AFL’s state of the game: A couple of easy changes will make all the difference

By Max Hatzoglou / Roar Pro

After an entertaining 2017 season, the state of the game is coming into conversation just seven rounds in.

Many experts and followers of the game are trying to find reasons and solutions for the congestion and lack of scoring that fans have seen this year.

Truth is, there’s only one reason causing it all and a few changes will find the solution.

In a physical game where 36 players are on a field at a time, decision making can be the toughest component for those with whistle in hand.

Nevertheless, this toughness can be reduced by clearing the congestion where most free kicks appear.

In saying this, there must be a solution to help the umpires and the game develop into a better one.

In the wake of this conversation, many have said that the game could do with reducing interchanges or implementing a zoning system.

The issue with reducing interchanges is that you are making the game harder than it already is for players.

By reducing interchanges, fatigue will increase for players resulting in lower skilled games. This will most likely cause more congestion as stoppages will increase with more turnovers occurring from skill errors.

More stoppages will result in more contests and less scoring and free-flowing footy. This is evident in AFLW where skill levels are low, resulting in congestion and low scoring games.

A zoning rule is too big a change to the structure that the modern game is played in. As well as this, by implementing a zoning system, you’re changing the long-lived traditions and integrity of the game.

You might think of it as a way of reducing congestion although there are other solutions to this that won’t cause as much destruction to the values of the game.

When the solution to congestion of zoning was brought up, Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley responded with, “We don’t need to play under 9s and start putting players in zones, we don’t need to modify the number of players on the field. We just need to apply the rules as they were meant to be applied.”

(AAP Image/Julian Smith)

Buckley wasn’t passionate for the zoning or lowering the number of players on the field to 16.

He believed that the solution to the congestion was paying more free kicks to award the tackler by giving no prior opportunity in context to when a player receives a disposal of the ball from another player.

Alastair Clarkson agreed with Buckley on this matter that the interpretation of prior opportunity needed to be changed.

Buckley said that “If teams want to handball in a short space to get numbers into that congestion and they want to handball and take the tackles on, if you possess the ball but you don’t kick or handball it, then it’s a free kick against.”

“It would change the behaviour of the people with the ball and the tactics they’re asked to execute because if you put two or three quick handballs together inside or you gave a handball to a player who was hot and he was tackled, regardless of prior opportunity or anything, if he had the ball, was tackled and didn’t handball or kick it, then that’s a free kick.

“That would be rewarding the tackler.

“Tactics would change because you wouldn’t get as many handballs in tight and if you don’t get as many handballs in tight then you’re less likely to commit your numbers in tight. You’re more likely to commit your numbers to other parts of the ground.

“You would see sides still willing to take the tackle on and still willing to stand up in the tackle and handball or dispose of the ball in a legal manner but you would probably get other tactics that would say we’re not going to handball in congestion, we’ll just kick.

“Because of those varying tactics you would get less congestion, there’s no doubt.”

[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]

People’s view of this solution became worrying from the umpires’ point of view as the thought of it as being too tough for the umpires to adjudicate came up. It is something that the umpires will need to develop into their roles to put the game in a better position.

The second solution is to change the way that games are adjudicated by umpires. It is time to scrap the ruck nomination and just bounce (or throw) the ball up.

The nomination system has got out of hand to the point where umpires are now waiting for the ruckmen to get to contests for ball-ups. This has given other players, including defenders and forwards, the opportunity to get around the ball resulting in congestion and slow play.

The AFL and their umpires need to make the decision of just balling the ball up. Not worrying about nominating rucks although continuing with the rules of the way rucks should contest.

The rules of only two players going up in ruck contests and keeping one metre apart still need to be applied.

This will decrease congestion by moving the game on and it will almost get rucks at contests every time, reducing the chances of forwards and defenders congesting around the ball.

(AAP Image/Joe Castro)

The final solution for our game is to extend the running capacity from 15 metres to 20.

This will allow players with pace to use it to their advantage so they’re able to run the ball out of congestion without having to bounce it every 15 metres.

It will also give players the ability to break a game open which will bring a heap of excitement for fans. This will increase the entertainment value of our game as there will be more instances of the famous Cyril Rioli chase on Lewis Jetta that was seen in the 2014 grand final.

These three solutions are there although it is up to the AFL to decide when to implement them and judge whether their state of game needs a quick fix or one for the long term.

The AFL’s competition committee, which includes players, coaches and club administrators, will meet this Thursday to discuss several aspects of the game involving the issue of congestion.

You’d hope that there’d be some solutions coming out of that meeting.

The entertainment value of the game is crucial for its supporters and for the expansion of the game so the AFL needs to make sure that they’re getting it right.

Bear in mind the AFL showcases its game in less than two weeks in Shanghai for the second time when Gold Coast take on Port Adelaide.

Will they want a low scoring, congested game or a high scoring, free-flowing game?

The Crowd Says:

2018-05-08T13:06:49+00:00

Dalgety Carrington

Roar Guru


The link to opening up the game, seems more in hope than anything guaranteed with his research. He also said the reduction in scoring is a inter-code phenomenon, which pretty much indicates the defence-wins principle. They also referred to the game opening up when they first reduced the interchange, but that was probably more to do with the creating more space around the mark rule.

2018-05-08T11:54:51+00:00

Philby

Guest


The whole 'state of the game' discussion is a bunch of nonsense. Great games, great crowds....leave the game alone.

2018-05-08T11:13:54+00:00

Aligee

Guest


Well, he has quite a substantial amount of data and studies to back him up, whether he was handpicked to back up KB's beliefs or not is beside the point IMO, he makes sense. Unless I am mistaken he has more credibility than any posters on here.

2018-05-08T10:35:26+00:00

Dalgety Carrington

Roar Guru


Looks like he is trying to extract Martin's heart via incantation.

2018-05-08T10:29:02+00:00

Dalgety Carrington

Roar Guru


So you reckon KB would've got someone on the show who had the opposite opinion? #handpicked

2018-05-08T10:08:06+00:00

Aligee

Guest


As i stated below i am not quoting Kevin Bartlett, but Gavin Norton speaking to Bartlett, he explains it, but i am guessing you just didnt bother to listen, to which i am not surprised.

2018-05-08T10:05:22+00:00

Aligee

Guest


I am not quoting Bartlett, the bloke stating it - a Uni professor was on his show, was employed at different stages by the AFL. Bartlett agrees with him. And i agree with him. And i quote ....... “I was on the laws of the game committee for a long time and for about 16 years, they had a bloke called Kevin Norton, a professor in South Australia who is an expert in all this sort of stuff, density, speed of players etc,” Bartlett told SEN’s KB and The Doc. “He kept giving us reports year after year after year. Why the AFL paid for the report, I got no idea, because they took no notice of him whatsoever. “One of the things he told us was that tiring players would not only open up the game, but would reduce soft tissue injuries created by repeat sprints at top pace. “You hear a lot of people say, oh no they’re going to tear their hamstring, they’re going to do their calf muscle. This bloke has done this research for 16 years and he says reduced soft tissue injuries created by repeat sprints at top pace. ........... Listen to Kevin Norton explain it, if you don't agree , you don't agree, but i am not quoting Kevin Bartlett.

2018-05-08T06:43:59+00:00

Harsh Truth Harry

Roar Rookie


it's simple blokes! let footy be played the way Woosha coaches! He coaches pure footy the way it should be played to attract fans, not the rubbish put forth by Horse Longmire, copied by Clarkson and Bolton! Adjudicate Gilligan at the AFL! get the game back as it should be played Gilligan!

2018-05-08T04:52:56+00:00

Tom M

Guest


Quoting Bartlett.... Is the equivalent of a university professor writing a paper based on his research using Wikipedia. The bloke has lost his touch with game and is a fossil who has quickly forgotten how bad some of the games were to watch back in the 80s

2018-05-08T04:46:29+00:00

Tom M

Guest


I agree that prior opportunity should still be a thing, but umpires should be cracking down on players just dropping the ball, bulldogs were masters of just dropping the ball whenever they got touched during their gf run and its infuriating.

2018-05-08T04:43:40+00:00

Tom M

Guest


Disagree 100% Aligee. Coaches will just push more players around the ball no matter the interchanges and on the flip side you will have no players spreading to space because they will be too tired. With 30 I/Cs you will end up with a worse version of the game played on Friday night. Reducing the time players have to get set up around stoppages and awarding incorrect disposal will have a far greater effect.

2018-05-08T04:32:45+00:00

Tom M

Guest


Just get rid of the ruck nomination, just make it so only 1 player from each team can contest it, simple and removes the need for this ridiculous nomination.

2018-05-08T04:09:39+00:00

Birdman

Guest


yep - Jetta won that battle but Rioli won the war!!

2018-05-08T04:08:49+00:00

Birdman

Guest


maybe worth a shot in pre-season but may not be a panacea or get AFLPA buy-in if they see it as a risk to player wellbeing.

2018-05-08T04:07:00+00:00

Birdman

Guest


yeah a further reduction in interchange is NOT going to happen unless the AFLPA support it and there's no real prospect of them doing so - OH&S issue for it

2018-05-08T03:46:55+00:00

Cat

Roar Guru


One more thing, if you are looking for credible support don’t quote Campbell BrownKevin Bartlett
Everyone but diehard one-eyed Richmond supporters know this guy lost touch with the game a couple decades ago.

2018-05-07T23:18:22+00:00

Trevor

Guest


The Jetta Rioli incident was in 2012 not 2014. Jetta didn't get near the ball in 2014.

2018-05-07T12:12:34+00:00

JamesH

Roar Guru


They will still push them to the contest because there is still time to do it, even if they have to run themselves into the ground. The only way to stop as many players getting to the contest is to take that time away from them. So your argument is wrong, lol.

2018-05-07T12:09:49+00:00

Slane

Guest


That's classic! In my opinion it surely has to do with either: a) The number of bodies around a contest or b) A relaxation of the rules surrounding the tackle Probably more likely a combination of both. I think players know they can grab the ball and charge forward whilst spilling the ball in a tackle. I think they do it on purpose to move the ball forward and get a clearance. If we were to disregarf the 'prior opportunity' rule it would reduce the benefits of having more bodies at the ball. If the choices are only limited to paddling the ball forward or taking on the tackler the benefits of clogging the contest should be much reduced.

2018-05-07T10:35:16+00:00

Phelps

Guest


16 players. They had it in the VFA and no issues with the fabric of the game. Will open the ground up also. Added benefits is less cost to clubs.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar