Completely delineate management of the league from management of the actual game.
9 Likes
Stop trying to fix it
4 Likes
No matter what they do people will complain.
The way to fix AFL football I think has nothing to do with the rules but with broadcasting.
There always have and always will be shithouse games that aren’t very entertaining. If your team isn’t playing in one of those games you can’t get interested or excited.
Before each match was live on TV and every inch dissected the ■■■■ games happened, the fans watched them and still liked it if their team won and the world kept turning.
But now we are all exposed to more games and maybe it’s just not as good when your team isn’t playing.
1 Like
Is it too early in the thread to suggest
MULTIBALL!
7 Likes
Make all of the rules of the game open to interpretation.
Oh, you meant how can the AFL make football better?
1 Like
There’s two (or more) separate issues.
There’s always going to be tactics that are more, and less, attractive. The game evolves. Rock beats scissors, etc.
There’s no need, or reason, for all power in the game to be centralised at the AFL.
They’re there to administer the league. They have far too much sway over the sport as a whole.
2 Likes
The AFL is just a figurine version of FIFA.
“Hey everyone! We ARE football.”
1 Like
I think the congestion is the biggest issue - whilst you have coaches trying to maintain zones it will remain. I don’t see 16 a side as a solution - when you’re planning your zone, it just means you delete the two players furthest from the play.
A really crazy idea would be first touch mark. Whoever touches the ball first is credited with a mark. Would help break up zones as you could quickly move the ball, and result in more scoring as more marks would be taken in the F50. Sure, it would be a mess working out who touched the ball first, and it destroys the game as we know it, but I reckon it would work in reducing congestion and increasing scoring.
I think the ultimate solution lies in incentivizing scoring. I’m not sure how - maybe a point or two if you score >100 points? Sure, you can be disadvantaged by rain etc, but I’d rather that than how the game is at the moment.
1 Like
A clearer understanding of just what the hell is going on by those officiating, for those who are playing and watching the game would be a great start. Consistency.
Sometimes it seems as if the sport is dictated without proper rules or laws. Sometimes it seems as if it’s more a marketing tool than an actual sport in itself.
… By not trying to constantly fix it.
4 Likes
I think a huge issue is holding the ball interpretations right now…
They need to get rid of this ingenuine attempt bullshit.
Right now Aussie rules has incorrect disposal, holding the ball and ingenuine attempt for the same rule and it obviously makes it really hard for umpires to get it right.
Get rid of ingenuine attempt as blokes get tackled all the time without prior opportunity and then have 2-3 blokes lying on them how on earth are they supposed to show a “genuine attempt”
I remember Zach merrett getting pinned in one game last year that was an absolute criminal call.
3 Likes
Yep.
Anything else, gamestyle wise - from zones, to cutting numbers, or any other rule - is treating the symptoms, not the disease.
1 Like
Thought experiment
What’d happen if we went back to 1 central ump, but allowed the goal umps to pay free kicks?
More umpires, less umpires, in theory more umpires = more decisions and more correct decisions using the logic that there would be more infringements seen, and better vision of incidents to facilitate correct decisions.
1 central umpire & goal umpires would result in less free kicks, and a greater percentage of incorrect free kicks.
But ultimately, IMO, that wont drastically change the game - coaches will still implement the same strategies that we have now.
Thinking further.
It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between number of free kicks and scoring. I had a quick glance at ~20 games from last season - those with higher scores tended to have more free kicks than those with lower scores. (Criteria: Low <~100 points (combined), High >~120 points). But more detailed analysis required there as that’s too small a sample to get a serious picture.
A couple of things for mine.
I think kicking backwards should be play-on. Not only would this speed up the game it allows for turnovers. Teams would man up more as the reward of a turn over is huge. This would create more space in the zone.
Secondly I think there should be a program on on the TV that explains all the rules before the start of the season. That would help the audience/supporters understand the interpretation of the rules and also hold the umpire accountable to what we all understand are the rules.
1 Like
They need to scrap the game and start again.
1 Like
Not necessarily.
There’s roughly half the number of free kicks these days, compared to the 70s & early 80s. Which was with I think 1 field umpire.
More free kicks would work to spread the field too, and hopefully (but I’m not all that confident) emphasise one on ones.
At the expense of a zone: if you’re all one on one when it turns over, you’re not going to get opened up as much as if you’re attempting to zone & burst.
More free kicks may end up breaking up the zone.
1 Like
Not a bad thought.
Would (at least) help to spread the field a little.
Right now there’s no incentive to man up the kick backwards - which often means you’re dragging most (or all of) your forwards back behind the ball.
1 Like