- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
One topic that has been extensively debated for some years now is the need and frequency of rule changes in the AFL.
Historically, Australian football evolved quickly and radically. The original rules stated that a player could not be tackled and that the ball could not be picked up off the ground.
So what did players do to dislodge the ball from the opposition’s possession? Seemingly they pushed him and hacked at him. Today we penalise that as “pushing in the back” and “tripping”.
To gain possession of the ball, players had to soccer the ball so it would bounce up and then it could be taken.
The current game is, therefore, almost unrecognisable when compared to the original incarnation.
But with fans debating more and more rule changes in the AFL, do we allow the game to keep on evolving or do we try to maintain it as it is today?
Most people don’t realise that American football is a simple game with lots of rules to ensure that it always appears the same to the spectator. Innovation has been stifled for a consistent product.
In Australian football we have seen the introduction of many laws mainly in response to clever coaching tactics.
These include: centre square, centre circle, out on the full penalty, deliberate out-of-bounds penalty, deliberate rushed behind penalty, increased numbers on the bench, substitute changes, introduction of the interchange box, 15 metre running limit, 15 metre mark minimum, 25 metre penalties then 50 metre penalties, down field penalties, free-kick maximum timing, bouncing deemed to be in possession, multiple kick-in changes, interference redefined as chopping and hands in the back.
Prior opportunity concept, more intricate timing of the game, bumping interpretations tightened, throwing defined and loophole closed, allowable tackling ferocity changes from “carried forward” to rugby style, and of course the perennial holding the ball interpretations.
We have also seen changes in kicking styles. The spiral punt still survives but the drop punt has taken over from the drop and stab kicks, the checkside is more popular and we see the calculated use of the dribble kick. Imagine if laws had been invoked to keep the drop kick. We might have seen the drop kick kick-in or drop kick goal.
Other general features like tackling and athleticism have also been ramped up but the pack mark is rarer these days.
So what is the biggest complaint spectators have with AFL football these days? Clearly people are not happy with the ugly congested play resulting from flooding and it’s more recent variants.
There has been some respite as smart coaches have realised that the old fashioned approach of getting the ball into the forward line as quickly as possible beats the flood however there are still coaches that are reticent to play attacking football either out of fear of turnovers or as a deliberate means to keep in touch with the opposition.
The 2012 grand final saw another term emerge. the “slingshot”, whereby the Swans would slingshot along the boundary line from stoppages.
To prevent or wind back these negative influences of the game there are two alternatives – let the game evolve or try and encourage a specific style of game. One feature of Australian Football is the thin nature of the book “Laws of the Game”.
Personally, I would hate to see more laws and indeed I believe the present number could be reduced slightly. Eventually the law will be changed (and simplified) so that if the ball is kicked out it will be a penalty and thus kicked back in.
This will discourage boundary play but only briefly as players adjust just like did when the out-of-bounds-on-the-full law was established. Unfortunately the simplest and most effective measures are the most drastic.
Not paying a mark for a ball kicked backwards (except in the 50m arc) has been a popular suggestion but it only addresses possession football and that particular facet is not as prominent as it once was.
Let us say that there was a law that required a minimum of three team players in the 50m arc at all times. That certainly would be a huge improvement visually but it would be a drastic emotional change as we’d have a continuous offside law as part of our game.
Some people have suggested a reduction in the number of players to 16 as has been trialed in some leagues. It may work in lesser leagues but could make the game appear even more patchy at AFL level.
The AFL has already moved to reduce the number of rotations and thus make it physically harder to flood over time. This seems to punish the players more than create the required spaces. One method would be to encourage more attacking play and attracting defenders back to the goal-line.
A crossbar and a goal for scoring under the bar or a “try” for carrying the ball over the goal-line. Historically that has precedence. In the NAB Cup extra points were given for a goal kicked outside the 50m arc while overseas occasionally they require a goal to be kicked from within a given distance.
This year, the laws have been changed in an attempt to re- establish the old style run and jump rucks and to remove some congestion.
It will be interesting how this pans out. Will it be a pre-curser for more changes to manufacture a certain style of game or will the game continue to evolve?
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.