So the NAB Cup is upon us once again, and clubs are busy finalising their teams of predominantly rookie draftees and fringe second and third-year players for the first round of matches this weekend.
As always, the coaches’ main goal is to give their kids a run without any of them doing a season-ending ACL or similar, while at the same time trying out a few of the new game plans and structures that they’ve developed during the off-season.
It’s also around this time that the AFL tends to announce which rules it’s going to tinker with for the coming year, as part of its modern-day quest to perfect the imperfectible, inherently chaotic game that is Australian rules footy.
And on cue, last week the league confirmed it would be introducing two “interpretation changes” for 2015 – stricter policing of both the prior opportunity rule, and blocking in marking contests.
As with everything the AFL seems to do in this area, since it first started reacting to new and unattractive tactics like flooding in the early noughties, they appear to have fixed up one problem, while at the same time creating another.
Holding the ball decisions, or the lack thereof, were one of the fans’ major gripes last season. So lax was the interpretation by the umpires that players were not only being permitted to try and break tackles with oodles of prior opportunity, they were also then being given an eternity to try and dispose of the ball.
And oftentimes, the feigned attempts at disposal were laughable, as players were seemingly given carte blanche to drop and throw the ball away (simulating that it had either been knocked or ripped from them) without any danger of being penalised for incorrect disposal by hand or foot.
So the AFL is to be congratulated for listening to the fans on this point. A stricter, more consistent interpretation of prior opportunity – or rather, simply a return to how the rule’s always been policed – will make the game more intelligible for fans.
But increased scrutiny of blocking in marking contests, as Wayne Carey has already stated, will be very difficult to monitor, and could cause even more frustration for fans and players alike if a ton of dubious, soft free kicks start being paid.
With the forward half of the ground now so congested, the umpires could have a devil of a time trying to pick out genuine blocking frees, while keeping track of everything else that’s going on in that already hectic space. More worryingly, they could start jumping at shadows – as they did with the hands-in-the-back rule when that interpretation was adjusted – and start paying phantom frees that were never there.
The AFL is to be credited for listening to the fans on one score. But time will tell if it’s created needless new problems with another interpretation change nobody was asking for.
Perry Bridge
Guest
Perhaps not those fans. The prior opportunity is interesting though - there was a time where if you were about to be tackled as soon as you were going to grab the pill then you'd not grab it but would knock it along in front of you and try to take the ball when you could if not paddle it 40 m's perhaps towards the boundary and gain territory. Problem is that coaches don't like seeing the ball 'loose' and so players are more encouraged to trap it in and have a stoppage. The prior opportunity doesn't have to mean that you need to have the ball and take 3 steps. As with ruck contests - your prior opportunity was to knock the ball away. In footy - it used to be a skill to take possession and turn your back into your opponent and get off a handball. Perhaps the congestion and tackling capabilities are so good now that this sort of finesse has been lost.
Maggie
Guest
I'm a bit amused by the AFL listening to the fans on the holding-the-ball rule. The fans scream 'BAAALLLLL!' the moment an opposition player is tackled, with no consideration or concept of prior opportunity. I hope the umpires don't interpret this supposed 'stricter policing' in line with the fans' screams.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
The relaxed interpretation of holding the ball and prior opportunity was, IMO, designed to reduce congestion, reduce stoppages and allow the game to flow more freely. There's no doubt that congestion and increased numbers around stoppages had become a problem. making the game slower and less attractive. But the relaxed interpretation we saw last year probably went too far so tightening it up a little is probably a good thing, lets wait and see. The blocking and the hands in the back interpretations of recent time are, IMO an attempt to swing the balance in the favour of the forwards. Higher scoring games can be more exciting and these changes will give forwards more opportunity. Again lets wait and see the effects