It’s not always wise to take everything that the Herald Sun writes seriously, but their latest ‘How the AFL could look by 2050′ article needs a response.
The alleged success of AFLX has emboldened those who are determined to change everything in the game, and while the article is almost certainly taking the most extreme viewpoint about the future of the sport, the problem is that some near the top of the AFL are determined to listen only to this, and not other, smaller, more sensible proposals.
In 1899, a visit by the English rugby team to the Australian colonies led Henry Harrison, one of the founders of the Australian game, to propose talks to amalgamate the rules of the different codes of football which then existed – Victorian rules, rugby and soccer.
The aim was to create a game that could be played “between English and Australian footballers…as frequently as between the cricketers”.
Of course, nothing came of this and, except for a serious proposal in the mid 20th century to try to merge Australian rules with rugby league, the codes have remained entirely separate.
But now, the Herald Sun expects us to believe the AFL is on the verge of developing a code of football that will be played and accepted worldwide.
The fact that they are basically proposing a rugby-soccer hybrid seems to have been overlooked. Eleven players on a rectangular pitch with an offside rule, no bounces while running, and the removal of behinds (therefore having only two goal posts), sure doesn’t sound like Australian football – either as it is now or has been in the past 100 years at least.
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
But maybe this rugby-soccer will take the world by storm. Unfortunately, it’s not a game that would be recognisable as Australian football.
In 2050, we can confidently predict that the game will still be fundamentally the same – played on an oval with the same scoring system as now.
Super-goals might be introduced, and if they are it will be hard to remove them. The number of players on the ground might be reduced to create space, likewise at least one player might have to remain inside the 50-metre arcs. And, since the AFL seems determined to get rid of them at every opportunity, boundary throw-ins might become a thing of the past.
This is not saying that these changes should be implemented, but that these are the types of changes that the AFL should be looking at if they wish to ‘develop’ the game. The difference between these changes and the ones suggested in the Herald Sun is that even if all these changes occurred, the game would still be Australian football, not a completely separate product.
Changes to the AFL should not be driven by the need to compete with other codes of football. Any changes to the game need to be driven by a desire to increase the quality of the current product, not the creation of a bastardisation of other codes.
If there is to be a kind of ‘global football’ that emerges within the next 30 years, then sure, the AFL should get involved in its creation – but its main role, as the guardian of Australian football (and its uniqueness), can never be forgotten.
chris
Guest
Why can't the 12 million migrants be from places like USA, Canada, New Zealand etc who have a tougher Football culture then Soccer.
Martin
Guest
The AFL doesn't need hybridisation just because they fear 10-12 million soccer migrants by the year 2050. It's up to the federal government to give more points to potential immigrants who are prepared to become a member of any of the 18 AFL football clubs. After all doesn't the government already give points according to their skill set and education. The newspaper article is quite radical and I couldn't see the state of Victoria ever having just two teams, perhaps down to four but that's at least ten years away.
RandyM
Guest
Interesting, I didn't know that about Rugby.... A Try in Rugby is still a lot harder to come by than a goal in AFL though. NFL has touch downs which is the same idea.
Perry Bridge
Guest
We used to have the 'little mark' - okay - back in the 1800s. The AFL tried to encourage kicking to the gorillas via the chopping the arms however that hasn't been paid nearly as much as it should be. That midfielders are getting taller and taller - it's harder to just kick long to the ruckman because there's just about always people coming over the top and spoiling. We could make punching the ball illegal?? Noting - from AFLX - a spoil out of bounds is a free kick - that ideally encourages marking from behind (may as well if a spoil that goes over the line concedes a free anyway!!). Worms in cans...
Perry Bridge
Guest
#shirtpants Rewarding mediocrity. What's wrong with that? A behind is worth 1/6th of a goal. And you concede possession to the opposition - so, that little reward is balanced somewhat. And a behind includes touched, 'own goals' and posters Now - look at soccer - all touched/own goals and posters are 100% equal to a goal scored by the attacking team. There is no QUALITATIVE component. Now - look at the Rugby codes - originally a run in/touchdown allowed a try at goal - you only scored points for kicking the goal. All a bit hard - and too many draws. What to do?? Make that 'run in' worth points. Call it a 'Try'. It's not an 'Achieve' - - i.e. a 'Goal' - - it's a 'Try'. And yet - it's evolved that the 'Try' is now the object of such games and worth more than any version of a 'Goal'. When does the 'Try' become the 'Goal/Object' of the game - well, it already has just not in name. Talk about rewarding mediocrity!!! So - a behind in Australian Football - it's a bit of a 'consolation' - - a bit like a participation ribbon for those missing the podium!! But it serves 2 important roles. 1. Helps create 'offset scoring' - scores less likely to be level and reduces the number of drawn games and allows the lead to change with alternate goals whereas in the binary score codes (netball/soccer/hockey) it takes 2 goals to overtake a 1 goal deficit (to 'change the lead'). 2. It's a bit of a 'buffer' that makes having more speculative shots at goal seem more palatable. A miss still turns over the ball but you get a point for it. In the old days - had to wait for the wave of the flag and there might be more time to set up the defensive structure to trap the ball in. These days a kick in from a behind has more freedom/protection than a kick in from out on the full - - you'd almost prefer not to score a behind these days. It's actually such a reward - this kick in - that a rushed behind of any type should perhaps result in a bounce at the top of the goal square, because defenders are all too willing to concede a behind to gain effectively a free kick (it's a bit of an 'offside-trap' style cop out).
Ditto
Guest
Shirtpants, could you please tell me in the case of the ball being touched or rushed through the goals, with no behinds what happens next?
Aligee
Guest
I am sort of on the fence, i can see the points for : as in easier to play, less congestion etc, but the points against, it is great seeing a Sherrin kicked well around the ground, with laser precision drop punts and good high marking in particular. As an aside Gaelic football last year ( ?) bought fielding back in, fielding in Gaelic is our version of marking. https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2016/1130/835552-on-your-mark-gaelic-footballs-new-rule/ The difference between the AFL and the GAA is the GAA see Gaelic football as a part of the mosaic of Irish culture and are not fussed on taking it to the rest of the world, the AFL although the game is a big part of much of Aussie culture is a behemoth that loves to expand and make money.
CLARKY
Guest
Just another tactic to take councils grounds off rugby league and soccer where possible in nsw & qld Smart work by the afl on the long term
Cat
Roar Guru
That is still a behind – a rushed behind specifically. Perhaps the OP meant get rid of the point posts and just have the goal posts.
Ditto
Guest
If the ball goes through the goals off hands, wouldn't that still score a point?
valhalla
Guest
20 - 25 metres .... anything to stop what i consider a frustrating eyesore ..... you might be right about its impact on pack marking .... does seem to be an aspect of the game thats made way for a more open style of play as teams try to counteract well drilled zone defenses in any event, the chip chip stuff is an annoying tactical aspect of a game that coaches employ to control the ball/momentum and minimise error in front of goal .... and in a game thats at its best when reliant on speed and creativity, that jars
Paul D
Roar Guru
Also good points. I think they should move to a round ball if they're going to play this game - if the idea is to make it more accessible to soccer playing nations, surely you use the same sort of ball.
Aligee
Guest
I don't see it like that, I can remember how open the International rules games were using a Gaelic ball, you don't have to second guess the ball, you don't need a lifetime of learning/knowing which way the ball will bounce etc, the games were extremely open compared to stacks on the mill using a sherrin that everyone has to wait for ( in general) rather than running directly onto it knowing 100% which way it will go, that was my impression of a AFLX type game.
Cat
Roar Guru
The good thing about behinds is it makes draws a lot rarer.
Cat
Roar Guru
30m is too much but an increase to 20m would work (then we might get umpires actually ruling to 15m instead of the marks being paid at or less than 10m we get now).
Joe B
Guest
Changing marks to 30m would probably discourage kicking, and most likely result in less pack marks. Chip kicks aren't that big a problem, good players/teams adjust their defensive play to counter.
Cat
Roar Guru
He didn't answer mine first
i miss the force
Guest
you didnt answer his question
valhalla
Guest
the chip chip chip stuff is an eyesore imho .... would be happy to see marks awarded to kicks 30m and over .... as with any rule change teams adapt and exploit to advantage .... a 30 m kick min for a mark i think would led to some very beneficial changes not least of which would be an increase in contested pack marking .... also, teams wanting to avoid rebound footy through high risk bombs deep into their forward 50 might start chancing their luck more at goals on the run from distance
shirtpants
Roar Guru
Should get rid of behinds. Shouldn't reward mediocrity. I'm not sure anyone cares its a "world game", do they? AFL is reasonably well supported in Australia so I dont think much needs to change; certainly nothing too drastic.