Yeah.
Netball and Rugby to name just two.
More subs allowed in the EPL, for another tweak.
Probably more, in sports I don’t give a toss about.
2 Likes
So the htb definition has changed 4 rounds into the season after clarko complained?
Just burn afl house down and start again
1 Like
Just end it afl you farking desperados.
1 Like
Many sports have tweaked their rules in the post COVID19 world - Cycling, basketball, tennis immediately come to mind.
1 Like
AFL and congestion | Jake Niall on how footy turned ‘ugly’
Jake NiallJuly 3, 2020
In 2002, the renowned coach of world and Olympic champion Australian hockey teams, Dr Ric Charlesworth, provided a snapshot of the AFL’s future when he provided three prescient pieces of advice to then Fremantle coach Chris Connolly.
Charlesworth, who was working as a consultant to the Dockers, told Connolly that he should ratchet up his interchange rotations from about 15 a game to more than 100 – the number that the women’s team, the Hockeyroos, had reached in the 1990s under Charlesworth, when they won gold at Atlanta and Sydney.
His second recommendation was to set up the 18 players in a non-traditional format. Rather than four in the centre square, one on each wing, and six in defence and six in attack, Charlesworth said “we should start with four at the front (forward), rather than six and eight back or sent behind the ball”.
This would make it harder for the opposition to score.
“The third (piece of advice) was we should press in the front – when the other team’s trying to outlet, you’ve got to press (up),” Charlesworth recalled, imparting what was standard in hockey; this wouldn’t happen in footy until 2009.
For Connolly and indeed the entire AFL, these concepts were radical in 2002. But in 2020, Charlesworth’s vision of footy has been painfully realised by a code that hitherto had lived in splendid isolation from global “invasion sports” such as soccer, basketball and hockey.
“It was a step too far for footy, I think,” Charlesworth said of his recommendations.
Connolly, who could not recall the interchange conversation, said Charlesworth had actually told him to have just three forwards and nine defenders, a formation that would stymie scoring – but the coach and club had a reason not to play that way.
"It’s going to reduce scoring big-time and no one’s going to come and watch,’’ Connolly said was his response.
One could argue that footy’s fate – morphing into something more like those other sports – was a version of what happened to fortress Australia when it was shirt-fronted by the global economy.
But the cost would be that scoring would inexorably drop, set positions would join the endangered list and by the middle 2010s, Australian football would be decried for becoming ugly, as players milled around the ball.
A stark image from 2013.Sebastian Costanzo
Two years ago, the AFL spent a season investigating "the state of the game’’ and considered radical new rules, such as the nuclear option of “starting positions” for some players at ball-ups and boundary throw-ins, only to retreat.
One would think, based on discussions over the past week – particularly Alastair Clarkson’s comments about the poor spectacle of his team versus North Melbourne (and wish for more frees to open the game up) – that the AFL is dealing with a second plague, that of ugly footy.
1. What were the key on-field changes, and why did they happen?
In 2005, Sydney won the flag with a dour style that increased players around the ball at stoppages; their method was lambasted by AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou, who – wrongly – predicted that this method wouldn’t win games.
Chris Judd, then a West Coast champion, recalls that there was space aplenty in front of him when he won the ball during his first few years with the Eagles (2002–2004). “You could sprint past a player to get a nice space,” Judd told The Age this week.
“The space used to be dispersed around the ground. I think (Paul) Roos’ Sydney was the first team really conscious of blocking up that space.”
By the end of his career (2015), Judd would be playing a different game that, in addition to absorbing soccer and hockey concepts, had developed rugby-esque scrums.
As Charlesworth foreshadowed – following Fremantle and then Collingwood around 2007 – AFL clubs began to have 100-plus interchanges a game in 2008, the last season in which a forward surpassed 100 goals (Lance “Buddy” Franklin) playing for a team that also pioneered a rolling zone, dubbed “Clarkson’s cluster”.
In 2009, Ross Lyon’s St Kilda took the Clarkson method a step further and developed a forward press (Charlesworth’s third suggestion), in which players pushed forward and crowded the opposition, making it harder for teams to clear the ball from their defence.
When Collingwood won the 2010 premiership with a souped-up version of Lyon’s forward press, the competition followed; before long, a code that scattered 36 players across a vast field was being played in compacted territory of about half the ground.
Collingwood’s style took them to the 2010 flag – via a drawn grand final.The Age
Goals became more scarce, and while the sublime versions of Geelong (2007–2011) and then Hawthorn (2012–2015) were skilled enough to keep scoring, the trajectory of the AFL was – and has continued to be – defensive, as key forwards found 75 goals to be "the new 100’’.
Coaches taught what they call “collective defence”, which is easier to impart than an attacking style that relies on instincts and talent.
It’s going to reduce scoring big-time and no one’s going to come and watch.
Chris Connolly
Today, as several coaches attest, teams move the ball conservatively, conscious not only of scoring but also of the risks of giving the ball back and field position. Improved kicking skills, as Connolly notes, has enabled soccer and basketball-style ball control and an “AFL” separate from community footy.
The most telling statistic about the new footy isn’t the shrunken goal tallies for teams and forwards. It is that, in 2005, a team with the ball in its defensive 50-metre arc was able to move it to the other end 38 per cent of the time; by 2020, they’re only a 19 per cent chance of getting to the other end.
It’s literally twice as hard to move the ball through the forest of players.
2. How did footy’s popularity create problems for the spectacle?
Long Australia’s most popular and prosperous code, the AFL’s coffers have been flooded with membership, sponsorship and especially television dollars over the past 15 years.
The explosion of money allowed the players to become full-time, faster and fit enough to run up and down the ground, while also funding a massive increase in coaches (10 per club pre-COVID-19) and technology, as a space race developed.
David Rath, a trained bio-mechanist and ex-key Clarkson lieutenant who became AFL head of game analysis in 2018, said that the discovery of behind-the-goals footage as a coaching tool was a major turning point in the coaching of “collective defence”.
“That had a massive influence. For me that was a profound change on the way AFL footballers were coached … when you’re coaching collective defence, you’ve got to be able to see the whole group.”
Simultaneously, the high interchange rotations assisted in keeping players fresh to play this compacted game. Rath observed that it was difficult to gauge the impact of rotations on congestion, because the interchanges increased dramatically at the same time that new defence-based tactics appeared.
Money was the root of professionalism, of more coached and less intuitive footy, enabling coaches to study other sports overseas and technology (GPS and behind-the-goals footage) and of the fitness regime that allowed them – in concert with rotations – to play in a reduced field.
3. Can the egg be unscrambled, and how?
When Geelong’s forceful football boss Steven Hocking arrived to run the AFL’s football operations in 2017, he had a mandate for change.
In practice, Hocking was charged with investigating the game, trialling new rules and, if possible, de-congesting it. Hocking hired Rath to run the game analysis group, which consulted widely with coaches, players and others in 2018, to see if rules might improve the spectacle. For the first time, the league knew how the game was coached.
Hocking’s whole approach was contentious with a footy public that can be both change-resistant – “leave the game alone” is a frequent battle cry – yet nostalgic for the days of full-forwards, one-on-one contests, more goals and fewer scrums.
At the height of the "state of the game’’ debates of 2018, Hocking and Rath’s group trialled starting positions at stoppages – what I termed the nuclear or netball option years ago. While this idea garnered some support, opposition was also fierce, since it has been an abiding feature of Australian football to have players allowed to go wherever they please (barring centre bounces).
Ultimately, the nuclear option was abandoned, largely because “starting positions” were difficult to police and caused excessive delays.
As Rath recounted, his group and the AFL were conscious that rule changes could bring unpredictable consequences. In a contest of ideas between conservatism, incrementalism and radicalism, the incremental approach prevailed, as the six-six-six formation was introduced, along with a looser kick-in.
Yet, in this season of reduced time, budgets and games, scoring rates have continued to ebb slightly – arguably not helped by the fact that more games have been played in the depths of winter.
So, in 2020, as Brad Scott has joined the AFL, effectively replacing Rath (now at St Kilda as coach Brett Ratten’s key assistant), the AFL might again revisit the question of whether the spectacle needs repair.
But it is really so ugly?
“Mick Jagger’s sexy and ugly – it depends on your definition of ugly,” Connolly said.
Some senior coaches don’t think it’s so disfigured. One I spoke with on Friday advised caution on further rule changes. “We shouldn’t tinker with it too much,” he said. “You need a damn good sample before you change it.”
The most fashionable radical solution or suggestion of 2019 and 2020 has been 16-a-side, which has been de facto trialled in the practice matches of players who are not selected.
Last weekend, Richmond booted 19 goals against the Saints at Punt Road in the 16-a-side scratch match and some who have watched it reckon the removal of two players does, indeed, create the lost space.
Perhaps the egg cannot be unscrambled, given that, as Leigh Matthews has noted, those who coach and play the game can’t unlearn what they know.
"Unscramble a new egg,’’ Connolly said.
Uglier or not, it is a different game.
2 Likes
Are we taking bets on what new rules the AFL will introduce to open the game up?
16 on the field, reduced interchange, starting/reset positions?
I say bring back the super sub
Reduce interchange to 22 max, 6 on the bench, return to 20 min quarters, and umpire to the rules of the game by quickly penalising incorrect disposal and holding the ball.
1 Like
Interesting idea.
Has some interesting implications at the end of the year.
Imagine, its the end of the year. You’re 4 goals up half way through the last quarter, and need to score another 30 points to overtake the team above and play finals.
Any time the opposition get it deep into attack, you just let them score, so you can restart from a center bounce rather than trying to clear from defence.
In fact, if you’re far enough in front, that might be a strategy during normal games.
Or, two teams sitting outside the 8, whoever wins and scores above 120 points plays finals… Massive shootout.
Suspect the coaches would still take the viewpoint of trying to win first, and doing what they are doing now is how they feel that is best achieved.
Impact? Past few years: would have swapped 10 teams on the ladder last year, 2 in 2018, and 8 in 2017, 4 in 2016. Almost all of them are up/down one spot on the ladder. So, it certainly would have some impact, question being would it encourage on field change.
1 Like
16 on the field… As a coach, wouldn’t you just look at removing the two players least effective in your zone, which is probably the two furthest away from the ball? End with a relatively same same outcome?
1 Like
I might be alone on this one but I rarely ever notice how congested the game is or if its low scoring as long as its an absorbing contest.
The thing that frustrates me more is all the so called experts that are always wanting to fix the game and the AFL being the reactionary beast that it is, starts changing rules. Ironically, often the rules they change just contribute to the mess that it often does become.
Just let the parking game evolve without any intrusions, and let the coaches combat the dominant game style.
LEAVE OUR GAME ALONE YOU OVERPAID CARNTS!
4 Likes
Here is an idea. How about we get the umpires to pay free kicks fairly for the rules we have.
Someone tackles you and you drop the ball like a hot scone, free kick. Players wrestling, pay a free kick against the one who instigated it.
Player over the ball, let the tackler just grab him rather than lie over the top of him and free kick to the tackler.
If the maggots actually paid the free kicks that were there it might open the game up a bit.
2 Likes
Gil and his corrupt mates will never go for that.
It’s too simple. And too fair.
What do people think about changing the minimum distance for a mark back down to 10 metres? Do you reckon that would be a chance of breaking up the rolling mauls and congestion a bit?
How is a billion dollar industry “cash-strapped”?
1 Like
This is the perfect opportunity for the AFL to rid themselves of their greatest nemesis; Sports Scientists.
1 Like
Get rid of the rotation rubbish. Let players fatigue.
4 Likes
Going by the amount of very short marks paid in every game, it really already is 10 metres.
2 Likes
Watch Shiel fall into help Snell at the end of that contentious ‘sling’ tackle. The Filth player has no hope of moving the ball on whether he wants to or not. It happens a million times a game and is expressly designed to keep the ball under the possessor. I think the concept of stacks on is one of a host of reasons there’s less fluid movement. Limit it to one tackler if the guy holding the ball is on the ground. He either gets it out or he’s pinged. Otherwise just call it rugby and we can all move on.
1 Like
9 point super goal to improve scoring out of the forward arc.
ball hits the goal post internally 2 points.
ball hits the goal post goes through 4 points.
less rotations.
15 minute quarters.
16 players plus 4 on the bench.
forwards must stay in forward line cannot roam.
What else can we think of?
Wouldn’t that result in even more players near the ball?