State Of The Game

Football Discussion Non Essendon Stuff
1

Had a look for a thread like this, & couldn’t find one that this sat comfy in. If there is one, maybe mods could merge it in.

Anyways,… there is a study that recommends as few as 20 interchages a game would fix the congestion, and it won’t stop until this drastic reduction takes place, (see below) … I reckon the guy might be onto something. Discuss.

20-20 bench vision
Radical plan for rotations

THE AFL’s leading consultant on game style says only a reduction to as low as 20 interchange rotations will fix football’s congestion crisis.

The game continues to grapple with increased stoppages and low scoring, with AFL football manager Mark Evans discussing the issue with the AFL Commission yesterday.

Kevin Norton, a professor of exercise science at the University of South Australia, has produced play density research for the AFL over 14 years.

Norton said only a reduction to 20-40 interchanges would bring about continuous, free-flowing football.

Having just produced the data to spearhead the NRL’s reduction from 10 to eight interchanges for next season, he said he believed the AFL needed dramatic action.

He is not being used by Evans this year but said when interchange was drastically reduced — in concert with other rule tweaks — the AFL would get back its flow.

“To me, if you dropped it to 20, you would get a much more continuous and freeflowing game. That’s what it would resemble,’’ he told the Herald Sun.

“I said in my report (in 2012) they should go to 80 and instead they went to 120.

“That is fine, that is their call, but eventually I thought they would come down to half that. I think they will come down to somewhere closer to 20 or 40.

“One or two rotations per player per game is where they will end up. To make a big jump (from 120 to 20) might be too drastic.

“So I think they will probably go to 80 interchanges with other on-field changes.

“There will be some reduction in congestion but not enough. So eventually we will get there (to 20-40).”

Norton says an interchange limit of 20 would mean players became too fatigued to get to repeated stoppages, ensuring the game broke open earlier.

Evans will present his recommendation on interchange to the AFL Commission in August or September, with potential changes to the sling tackle and congestion adopted in November or December.

But he ruled out field zones yesterday, saying stricter policing of deliberate out-of-bounds and other tweaks could help.

“I would have thought that would be our last resort,” Evans said. “We do need to find ways to spread the game out, whether by umpiring or other ways.”

A new cap on interchange of between 80 and 100 is likely, with Evans expected to call a rules summit in coming months.

Norton’s report for the AFL — Changes in Player Density 2001-2012 — showed player density around a stoppage doubled from 2008 to 2012.

The AFL’s rule tweaks — including quicker kickouts from full back — meant play went from an average of 21 seconds, before 21 seconds of stoppage, to 40 seconds of play, before 15 seconds of stoppage.

But higher interchange, the flooding of stoppages and better tackling counteracted those changes.

The ball is in play in the AFL just over 60 per cent of time, compared with 17 per cent in America’s NFL. The NRL found this year there were 34 minutes of stoppages in an 80-minute game and wants to cut that dramatically.

2
“I said in my report (in 2012) they should go to 80 and instead they went to 120.

Governance.

3

F**ked

4

As if footy wouldn’t just get even more defence heavy

5
Kevin Norton, a professor of exercise science at the University of South Australia, has produced play density research for the AFL over 14 years.
It was almost exactly 14 years ago that we saw the ugly future of the game. Thanks Footscray.
6

The thing about that article is, what actual evidence does he have to back up that opinion? As far as I can see, all he is offering up is an opinion, which is fatigued players will want less stoppages and it will break the game open. Will it? Wouldn’t a stoppage allow a moments rest?

Brenton Sanderson has already put forward some compelling stats that there isn’t any relation between the growing number of interchanges and stoppages:

IN 2003, there was an average of only 26 interchanges a game and 60 ball-ups and throw-ins a match;

IN 2010, there was an average of 117 interchanges a game and 61 stoppages;

IN 2013, there was an average of 134 interchanges and 62 stoppages;

IN 2015, there is a cap of 120 interchanges a team but stoppages have increased to 74 a game.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/sport/afl/brenton-sanderson-reward-high-scoring-with-a-bonus-point/story-fnjuhrq4-1227449544935

I don’t agree with his main point (that of a bonus point for a team that passes 100 points - this is flawed in too many ways) but it’s pretty clear the correlation isn’t there.

To Norton’s point around player density, this is probably the most significant change because we are seeing rolling mauls. He doesn’t draw this parallel, but he might be suggesting that less interchanges lead to less players running to congest leading to less stoppages? OR would the cap just mean that clubs would change the focus of their recruitment to endurance athletes like Stanton who can just run and run and run so they can continue this style of play?

Hey look, Sanderson already raised this flag 2 years ago: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-05/rotation-cap-will-decide-who-we-draft

"It'll certainly affect the way we pick players at the draft and certainly affect how we train," Sanderson said.

“We’d need more players between the heights of 188 and 192cm with a really good aerobic capacity, guys like Jared Petrenko, who’s just flat out for five minutes and then off, would probably find it harder to get a game.”

So according to Sanderson, less interchanges means more vanilla. That will keep the crowds coming and the viewers glued to their screens then.

I’m not saying Sanderson is right and Norton is wrong, but right now I’m not seeing any evidence out of Norton. Plus, FFS do we have to change the rules and tweak every year? Does the AFL have to control every element rather than let the game evolve naturally?

7
Kevin Norton, a professor of exercise science at the University of South Australia, has produced play density research for the AFL over 14 years.
It was almost exactly 14 years ago that we saw the ugly future of the game. Thanks Footscray.
So are you blaming Fletch for kicking out on the full? We were nearly 4 goals up too at one stage, damn it!

The real problem that year was that we were so used to smashing everyone we had no idea what do in the close one.

8
The thing about that article is, what actual evidence does he have to back up that opinion? As far as I can see, all he is offering up is an opinion, which is fatigued players will want less stoppages and it will break the game open. Will it? Wouldn't a stoppage allow a moments rest?

Brenton Sanderson has already put forward some compelling stats that there isn’t any relation between the growing number of interchanges and stoppages:

IN 2003, there was an average of only 26 interchanges a game and 60 ball-ups and throw-ins a match;

IN 2010, there was an average of 117 interchanges a game and 61 stoppages;

IN 2013, there was an average of 134 interchanges and 62 stoppages;

IN 2015, there is a cap of 120 interchanges a team but stoppages have increased to 74 a game.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/sport/afl/brenton-sanderson-reward-high-scoring-with-a-bonus-point/story-fnjuhrq4-1227449544935

I don’t agree with his main point (that of a bonus point for a team that passes 100 points - this is flawed in too many ways) but it’s pretty clear the correlation isn’t there.

To Norton’s point around player density, this is probably the most significant change because we are seeing rolling mauls. He doesn’t draw this parallel, but he might be suggesting that less interchanges lead to less players running to congest leading to less stoppages? OR would the cap just mean that clubs would change the focus of their recruitment to endurance athletes like Stanton who can just run and run and run so they can continue this style of play?

Hey look, Sanderson already raised this flag 2 years ago: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-05/rotation-cap-will-decide-who-we-draft

"It'll certainly affect the way we pick players at the draft and certainly affect how we train," Sanderson said.

“We’d need more players between the heights of 188 and 192cm with a really good aerobic capacity, guys like Jared Petrenko, who’s just flat out for five minutes and then off, would probably find it harder to get a game.”

So according to Sanderson, less interchanges means more vanilla. That will keep the crowds coming and the viewers glued to their screens then.

I’m not saying Sanderson is right and Norton is wrong, but right now I’m not seeing any evidence out of Norton. Plus, FFS do we have to change the rules and tweak every year? Does the AFL have to control every element rather than let the game evolve naturally?

Re: Bolded -

He did, & that was the thing that struck a chord with me & made the most sense…

“So I think they will probably go to 80 interchanges with other on-field changes.

“There will be some reduction in congestion but not enough. So eventually we will get there (to 20-40).”

Norton says an interchange limit of 20 would mean players became too fatigued to get to repeated stoppages, ensuring the game broke open earlier.

9
Kevin Norton, a professor of exercise science at the University of South Australia, has produced play density research for the AFL over 14 years.
It was almost exactly 14 years ago that we saw the ugly future of the game. Thanks Footscray.
So are you blaming Fletch for kicking out on the full? We were nearly 4 goals up too at one stage, damn it!

The real problem that year was that we were so used to smashing everyone we had no idea what do in the close one.

Collingwood tried it the next week too, but 1) they hadn’t prepared sufficiently for it and 2) we didn’t freeze up in the face of inexplicable godawfulness, and ran away with it in the second half.
10

There was a study a while back that showed the team that had less interchanges had more injuries.

Great.

11
There was a study a while back that showed the team that had less interchanges had more injuries.

Great.


Probably because they were using 100 interchanges to play a 140 interchange game.

You have to force teams to adapt their tactics. And it would get rid of the “athletes” who can run flat out for 5 minutes, and bring in footballers.

12
The thing about that article is, what actual evidence does he have to back up that opinion? As far as I can see, all he is offering up is an opinion, which is fatigued players will want less stoppages and it will break the game open. Will it? Wouldn't a stoppage allow a moments rest?

Brenton Sanderson has already put forward some compelling stats that there isn’t any relation between the growing number of interchanges and stoppages:

IN 2003, there was an average of only 26 interchanges a game and 60 ball-ups and throw-ins a match;

IN 2010, there was an average of 117 interchanges a game and 61 stoppages;

IN 2013, there was an average of 134 interchanges and 62 stoppages;

IN 2015, there is a cap of 120 interchanges a team but stoppages have increased to 74 a game.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/sport/afl/brenton-sanderson-reward-high-scoring-with-a-bonus-point/story-fnjuhrq4-1227449544935

I don’t agree with his main point (that of a bonus point for a team that passes 100 points - this is flawed in too many ways) but it’s pretty clear the correlation isn’t there.

To Norton’s point around player density, this is probably the most significant change because we are seeing rolling mauls. He doesn’t draw this parallel, but he might be suggesting that less interchanges lead to less players running to congest leading to less stoppages? OR would the cap just mean that clubs would change the focus of their recruitment to endurance athletes like Stanton who can just run and run and run so they can continue this style of play?

Hey look, Sanderson already raised this flag 2 years ago: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-05/rotation-cap-will-decide-who-we-draft

"It'll certainly affect the way we pick players at the draft and certainly affect how we train," Sanderson said.

“We’d need more players between the heights of 188 and 192cm with a really good aerobic capacity, guys like Jared Petrenko, who’s just flat out for five minutes and then off, would probably find it harder to get a game.”

So according to Sanderson, less interchanges means more vanilla. That will keep the crowds coming and the viewers glued to their screens then.

I’m not saying Sanderson is right and Norton is wrong, but right now I’m not seeing any evidence out of Norton. Plus, FFS do we have to change the rules and tweak every year? Does the AFL have to control every element rather than let the game evolve naturally?

Re: Bolded -

He did, & that was the thing that struck a chord with me & made the most sense…

“So I think they will probably go to 80 interchanges with other on-field changes.

“There will be some reduction in congestion but not enough. So eventually we will get there (to 20-40).”

Norton says an interchange limit of 20 would mean players became too fatigued to get to repeated stoppages, ensuring the game broke open earlier.

Too fatigued to get to stoppages is different to reducing stoppages.

Also, and something maybe that should be more important, aren’t players more susceptible to strain injury when fatigued?

13

Well, less players at the contest,/ ballups, means less stoppages in the first instance, & hence, then less repeat ball up’s you’d think.

As for the fatigue = more injuries, possibly, if they don’t stop to rest, I think that’s the point. They have to stop… Like we (if you played?) & they, always used to.

14

Victoria.

Gold Coast and GWS can get stuffed.

15

theres a thread in non-efc forum.

16

It should be an Essendon question, our list lends itself quite well to a few rule changes that take away this congested pin point short passing ■■■■■. We are no good at that. But we have a very good list of talls

17

I’m sure that if umpires were quicker to pay holding the ball frees, it would reduce the congestion by some amount. A lot of congestion now is because players getting tackled hold the ball in and give time for a whole bunch of players to close in.

Perhaps we should consider doing away with boundary throw ins and treat ball going out of bounds in same way as soccer.

18

Heres a simple solution for when someone is tackled to stop congestion …if another playwr comes in after a tackle is made in to assist whether its a defender or an attacker that team will be penalised if the player with the ball is tackled to the ground there will be no stacks on the mill so the umpire has a simple decision to make…you go in hold the player on top of another player then its a free kick against you!

Simple one on one football!

19

Just to clarify, both my suggestions is to try and reduce the chance of ruckmen needing to contest for the ball and the usual pack that forms around them. I believe that is a large source of congestion in the game.

20

get rid of the holding the arm while tackling. Go back to traditional tackling, the chicken winging i a terrible look.