The issue IMO is that SKILL and BODY CONTACT are difficult to combine into a ball sport.
Think of gridiron: The two teams separate for each play, to give the quarterback (THE SKILL) just a few seconds of opportunity to execute, before the tackling (BODY CONTACT) collapses the whole play. The game then resets everything to give skill a fresh chance.
Similarly, think of rugby league: The two teams separate into lines after each tackle, to give the possessing team a chance to run and pass the ball (THE SKILL) before tackling (BODY CONTACT) ruins everything.
Conversely think of soccer: Relatively free of BODY CONTACT, enforced by how punishing red cards/penalties are for mistimed tackles…think about how diminished that sport would be if Messi could just be tackled to the ground as soon as the ball was kicked in his direction. That’s AFL…I didn’t grow up following soccer, but IMO, the SKILL on show in that game has grown and thrived this century thanks to the relative absence of BODY CONTACT, and that sport has/will overtake AFL.
So AFL…over time, BODY CONTACT has overwhelmed SKILL. Players are now leant on the whole game, body spoiled as soon as they go for a mark, tackled as soon as they take possession…often by multiple opponents…the game is now relatively ‘ugly’, because it’s a low-skill soupy mess…Richmond have taken us a step further downwards into the morass (their game style emphasises basic running/outnumbering/body spoiling/tackling, but really very low on skill, eg. tap ons rather than handballs), but the game was probably doomed anyway. Another club would have been coached this way eventually.
For mine, the game was much cleaner in the 90s because players in the defensive phase lacked the running power to get back and fill space/clog/outnumber in defense…but I also think we used to expect defending to be much cleaner than it is today (eg. spoil with your fist and no hands in the back, whereas now you can just launch ‘clumsily’ into the entire body of the marking player).
Running ability > increased massively over last 20 years.
Players on field = stayed the same
Field size = stayed the same
Skill decreases under pressure, running ability of team without ball increases pressure.
Players now stand out if they can execute their skills under contact from an opponent, or get the ball and break free of a contest.
So Martin’s fend off and general ability to break tackles is a much greater weapon now than it would have been twenty years ago because there are less players that can break from a pressure situation into one where they can execute his skills clear of opponents. To borrow an NFL stat - Dusty’s “Meters gained after contact” would be far and above the rest of the league - Dangerfield as well.
I think the interchange cap has probably saved the game from looking even worse, I really think they should experiment with 15/16 a side too and just see what it does in terms of allowing teams to move the ball more freely.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. To take it a bit further, the whole “knocked out in the tackle” is a load of bs. They need to get rid of it. Keep it simple. Did you have prior? Yes. Was it disposed of correctly? No. That’s ball.
I agree. It seems that there’s a disconnect between the AFL Rules Committee and the clubs. The Rules Committee make rules for two reasons; they perceive that the game is not “entertaining” enough, so they feel the need to adjust the rules to keep the money coming in, and to protect player welfare, eg “The head is sacrosanct,” (read: protect the AFL from lawsuits, ie stop the money going out.)
The clubs on the other hand don’t necessarily care too much about those things. They care about winning. Winning is entertaining enough (as long as you’re the winning team,) and although the clubs do care about player welfare in the broad sense, I’m convinced that there is some training that goes on to teach players how to draw high contact and make sure the umpire sees it. (I think Luke Shuey alluded to it during an interview after the PA v WCE final that went into extra time a few years ago, when he did a Selwood-esque shoulder raise i50 and got a free to kick the sealer.)
When the AFL makes a new rule, the clubs won’t think “The AFL made this rule to make the game more entertaining\protect players’ welfare, let’s build a strategy around it to ensure we play in an entertaining way\protect players’ welfare and bring about the AFL’s vision.” The clubs will think “The AFL made this rule, let’s build a strategy around it to help us win.”
Eg the clubs don’t think “The AFL has brought in a rule that if you duck your head into a tackle that counts as prior (*unless you’re Pendlebury,) clearly the AFL is trying to protect players’ heads, lets avoid head contact.” Instead the clubs think “Hmm… we don’t get a free kick for ducking anymore, let’s instead do the shoulder raise + collapse at the knees to draw high contact + everyone start appealing to the umpire to get the free kick.”
I think that due to the different visions of the AFL vs the clubs, the implementation of in-game strategies by the club mean that the introduced rule has unintended consequences, often contrary to the aims the AFL Rules Committee had when they thought up the rule, so the Rules Committee has to go back to the drawing board (or give the umps scope for “interpretation” to allow of certain “optics” and “outcomes,” which infuriates fans, and makes the game unintelligible to new audiences.)
Would it necessarily change anything, if they rolled the rule back?
The emphasis from coaches is still to defend first, score second.
I think the main problem for the rules committee (and probably the AFL commission) to tackle is to change that emphasis. Not the ins and outs of rule changes, which often (as you say) end up counterproductive.
If they abolished the “deliberate” rule, then defenders would know they could go for the sanctuary of the boundary line. Dustin Fletcher perfected the kick upfield 50 metres along the boundary line, so that it rolled over the line one second before an opponent could get to it. It was a work of art.
The stupid rule that gives a free to the opposition if a defender knocks the ball through the goals should go too, for the same reasons.
I get why they brought those rules in. I just see it as treating a symptom, not the root cause of the problem - coaches would rather defend first, attack second.
1 - Get rid of Gil and his cronies, and set up an entirely independent management structure for the game (I have many many thoughts on this that are far too boring to share).
2 - Throw the entire existing rule book away, and then strip the new rules right back to basics - and I mean right back. Do away with the complexities and interpretation aids. I firmly believe that Australian rules could be governed by no more than about 20 very simple rules (“you can’t impede a player from being able to contest the ball” etc). Strip the rules back to these, and then never touch them ever ever again unless the circumstances are absolutely exceptional.
3 - Reduce the amount of games. 17 rounds only. Every game means more. Every game is a blockbuster. Stop trying to dominate the whole damn year with content and instead treat the game as an exclusive “limited time only” product (similar to the NFL). It’s the only way you will get eyes and ears in a post Netflix world.
No time limits on the last quarter
first to score 100 points wins.
for rain/weather effected games first to 75 points
Should bring a attacking game style as teams could win early and get more recovery for the next week.
no incentive to put the cue in the rack.
no draws
no embarrassing 100 point floggings
