Quite frankly it often looks as though a handkerchief could be thrown over the players in a game of Australian rules football.
Statistics suggest that the scrappy, ongoing contests that resemble something similar to a rugby union ruck or maul have led to a dramatic increase in ball-ups and throw-ins – as well as less goals being kicked.
>> ROUND 16 AFL EXPERT TIPS
>> PREVIEW FOR ROUND 16
In what is particularly a trademark ploy for sides inferior in fitness and precision of kicking, hordes of numbers swarm to each contest to prevent a free-flowing, attacking and high-scoring spectacle.
And fair enough, too. However, it is not ideal for the appeal and growth of the great Australian game.
It makes for ugly viewing which has consequences too great to be undermined and the AFL community has gone into meltdown because of it.
So here’s one small change that would bring big rewards.
Firstly, the AFL could consider awarding five premiership points to the winning team in the event of them reaching 140-plus points in doing so.
After 15 rounds this year, this has only been achieved seven times, namely by Adelaide, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong, Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and West Coast.
Given that percentage often or always dilutes the yearly mid-ladder log jam come finals time, determines the winner of the minor premiership and decides the ‘winner’ of the wooden spoon, the value of the elusive five-point win – instead of the usual four – cannot be underestimated.
Teams would jump at the opportunity to record them as frequently as possible.
It would lead to teams spreading out across the ground a lot more, keeping more numbers forward of the ball and not congesting the contest too much.
The result? A far more exciting display of football in which we see more one-on-one contests, more goals being kicked and more pin-the-ears-back run-and-carries.
Picture Buddy Franklin one-on-one with Josh Gibson, Eddie Betts weaving his banana-kicking magic on the boundary or Cyril Rioli tearing down the wing to kick a thrilling goal on the run.
It’s the stuff that’s made of magic.
Some may say it would lead to the sides inferior in fitness and precision of kicking, such as Brisbane and St Kilda at this current time, losing by bigger margins.
However, at least it would make for a more free-flowing, attacking and high-scoring brand of football.
If we start to see bigger deficits, that’s then a problem for player development and management as well as the salary cap.
Think back to the man who revolutionised the game of cricket. Was Kerry Packer all about a brand of excitement?
Given the coloured clothing, night matches and ‘big-name’ player signings from the West Indies and afar, you bet he was.
Perhaps the AFL’s solution to less congestion and in turn greater excitement, is the idea of the winning team being awarded five premiership points for a big score.
A million other solutions to mass congestion have been suggested in recent times, right from the subtle to the radical.
There’s the possibility of an interchange cap reduction, which sounds like a completely reasonable move, and then there’s the radical idea of ‘zoning’ suggested by Leigh Matthews that – although perhaps may make for football utopia, to use Lethal’s words – would be way too difficult to monitor both from an umpiring and playing perspective.
However, the solution regarding the rewarding of five premiership points to the winning team in the event of them reaching 140-plus points seems to me like one that is highly reasonable.
Gillion and Co., the ball is in your court.
Milo
Roar Rookie
Interesting read Brendan. Well worth a look and I think worth considering. I like that there's only two rules but I could see the interpretations of who's in the zones when, will start to become an issue. Personally I still think the easiest and simplest solution is to reduce the number of players on the ground. The ground sizes haven't changed in a century but over that time players have become fitter, faster and stronger endurance wise and can get to more contests more often and for longer. As per my earlier post, reduce to 16 or even 15 players, increase the I/C bench but decrease the rotations down to say 44 per game in a 22 per side (16 on ground) format. So getting to the contest becomes a lot tougher on fewer, the contests naturally become more towards the one on one, and open, fast but hard football will follow. Yes the 18 man on ground is 'enshrined' in the constitution but times have changed and the game needs to change with it.
Brendan Commons
Roar Rookie
Another idea at the link below: https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/alternate-solution-mitigating-congestion-afl-brendan-commons?trk=prof-post
Milo
Roar Rookie
As said you don't need to necessarily reduce the players on the field in every competition although ideally that would be the case. However that doesn't lead to less participation in itself. Given your bench is 6 Im sure with limited rotations it doesn't have any major negative impact. The real danger in participation is not something like this. Its the competition with soccer. Never more clearly shown than on a cold and wet Friday night in Melb when 22k saw Carlton V Haw under the roof, while 100k packed the open MCG to see Man City and Real Madrid. If this isn't a warning to clean up the game and make it more attractive to new participants I don't know what is.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
I grew up playing AFL on the South Coast of News South Wales, where AFL is dead compared to its stature in Victoria and certain other states. Why reduce the number of players allowed in a team when we want to grow the game? You could even go as far as saying that it is a completely contrary move to the evangelism of AFL throughout western Sydney through GWS. And on your last point: who wants to warm the bench?
Milo
Roar Rookie
With respect thats a fairly weak argument. Participation at grass roots level is not at issue here. Whether they play 16 on field or 18 on field at grass roots footy that can still happen. In fact i dont have any strong thoughts on 22 a side or 20 a side. So if participation is such a great issue then you keep 16 on field but 6 on i/c bench (in conjunction with i/c restrictions) or 4+2 subs. Not too hard to work around it.
Sharon Kirk
Guest
Why keep changing the rules players umpires coaches are getting that confused with different rules it's a laughing matter. Just leave the game alone or start looking supporters it's a joke every week someone comes up with new ideas when we haven't got used to the last rule change
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
The opposite of the "A win is a win" concept has the support of other sports. For example, in the Super Rugby the losing team is still awarded one point if they lost by no more than seven points. How the Super Rugby best reflects my proposal for the AFL to award the winning team with a bonus point for reaching 140-plus points, is that a team is given a bonus point for scoring four tries (regardless of win, loss or draw). That seems to me like a great incentive for teams to score more points as it fosters a much more attacking and therefore exciting spectacle. Perhaps a better proposal for the AFL is to award all teams with a bonus point if they reach, say, 100 points or maybe 110 (regardless of win, loss or draw) - to avoid the big blow-outs and the lower teams getting hammered.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
Those are some interesting points, Freddy. I remember watching an episode of AFL 360 last year and hearing someone say that one of the most exciting facets of play is seeing a player burst out of the pack and then seeing players spread and run in support. However, I think the cons of congestion far outweigh the pros, as is suggested by statistics as well as the fact that the AFL community has been in uproar over the issue for some time now. Regarding confusion amongst fans, I think a soccer fan (to use your example) is much more likely to be attracted to a game that doesn't resemble rugby for extended periods of time throughout a match. The open, free-flowing style of play is the blue-print of Australian rules football, although sadly things have been changing in recent times. I really do think a tweak to the rules (such as what I suggested) is needed in order to open up the game.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
The first thing I would say is that the games in which the top sides strive to reach the 140-plus point barrier against the lower sides (to get the extra premiership point), would still provide for much more exciting viewing. Don't forget that the opposite is seeing a lot of rugby union-type ruck or mauls that are very ugly and the exact thing that has the AFL community in uproar at the moment. As I mentioned in the article, big disparities between teams is a problem for player development and management as well as the salary cap. The main priority of the AFL should be to work towards creating a spectacle that is exciting as possible. I also really don't think congestion is as much of a problem in games between top sides as they actually back their skills in the open. Geelong is a prime example that comes to mind given their confidence in playing a very attacking style up the corridor. Besides, wouldn't the bonus point be of enticement in striving for the minor premiership?
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
110 points is quite low though, I would suspect; teams reach that amount of points quite regularly.
Zachary Gates
Roar Guru
Reducing the amount of players allowed on the field (from 18 to 16, for example) would certainly open up the game. However, it will never happen because participation and getting involved in the game is something the AFL is big on - and rightly so. Reducing the amount of players would especially hit hard in community-level football where participation is particularly important. Not only is participation vital for the growth of the game; it is a great way to improve the health of Australians through physical activity and leading healthy lives.
vocans
Guest
The phase we're talking about appears to be the coaches and players responding to rule and interpretation changes in the context of an increasingly elite sport. Interchange etc has brought pluses to the game, but interpreting the rules has led to deskilling in close and rewarding congestion. This phase won't be changed by new coaching tactics because the congested game fits the context best. Go back to more precision with in close rule adjudication, i.e., give frees where they are, and the game will move into a new phase.
Lroy
Guest
Well they changed the rules about ten years ago to reduce congestion, it has had the opposite effect. Go back to the rule where you cant kick it in until the ump has put both flags away. This allows the players time to man up, as it is now they just zone off each other ..meaning more of them are able to get to a contest, they don't have to worry about chasing their player who might be on the lead.... or making a dummy lead to take him away from the action.
Josephine
Roar Pro
That point about Hawthorn and GWS is really eye opening I never thought about it like that. You would definently be rewarding the wrong team.
Freddy
Guest
I am just bemused by all of these solutions to the 'congestion issue.' I watch several games a weekend and I truly don't think I would have known without the statistics telling me that there is an issue. I am enjoying watching AFL as much as ever. Even if there is significantly more congestion, it has been an issue for 15 rounds and now we want to re-design the game. It is simply a phase the game is going through and soon a coach will find a new attacking game style much like Geelong in the mid-2000s. Other clubs will follow this revolutionary style and congestion will be forgotten. How about leaving the game alone and letting it progress on its natural course instead of trying to control everything with knee jerk reactions. All you get then is confusion with fans. If a fan is confused, how can you possibly expect a soccer supporter who has never watched AFL to become a fan?
Vocans
Guest
I think all interpretations of the rules pertinent to in close play should be revisited. I am certain too many infringements and too many skilled plays end up in congestion because they are not umpired to the letter. How many holdings of man and ball; incorrect disposals; in the backs and over the shoulders go unadjudicated? A free kick breaks the congestion and sends a message. How did it get this way? Paradoxically, they thought they were going to create flowing footy by ignoring the rules. You need real skills to play by the rules and skills make the game. Sometimes you hear some guys at the end of a grand final say to throw away the rule book. They don't really mean it, but that attitude punishes skills rather than reward them. Too much of that in the game leads to a deskilled, dumbed down style that builds congestion, not the other way round. Flow these days is guaranteed by professional standards of fitness, skill, and coaching, plus the interchange (set it at 80) and quick kick ins. Reward skill with free kicks and they'll play on quickly and get the ball moving with far more opportunity for skilled attacks and scores. Ross Lyon seems to agree. Try the rules first before all these half thought through ideas.
able0419
Guest
I don't think we need radical rule changes to address the congestion issue. A different interpretation of the rule for ball disposal in the tackle could go a long way to easing congestion. At present the interpretation is that "making an attempt" is enough to cause a ball up. In case 1, where a tackle sticks, it is not hard to see that in nearly all cases of a secure tackle that the ball carrier has no intention whatsoever of releasing the ball. The ball is held firmly by the ball carrier and an arm flailed around in a so-called "making an attempt". The object of the ball carrier of course it to create a stoppage and we know what a stoppage does for congestion. In case 2 where a ball carrier is tackled but continues to twist and bullock to break the tackle, thus attracting more players to the contest, two outcomes are there. Either there is a ball up or the ball carrier eventually breaks the tackle (often with the assistance of teammates). This second outcome can have the advantage of clearing the congestion but the down side of encouraging this practice is to turn the game from its basic assumption of free ball movement to rugby union style rucking. In both cases above the amount of congestion in the game could be significantly reduced by interpreting Rule 15.2.3 (b) to award a free kick to the tackler rather than having a ball up. I won't reproduce Rule 15.2.3 (b) here as it is readily accessible on the AFL web site. I just note that the rule needs to be read in conjunction with rules 15.1.1(d); 15.2.1.(a) and 15.2.2(a) (i). The awarding of a free kick to the tackler for a good tackle would reduce congestion at the point of the tackle and would cause teams to "spread" rather than converge. It would also induce teams to hold positions away from the ball to combat the quick ball movement that would result from awarding a free kick rather than taking a ball up. To achieve this change there would need to be no rule changes; no changes to the ladder system; no designation of player zones or any other radical options. All we would need is for umpires to be instructed how to apply their "opinion" under Rule 15.2.3. (b) so that the ball carrier who holds firm to the ball while pretending to "make an attempt" is penalised with the award of a free kick. What about prior opportunity I hear you say. Well under the rule the concept of genuine attempt over rules prior opportunity with the ball player forfeiting prior opportunity rights where disposal attempts are not genuine in the opinion of the umpire. I suggest this is a small tweek to deliver big results.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
Bonus points hey? Certainly not the worst idea going around. I would set it a bit lower though - say, 110 points, or whatever the upper quartile is over the past 10 years. And award them to both sides (winner and loser). Scoring more than 110 four times becomes as good as a win. It takes the incentive approach, which I like much more than legislating.
BigAl
Guest
http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/07/16/want-less-congestion-heres-a-left-field-solution/
Milo
Roar Rookie
No for the reasons already provided. But why dont we forget points, zoning, restricted areas and just do somehting simpler and potentially more effective. Reduce the number of players on the ground. Eliminating the wingers will reduce the players by four. So 16 +4 interchange. That, coupled with the expected continual reduction of interchange will open the game up considerably. Remember the ground sizes havent changed in 100 years, but the players are stronger, fitter and with far more endurance enabling them to get to more contests more often. Side benefits should include a slight uptick in skill and reduction in costs. Trial in VFL/SANFL/WAFL etc. (in fact a number of leagues used to play 16 on the ground including the VFA). If it doesnt work fine, but worth a go. Unfortunately I do understand the 18 on the ground is part of the AFL constitution, but nothings impossible.