State of the game

[beef]

Afl 360 last night had a forum on the state of the game. Game is stuffed, low scores too much congestion. According to David King scoring has dropped dramatically in past 10 years and we need to change things. Scoring average has dropped 6 points per side since 2007 (1 goal and it panic stations). Now everyone wants to change the rules, cap interchanges, reduce players and introduce zones. Can't we just leave it alone as we all applaud tight tough finals but tight low scoring minor round games are a disgrace.

[Booney]

It's the end result of the 17th and 18th franchises coming in and the flow on effect from the defensive plans the Eagles and the Swans used in the mid 00's.

On the first one, the talent is spread thinner and the bottom 2-4 sides are further away from the top 2-4 sides every year, as such they have to play ultra defensive to hold the top sides, limit the scoreboard damage > limit the loss of members/sponsors.

On the second one, Geelong came along with a more attacking game plan to counter the 7 goal snorefests the Eagles/Swans kept dishing up and that style, a more attacking one, was in vogue for several years as sides looked to score to win.

Swings and roundabouts and the game is going defensive again ( although it's now front half defence ), couple that with the gap between top and bottom and we will get a handful of average games every week. Two bottom 6 sides are rubbish to watch, a bottom 4 vs a top 4 side is rubbish to watch.

Ultimately we now have 9 games a week, there's more chance a shitter will get dished up with more game getting played.

Leave it alone, ride this wave and we'll see how it turns as coaches counter the current tactics to get an advantage.

[Lightning McQueen]

Afl 360 last night had a forum on the state of the game. Game is stuffed, low scores too much congestion. According to David King scoring has dropped dramatically in past 10 years and we need to change things. Scoring average has dropped 6 points per side since 2007 (1 goal and it panic stations). Now everyone wants to change the rules, cap interchanges, reduce players and introduce zones. Can't we just leave it alone as we all applaud tight tough finals but tight low scoring minor round games are a disgrace.

The constant rule changes are clouding the game.

Does anyone know what year the quarters changed form 25 minutes plus time on?

[Lightning McQueen]

It's the end result of the 17th and 18th franchises coming in and the flow on effect from the defensive plans the Eagles and the Swans used in the mid 00's.

On the first one, the talent is spread thinner and the bottom 2-4 sides are further away from the top 2-4 sides every year, as such they have to play ultra defensive to hold the top sides, limit the scoreboard damage > limit the loss of members/sponsors.

On the second one, Geelong came along with a more attacking game plan to counter the 7 goal snorefests the Eagles/Swans kept dishing up and that style, a more attacking one, was in vogue for several years as sides looked to score to win.

Swings and roundabouts and the game is going defensive again ( although it's now front half defence ), couple that with the gap between top and bottom and we will get a handful of average games every week. Two bottom 6 sides are rubbish to watch, a bottom 4 vs a top 4 side is rubbish to watch.

Ultimately we now have 9 games a week, there's more chance a shitter will get dished up with more game getting played.

Leave it alone, ride this wave and we'll see how it turns as coaches counter the current tactics to get an advantage.

One Wizard Cup rule (whatever they wanna call it) that I thought brought something to the game is the rule where if you kick it backwards to a team mate in the back half or defensive 50 then it doesn't qualify as a mark.

[stan]

It's the end result of the 17th and 18th franchises coming in and the flow on effect from the defensive plans the Eagles and the Swans used in the mid 00's.

On the first one, the talent is spread thinner and the bottom 2-4 sides are further away from the top 2-4 sides every year, as such they have to play ultra defensive to hold the top sides, limit the scoreboard damage > limit the loss of members/sponsors.

On the second one, Geelong came along with a more attacking game plan to counter the 7 goal snorefests the Eagles/Swans kept dishing up and that style, a more attacking one, was in vogue for several years as sides looked to score to win.

Swings and roundabouts and the game is going defensive again ( although it's now front half defence ), couple that with the gap between top and bottom and we will get a handful of average games every week. Two bottom 6 sides are rubbish to watch, a bottom 4 vs a top 4 side is rubbish to watch.

Ultimately we now have 9 games a week, there's more chance a shitter will get dished up with more game getting played.

Leave it alone, ride this wave and we'll see how it turns as coaches counter the current tactics to get an advantage.

I think your on the money there. The Eagles game plan I think you are talking about back in 05, 06 was actually fairly attacking we just had no forwards.

But as you said Geelong found the way through all the defensive setups.

Then the hawks come up with pressure game and super elite skills such that they could cut through a team and score and score well in fact.

Interesting to see what comes next.

[daysofourlives]

I like the idea of team prior opportunity. Where the guy that goes in and gets the footy is still protected as they are currently but as soon as disposes of it to a team mate he must kick or handball otherwise it's holding the ball.
Also if you watch 70s and 80s ball ups and throw ins the ball is put back into play immediately by the umpire no waiting for 5 to 10secs for 32 players to get there. If they change no rules at least go back to this so there's little time to set up defensively

[beef]

I like the idea of team prior opportunity. Where the guy that goes in and gets the footy is still protected as they are currently but as soon as disposes of it to a team mate he must kick or handball otherwise it's holding the ball.
Also if you watch 70s and 80s ball ups and throw ins the ball is put back into play immediately by the umpire no waiting for 5 to 10secs for 32 players to get there. If they change no rules at least go back to this so there's little time to set up defensively

Apparently Buckley said he would like prior opportunity to go altogether. I think that will just make players not want to go and get the ball, wait for opponent to get it then tackle him

[Lightning McQueen]

I like the idea of team prior opportunity. Where the guy that goes in and gets the footy is still protected as they are currently but as soon as disposes of it to a team mate he must kick or handball otherwise it's holding the ball.
Also if you watch 70s and 80s ball ups and throw ins the ball is put back into play immediately by the umpire no waiting for 5 to 10secs for 32 players to get there. If they change no rules at least go back to this so there's little time to set up defensively

I implement this when I umpire, I get the occasional sook from someone because their ruckman didn't get there in time but I have very few subsequent ball ups, most pick up on it and just allocate someone.

[Lightning McQueen]

I like the idea of team prior opportunity. Where the guy that goes in and gets the footy is still protected as they are currently but as soon as disposes of it to a team mate he must kick or handball otherwise it's holding the ball.
Also if you watch 70s and 80s ball ups and throw ins the ball is put back into play immediately by the umpire no waiting for 5 to 10secs for 32 players to get there. If they change no rules at least go back to this so there's little time to set up defensively

Apparently Buckley said he would like prior opportunity to go altogether. I think that will just make players not want to go and get the ball, wait for opponent to get it then tackle him

I notice that mindset flowing into junior footy nowadays, sad really as we were always taught to go get the ball and the umpire will protect you.


The old line used to be "he's the only one going for it".

[FlyingHigh]

I like the idea of team prior opportunity. Where the guy that goes in and gets the footy is still protected as they are currently but as soon as disposes of it to a team mate he must kick or handball otherwise it's holding the ball.
Also if you watch 70s and 80s ball ups and throw ins the ball is put back into play immediately by the umpire no waiting for 5 to 10secs for 32 players to get there. If they change no rules at least go back to this so there's little time to set up defensively

Yep totally agree about the ball-ups, players won't be busting their guts to get to every stoppage. And if there's not time to set up defensive structures we may see more one-on-ones. And no one gave a stuff if the occasional bounce was a bit off track, and umpires were able to bounce on softer turf than now.

Also, posted the below in another thread:
"A bit off topic here, but I reckon the current timing of quarters in the AFL is complete crap. Players are saying how hard the game is, don't reduce rotations and there is discussion about making the quarters shorter. Make them longer, go back to the old time-one rules. We get games that are ball-up after ball-up, throw-in after throw-in and these quarters go forever, whilst an open game the time flies by. For example, the other week there was a quarter went 31 minutes with three goals scored, the Power/Cats game third quarter went for 35 minutes with only 6 goals scored including one at the 27 minute mark, another other on the siren, and remember a few years ago when the Crows crowd were bagged for leaving early against Melbourne, 26 minutes, one goal yet still two minutes on the count-down clock.
And complementary to these would be more liberal deliberate and HTB rules in the packs, but the umpires get in there and restart the play ASAP, not like they do most times now."

[morell]

I would shorten the quarters and the breaks. It goes way too long. By the end of the quarters coaches park the bus the avoid conceeding in "red time" due to fatigue.

[Lightning McQueen]

I would shorten the quarters and the breaks. It goes way too long. By the end of the quarters coaches park the bus the avoid conceeding in "red time" due to fatigue.

How long do you think is fair for a quarter?

[Booney]

I would shorten the quarters and the breaks. It goes way too long. By the end of the quarters coaches park the bus the avoid conceeding in "red time" due to fatigue.

Everything the AFL has introduced of late is to create fatigue and open the game up. It hasn't worked. The professional modern day football just gets conditioned to run harder, for longer. They are machines.

I don't want to see the playing time reduced, I think they could reduce the breaks though, especially half time.

[JK]

The benefit of quicker ball ups and throw ins might get diluted these days by needing to nominate a ruckman?

As with any business, it's always important to look at a way of improving the product, but I really think the media are going too soon on this one, effectively wanting changes made (some of which genuinely alter the fabric of the game) after 6 rounds of footy, which imho is just nuts.

Think also we were spoilt for good games and close finishes last season, yet we haven't had any game this season reach those heights - There's a lot of cycles in footy, so reckon the "experts" just need to keep their powder dry for the time being.

Sign of the times though with the AFL hell bent on earning ever cent they can that the media can have such an influence on the game. Wouldn't be surprised if we see some hot HTB calls this round.

[Lightning McQueen]

I like the idea of team prior opportunity. Where the guy that goes in and gets the footy is still protected as they are currently but as soon as disposes of it to a team mate he must kick or handball otherwise it's holding the ball.
Also if you watch 70s and 80s ball ups and throw ins the ball is put back into play immediately by the umpire no waiting for 5 to 10secs for 32 players to get there. If they change no rules at least go back to this so there's little time to set up defensively

Yep totally agree about the ball-ups, players won't be busting their guts to get to every stoppage. And if there's not time to set up defensive structures we may see more one-on-ones. And no one gave a stuff if the occasional bounce was a bit off track, and umpires were able to bounce on softer turf than now.

Also, posted the below in another thread:
"A bit off topic here, but I reckon the current timing of quarters in the AFL is complete crap. Players are saying how hard the game is, don't reduce rotations and there is discussion about making the quarters shorter. Make them longer, go back to the old time-one rules. We get games that are ball-up after ball-up, throw-in after throw-in and these quarters go forever, whilst an open game the time flies by. For example, the other week there was a quarter went 31 minutes with three goals scored, the Power/Cats game third quarter went for 35 minutes with only 6 goals scored including one at the 27 minute mark, another other on the siren, and remember a few years ago when the Crows crowd were bagged for leaving early against Melbourne, 26 minutes, one goal yet still two minutes on the count-down clock.
And complementary to these would be more liberal deliberate and HTB rules in the packs, but the umpires get in there and restart the play ASAP, not like they do most times now."

Mallala vs Angle Vale 2016: 3rd quarter went for 43 minutes, I nearly started to cry after each goal.

[Lightning McQueen]

I would shorten the quarters and the breaks. It goes way too long. By the end of the quarters coaches park the bus the avoid conceeding in "red time" due to fatigue.

Everything the AFL has introduced of late is to create fatigue and open the game up. It hasn't worked. The professional modern day football just gets conditioned to run harder, for longer. They are machines.

I don't want to see the playing time reduced, I think they could reduce the breaks though, especially half time.

Absolutely, half time does more harm than good, I don't need to see vision of a player eating a couple of snakes, a banana and an orange, keep the camera's out of the rooms, they'd spend 5 minutes talking amongst themselves anyway.

[FlyingHigh]

The benefit of quicker ball ups and throw ins might get diluted these days by needing to nominate a ruckman?

As with any business, it's always important to look at a way of improving the product, but I really think the media are going too soon on this one, effectively wanting changes made (some of which genuinely alter the fabric of the game) after 6 rounds of footy, which imho is just nuts.

Think also we were spoilt for good games and close finishes last season, yet we haven't had any game this season reach those heights - There's a lot of cycles in footy, so reckon the "experts" just need to keep their powder dry for the time being.

Sign of the times though with the AFL hell bent on earning ever cent they can that the media can have such an influence on the game. Wouldn't be surprised if we see some hot HTB calls this round.

But if there were quicker ball-ups and throw-ins there wouldn't be a need to nominate a ruckman

[FlyingHigh]

I like the idea of team prior opportunity. Where the guy that goes in and gets the footy is still protected as they are currently but as soon as disposes of it to a team mate he must kick or handball otherwise it's holding the ball.
Also if you watch 70s and 80s ball ups and throw ins the ball is put back into play immediately by the umpire no waiting for 5 to 10secs for 32 players to get there. If they change no rules at least go back to this so there's little time to set up defensively

Yep totally agree about the ball-ups, players won't be busting their guts to get to every stoppage. And if there's not time to set up defensive structures we may see more one-on-ones. And no one gave a stuff if the occasional bounce was a bit off track, and umpires were able to bounce on softer turf than now.

Also, posted the below in another thread:
"A bit off topic here, but I reckon the current timing of quarters in the AFL is complete crap. Players are saying how hard the game is, don't reduce rotations and there is discussion about making the quarters shorter. Make them longer, go back to the old time-one rules. We get games that are ball-up after ball-up, throw-in after throw-in and these quarters go forever, whilst an open game the time flies by. For example, the other week there was a quarter went 31 minutes with three goals scored, the Power/Cats game third quarter went for 35 minutes with only 6 goals scored including one at the 27 minute mark, another other on the siren, and remember a few years ago when the Crows crowd were bagged for leaving early against Melbourne, 26 minutes, one goal yet still two minutes on the count-down clock.
And complementary to these would be more liberal deliberate and HTB rules in the packs, but the umpires get in there and restart the play ASAP, not like they do most times now."

Mallala vs Angle Vale 2016: 3rd quarter went for 43 minutes, I nearly started to cry after each goal.

happy for a quarter to go that long if there are 23 goals kicked. Not if there are 134 stoppages.

[JK]

The benefit of quicker ball ups and throw ins might get diluted these days by needing to nominate a ruckman?

As with any business, it's always important to look at a way of improving the product, but I really think the media are going too soon on this one, effectively wanting changes made (some of which genuinely alter the fabric of the game) after 6 rounds of footy, which imho is just nuts.

Think also we were spoilt for good games and close finishes last season, yet we haven't had any game this season reach those heights - There's a lot of cycles in footy, so reckon the "experts" just need to keep their powder dry for the time being.

Sign of the times though with the AFL hell bent on earning ever cent they can that the media can have such an influence on the game. Wouldn't be surprised if we see some hot HTB calls this round.

But if there were quicker ball-ups and throw-ins there wouldn't be a need to nominate a ruckman

Yes there would, it would open the door for a 3rd man up - Hard to imagine the AFL removing a rule they only recently implemented.

[FlyingHigh]

Yeah, but that's about the AFL's ego.
If there were less players around the ball to compete for the ball after the tap, wouldn't there be more risk having a third man up?