The laws of the game have dominated the conversation for much of this season, a situation that was sure to ramp up during the bye rounds and has happened accordingly.
Fewer games to focus on is one reason, combined with several one-way contests. On Saturday, the three games were decided by an average of exactly 12 goals.
But ultimately, the football has become dull. The bad matches appear to be far outweighing the good. Congestion is the buzzword, and the game would be better for less of it.
Based on talk from those in the know (read Gerard Whateley on AFL360 and Jake Niall in The Sunday Age), change is coming at the end of this season and it won’t be small.
I’ve traditionally been a ‘leave the game alone’ guy. But here’s the thing – the AFL hasn’t left the game alone.
They’ve screwed it over with their constant rule changes, tweaks, manipulations and interpretations. Expansion certainly hasn’t helped, adding one more game of TV rights per round, but reducing the depth of quality across the competition. What a black hole Queensland football, and particularly the Gold Coast, has become. Free agency hasn’t changed things for the better.
The coaches are conservative, which is an enormous problem, and they need to be stopped. Attacking football is more likely to be winning football, but those that don’t have the weapons to pull it off prefer defensive method rather than backing the players in.
We only have to look at what Collingwood is producing this year. Last season, they looked limited – slow, poorly skilled, indecisive. This year, they are moving the ball quickly and are one of the hot teams of the competition.
Chris Mayne of the Magpies (Photo by Scott Barbour/Getty Images)
In simple terms, the game has gone to shit. Intervention is required.
Starting positions are a must, and are almost certainly a part of the future. This does not mean zones, which would be unrealistic and unworkable.
But starting positions should help lengthen the ground, spreading the players out over further, thus easing congestions.
Starting positions should incorporate the 50m arc, but to achieve meaningful change they must include the goal square. It might be a case of two from each team starting in there, and another two from each side inside the arc.
These starting positions would be enforced at centre bounces, certainly. But this will likely not be enough to ensure congestion is not a problem in general play in between goals.
Enforcing these starting positions at all stoppages might seem extreme, but it’s a conversation worth having. Perhaps at boundary throw-ins as a secondary measure, and any stoppages within the centre square as well.
There are people who want more free kicks paid, for reasons unknown. What we need is less rules, and less free kicks.
Think of what happens in the closing stages of close games. The footy is frenetic, desperation on both sides. Importantly, the umpires almost always put the whistle away. The players play, nothing soft gets paid, and a physical sport thrives.
There are far too many rules, most of which can be removed.
The sliding rule is the obvious one that has to go. If you can be first to the football, that shouldn’t come with punishment. It was an overreaction to one injury, and good judges will argue that it has in fact increased the likelihood of concussions as people keep their feet and clash heads when contesting the ball.
Front-on contact in a marking contest is another that has to go. It makes no sense. We want players running back with the flight of the ball, putting themselves at risk. Courage to do so is rightly applauded.
Blocking in a marking contest also needs to go. When did this become a thing? We’ve already got too high, holding and in the back. Why is there a need for anything else in a marking contest? If you’ve got good position, and are strong enough to hold it against an out-of-position opponent, then why should you be penalised?
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
‘Hands’ in the back can also go the way of the dodo. Let the umpire make a judgement about whether a push happened, rather than paying a free for incidental contact. That would be easier for them to do if the umpires had less rules to worry about in these marking contests.
The less rules we have, the fewer interpretations there will be. That will mean less ambiguity, and less inconsistency.
The AFL has put the game in the position it is by making it too complicated to adjudicate. Stripping it back will solve all manner of ills.
Paul OShannessy
Guest
I see a close similarity between AFL rule tampering and nanny state methods that are also smothering us. It also reveals itself in the new corporate world of procedures, controls, safety, quality, arse covering. It is all a nonsense. I am starting to enjoy Soccer more for its simplicity of rules. It is a refreshing change. The big problem is that there is no administrator brave enough to reverse the trend, to relax the rules, to remove rules. This would be seen as career suicide, but is definitely what is needed.
elvis
Guest
Great response to the article. From an outsider looking in, the answer looks simple. Problem, too much congestion. What relieves congestion? A kick out of it. Solution award more free kicks in congestion. More for holding the ball, incorrect disposal, high tackles, bad attitude, anything etc.
RT
Roar Rookie
Concerned supporter, what are you concerned about? A lot of people here are concerned about rugby-like rolling mauls in our game. This was Bob’s point. Your response to him is pretty immature.
RT
Roar Rookie
The author asks why some people want more frees. A reason for wanting more free kicks is that it will reduce congestion. It will also go a lot further than set positions would. After all, after a centre bounce, players outside the square sprint in to the middle and there is no reason why they won’t sprint to their preferred position from other set starting positions. In paying more frees you need only pay what is already there. e.g. a large percentage of tackles currently could be called in the back or too high but is too often considered incidental. The idea of removing prior opportunity will help even more and players will be likely to knock the ball on rather than take possession in the middle of a maul. Then in most cases the ball will come out in play or a free will eventuate. Large packs form now because players know the ball probably won’t come out. If a frees were paid more then players would either hold back or quickly run to another position. Less rules and less frees as the author proposes is not the answer. It is a large factor in what has gotten us into this mess.
Cat
Roar Guru
Incorrect. Only if a player has been deemed not to have prior opportunity may the ball be knocked out with no penalty. If the player with the ball has been deemed to have had prior opportunity and the ball is knocked out it is incorrect disposal.
RT
Roar Rookie
There is no "dropping the ball rule". A tackled player must dispose of properly i.e. handball or kick. If the ball is knocked loose during a tackle it is play on.
BigAl
Guest
So you're quite happy with the big mess it's in right now ?
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
If all these changes occur and don't ease congestion it's gonna leave the game in a bigger mess, not to mention leaving the industry as a whole looking downright stupid. Suggest some of these reactionaries take a moment and 'listen' to Luke Beveridge's thoughts. Probably a better judge than any of us here. Hopefully he gets a gig on one of these committees!
concerned supporter
Guest
Bob, '' Allowing guys who look like rugby players to hold onto the ball all day makes the game like- rugby and is boring as all crap to watch. '' Tell that to Fijians, Samoans, Tongans etc, Why do these people and the rest of the world for the last 150 years or so, do not '' embrace our great game''? Bob, are you like the majority of Victorians who are unaware that Rugby Union & Rugby League are 2 entirely different games?
BigAl
Guest
If you are referring to me, this, or anything truetigerfan chucks about apply !
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Or maybe it's their team that's having the blow-outs!
George Apps
Roar Rookie
I totally agree with you about the umpires, I've hated the microphones from day 1 - who wants to know what they think. We're making them more damn important than the players! Is there a dropping the ball rule, if so I haven't seen it paid for years!
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
A lot of the time it's just luck, it's why some coaches don't value centre clearances that much. But at the end of the day, the advantage of being first to the ball is getting first use. if the ball carrier is effectively tackled then the ball is in dispute.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
It's actually a really good rule for freeing up congestion and did so when it was first introduced in a big way. Players and umpires are just a little more uncertain about it, which makes it not work as well as it might. Given time and appropriate focus by the umpiring dept it could work really well. I'd also up the stakes by not allowing the impeding of a player who has clearly (strict interpretation on this) taken a mark. Give them every advantage to play on. You could even give them a little imaginary zone around the immediate mark area of a half metre or so, so that if the player on the mark interferes with their playing on they are penalised.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
It was silly play by Adams. The rule was there, everyone knows about it. Tthe Melbourne player followed the rule and kept his feet, while Adams left his feet to get an "unfair advantage" and gave away the free. Poor play and not that courageous.
Bob
Guest
Absolutely correct. Very well put. This used to be the he rule- have no idea why it was changed to accomodate the rugby mall.
Bob
Guest
If you get caught with the ball tough- so you should be penalised. Allowing guys who look like rugby players to hold onto the ball all day makes the game like- rugby and is boring as all crap to watch. If you can't dispose of the ball by handball or kick- it's illegal, always has been. There is no rule that forces you to pick the ball up. Have a look at KB in the 1982 GF. He was the master of knowing how not to get caught.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
50?
George Apps
Roar Rookie
The only way I can see is to take the game back to basics - basic common sense. An example is the sliding rule - I detest it! No-one knows what the hell is happening! Too many changes, it seems on a whim or because it's a bit trendy. Every year we have rule changes, tweaks, manipulations and interpretations. Make our great game simpler with far fewer rules, less frees, stripped back to the bare minimum. Scrap Queensland football, it has become a millstone around the neck of the AFL! Give us a Tasmanian team, which we should have had years ago. Whatever happened to the attacking, flowing, high marking game of the 70's? If there were less rules, it would be easier on the umpires and therefore less frustrating for the fans.
BigAl
Guest
. . .furthermore, Equalisation measures...; freeagency... were never intended, and can't address blowouts ! What is required is just a bit of internal game restructure !! Have you ever asked yourself - how come a team like the Crows, not a bad side, were in last years GF, gave last years premiers a bit of a toweling this season, yet were absolutely THRASHED by a team like Melbourne (not a bad side, not a great side...) I know they have injury problems, but that is always going to happen.