, because they are getting tagged, starting tapping it on constantly as well? I can see a bit of hot potato happening.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This example demonstrate the point quite well, thanks for sharing.

I'm still not yet convinced on the ball up / tagger situation. Will we get the situation where the ruckmen tap the ball down to the rovers, who then, because they are getting tagged, starting tapping it on constantly as well? I can see a bit of hot potato happening.

As the Ablett example shows, yep.. some players may elect to tap.

The reality is the top players are generally on the move at a stoppage. And in a tackle, the player with the ball must be given an opportunity to get rid of it in the tackle. Many can and do do this... Dusty is very good at it, as is Libba.

Many inside players favour their ability to win the ball and dispose of it immediately in the tackle, which is fine. But the worst thing is players who just grab it with no intention of getting rid of it - just hopelessly trying to crash through. That's what causes stoppages.

 

[Dogsbestfriend]

As the Ablett example shows, yep.. some players may elect to tap.

The reality is the top players are generally on the move at a stoppage. And in a tackle, the player with the ball must be given an opportunity to get rid of it in the tackle. Many can and do do this... Dusty is very good at it, as is Libba.

Many inside players favour their ability to win the ball and dispose of it immediately in the tackle, which is fine. But the worst thing is players who just grab it with no intention of getting rid of it - just hopelessly trying to crash through. That's what causes stoppages.

And there’s the problem with our game in a nutshell

Because players know they won’t get penalised and coaches encourage it and umpires are inconsistent.

 

[CrowFan77]

Why the obsession with congestion? Would 40 goals v 35 goals be a good game to watch? No. Contests are the best part of our great game. Don't get rid of them. How many non-Hawks supporters enjoyed Clarko's chip, chip, no contest game style in the mid 2010s. It ultra boring!

 

[sprockets]

Why the obsession with congestion? Would 40 goals v 35 goals be a good game to watch? No. Contests are the best part of our great game. Don't get rid of them. How many non-Hawks supporters enjoyed Clarko's chip, chip, no contest game style in the mid 2010s. It ultra boring!

The discussion's about congestion, not goal scoring. Contests are also not about goal scoring and they're not about congestion either.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

More horrific HTB garbage on the weekend. It’s a ridiculous rule.

Did he dispose of it?

Was it an illegal tackle?

That’s the only two questions you need to ask - it’s play on or a free kick either way.

Game fixed. Simple!

 

[VascoDaGamer]

Dear Mr. Steve Hocking,

Congratulations on your STAND innovation introduced at the start of the year. The first few rounds of 2021 had open and high scoring football and we all had high hopes this would persist for the whole year.

But the high scoring has evaporated in recent weeks (as at 29 June 2021) because coaches have worked out that a free kick or mark taken between the half-back flank and the wing can be used for a total pause while many forward flankers can now re-locate from defence to where they should have been in the forward line.
Colloquially this pause in the game is called the www; which stands for world wide wait. And it is a very boring look. Not only are forward flankers running from defence to a forward position, they have to set-up so that there is a 30 metre space behind the STAND STATUE. Breathless forwards then make a lead-up presentation into this space.

The nett effect of all this to slow the game down while we endure WWW, one after another.
And the game has became more congested, not less.

A simple solution would be insist that players with a free kick can walk back from the MARK/STAND spot, but as soon as they stop walking, PLAY-ON is called.
That is, a free kick is a free kick, and not a free kick with a www pause thrown in.

Take your time considering this.

regards
Vasco

 

[sprockets]

Dear Mr. Steve Hocking,

Congratulations on your STAND innovation introduced at the start of the year. The first few rounds of 2021 had open and high scoring football and we all had high hopes this would persist for the whole year.

But the high scoring has evaporated in recent weeks (as at 29 June 2021) because coaches have worked out that a free kick or mark taken between the half-back flank and the wing can be used for a total pause while many forward flankers can now re-locate from defence to where they should have been in the forward line.
Colloquially this pause in the game is called the www; which stands for world wide wait. And it is a very boring look. Not only are forward flankers running from defence to a forward position, they have to set-up so that there is a 30 metre space behind the STAND STATUE. Breathless forwards then make a lead-up presentation into this space.

The nett effect of all this to slow the game down while we endure WWW, one after another.
And the game has became more congested, not less.

A simple solution would be insist that players with a free kick can walk back from the MARK/STAND spot, but as soon as they stop walking, PLAY-ON is called.
That is, a free kick is a free kick, and not a free kick with a www pause thrown in.

Take your time considering this.

regards
Vasco

Have to disagree with you there. I haven't noticed any "pause" - play on seems to be called immediately the kicker gets to his kicking position these days - but why should backmen get just a few seconds to kick the ball while forwards within the 50 and often beyond get 30 even when they don't actually have a shot?

And who gives a fk about higher scoring apart from basketball fans?

 

[VascoDaGamer]

G'day sprockets, thanks for your contribution.
Scoreline at half time in the game Pies v Saints is 1.5.11 to 4.5.29.
Is this the scoring level you are happy watching? I think it is pathetic, and a waste of the expanses of the MCG.
Last year/decade the majority of us were unhappy with the low scoring and congested football, and so was Steve Hocking; which is why he changed the STAND/Mark rule.
If you like 1.5 as a half-time score I suggest you watch a soccer game, and learn to sing to try to entertain yourself.

I agree with your note where the umpires sometimes call an immediate play-on, but this is when kickers move off the line; and is a good ruling by umpires.

I suggest you watch closely for a while and you will see how many instances of the 'pause' (your words), or www (my description) we have to endure as the packs of players re-locate into empty territory. The umpires should be instructed to tell players to USE OR LOSE IT.

 

[sprockets]

G'day sprockets, thanks for your contribution.
Scoreline at half time in the game Pies v Saints is 1.5.11 to 4.5.29.
Is this the scoring level you are happy watching? I think it is pathetic, and a waste of the expanses of the MCG.
Last year/decade the majority of us were unhappy with the low scoring and congested football, and so was Steve Hocking; which is why he changed the STAND/Mark rule.
If you like 1.5 as a half-time score I suggest you watch a soccer game, and learn to sing to try to entertain yourself.

I agree with your note where the umpires sometimes call an immediate play-on, but this is when kickers move off the line; and is a good ruling by umpires.

I suggest you watch closely for a while and you will see how many instances of the 'pause' (your words), or www (my description) we have to endure as the packs of players re-locate into empty territory. The umpires should be instructed to tell players to USE OR LOSE IT.

No, I never said thrashings are good for the game. I'm happy to see 7 goals v 6 though, provided the actual game (not the goal kicking) is a good one. Interesting that we've seen quite a few thrashings this year isn't it. Wonder how it stacks up with previous years?

I guess the difference between you and me is that I've never been a basketball fan.

PS. 'Pause' wasn't my word, it came from the poster I quoted, which was you.

PSS. That's 7 v 6 goals as the final scoreline btw but in the Collingwood match it didn't end how it started anyway, so that point is moot.

PSSS. In the good old days games between two clubs were mainly only watched by supporters of those clubs. These days people expect neutrals to be excited by a game that's really nothing to do with them. Do I care if Carlton beats Collingwood or vice versa? Nope, so I'd rarely get excited by that game regardless of the scores.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

G'day sprockets, thanks for your contribution.
Scoreline at half time in the game Pies v Saints is 1.5.11 to 4.5.29.
Is this the scoring level you are happy watching? I think it is pathetic, and a waste of the expanses of the MCG.
Last year/decade the majority of us were unhappy with the low scoring and congested football, and so was Steve Hocking; which is why he changed the STAND/Mark rule.
If you like 1.5 as a half-time score I suggest you watch a soccer game, and learn to sing to try to entertain yourself.

I agree with your note where the umpires sometimes call an immediate play-on, but this is when kickers move off the line; and is a good ruling by umpires.

I suggest you watch closely for a while and you will see how many instances of the 'pause' (your words), or www (my description) we have to endure as the packs of players re-locate into empty territory. The umpires should be instructed to tell players to USE OR LOSE IT.

The rapid fire 'play on' calls have negated the new man on the mark rule almost completely.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

hi LBR

I agree that there has been a rapid fire 'play on' calls.
However, this was a necessary corollary to the strictness now applied to the man on the mark The guy on the mark has got to STAND or else a 50 metre penalty applies. If we apply strictness to the guy on the mark then surely fairness requires the player with the ball to not step off his line; and immediately he does we have to release the STAND instruction by calling play-on.

But this issue is not what I was calling for a change.
What I want to see is the removal of the pause that occurs when the player with the ball waits until at least half of his team run past to take up downfield positions, to set up structures, and to make leads. This allowance of a pause has lead to simply a transfer of congestion from the half-back flank to the half-forward flank. If we want congestion to be reduced we have to insist the player with the ball is not give a pause option. Give the player witht the ball the time to walk back from the mark, but the moment he stops walking then play-on is called. No pause.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

hi LBR

I agree that there has been a rapid fire 'play on' calls.
However, this was a necessary corollary to the strictness now applied to the man on the mark The guy on the mark has got to STAND or else a 50 metre penalty applies. If we apply strictness to the guy on the mark then surely fairness requires the player with the ball to not step off his line; and immediately he does we have to release the STAND instruction by calling play-on.

But this issue is not what I was calling for a change.
What I want to see is the removal of the pause that occurs when the player with the ball waits until at least half of his team run past to take up downfield positions, to set up structures, and to make leads. This allowance of a pause has lead to simply a transfer of congestion from the half-back flank to the half-forward flank. If we want congestion to be reduced we have to insist the player with the ball is not give a pause option. Give the player witht the ball the time to walk back from the mark, but the moment he stops walking then play-on is called. No pause.

They didn't bring in the 'stand' rule for fairness though.

They brought it in to facilitate the player with the ball to basically get a free crack at playing on by hand to a running teammate, or finding a dangerous option by foot that the man on the mark would have previously blocked off.

It was straight up designed to favour the guy with the pill.

So my question to AFL House is, WTF would you bother, if after 10 weeks you negate it by calling play in for the slightest of deviations off the mark?? It just defeats the point.

Why piss off half your customer base with the 'Stand' rule in the first place, then piss the other half off by negating the only positive thing that the rule introduced - free flowing attacking ball movement?!

The issue is they've changed the interpretation of moving off your line. They're policing it far, far more tightly thsn they ever have.

It's made the 'Stand' rule a complete waste of everyone's time.