As the AFL get closer to the October deadline, where AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking will announce the rule changes for the 2019 season, many opinions are circulating around the potential installation of ‘starting positions’ or ‘zones’.
In a secret session run by AFL umpire representatives last week at Etihad Stadium, Hawthorn players ran out for a scratch match to trial the new rule.
It was filmed for the AFL and its players’ association, which includes Patrick Dangerfield as President, to see how it went.
Following the vision Dangerfield saw with the AFL, he said on SEN radio that “We had a look through the vision of the Hawthorn training session from early in the week which was really interesting to see,”
“To be honest I really liked the look of it.
“I think it really does open up the game and we were able to see the differences of how it’s played now … and with the starting positions.
“It’s a far more exciting game I think.”
Dangerfield strongly believed that it was a solution to the congestion although as there is to almost every opinion, there is a downside.
And only yesterday, Sam Landsberger reported another secret session held by the AFL in a tweet by asking the question “Did the Lions boys enjoy the open space at today’s secret rules trial at the Gabba?”.
Following on, it wrote “Understand one of the starting points was a full-forward and full-back in a bigger goalsquare. Another two pairs started in the arcs.”
In the objective to lessen congestion, starting positions is a solution – but is it the best?
Do we want to see players standing in the forward 50 when the ball’s on the opposite side of the ground?
When former AFL player and coach Paul Roos was asked about the possible rule change last Monday on Fox Footy’s On the Couch he said “[he] saw it for two years in the TAC Cup. It just doesn’t work. If it’s a windy day, you got four forwards standing on the other end of the ground. Players will be going; hang on I haven’t touched the ball.”
The other question that comes to mind is; if your club’s a bottom four team and you’re up against a top-eight team, would you like to see an open game of high scoring footy where goals are being scored freely and rapidly by the opposition?
In Hawthorn’s scratch match to trial the rule, both teams would’ve been evenly spread in talent for an even contest. The AFL is yet to see how it will go under an uneven game where one team is dominating.
As many witnessed last week between St Kilda and Sydney, the game lost its competitive lustre after quarter time, when Sydney were up by 48 points.
Sydney made light work of the Saints. (Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
Not only was the game lost that quickly but Saturday night footy and the whole footy world may have been tempted to switch on to something else more compelling.
The commentators had a tough job to maintain interest for the viewers and the fans were, unless you were Sydney supporter, nonplussed by the one-sided nature of the contest.
It was the perfect situation to switch the channel onto another code.
This high scoring first quarter, which some would describe as entertaining, was due to an open game where the ball movement was fast. Although, as evident in this game and quarter of footy, high scoring, free-flowing, uncongested footy is not always the most entertaining product to watch.
By the time the AFL announce its rule changes in early October, they will ultimately want to enhance the entertainment value of the game.
They are always trying to do this to get the edge on other sporting codes and deliver the best product to current and potential audiences.
Opening the game might seem a viable solution on how congestion can be reduced although the downside is that it may reduce the number of close games of footy that fans get to see each year.
Margins will be able to blow out more easily when the dominant teams play struggling teams which might mean that games will be over before they’ve even started.
Fans may choose to not even bother watching more than a quarter on TV let alone going to the game.
The game will be poorer if this is a regular occurrence. It will lose fans and supporters of the game as there will be better alternatives for people to partake in.
Every game of footy must have some doubt in it and a sense of uncertainty to what will be the end result. It is the epitome of good competition.
The game must set targets to ensure that this is satisfied as best as it can without significant rule changes.
The game’s long history needs to be considered and respected. The AFL must consider the integrity of the game and maintain it to its utmost honesty and honour.
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
For the game to implement starting positions or zones of some sort is too big a change to this integrity that the game upholds.
A small solution which does not change the rules of the game but simply reduces congestion is what Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge said last week.
“There’s [sic] some quite cosmetic changes we can make, like balling the ball up a bit quicker, which means you don’t nominate ruckman, it’s the team’s obligation to make sure they’ve only got one up if we want to maintain the one-up rule.”
As stated in an article written previously, it is a small solution that will get the ruckmen to ball ups on time which will reduce the number of players around the ball.
Beveridge also stated that “there’s [sic] things currently in the game through the broadcast and the umpires not moving the game on quick enough that encourage and entice congestion.”
This is an issue which the AFL could fix through a deal with their Channel Seven and Foxtel broadcasters.
It is something the AFL should do if they really care and think that congestion is an issue of the game. If so, they will need to show their resilience to lose a bit of commercial money for the game to run as best as possible.
Two simple solutions stated by Beveridge which should be considered as they won’t significantly affect the traditions, of which, the game upholds and the ruling its played under.
Even if the AFL doesn’t choose to stop broadcasters from holding up the game, there are many other small solutions that the AFL can make to reduce congestion without changing the game too much.
For example, extending the running distance to 20 metres so players can run further without having to bounce the ball which slows them down.
“There will always be times when there’s a lot of numbers in certain areas but I think we make the cosmetic changes and see how it affects us, let’s not be too dramatic.”
This is the ultimate consideration that the AFL must take on board during the process of making any rule changes over the next few months.
The AFL need to look at making the game better with the least amount of rule changes as possible.
Small steps at a time, the rule changes don’t have to come out all at once. One by one, they can be implemented, assessed and reviewed with the long-term aim to reduce congestion over a longer period.
The game could be adversely affected and come under threat if drastic rules changes are implemented therefore the AFL as custodians of the game must act responsibly and do it slowly.
This will ultimately be the finest way in which the game can find out where its best of best lies.
Beny Iniesta
Guest
Attendances are at a record high for the AFL. What are you talking about? https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/summary.html
Mick Jeffrey
Roar Rookie
16 a side doesn't solve anything. In general play playing a 16 man full ground defensive zone in reality is no different to playing against an 18 man zone, but attacking with 2 fewer players against a 16 man zone is massive (AFLW proves this, because the players simply struggle to find an option to break the zone as there's nobody to bail out to. The 2 extra players would at least provide that contest to at least clear the back half. Sure the skill level is superior in the men's game but the tactics used are similar). Then there's the issue of rotations. Having coached 16 a side, a knee jerk reaction to so called lack of numbers when by the end of the season I had 27 players excluding myself for 22 spots, the worst thing was rotating enough to give everyone enough game time. It will probably be as bad as it is now if the bench remains at 4 or (as I suspect of would be) if it increases to 6 watch the bench basically become chaos central regardless of the arbitrary number placed on how many can be used (as directed by sports scientists and fitness staff rather than coaches).
Mick Jeffrey
Roar Rookie
Actually they generally don't have their forwards on the edge these days. They usually lineup closer to about 40 from goal in order to attempt to negate the Plus 1 most teams employ from a rare quick clearance. Once it's bounced they then go elsewhere often leaving the Plus 1 to dictate.
Paul D
Roar Guru
If you email them and ask nicely they'll generally remove it if you've been a good boy Slane Big Al - neutral fan and I thought they were both great games, if the game is a close contest on the scoreboard it's always going to be a better contest than 2007 and 2015 type games
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
They played on unused winter cricket pitches, which were big given the small population in a huge land. Eighteen probably seemed like a reasonable number to kick it around on those pitches. There was no design, just an adaptation.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
They did have 3 OOBOTFs, and likely 4 of the first 5 most substantial shots on goal. It certainly couldabeen a different story, but of course it ain't. Still you don't get too many high scoring GF's that aren't no-contests. If you are thrilled by the skills in a no contest you must be tickled pink going down to watch training during the week. ;)
User
Roar Rookie
If the four umpires are introduced then I can't see it being to hard Pete, it wouldn't be exact but much like the 15m mark a roundabout measurement
Ray Hammond
Roar Rookie
No they don't. The teans have their half-backs/half forwards on the centre square line ready to rush in. What I suggested keeps them a further 20m away as they half to be within 40m of goal. That extra 20m each end provides an extra 40m of less congestion and would bring much faster movement out of the centre reducing the congestion, at least, for a short time after every goal and and at every new quarter.
Jon Kau
Guest
My thoughts on 05/06 was that I hated them because of the way they were played. Yet I loved 07 to see exquisite football being played.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Agreed.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Good point Dal. Although they must have clocked up a few out of bounds in that as the scoring shots were the same.. Typical of Lyon's evil genius to contradict my argument. St K also had more in 2009 and 2010 Part I, smashing home 9 14 in both. Clearly Ross thought 9.14 too high so opted for 8 14 for Freo, following the successful Roos 2005 8 goal model. Nevertheless, should have won all three by 2 or 3 goals instead of stuffing around by being forced to look for Ross' nominated Goal Shooter and Goal Attack.
Paul D
Roar Guru
"You can’t have 36 people within 30 metres of the ball. The game wasn’t designed to be played like that hence the large number of players per team and massive playing field in Australian Football." This is a great line anon. Goes back to the roots of the game and what it was originally designed to be, a series of 1-1 contests all around the ground. You're onto something with this one
Slane
Guest
And you are really adding to the discussion by writing, "Chris Scott can’t be criticised for trying to clog up the games against good sides this year." 3 times a day. Every team i the competition will play the way they play to give their team the best chance of winning. That's the very essence of competition. You, however, have been acting like a sore loser for far too long. Geelong played better than Collingwood. As a Richmond supporter I thought the Geelong vs Richmond game was a much better watch than the Richmond vs Collingwood game. In fact I'd argue that Geelong have played in the best game of the round at least twice and in the top 2-3 at least another 3 times.
quartz
Guest
infuriates me no end that kicks of 10-15 metres are awarded a mark .... fast free flowing play is one of the modern games strengths and the laws of the game should serve to encourage that style - the continued use of chip-chip kicking does the opposite .... it encourages teams bereft of anycreativity and attacking flair to employ a slow stoccato type method of ball movement to counter well drilled defensive structures once an umpire blows their whistle to award a mark play is effectively stopped ... that is significant control that umpires (by the laws of the game) exert over the play ....to have that level of impact, marks should only be awarded to teams willing to execute the skill in a manner commensurate with the reward of stopping play .... 10-15 metre kicks does not imho justify the reward of an umpire blowing their whistle .... kicks over 30 metres (from the point of the mark and not the player kicking the ball) would be an justifiable distance as it rewards a team willing to use the attacking principle of high risk high reward when in possession would also like to see the return of a more stringent application of rushed behind rule .... teams should not be given a 'get out of jail' option to sacrifice a point in order to eliminate the threat of a goal ..... at the very least remove the kick-in reward for teams prepared to rush a behind by restarting play with a ball up 20-30 metres out from goal
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
When the umpire calls play on. What criteria you would use for that could vary depending on how open you want it. You could just have the current interpretation, but with the new mark a metre or so back, or a more liberal version.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Freo actually had more shots on goal in the '13 GF than Hawthorn.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Yeah that is strange given they give 50m penalties for running through the zone or when the bloke on the mark says Boo!.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Just the pure statistical joy of 2007. Biggest winning margin in a GF. Geelong's first premiership for 44 years. Bet their supporters appreciated the no stress result. Hawthorn's win in 2014 was a deadest cunning old style Hawthorn ambush. Sydney literally did not see them coming. And no one predicted the margin. Unlike 2015 when Hawthorn were odds on.. Every final has a bit of something that doesn't always relate to the scoreline. Just the ebb and flow of grand final footy. If it happens to ebb on the side of a 10 goal plus win then so be it.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Exactly right Big Al, players are fit enough to run up and down the MCG wings all day, even key forwards. Imagine Dunstall or Plugger doing that? Theyd be blown out by quarter time.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Historic rule changes are on the way Slane, perhaps the most significant in history, the game is in dire trouble which is worth discussing and debating. Cover your eyes and ears if you want but rule changes will be announced in October and the game itself will change. If this isn't worth discussing then I don't know what is.