Congestion. It is perhaps the most unattractive part of the game.
And it’s one the AFL is determined to ‘improve’ by whatever means the rules committee thinks of each season.
Every year around this time, tweaks are made to the game – more often than not, to the displeasure of most football supporters.
2016 is no different, with the AFL announcing the abolition of the third man up in ruck contests. They’ve also declared that adjudications on head high tackles and rushed behinds will be tightened.
While none of these changes are as bad as many others of previous years, it seems the AFL has ignored the simplest way of solving the issue of congestion.
One that would not take any tinkering of the game out on the field.
Watch any game on any given weekend and no matter how congested the game may be for its majority, it will open up as players tire.
Accordingly, the AFL brought in a cap on interchanges.
Players would not be able to have as many rests on the bench and would therefore tire more quickly.
When that did not have quite the desired effect, the cap was brought down.
Of course, these changes added unnecessary complications to each club on game day, and required extra officials to police the number of interchanges in a match.
Perhaps it is too simple a solution, but rather than continuously tinkering with the rules, interpretations and interchange caps, why not just go back to having two players on the interchange bench, and add two emergencies to cover game-ending injuries?
No cap would be needed as clubs would only ever have half as many players on the bench at any one time, meaning the number of rotations would naturally come down.
If teams were continually rotating one player, they would be virtually playing with only 17 on the field for the entirety of the game.
The game could also open up if one or two players were continually uninvolved with play.
Therefore, we would see players ‘resting’ in the front or back halves more often, rather than leaving the field.
The current caps in place have partly led to this too, but with only two players allowed on the bench, it would become even more pronounced.
Additionally, by having two emergencies who could come onto the field only to replace a player who has suffered a game-ending injury – such as concussion – no team would be left with less players on its bench.
Like it was previously when the substitute was used, an emergency could come on while a suspected concussed player served his mandatory 20 minutes off the ground.
He could then either return to the emergency bench or stay on the field once a determination has been made.
Although this change could see clubs replace players with minor niggles with a fresh substitute, heavy sanctions could be handed out to clubs who have obviously flouted the rules.
There may be some very legitimate reasons why only two on the bench is unfeasible. Health concerns might be one.
Given the physical demands on AFL players nowadays, utter exhaustion could be an issue.
However, the game was played for a century or so with only two interchange players, and for the most part, coming off was considered a punishment rather than the rewarding rest it is now.
Occasionally, a look to the past is all that’s required to move forward.
Perhaps the issue of congestion in our games is one of those times.
BigAl
Guest
What about also limmiting the no of players in the defensive arc ?
Jon Kau
Guest
You are right - need to stop the congestion around the ball. Unless you put in restrictions around stoppages, I'm not too sure how one would do this apart from coaching/culture.
Vocans
Guest
See your point Milo. I'd like to try the golden rule first before the changes you suggest. If that didn't work, maybe your ideas should be next up. However, the significant cuts to interchanges will not only affect congestion but also slow the game. Do we want slower footy?
Milo
Roar Rookie
No arguments from me to enforce some of the more basic rules or golden rules as you call them Vocans. But I don't think this is a case of only one magic change to remove (or significantly lessen at least) congestion. As said above I think the 16 will work but in conjunction with the significant cut back of I/Cs (64-48-32) in three years. So agree while you cant stop coaches trying to get players to as many contests as possible, with fewer players and significantly fewer breaks for those players, the coaches will be forced to reassess how and when those resources are used. They can no longer try and flood up and down the field consistently, but will need to adopt more positional strategies (IMO).
Vocans
Guest
Let's go with 16 : 3 within the arc and 13 in the rest of the ground. If I was a coach I'd still stack the backlines around stoppages, and have most of them in the forward 50 when in attack. I reckon that would lead to congestion too. As a coach I'd be looking at ways to channel the ball from congested backs to the forward 50 as quickly as possible. I would want to position a couple of my 13 with speed of foot and elite kicking skill around the defensive arc. Probably like a couple of wingmen. But I'd still require the game to be bottled up in the defensive 50 until we could get the ball to our channelers. Still congestion. 18 with 3 in the forward arc would be the same only a little more so. We need something at the congestion contests that deal with it. I reckon that's enforcing the rules at the congestion contests.
Vocans
Guest
I agree that modern fitness, strength and coaching means players are far more able to run out games at intensity. That's one of the main reasons I think the rule interpretation tweaking that began some years ago to speed the game up was in the end unnecessary. I do not include the interchange and balls at the kick in in that. The tweaked interpretations actually produced a lot of congestion and unnecessary stoppages. This fact was masked by the results of the professionalism in sport I mention in the first sentence. The AFL still seems to think it was tweaking got them there. You still haven't explained to me how coaches would change the focus from getting the maximum number of players around the ball at stoppages. I start with the idea that they will always want that, so what else can we do to prevent unnecessary congestion? To me, a lot of congestion would evaporate if skills were rewarded by the rules for contact footy, not made redundant by them. Too many times players lay a tackle, get the ball, get infringed, etc. only to be denied a reward for their skill. Rather the unskilled and illegal play wins the contest, or, as often, leads to congestion. Give frees that are there according to what I call the 'golden rules' - incorrect disposal, holding the ball, holding the man, in the back and high - and teams will try to minimise infringements. Otherwise, giving away a free will be just like losing the contest. These days teams can move the ball on at lightning speed from any kind of winning of posession (look at the Bulldogs). Frees won't slow the game down as was once feared but is now no longer likely with the fitness, skill levels, and coaching of today. The same with ruck contests which involve holding, mutual or otherwise, which privilege grappling strength over a number of skills, like protecting the fall of the ball and timing a leap at it. The grappling contest tends to begin a congested stoppage. The golden rules evolved as experience taught what was central to the game of Aussie Rules. I argue that they are still crucial in the making of a great game of footy.
Milo
Roar Rookie
While on face value three in the arc might seem an easy fix, I think it has the potential to stop what we want to create - free flowing, less congested football. Why cant the attacking backmen be freed up to run the ball out of the 50 via say five bounces similar to someone like David Dench who changed the way backs played. This also has the possibility to add in another dimension of umpiring adjudication - when would a 50 arc person be penalized? Simply stepping over the line when clearing the ball or chasing someone who is? And how? And for coaching - would the six restricted players need to be permanent per game or could they be changed and if not why not? For mine this just creates extra complexity and the game is really crying out for simplicity.
BigAl
Guest
I like the idea raised by Jon Kau to have 3 players (or so ) permanently within the 50 metre arc - if only to have a real purpose for that linre being marked on the ground. Reducing the no of players to 16 is also worth condsidering.
Milo
Roar Rookie
Totally agree with Pete - we need to reduce the number of players on the ground. I favour 16 with 6 on the bench being 4 I/C and 2 injury subs. The injury subs are debateable as ruling them out as well would reduce list numbers reducing cost, and potentially increase the quality of play - that's 36 of the less talented players going around right there. However reducing numbers alone wont work unless you follow that up with I/C restrictions - ideally 64 down to 48 down to 32 in three consecutive years. While we don't want to return the game to the sixties, and most of us love the fast play on style a few clubs have brought to the table over recent years, the simple fact is that players are fitter, faster and stronger than ever before and the ground dimensions that tired out players and opened the play up say 50+ years ago haven't significantly changed to cope with that. So more players get to more contests, more often and later in the game than ever before. The congestion seems to be more constant and the talent that no doubt abounds is continually pressured making turnovers and fumbles more common than creativity and skill can be. I know Mark Evans has talked about it, but seriously I don't know why this isn't top of the agenda. It ticks just about every box I can think of to improve the spectacle of the game without imposing restrictions on players in certain areas which frankly would change the game a helluva lot more. As Chris Scott recently said, if the AFL played 16 v 16 without telling anyone, likelihood is that not many people would notice save for the game flowing better. Don't scream about reducing numbers being bad for juniors or suburban & country leagues - it would be entirely their choice as to maintain 18 or play 16 players on the ground, depending on the particular league's circumstances. And as for all those traditionalists who say don't change the game, Id say by doing nothing we are in fact changing the game... and its not a great look,
Vocans
Guest
Winning the stoppages and mauls will still be of the highest priority with 16, or less for that matter. There will still be an emphasis on numbers. Especially if there's more space to utilise in attack if you win the ball. We won't get rid of numbers without drawing an imaginary circle around the stoppages like at the centre bounce. And that looks a nightmare to umpire. Impossible really. So, we are left with ensuring the rules are adjudicated more exactly, because infringing the 'golden rules' of the game allows the sloppiness to develop which we call congestion. Free kicks will clear the area, and would be much to the advatage of teams in attack. So teams would deem it in their best interest not to give away those frees and exercise the skills required and fostered by the rules.
Pete
Guest
Reduce the amount of players on the ground to 16. Get rid of the wing positions like the old VFA competition did many years ago.
Republican
Guest
Definitely needs attention as the code often resembles Rugby at the breakdown but nowhere near as structured, while this is especially so at the centre bounce. That said the strategy of teams is often to go to ground because the emphasis to is to kill any offence, so cleaning up the centre contest is only part of any solution. This devolution of congestion has rendered any real spectacle a cliche exclusive to the marketing of footy today.
Jamie Radford
Roar Pro
And @Dom. The emergencies should not be considered as subs. Only to be used for a game ending injury - I just gave concussion as an example. Being down to one on the bench would be too big a disadvantage for a piece of bad luck, so in the case of concussion ONLY would act like a sub. Totally agree about holding the ball or incorrect disposal, and lowering the cap would do a similar thing. The idea behind the suggestion was to deal with congestion without any extra officialdom or rule changes. Only difference would be 20 players rather than the current 22.
Vocans
Guest
No subs. Umpire to the rules about disposal, holding, push in the back, and holding the ball and most of the congestion is gone. Free kicks into the forward 50 are nearly as good as gold in modern posession footy. Especially with the forward press. Players are given far too much time to dispose of the ball. You must get rid of it as soon as you are impeded in the tackle or it's holding - that should be the interpretation. It used to be. Then 360 degrees came in and largely went. Holding is holding even when hands are not used but arms. Dropping the ball is not correct disposal but you can always pretend the force of a player made you do it, even though in other situations all those gym sessions built a vice-like grip. How did that ball dribble down my legs?
Dom
Guest
I didnt like the sub rule when we had it. So i cant agree with this idea. Points for thinking outside the square. Or looking back. Haha I think severely limiting rotations would work better. If you only have a limited amount it would naturally mean that you have to keep you good players on the ground. The NRL did it apprently it worked with them bringing about a more entertaining game.
Jon Kau
Guest
How about 3 players need to always be in the 50m arc, both offensive and defensive players? That means 6 people less around the ball. Sure you would need an umpire to watch this, but it's a subtle way to keep players out of the congestion. Not sure if I like the 2 bench, 2 injury. Could be exposed as players feign injuries as instructed by coaches...not that I would expect that to happen. It might help teams to slow down the pace to conserve energy. But all these rule changes does lead to confusion from players and fans as umpires "interpret" the rules.