Most credible football journalists agree: the AFL is going to change the rules this off season. The only question is how.
Jake Niall, the best Australian rules journalist in the game, wrote in the Sunday Age that the AFL is all-but certain to institute some form of change in the coming off season with the express intent of opening up the game on the field.
The league has come to the conclusion that change must happen, lest we all lose interest in a game that is aesthetically unappealing.
As the topic of the year, I’ve expressed my thoughts both in this column and in my Thursday slot. In Niall’s three “camps”, I sit somewhere between a Conservative and an Incrementalist.
I do not want the AFL to sit on its hands for the sake of it, but nor do I want to see radical changes made to a game in which the pace of its evolution quickens by the year.
In these bye rounds, with little to discuss beyond which teams might consider planning for next year (that comes Thursday), it is worth taking some time out to consider what some practical, incremental changes could be made. After all, if the AFL feels compelled to act, we all may as well have our own cards on the table.
Which as an aside might be a good position for everyone to take. Amongst the AFL’s various temporary committees set up to report to the standing Competition Committee is a fan-centric group.
The Roar sought clarification from the League on what this group may look like. We can reveal the group will meet in either late June or early July, ahead of the next meeting of the Competition Committee to be held before this year’s finals series.
The AFL is yet to determine how it will form the fan committee, with AFL spokesperson Patrick Keane suggesting the administration may either turn to its focus groups or set up a one-off group of fans.
Before this fan meeting, a committee of recently retired players will meet with the AFL’s game analysis group. They’ll follow on from the work of what I’ve been calling the Grumpy Old Man Committee, made up of long-term media types and members of the legend class of the Australian Football Hall of Fame. According to reports this group came up with no less than 35 ideas for consideration.
That’s a lot. But as these are net-casting exercises, and not places for decisions to be made, perhaps it is better to have as big a net as possible.
Gerard Whateley, of Crocmedia and Fox Footy fame, reported on AFL360 that only a handful of ideas had been endorsed for further consideration: expanding the size of the goal square, introducing starting positions at centre bounces, and reducing the interchange.
All others, according to Whateley, were found to violate one or more principles in the Charter of the Laws of the Game Committee – the document set up to safeguard the uniqueness of Australian football and save it from death by committee. Indeed.
These are all what one may consider to be incremental changes. But before we change a rule or two, how about we try enforcing those we already have?
As I wrote earlier on this year, as a first attempt to ease congestion, the AFL should attack the problem head on: start to pay more free kicks in said congestion. More free kicks are there to be paid. For holding the man without the ball. For incorrect disposal. For pushing in the back. For simply holding the ball.
(Photo by Adam Trafford/AFL Media)
The first order impact of this is clear: it stops a stoppage, and gives birth to a clear disposal. But the second order impact is perhaps more intriguing: it reduces the incentive for both teams to heave players at the ball carrier, because they know any false move will bring down the heavy hand of the law.
Alastair Clarkson is a proponent of this view; his thought carries more weight than any involved in the code full time. The incrementalist in me says this should be the starting point.
But from the words of others it will not be enough. The AFL will want to go further. It is here that I can draw on some previous material: the AFL should consider expanding the size of the goal square.
I first wrote of the expanded goal square in the 2015 season, around the time of the annual debate about congestion and the state of the game.
The idea is simple: expand the goal square to twice its length and three times its width, so it extends around 18 metres from the goal posts and spreads to cover the area immediately in front of the behind posts. All other rules regarding the goal square remain unchanged.
This has two benefits. It increases the incentive for teams to keep a forward or two deep at their end of the ground, with the knowledge that any kick from 70 metres could result in an automatic goal.
That helps stretch the ground out, the key to any change proposed. It also means a team taking a kick out does so with an extra nine metres to work with, opening up more angles and allowing for presses to be broken.
In this vein, the AFL may consider allowing any defensive mark taken inside the expanded goal square the same luxuries of a kick out as a means of breaking forward half presses.
(AAP image/Julian Smith)
And then there is the interchange, which may view as the panacea to the professional game’s challenge with congestion.
Australian rules had survived without any interchange bench from its codification through to 1978. And the current system of four players being available for interchange has only been around since 1998 – or just over one football generation.
Use of the bench is now capped at 90 changes a game. This will almost certainly go lower next year – the question is whether it could or should be gradually pared back and eventually eliminated.
A reduction to 60 would afford coaches and players the opportunity to use the bench to rest players. It works out to be around one change every two minutes, plus any changes made at quarter, half and three quarter time breaks.
Without any data to support this, I reckon 60 is the point where the bench moves from a business as usual means to give players a breather to a tactical weapon.
This is where the conservative in me arks up a tad: reducing the interchange cap is sure to have unintended consequences that must be explored before we go lower. Fiddling with the interchange is surely top of mind at AFL House.
Any further and we are stretching into radical territory, and I’m not quite ready to embrace my inner flower child. We can be sure these are being discussed, debated, deduced and drawn out at the AFL’s various committees and internal working groups though.
But for the sake of the game, here’s one piece of advice I can categorically offer to the league: don’t be hasty.
Kris
Guest
Every game that has an offside rule demands that players in an offside position let their opponent run past them without touching them. So basically most of them. A basketball centre isn't allowed to sit in the key even though his opponent does.
Griffo
Guest
Keeping things fresh!
Mick Jeffrey
Roar Rookie
Same boundary umpires at centre bounces are too busy looking for centre square encroachment then have to spread quicker than players to perform the primary function (adjudication of whether a ball is in or not), and goal umpires struggle to see at ground level what goes on 50m away, they'd be guessing if someone is in which is more dangerous than what we have now. Plus the money involved in the game would halve if replays were abolished, remembering that several Fox games are FTA games outside of Victoria, so they need time for ads too.
Mick Jeffrey
Roar Rookie
If I was coaching an AFLW team I'd instruct the 2 centre players to line up on the back edge of the square, as long as they're in that zone to start it doesn't matter if they're wings or half a kick behind. Then you either have virtually 7 on 5 defensively or you have a congested 7 on 7 should a woman marking system be used.
Mick Jeffrey
Roar Rookie
It's worse when you try to rotate the 6 to give them decent game time. I coached 16 a side last year (an overreaction to a so called lack of players at reserves level) and there were times I spent too much time worrying about who goes on at what time and who/when/for how long I rest someone instead of thinking of ways to win games to sneak into finals. Add to that the fact that 16 a side has a bigger impact on an attacking side than a defensive side. In today's zonal marking era the 2 players missing for bail out kicks to retain possession would be gone, leading to packs, ground ball or throw in, congestion. Then the ruckmen will again try to palm to virtually static players at a stoppage (that's how they've been coached) leading to tackle, 2 metre handball, tackle, stoppage or free kick where the ball is released so slowly the defence has time to reset, and repeat process. And yes I am a Level 1 coach current until 2020.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
That must be very reassuring for BigAL, Scribe. What a man you are!
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Christy, players in reserve for injury sounds like the substitute rule which used to be in and was pretty awful. Players hated it too. I agree with you ours is the best game but if you were at the Collingwood V Geelong game you would see 30 blokes roaming up and down the wings of the beautiful G in a rolling scrum while the rest of the sweet ground where Jetta and Rioli had their GF race, was totally empty and unused. It's how Geelong beat the Pies that day and you can't blame Chris Scott. He will do that all year against any goodd sides if it gets him a flag so you have to break it with laws.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Don't worry BigAL, as you suggested earlier to Truetiger, he loves to critique everyone elses comments and suggestions but never contributed ideas of his own. The rules ARE changing at the end of this year and the 6x6x6 at each bounce will be the first of them.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Pretty much can guarantee where Cat makes a suggestion TrueTiger will be there seeking approval. The game is losing fans and kids right now and the AFL must act. Drastic rule changes are the only way to avoid the damage to the AFL brand that is happening with the move to rugby style footy scrums.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Just about all codes have structured set pieces involving a cap on numbers.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Yeah, nah. They're not running a marathon, where a huge amount of focus can go to pacing a run. They're in a game of footy, and they're so caught up in reacting to the play as it unfolds.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Because their talent is often feasted upon by other teams, as they aren't seen as a destination club. Often struggling teams might not quite have the patience or capacity to match their needs in one or two drafts. Also players themselves can get disheartened and lose patience (individually or by the coaching panel) before their talent is fully realised.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
TV ratings are in decline across the board as people look to other mediums to access their entertainment in more convenient ways. Myself I tend to watch most games on tablet or phone via the AFL app.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
The interchange was introduced in the 1970's under the VFL, not the AFL. There were no caps. The third interchange came in the early to mid-90's. The "problem" as people see it, isn't interchange. The "problem" is the tactical advantage teams get from having more numbers around the ball.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Players also managed to be amateurs/semi-professional for a hundred years. There are so many profound differences between the game as it was and as it is now. Turning back the clock in such a simplistic way is not the answer. The reason why there was a different style of game with players being more fixed to a position is because they hadn't yet discovered the tactical leap of understanding the value of getting numbers to the ball, which far outweighs positional play in obtaining wins. Fatigue is a blunt instrument. Clubs will manage fatigue so they can still get whatever tactical advantage works best (or just to keep on par with others). Getting numbers to the ball (aka congestion) is such a tactical advantage and one of the bigger ones. The genie is out of the bottle and you aint going to put it back in with such an indirect measure like interchange elimination, instead you're likely to bring in a bunch of undesirable outcomes that come with fatigue.
Vocans
Guest
From time to time I’ve been saying for years on the Roar, both as Vocans and as Craig Delaney, that the rules were being eroded by the mistaken idea that they held up the game. I argued that elite levels of fitness and skill, the interchange (which, typically, went too far), new coaching measures, and the quicker kick ins, were responsible for increased speed in the game, BUT that congestion was still a bane on the game because rules were not applied. I argued that the modern player and coach was quite capable of moving the ball on quickly and breaking the congestion. Fix this for a season and then see what’s needed.
IAP
Guest
They already do that. The game is always most open just after a centre bounce. It's a stupid suggestion.
christy olsen
Roar Rookie
Here are two ideas. I really don't like rushed behinds. They are lame. I think they happen so much because the general view is that giving up one point is no big deal. But what if a rushed behind were worth two points? Any behind that was touched last by a defender counts for two points. A behind that last touched by the scoring team is worth one point. That might increase the incentive for defenders to keep the ball in play. What if the bench were cut down to one player, with unlimited I/C? There would be no need to keep track of I/C, and the field time would be shared amongst 19 players. Teams could have, say, two other players in case of injury. Those players could replace one the 19 active players, if needed. Then there is the opportunity for a little rest, but energy would still need to be managed strategically. It's a tough call. Personally, I don't think the look of the game is really all that bad. It's still light-years ahead of the NBA and NFL. Even soccer has gotten pretty lame with all the diving and whining. Blowout margins are probably the biggest problem right now. Overall, AFL is the best game out there.
christy olsen
Roar Rookie
It's the blistering first quarter that's the problem. The frenetic, "pressure" style of play used currently requires the chance to rest. Because they can rest, players can keep the pressure up the whole game. Knowing that energy must be conserved, players would use their legs more strategically. That means not running like a maniac everywhere, but instead making calculated, considered runs when they are most useful. So while the last term of a fast-paced game tends to get sloppy, it would be less so if the players had been moderating their energy and saving some for the end. Sustained, ferocious pressure is one thing that would have to be reduced. This would lead to less congestion.
dave
Guest
That is not a bad idea. It would encourage more shots at goal because you have a better chance of getting another crack if you kick a point. Also defenders wouldn't be too keen to concede a behind. And we might end up seeing the return of the torp!