We’ve learnt via a press survey this week that AFL players are happy with the quality of game they’re currently playing and don’t see any need for radical rules changes to seek to improve it.
Surprise, surprise! Does anyone imagine the players were going to collectively declare the spectacle they’re putting on is mediocre? Do we expect them to say the game they play is in serious need of improvement? Of course not.
Anyway, it’s a tough game and those players do a brilliant job week in, week out (except when the AFL stops the show for a week before the finals). They understandably feel they’re putting on bloody good entertainment and they’re entitled to be proud of it.
But that’s my point: inviting them to vote ‘Yes, the game needs rule changes to make it better’, is like holding a plebiscite among turkeys on whether the traditional Christmas dinner should be maintained. The outcome is obvious before votes have been cast.
And just as the vote was predictable, so was the reaction of the players’ association CEO, Paul Marsh. “The players believe the game is in good shape and don’t see the need for any fundamental changes to how it’s played or adjudicated,” said Marsh. “There’s ongoing frustration with the constant changing of laws of the game, which we think is creating confusion for players, spectators and umpires.”
Certainly, the regular fiddling at the edges of the laws, and the inconsistency with which some revised interpretations are adjudicated (e.g. the rushed behind and deliberate-out-of-bounds), are matters that frequently infuriate spectators. Marsh is right on that part.
But what the players were expressing a view on wasn’t the stuff of fiddly change, or change for change’s sake. They cast votes on such specific issues as a reduction in the number of permissible player rotations, the employment of on-field zones, and the notion of a reduction to 16 players-a-side.
These ideas are only under discussion due to the enormous change that has come upon the modern game. All too frequently in today’s highly evolved football, all 36 on-field players are in one congested quadrant of the ground. The modern game is all-too-often a slow moving, congealed mess. The word ‘scrum’ is increasingly invoked.
As I’ve pointed out on other occasions, Australian football has specific rules which make it distinct from the rugby codes. This is important. The ball can’t be thrown. A player running with it must bounce it every 15 metres or be penalised. There is no offside rule.
(AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
The game’s free movement is another matter which has long caused it to look different from the rugbies. Of late there is too little of it and too many extended periods of the game being stagnant and ugly.
And if the players want another no-brainer of a question, perhaps they should ask themselves who suffers when the game is ugly. Because, of course, the answer isn’t them: it’s the paying public.
An alternative wording for that answer is ‘the people who line the players’ pockets’.
The tone of Paul Marsh’s comment seems to reflect a defensiveness on the part of the players’ body. Which is disappointing, because the players – like everyone who cares about Australian football – should be open to change, for their own good as well as for the game they play.
There is absolutely no need for them to feel slighted at the mere question of whether modifications might be warranted.
Having said that, it’s understandable that many players will deliver a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion of a need for change. They enjoy the combative nature of the game and probably leave the ground each week without a thought for whether it was a good spectacle.
The vantage-point of their CEO, however, is different. He’s a step removed from what happens on the ground and is thus able to take a more objective view. He also must be capable of recognising that there’s no one more important in this discussion than the fans. For there would be no ‘elite’ game without them.
The fans are the ultimate judge of the quality of entertainment being provided. Marsh has a responsibility to reflect that, both to the players he leads and in his public comments.
Footballers are lucky in that the fans are so deeply invested in their clubs. For it is that loyalty, at least as much as it is affection for the game itself, that causes ground attendances and TV audience numbers to continue to be strong. Even for games that are lacklustre. And that’s what drives the industry.
We should all be open to change as the need arises, or simply to bring improvement. Only a turkey would not to see that. And, right now, there is reason to at least canvass the possibilities.
Kiama Chris
Guest
Lots of interesting ideas here, some maybe better than others. Have a think though about the health implications of further reducing rotations. At the speed and intensity of the game I believe we would see many more soft tissue injuries. Very interested in genuine medical opinion on this. Agree that calling ball up and doing it quickly really helps reduce congestion. Watched a NEAFL game recently where the umps did this and it flowed so much better. In fact the umps generally seemed to do better. Perhaps they had fewer weekly instructions to carry out and just umpired. Someone said get rid of the interpretations on rushed behind and deliberate OOB. Nice idea for sure but pretty hard to execute. For my money reducing player numbers on the field will increase the slingshot offense more than reduce congestion. Coaches will still want to win the inside ball and that takes numbers. IMHO strict enforcement of holding the ball and incorrect disposal is the way to go. Not so much rule changes as enforcement changes. If I see one more player drop the ball cold when tackled and not get pinged I will be very upset.
Kane
Guest
Agree with everything. Get rid of this crackdown that they have of rule of the week (even tho they say it doesn't happen) and just umpire to the rules of the game. Some weeks they pay one rule so fiercely that they miss a heap of other things. I don't for one minute blame rhe umpires because they do a great job but just let them umpire, stop changing stuff mid week or mid season confusing everyone.
DB
Guest
Yes their is more congestion, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I love teams that can do the quick kamikaze handball game (Bulldogs 2016) that can open itself up to some great forward thrust to an open field.
DB
Guest
and watch as players hunt other players near the ball ready to tackle instead of taking the ball themselves as they can earn a free kick.
DB
Guest
I think they have got the 'in the back' free kick just right in not calling a free for the majority of times that in yesteryear would have been a free for any forward flop by a player, though the consistency like with most frees is still an issue. I have no issues with over the head hanballs either, if it is a handball.
Leonard
Guest
And another "suggestion makes me sick. Why do people in the media keep trying to push" changes to the Brownlow criteria? Can't these keyboard warriors and worriers accept that whatever foreigners do in their foreign versions of Foot Ball is irrelevant? We have our B&Fs, they have their MVPs or whatever. Stop cringeing to foreigners, or (hopefully) you will go blind. BUT, I'd support two changes with some similarities to what is being urged for the Brownlow: (i) extend the Coleman medal tally to the very last premiership game each season (after all, Coleman himself brought up one of his 100s in the GF) - why should a great goal-kicker be 'penalised' because he and his team made the Finals, FFS!? (ii) limit the Norm Smith to Best in the WINNING TEAM - Smith was one of the game's 'winningest' players and coaches, wasn't he? Would he have wanted his eponymous medal to go to a loser? Absolutely effin' ridiculous that a Swans player did not win one when his team broke that 72 season drought. (Which, remember, went to media darling Judd, he who jumped ship when things got too hairy at the Eagles.)
LongSuffering
Guest
The rules are tinkered with because the game is NOT in a good shape. - There are rules which are difficult to adjudicate. - Infringements ignored to keep the game flowing - Umpire decisions are based upon guidelines which do not comply with the rule. eg handball, incorrect disposal and deliberate behind. - Umpires have too much influence on the game as they do not consistently appling the rules, it's far worse than any other sport. Unfortunately the consequences of changes are not sufficiently considered eg increasing 15m to the 50 metre which can be an excessive penalty resulting in a goal for a minor action. The Fans want the game to be fixed but don't trust the AFL to do it correctly.
Lroy
Guest
exactly, players wont get hurt either as they will get rid of the ball before getting tackled. Get caught, your gone, no discussion , its a free.
Tom M
Guest
Zones... Really Tim, this suggestion makes me sick. Why do people in the media keep trying to push their own agenda and try to change our great game. This is now the last time I read one of your articles Tim.
I ate pies
Guest
All they need to do to get rid of congestion is to pay holding the ball frees correctly. Get rid of prior opportunity - if you get tackled and you don't handball or kick you lose the ball. Problem solved, easy peasy. The game would flow and they're be less congestion.
Antony Pincombe
Roar Rookie
Well said Rick I agree with all of that. I'd just add two more items.\. Make the Deliberate Out Of Bounds & the Deliberate Rushed Behind rules less interpretive. Change the umpire's timing on calling a stoppage. In SA they whistle up far quicker and throw up immediately. Too bad if the ruckman isn't ready. The game flows immediately and there are far less stoppages from a throw up than in the AFL. With AFL set plays from a stoppage everyone is ready and waiting for the umpire to throw up so you get lots of extra stoppages.
Rick
Guest
Leave the numbers on the field alone, reduce the interchange to 32 per game or less The game has definitely deteriorated due to the AFL's insistence to "keep the ball moving" and responding to "the publics" so called desire to see less stoppages. This has resulted in an ugliness that makes the worst game of rugby look like ballet, if the rules were properly adjudicated, the players would adjust and we would have a more free flowing skillful game. Pay any high tackle unless it's obvious the player has intentionally tried to draw a free kick Pay in the back when the tackler drives the ball carrier forward Pay holding the ball when the ball carrier has prior opportunity Pay incorrect disposal when the ball carrier simply drops the ball or hands it to a team mate Pay holding or interfering with the player off the ball Pay a kick against the third man in when the players are already on the ground and it's clear his intention is neither going for the ball or tackling the player with the ball, just merely keeping the ball locked up or protesting that the ball hasn't been released Pay a free kick for hand balling over the head, always a throw
Mattyb
Guest
Some really good suggestions there Milo,agree with all of that.
Kane
Guest
Agree with a lot less interchanges, a team in Tassie but I'm massively against reducing on-field numbers. And if they make zones on the ground then they'll lose millions of fans.
Milo
Roar Rookie
Thanks Tim, great article and 100% agree. Id also throw in that even if you asked the general public what should be done you'd still get the usual 'leave the game alone'... 'it will be ok and sort itself out' response by a majority although that majority may be a fair bit reduced than the AFLPA majority. Its human nature to resist not embrace change. And frankly too often there has been change more perceivably for the sake of change in our game. For mine - 15 or 16 players on field, six on bench PLUS interchanges capped at a reducing 64, 48 and finally 32 over three seasons. What we need to recognize is that ground dimensions haven't really changed in 100 years but players are stronger, faster and more durable athletes than ever before. So more players get to more contests more often. We cant change the dimensions of the ground, and shouldn't, but we can do something about reducing the number of players getting to each contest. This reduction in players and I/Cs will create more free flowing footy and likely more one on one contests and positional play. Hits will likely be harder with extra space to run in to, so we'd need to watch that Overall though, these changes Im sure will more strongly differentiate the product from the rugbies. I hate the idea of zones and restricting player movement through lines on the ground - it would turn the game on its head IMO and make it a poorer spectacle. The reduction in numbers of players and I/Cs is a far more simple way to change the game for the better. Finally Tim although you may not agree, I think we need a team in Tassie asap.
Gecko
Guest
Sounds like a pretty boring survey. Surely there are more interesting questions to ask players than just 'are you happy with the way the game's currently being played?'
BigAl
Guest
Agree with all here Tim - a bit like the old "...letting the lunatics run the asylum" !