Here is an idea: Let players kick it to the boundary again to help reduce flooding.
If it goes out on the full, oppositions ball. If not, at least it moves it up the ground fast. Clubs will start putting players further back to stop the the throw ins and if you can get players onto the ball. Game on!
Local leagues have done this for years and it works. A mate who coaches at Beaconsfield reckons this is the way to go too.
Yes…and if you cannot see that the current style of play would no longer be possible, I’d be confident in saying your taste in movies would match your appreciation of football.
And obviously, I don’t mean in a single game, I mean you’ll have no players capable of sustaining it over a period of time.
seems to be pretty sustainable so far. The game naturally evolves, doesn’t need drastic changes.
As for the bold bit, well…nah your not worth it.
Another rule test at Brisbane and it’s sounds awful. Players forced into zones at times, and AFLX feel are the comments from Brisbane people.
If that happens I’ll be fucken ■■■■■■, it’s would be a completely different game!
It sounds like the AFL sweeping their mistakes under a rug and then concreting over the top.
I like this.
An idea I had a while ago is that deliberate OOB doesn’t get paid if the player is moving the ball towards their goal, so at least the rule remains in place for direct/backwards movements. The flaw being removing one grey area and replacing it with another.
Maybe we take your idea and make it that kicking OOB cannot be ruled deliberate? Kicking for touch is a valid strategy in union and soccer, so why couldn’t it be in footy? And I think that players wouldn’t attempt it if they were right next to the boundary for risk of going out on the full.
I can’t say that I’m impressed with the mooted changes about to be made the game. They just seem too radical.
Why wouldn’t you reduce the interchange much further before you implement zones?
I’d even go for extended injury substitution and no interchange, before zones.
How about extending the size of the centre square as a way of reducing peripheral player impact during centre bounces.
It’s not zones it’s starting points, there is a difference.
All umps to learn all the old rules 1st before anyone introduce new rules.
Each team plays another once 17 rounds
State of origin to be in a 2 week during the season align it with week 2 of rugby origin (cheeky)
Have nabs 4 games before season and a lightning cup.
All games count as AFL games played by players.
Done 
All teams to have roster of 55
bench upto 6 players.
Sweet
Calflogs away guernsey…do they change theme song to match?
We r the Carlflog spews, we are the ole white Carlflog spews, we r the team that always gets around, on Carlflog streets you’ll hear this sound…
Starting positions seems to be gaining more and more momentum in the media.
An interesting exercise is to sit down and draw a man on man stoppage set up on a forward flank. The attacking team would often have three fwds inside 50 anyway, assuming both teams are playing a spare defender the other 2 forwards push up to the contest. Is the spare opposition defender allowed to be in 50 or only 3 pairs?
The defending sides forwards probably have 3 forward pairs down the line from the stoppage with the other two forwards pushed up. There is probably no one inside their 50.
If they are forced to pull back 3 forwards the other 2 forwards probably have to sit off the stoppage a bit more. This is where the reduced congestion will come from. I reckon it will take about 2 to 4 players away from a stoppage.
Policing this seems ridiculous though. Do you wait for players to get back – ugly delay a will occur if you wait for players to get back.
Depending on where the stoppage is, wont we have players just motoring up and down the ground to get to a contest, only to have to run back into their 50 again? It’ll be nuts umpiring it, as there’d be even more delays counting players while this is all happening.
They may as well have a rule where certain players cannot leave the 50 unless directly involved in a contest, for example, when avoiding a tackle or leading into the footy which dosent quite make the 50. Like you say, it’ll send you ridiculous.
No zones please.
Also, wont the 50 be used for match up tactics? Imagine teams swapping players in and out purely to change it up, and holding up the game while this happens.
Im starting to think more and more zones and starting positions is the way to go.
I also dont think it needs to be that radical to make a noted impact.
Full forwards and forward pockets only allowed in offensive half.
Half forwards not allowed in defensive 50.
No more than half the team can be in the 50m line at any one time.
Midfielders can go anywhere.
Rucks can go anywhere.
If you want to change the role of a player it must be done at the quarter/ half/ 3 quarter time breaks.
That will separate players a bit, prevent those situations where the whole team is in the 50m arch, put an end to those under 12s presses you get, and define roles of players a bit more clearly.
The umps would have to be constantly counting heads. It would be impossible for them to do that and police contests.
We might be able to set something up with GPS tracking but that would create a completely different game at the elite level to lower levels where it simply would not be practical to implement it.
No no no
Personally I think the current issues (if they actually exist) are because of the way the game is umpired. Change the interpretations to avoid slow stoppages and pay free kicks for incorrect disposals to keep the game moving. Bringing in more rules about where and when players can and can’t be is just going to make it even harder to umpire meaning we end up with more unintended consequences.
Also I just listened to Steve Hocking’s interview on SEN this morning. Talk about overcomplicating things. Committees upon committees and air in bubbles - whatever that is. Also it sounds like the AFL have employed a number of people to look at the “issue” so of course they are going to find reason to change things. Naturally Champion Data also getting involved to keep relevant. All in all it seems to be just a massive wank fest to justify a heap of people’s jobs.
This whole post is just…uh. But I’ll zero in on the bolded bit. How do you keep track of who the midfielders are in live play?
And we’re surprised because???
Heard it too. What a load of corporate wankspeak. He’s cut from the same cloth as Dill.
The whole thing’s clearly a boat-race. The various meetings/committees etc are all just a facade. The AwFuL has decreed there will be change and it shall be so…
no idea. just pure “bored at work probably only half thinking about something properly” spitballing.
Nailed it @redbull
The Sen crowd he been getting prepped for this for years. The media bears a big part of the blame for all the carping I hear about congestion and the state of the game.
I’ve really enjoyed the tactical evolution of the game over the last twenty to thirty years and I hope enjoy another thirty years of evolution. It keeps things interesting.
Surely I’m not alone in enjoying the tight contests that heavily contested and congested games can throw up. I really enjoyed the 2013 GF and the 2005/6 GFs before it.
I like seeing different playing styles collide and I like seeing momentum swings within games as one style gets on top and then it swings around.
I sure don’t want to see a really homogenous competition where tactical innovation is stifled because every time someone comes up with a competitive advantages the league tsars crack the ■■■■■ and change the rules.