There has always been an annoying thing for me that when taking a set shot the man on the mark doesn’t have to be on the mark...can be five or ten behind and then run up to the mark as player is kicking. I hate that.
There has always been an annoying thing for me that when taking a set shot the man on the mark doesn’t have to be on the mark...can be five or ten behind and then run up to the mark as player is kicking. I hate that.
The AFL should definitely look at reducing interchange rotations to below the mooted 75. Reducing to 75 interchange rotations won't fix the issue with congestion.Originally Posted by Meg
If rotations were a resource that really had to be conserved, then players would be forced to rest on the ground instead of on the bench. That would mean fewer players in the contest. The number should be really restrictive, such as 15 rotations. Then each rotation would really matter.
The start of play at each quarter could get messy, making sure the players who ended one quarter take the field at the start of the next. To fix this, don't bother. Allow clubs to switch their team lineups at the start of a quarter, but once play commences, players can only come off during play during the whole match 15 times, total.
If interchange rotations were tightened up that much, players in zones would actually be a productive measure. The players in the forward and defensive parts of the ground would be resting there. However, I don't want zones introduced. Just try capping rotations to a low level and see what that does.
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
If you want to increase scoring, reward teams with more attractive timeslots based on their ability to score.
If you average under 80, expect the graveyard shift on a Sunday arvo. Stop providing clubs like Collingwood with the key Friday night games that provides exponentially more exposure, when they cannot score and ruin the spectacle.
I agree that you need an incentive for teams to score more. But the coaches wont care about better time slots. Higher ups might (CEO, Pres), but the coaches will only care about the win. I believe to incentivise scoring and get the coaches on board, trying to score more, you need to offer a bonus premiership point for scoring 100+pts and -1 premiership point for scoring less than 60pts. That way coaches will change game style to all out attack instead of all out defense.
I just don't get any feeling these changes are going to make any significant impact, bar to frustrate fans more and keep pushing the AFL towards its 'zones nirvana'. Stop frigging fiddling already.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
No. That would be far too much of a gimmick.
The rules changes that I would consider instead:
* Cap interchanges during a quarter at 15 for the whole match. If extra time is played (finals), an additional 3 are allowed for the rest of the game regardless of the number of extra time periods.
* Last touch out of bounds is a free against the player in all circumstances. This is already the case for a kick out on the full (always), a kick out from a behind that goes out without being touched (always), a ruck tap that goes out without being touched (always) and knocking it out intentionally (at the umpires' discretion). Get rid of these special cases and just make it last touch. A throw in may still be possible but it may be uncommon, such as two opposing players both touching it. (Many sports have a similar last-touch rule. It has been tried in Australian football and works well.)
* If a free kick is paid and the opponents are in contact with the player receiving the free, the opponents have maybe three seconds from the whistle to release the player receiving the free. If they're still touching the player after 3 seconds, a 50 metre penalty is paid.
* A kick from outside the defensive 50 cannot earn a mark inside the defensive 50 for the defending side. That is play on. (Soccer introduced a similar rule some years ago.) This is to encourage the players to move the ball forward.
* Only four players from each side are permitted in the centre square from the time the ball is bounced in the centre until the ball is cleared from the centre square. (Gaelic football has a similar rule.) This would make the centre square more relevant.
All these rules except the last would not change the nature of the game significantly, but may encourage more free-flowing play.
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
I'm not a fan of the zones ideas either. It's Australian football, not cross country netball.
The path to go down is penalising time wasting, not making players stand in particular positions. They've been doing that since the 1970s when the centre square was introduced, and it hasn't worked very well.
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
I agree with all these rule suggestions and would be happy to see them implemented, except the 'last touch' rule.....I just can't see how it's in the spirit of the game.
A last-touch rule would be better than the farcical deliberate out of bounds rule. Rules that are based on an umpire's opinion and not what happened are always problematic.
How would you fix the deliberate out of bounds rule?
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
Actually there is no deliberate out of bounds rule.
The wording is:
18.9.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.9.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:
(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play;
Still the umpire’s opinion but not as contentious as ‘deliberate’.
And if the ball hits the goal post but still goes in it's a goal. I can picture the howls of outrage but it would make the game simpler to officiate.
One thing I wish they would crack down on is incorrect disposal. This year players could do pretty much anything vaguely looking like a handball and get away with it.
"Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the goal change.
The incorrect disposal is a blight but it's not easy to fix. The thing is it's like defenders pretending to fumble the ball over the line in that there's this element of simulation to take it into a grey zone where it is probably not going to penalised. My take on it is that, a lot of the time, players pretend to have the ball knocked out of their hands, rather than actually "disposing" of it incorrectly. It amounts to the same thing but they know it's harder for the umpire to whistle a free kick because the umpire has to decide it wasn't an accident beyond their control but something they did deliberately. One reason footy is hard to officiate, especially at AFL level, is because players push every rule to its limits to gain whatever advantage they can, AND they are coached to do this. The coaches are also looking for any possible advantage and they know all the other clubs and coaches are going to do it, and if they can be the first then so much the better.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks