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?
#banthedribblekick
Guest
THE DRIBBLE KICK IS PATHETIC AND SHOULD BE BANNED! WHY IS THE AFL ALLOWING PLAYERS TO USE IT!!!! COST GEELONG A SPOT IN THE 2019 GRAND FINAL, COST FREO THE GAME IN RD12 2020, I COULD GO ON FOREVER, THESE PLAYERS NEED TO STOP THINKING THEY ARE BETTER THAN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE AND KICK A DROP PUNT!!!! #BANTHEDRIBBLEKICK
cos789
Guest
I basically support what you are saying vocans. ATM current problems can be addressed within the scope of existing laws with a change of emphasis on interpretation. it'll be interesting to see how the new ruck laws tackle congestion. .
vocans
Guest
Although I support many of the rule changes we've had, we don't need lots of new rules. The single action that could open up the creativity and flow of the game is to tighten up the interpretation of the holding the man/holding the ball laws. Then, have a look at in the back. A huge amount of the scragging that slows down the game and punishes creative and committed ball play actually falls under the holding the man rule. Wrapping an arm around a player and holding him that way is holding the man even though it does not use the hand. An example of this deleterious effect on the game is now being dealt with in ruck contests by rule change that is made necessary (though it is unnecessary) simply because the holding the man rule was not enforced. The arm can be used to fend off but not to hold. There are various ways to sit or lie on a player that actually hold him as well. This leads to that maddening stacks on the mill way of holding the ball in, and countless ball-ups. Where this is not covered by holding the man it is very often by in the back - another rule that needs re-focussing on. Similarly, interpretation of holding the ball slackened in 2012. Brilliant tqckles have gone unrewarded because players learned that umpires would give them an inordinate amount of time to release the ball. They have been impeded but given time to then wrestle their way clear enough to handball or kick. On many occasions this actually does not move the ball on (the goal of fast creative footy) as effectively as awarding a free kick would. Most fans want fair footy and know intuitively when it's not happening. Skillful effort must be properly rewarded. When it is not, more often than not it leads to ugly frustrating footy to watch, and the best aspects of the game are impeded.
Bondy.
Guest
Is that true ! you've made your sport more compliant to the needs of a tv station buy changing the laws of the sport.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yearly rule changes have actually produced a better game in the last six years since I've been following the once-Australasian code ;) As I understand it the NFL is heavily reliant on the NCAA for the rules of their football. Which means the AFL is in a different situation and by and large (in the last six years at least because I can't comment on earlier than that) they utilise it well...making the game more favourable to advertisers :P anyway. Back to the point on American Football though: in that case you have regular 'conferences' by all powerbrokers who discuss the rules/rule changes. But the key is (I believe this to be the case though) is that they're about managing the spirit of their code, not the lettering of it. Thus they end up tweaking the rules every year just about. But going back to a point I made in another thread: American football's been engineered since the 1870s towards having a code which is mutually intelligible to the Ancients as well as to the Moderns. So you still have a code which manages keeping the down and distance as the essence of the American solution to England's problems. Has the AFL been looking at discussing any changes or attempts to stop changes to the spirit of their code?
Redb
Roar Guru
I like the concept of 16 a side. The pace of players is vastly different from 100 years ago and the grounds have not gotten smaller. I think 16 a side is well worth a trial.
TC
Guest
I accept that we don't really know what the outcome would be at the elite level. The theory would be that the players would not be able to cover the space as well, alternatively, it might be argued that coaches would just demand a congregation of the whole team in the one spot, rather than 16 of 18 as might happen presently. Very hard to know how it would pan out. TC
cos789
Guest
16-a-side in some ways ONly re-inforces the imbalanced look.
TC
Guest
Congestion has been a problem for quite a few years now, and we can all recall the ugly ducklings winning a grand final on the back of causing congestion. Players continue to get fitter and stronger, and this allows coaches to push certain strategies into extreme mode. I can't see that this is going to resolve itself without intervention. In other words, some sort of rule change is going to have to be introduced - we can only hope that when it happens, it will not have other ramifications and that it will be in the spirit of the game. Players have a right to try and win the ball and to stop their opponent from getting clean possession - so that principle cannot be tampered with, nor do we want to introduce a form of offside in a game that has always allowed maximum freedom of movement - all that brings me to one conclusion: it's time to revisit the old VFA rule of 16 men on the field. TC
Grassroots
Guest
It is sensible to modify the rules when the very nature of the game is under attack as it is with unlimited interchange. I only hope the AFL continues on with this change as expected in 2014. The congested play is not only ugly if interchange is left unchecked the only players left in the game will be 190cm midfelders as they will be the only types with the physical and aerobic capacity required to play the game.. All the smaller kids and bigger kids will go to Rugby or Soccer. That is the issue that the AFL must and surley will address. The new Ruck rules are really just an enforcement of existing rules on sheperding outside 5m and are an excellent example of how the managers of the game should act to protect the basic fabric. If the players cant make contact until the ball has left the umpires hands the ugly wrestling will reduce and the resultant "raffle" free kicks will be eliminated.
Doghouse
Guest
Left off a preposition- Tacklers holding the ball in preventing release - blight on the game in both codes...what is Malcolm doing this year
cos789
Guest
So DH, a problem in your mind - leave it or tackle it? .
Doghouse
Guest
Tacklers holding the ball - same problem in Rugby and whether is the tackled player or the tackler holding it in is contentious - ref takes a punt and a penalty usually whereas the umps just ball it up - penalty changes game/...
cos789
Guest
S0 Allsports you are content to let the game go in which ever direction coaches take it. If it became rugby with no offside would you be happy with that because the AFL hadnot interferred and made 'rule changes"?
AllSports
Roar Rookie
OMG constant rule changes do my head in. AFL please leave it alone.
Redb
Roar Guru
Adrian Anderson is leaving the game. woot.
cos789
Guest
C, as shown in my article, there has been a raft of changes over the past 3 decades to maintain the presentation of the game. We're used to them now and accept them as "normal". People have gotten a bit upset recently because a number of changes have appeared as reactionary instead of measured. The big question is what of the future. dingo seems to accept the possible need to make adjustments in light of coaching tactics. Atm I don't see the need for drastic changes. IMO there are a number of minor changes that will suffice, like making every ruck contest more like the centre bounce, penalising any ball kicked out-of-bounds and emphasing that players must make every attempt to dispose the ball when tackled.(wrestling for posession is not disposing of the ball)
Brewski
Roar Rookie
The rule that has led to the most amount of controversy has been the unlimited interchange IMO, it has actually changed the game. Every game worth it's salt adds and changes rules and interpretations, that is the sign of a progressive game IMO. I would be bringing in a maximum amount of i/c's per game or quarter.
CallmeeAl
Guest
some accusations of 'rule changes' have been restoration of interpretations. insecurity is nothing to do with it - however, the threat of legal action and the need to protect players in their 'workplace' does!!
c
Guest
the good game needs no changes