We’re back talking about ‘the game’ again. That tired, worn out cliché has one again been thrust upon us, with the veil of a successful debut round of AFLW cloaking some sinister works in virtual secrecy.
Over the weekend, the AFL world grew a little with the first round of the AFL Women’s League. Crowds flocked, gates were shut, football was played. It felt like Australian rules was back for another year – the stories of tracks being burned and houses falling down seemingly on their own took a back seat.
Last week was a momentous one for Australian rules football. But if you weren’t looking closely, you missed a significant shift in AFL House policy making.
A piece published by Fairfax media last Thursday was titled ‘AFL’s secret trials have the potential to revolutionise the game‘. In it, it was revealed AFL HQ had used practise matches by two AFL sides – Sydney and Geelong – to trial a 16-a-side version of the game.
It followed up a piece published on Tuesday, which confirmed St Kilda had also been used as a guinea pig but to trial zones at stoppages. The zones were enforced at stoppages, with at least two players from each team required to be goal side of each 50-metre arc before the ball was put back into play.
Prima facie, there is nothing wrong with this. The AFL would be negligent if it was sitting pat and not trying new things.
However, these were very deliberate stories – let’s not call them plants – pushed by AFL House. We know this because the executive team was wheeled out to provide quotes, designed to show us all that these trials are serious and we should all brace ourselves for change. It’s the same playbook that resulted in the abolition of the third man up for 2016.
The key reason cited for the introduction of the Marc Blicavs rule was was that it “was having no effect on improving congestion”. Never mind the statistics that the AFL rolled out showed it was a very effective tactic for teams who used it at ball ups to generate a clearance.
(I’m still salty about this one)
But I digress. Since when does everything have to be about reducing congestion?
There has been plenty of talk in recent years about congestion and the impact it was having on “the game”. It seemed to crest in the middle of 2015, where so many takes were flying I felt compelled to pretend I was a graphics designer for a day to come up with ‘The Expanded Goalsquare’ fix.
It was a crazy time, but a fleeting one, with Hawthorn and West Coast – two teams who were able to rise above the congestion which pervaded the mediocre sides with precision kicking and well-crafted game plans – facing off in the grand final.
We made it through the entire 2016 without any material talk of congestion, or “the game”, too. Where did it go? Perhaps the Bulldogs, who took to high volumes at the contest like a pig in mud, killed off the notion that congestion was uniformly a bad thing. Perhaps it was the general quickening of the pace of play, which meant more patches of wide open running to help balance the slog.
Maybe it was the 120-minute death match we know as the second preliminary final. It’s difficult to say.
Make no mistake folks, it’s back. Congestion is out to get us. We’ll all be congested. The game is in jeopardy. It’s time for drastic action.
Those aren’t my words. Those are the (liberally paraphrased) words of those who are charged with the long-term health and prosperity of Australian rules football. This line, roughly four paragraphs into Thursday’s revelatory article, sent the closest thing to chills a game designed to entertain and distract can send down my spine.
The laws of the game committee has concluded that there are two practical ways to reduce congestion: starting positions (zones) and reducing the number of players on the field.
Let’s break that sentence down, piece by piece.
The laws of the game committee…
You mean that unrepresentative standing committee that exists solely to tinker and toy with the fundamental foundations of a game which had existed for near-enough to 100 years before its existence without collapsing into a farcical pit of despair for which you now seem intent on both creating and then dragging it into?
The committee that had become so influential that AFL House felt compelled to draft a set of guidelines designed to put a hard limit on the committee’s madness? The guys that just recommended the abolition of a tactic that almost no one thought was a problem and almost no one was aching to get rid of? Oh yes. Those guys. Go on.
has concluded…
Fantastic. A conclusion has been reached. You haven’t even articulated the problem.
that there are two practical ways…
Let’s rule everything out except for the two things for which we have decided will be subject to trials.
to reduce congestion
Congestion! There it is sports fans. The pretext for every rule change under the sun. More congestion: bad. Less congestion: good. How much is the right amount of congestion? Who knows! It doesn’t matter though because we’ve already concluded that there exists on this earth two practical ways to reduce it.
Starting positions (zones) and reducing the number of players on the field
So that’s a hard no to The Expanded Goalsquare. Duly noted. At least that dastardly last touch rule has been given the Old Yeller treatment.
I have a third way for you guys. Leave it be.
Have your trials, throw science at the wall and see what sticks. But this talk of congestion is rapidly spinning out of control. It is the pretext for something else altogether, except I can’t work out what something else is.
Perhaps it’s all aimed at improving scoring, with congestion being the limiting factor behind the dip in league-wide scoring to below 90 points per game in recent years. That’s fine, but I suspect the 88 points per game that AFL teams put on the board last season is a very good mark.
Over the weekend, the average AFLW score was 26 points in a bit over an hour of play. That’s somewhat chalk and cheese, but it illustrates just how difficult it is to move a piece of leather from one end of an 180-metre playing field to the other using kicks and handballs. And as we’ve demonstrated previously, the best sides still have no trouble scoring well into three figures.
Perhaps it’s a pining for the good old days of 100-goal key forwards? Of one on ones across the ground and guys playing with two torn ACLs? I’ve got news for you, AFL House: those days aren’t coming back.
(As an aside, I had a chuckle to myself the other night when watching some of Fox Footy’s classic games. Saverio Rocca took a leading mark and Drew Morphett let the audience know that he’d been in and out of the team on account of a rocky year prior. Rocca had kicked 59 goals in said rocky year)
Even if it was possible, your two anointed practical ways aren’t doing squat.
Can you imagine Gold Coast’s Tom Lynch and GWS’ Phil Davis having to run back and forth from their position in a press zone and the 50-metre arc during a phase of play with a few repeat stoppages? Don’t tell me the coaches will abandon the press just because it might hold the game up for 20 seconds or so at each stoppage.
Don’t tell me the coaches won’t instruct their key forwards and backs to meander into position so they can set their midfields up how they want. It would be a disaster.
As for 16-a-side, with more open space on the ground, which players do you think are getting cut first? The ruck-forward and the key defender. There goes your hopes of a one-on-one contest inside 50. Indeed, 16-a-side creates even more of an incentive to stack numbers at the ball.
But I’m sure that’s what the trials are saying. And I’m sure we’re getting this thrust upon us anyway. In an ominous sign, last year Mark Evans was quoted extensively in The Guardian in a piece discussing the Laws of the Game Charter. His closing comments?
Evans suggested if the committee was minded, it “opens up the discussion on whether 18 players per team is the right number… or restrictions on movement to try and spread the game out”.
Well how about that. The Guardian piece also refers to a process whereby the Laws of the Game Committee produce research papers for consideration by the AFL executive and AFL Commission, which include evidence and a recommendation or piece of advice. I have never seen one of these papers. Perhaps they should be available for all to see, particularly when such fundamental changes to the rules are being touted.
For the sake of the game – damn it now I’m talking about “the game” too – AFL House must make their process around rule-making more transparent. AFL House must take the pulse of the fans, the players, the coaches, the administrator and the Laws of the Game Committee when considering fundamental changes to the way Australian rules football is to be played.
Mark Evans, who appears to be the administrative sponsor of this program, cannot be allowed to continue to push this agenda without more transparency.
AFL House simply must take a year off changing the rules. This is getting too much for a thinking fan to take. We are on the ground floor of the most even era of the AFL in what feels like an eternity. Let’s just leave things be, and see what the 700-odd professional footballers and 200-odd coaches and countless more administrators can do within the bounds of what we already have.
Indeed, the AFL might consider a congestion-busting initiative of its own: get rid of the Laws of the Game Committee, and build something leaner, more open and temporary in nature. That’s a resolution most fans could get behind.
Republican
Guest
.....spot on Leighton.
Republican
Guest
.......a team that is full to the brim with the cream are more than capable of playing rubbish footy, in fact the better sides excel at it and thats how they sustain their status at the top, the Doggies being the new exception.
Republican
Guest
......self perpetuating industry within the house, i.e. change for change sake to justify their existence?
Craig Delaney
Roar Pro
With lower than 16 the current grounds would dwarf the teams, let alone the human individual. I remember as a kid trying to play with small numbers at the local oval. We had to play half the field like you do in basketball. So, smaller teams would have to lead to smaller grounds, smaller crowds can fit in, and you don't get 100,000 at the G any more. (Come to think of it we still need to get back to that.)
Republican
Guest
.......concur with your sentiment Antony......
Jakarta Fan
Roar Rookie
I still think that giving 16 a side a decent trial in pre-season games could help us decide once and for all time if it is a concept worth exploring in the modern game. Try it and we'll all know the answer.
Cat
Roar Guru
Ball is 'live' once it leaves the umpires hands too.
Cat
Roar Guru
In my original post I used a slash line for a reason, the terms are interchangeable. To most people, at least not the ones fixating on semantics instead of substance, they are the same thing. Think about it, how do you illegally dispose of the ball? You drop it. If a player has had prior opportunity (whatever that is) they must correctly dispose of it via handball or kick. Anything else is a free. Drop it, lose it, hold it, stuff it under your Guernsey and pretend you don't have it, it doesn't matter, that's just semantics.
Bill
Guest
This is exactly like the time the AFL rules committee trialled a play on from backwards kicks rule in the VFL in an effort to reduce the the previous "plague" on the game, flooding. The rule had the opposite effect of course, as with the ball more likely to be kicked forward there was even greater incentive for the defence to flood back. Evolution of defensive structures killed off the flood on it's own and something similar will happen with the press and congestion around the ball. The AFL is attempting to sell the abolition of the 3rd man up as a safety first rule. Where is the injury data that suggests it was an unsafe practice? Moreover the implementation of the rule will cause fans to be outraged when a free kick is paid against their team following a poor throw in that is inadvertently touched by a non designated ruckman. The umpires assure everyone that poor throw ins will be recalled but also cite only approx. 12 being recalled last year. Ask yourself if you think they are more or less likely to recall them this year? By artificially reducing congestion the AFL may increase scoring but have they considered the effect that will have? In general higher scoring games are more predictable and less exciting contests. Is that what fans actually want to watch? It's also likely that more talented teams will win more games and make the competition less competitively balanced. The AFL would then need to introduce some sort of equalisation rule in order to even it back out. All these scenarios should be considered before rules are changed but given the way they chase their own tails it's quite obvious that not much thought is put into the process other than how they will sell the message.
Milo
Roar Rookie
hahaha I wish i was generation X. I spent many a Sunday down at Pt Melb watching the likes of Freddie Cook. Then the grannie down at the Junction Oval. The VFA had some fiery clashes in grand finals especially with Port but i never thought they were easier games than VFL. Some close ones, some blow outs, no different to the VFL. There were plenty of thugs in the VFL too at that time and my team had plenty of them. 16 or 18 a side made little difference then but the game has changed to playing finally tuned athletes who can run to contests all day. Possibly some of if not the fittest footballers on the planet when you compare the codes. The ground therefore IS smaller to these guys than say a galloping gasometer who came off the ground near the end of the 75 GF and lit up a gasper. We need to make changes as unlike other trends this one isnt a short term one, its generational. We;re not going back to the dinosaurs of the past much as it pains me to say it. Somethings got to change in my view or the game I love will continue providing too many mauls and congestion and the talent and skill of real footy players will be lost to the strong fast athlete who can run and make tackles. Btw 32 interchanges a game based on 16 a side can be managed quite adequately and easing it in over two three years will be enough to ensure the fitness and recovery of players is looked after by the guys who are paid the big bucks to do so. That said, they will still tire and thats what we want to open the game up in my view.
Republican
Guest
Reducing team numbers won't solve the congestion that is synonymous with our code today. There is plenty of space on our ovals. Because there is so much at stake commercially, the game is played not for enjoyment or to display the old skill set that once defined it but to win at all costs. Hence the emphasis on the ground level grovel and defence. If you decrease the team numbers by two in all likelihood the grovel will only be exacerbated. How you change this culture that determines our game is played akin to British Bulldog, I do not know?
Antony Pincombe
Roar Rookie
Did you ever see the VFA genius? I'd say no or you wouldn't be for 16/side. Your idea of 32 I/C is just as I pointed out a recipe for injury as players cool down too much from too long on the pine. That is one of the reasons the coaches wanted the Sub rule gone. You would lower the interchange to 8/quarter. That is the 6 players already on the pine, some of them may not get used as premier players go back on, then two more. This would be like having two subs really. You would make the bench look a lot like NRL, Soccer or RU. I have never been fond of forward and back full bench like American throw-ball. To me if you are going to have 16 on the ground you would have to go back to 2 or 3 interchange. Yes I do think about the game and you edited my statement. Why not quote the whole statement, ignoramus. By the way, if you are so Mensa minded why is it you can't spell? I bet you are generation X.
Antony Pincombe
Roar Rookie
The game is fine as it is. Neither rule would make the game better. I will guarantee you now that I and most of my friends will never watch the game again if they do this. We are really pissed off as it is the two greatest problems with the game have not been fixed. That being the interpretation of the incorrect disposal rule and the holding the ball holding the man rule. If they cleaned that up then we would have no so called congestion. By the way the greatest asset Aussie Rules has is that it is different to any other game. Exposure to other games is all well and good as long as you don't just copy them. because you end up the same as them and therefore you are that game not Aussie Rules any longer. for instance I can't see any benefit in adopting rules from NRL, RU, soccer or American Football. They are not pertinent to our game. Administrative rules are different, rules such as the draft & cap etc. But if you adopt their playing rules you will eventually start mirroring that game not your own. OUR GAME IS UNIQUE LET'S TRY TO KEEP IT THAT WAY!
Milo
Roar Rookie
Genius. '32 I/C would be a waste of talent sitting getting cold on the pine' '16 a side stinks' 'it has the huge downside in that you end up with the prospect of losing two of your fastest players.' Clearly the prescient visions of a profound thinker. Nuff said.
Milo
Roar Rookie
With lower numbers the grounds start to be too big, so the grounds would be smaller. That means smaller crowds can be accommodated. " Not sure i follow the logic. As said, the grounds havent changed for decades but the players are fitter stronger and faster than ever before so get to more contests more often for longer. Getting the grounds to be perceived as bigger is exactly what we want to remove congestion. With congestion and zones you dont get as much one on one whereas if the play opened up thats what you'd naturally get. The hits would be harder too as players would be running harder and freer.
Antony Pincombe
Roar Rookie
32 I/C would just be a waste of talent sitting getting cold on the pine. Bloody stupid idea. Invitation for those players to do a soft tissue injury. 16/side stinks. Stop trying to change the game it is great as it is. If you want soccer then follow bloody soccer. If you want NRL, follow that. If you want American Crapball then follow that but stop trying to ruin Aussie Rules. 16/side was not good in the VFA what makes you think it would be good in the AFL? The VFA was crap. The footy was so one sided sometimes that you could be forgiven in thinking that the word contest got lost by the VFA. I can't see any difference here. Great sides will murder lower sides in even bigger numbers. Swans win over collywobbles last year would have been almost double with 16/side they had so much room with 18/side the two less players would have given them a paddock.
Antony Pincombe
Roar Rookie
Not a fan of 16 a side that is old VFA. They were a joke. More thugs than good footballers. Players who were past it and one sides jaunts. More games were one sided than VFL, SANFL & WAFL combined. it has the huge downside in that you end up with the prospect of losing two of your fastest players. No you couldn't have them in the side, not both, one maybe. SIXTEEN A SIDE SUCKS. LEAVER THE GAME ALONE!!!
Antony Pincombe
Roar Rookie
Those Silvertails in at AFL house are ruining the game. The Rules Committee are not the ones pushing this agenda, it is Gillon McLachlan. He is the one who keeps telling us ad nauseam that the game is too congested. In fact one of the rules Committee, Leigh Matthews, has said often that the AFL need to leave well enough alone and not change things too much. In fact he was not a fan of the third up rule. He is a fan of cleaning up the holding the ball, incorrect disposal interpretaion but not rules. Mark Evans, the Footy operations Manager, seems to have been the one pushing for congestion change. This would have been at McLachlan's behest though. McLachlan seems to have this big bugbear about congestion. He mentions it pretty much in every speech as a problem. So the agenda is being pushed by a few to make our game as American friendly as they can. Get rid of the big hits, the so called congestion (or what the rest of us call great contested footy), get rid of hard tough sides to benefit outside runners (like St Kilda who McLachlan supports) and ruin the game for all the died in the wool supporters so the AFL can sell the game as an alternative to Soccer in the USA. I just wish these Silvertail nitwits would realise we have the best game in the world and leave it as it is and it will sell. That is if you sell it right. But until now they have been terrible at selling it and they aren't getting any better. If you try the so called tried and true American methods of selling our game to the Yanks as they have done you will always FAIL! Try doing something the Yanks have never done before, try selling the game itself in all it's glory. Try goading them to try it telling them Aussies are harder, tougher, smarter and more talented then them. That's the way to sell to the Yanks. Tell them they can't do something and sure as hell they will try to prove you wrong.
Redb
Roar Guru
I've been advocating 16 a side for over ten years, in needs to happen. 100 years ago they needed 18 players around the cricket oval, with today's fitness levels they are not required. Flick the wing position and allow the flankers to roam.
hooked13
Roar Rookie
Agree the prior opportunity rule needs a "tighter" definition. But the rule is either "holding the ball" or "incorrect disposal" There is no dropping the ball rule, as if a player drops the ball without being tackled, they have never, and I am guessing will never be penalised for "dropping the ball". Just as the rules 15.3.1 doesn't include bouncing the ball as a disposal either. But the ball is "dropped" from a players hands. I believe this makes it hard for umpires to give an "incorrect disposal" or "holding the ball" free kick with all the stipulations in 15.2.4, and especially point C where it states no free kick for "dropping" the ball unless there was prior opportunity.