AFL legend Malcolm Blight says anyone resisting rule changes in the code should quit their posts.
Leading AFL players and coaches are divided on proposed rule changes which Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley fears would be a “blight” on the game.
But dual premiership coach Blight says changes must happen to save the code as a spectacle.
“Our game is choking itself to death,” Blight told Adelaide radio station 5AA on Wednesday night.
“Change is coming. If you don’t like it, resign and go and join the unemployment queue.”
The AFL’s competition committee will meet next Wednesday and several ideas are in the mix, with the elimination of congestion around the ball a top priority.
Momentum is building for the introduction of starting positions at centre-bounces and stoppages following trials at a number of clubs.
But Collingwood coach Buckley fears the change would kill the flow of the game.
“I don’t like it. I think it will be a blight on the game,” Buckley told SEN radio on Wednesday.
“The goal-line technology has proven to be not perfect; it deadens and slows the flow of the game, the game stops at times to wait for that to happen.
“I think if we go to zones, we’re going to be waiting for players to get back in the zones. And how often do you want to do that?
“Every time there’s a stoppage in the forward 50, we’re waiting for three pairs of players to go and get back in the opposite 50. That’s what the product is likely to descend into.”
Blight said Buckley was being short-sighted.
“What Nathan Buckley can’t do is see the future,” Blight said.
“The game is so slow at times, it’s boring.
“Coaches and players should stay out of this discussion.”
AFL Players’ Association president Patrick Dangerfield said starting positions would create a more watchable game.
“I wouldn’t see it as a blight,” the Geelong star said.
“I think we need to give it a chance to work first.
Geelong coach Chris Scott has also expressed support for starting points while Western Bulldogs counterpart Luke Beveridge is firmly opposed.
Dangerfield, who is a member of the 12-man competition committee, has viewed footage from the initial trials and liked what he saw.
“I really like the look of it,” he said.
“It reminded me of 2005 when you would see a stoppage and (dual Brownlow Medallist Chris) Judd burst out of a pack, and he’d have 20 metres of space to run into before he was confronted with any numbers.”
Once the competition committee rubber-stamps any rule changes, they will go before the AFL executive and then the commission will have the final say.
The AFL will trial any rule changes in a full game, most likely in the VFL, by the end of the season.
Kris
Guest
Agreed. It will make no difference. Most clubs line-up with at least 4 forwards anyway. It will essentially mean that a couple of them will have to sit on the 50m line instead of the centre square. It will introduce a strange quirk where at the SCG (where the 50m and centre square are almost the same thing) that the players inside the 50m will be very close to the centre bounce anyway. Whereas at Geelong which is a long ground they will be further back.
Ron The Bear
Guest
Coaches and players should stay out of the discussion? How about supporters? How about media naysayers like McAvaney? We don't trust you and your ilk, Malcolm. It ain't yours to destroy.
Bretto
Roar Rookie
As someone else suggested - no one is allowed in the square apart from the initial 4 from each team until the ball clears the square. Appreciate it only applies after goals, but should have a good impact.
Lee
Guest
I've never known a sport that likes to change rules so much. Before VAR when was the last major change to football? Probably when they prevented the keeper picking up the ball from a backpass about 30 years ago! I've always figured the best way to prevent congestion and 'boring' matches, and this goes to rugby as well, would just be for the umpires to actually pay EVERY free kick (every slight hold, every slight block, every holding the ball), plus to accurately measure a 15 meter kick. For about a month you'd end up with 100 free kicks per game, and then the coaches would figure things out and the games would open up again.
TB
Guest
The biggest change,in my opinion, the game has seen in the past 40 years was the introduction of the interchange/rotations. All other things fundamentally have remained the same i.e. grounds are still the same size, still 18 v 18, a goal is still 6 points etc. So, in my opinion, let's not complicate matters with starting positions etc. Reduce the rotations to say 8 per game per side that is 2 in each quarter barring injury and the game will open up flow freely. Players won't be able to clock up 18kms a game and max speeds of 35 kms per hour because the game will be about managing the time on the field and playing a more structured positional game. Kevin Bartlett is on the money here.
tom
Guest
“The game is so slow at times, it’s boring." This must send shock waves to any body that believes the game is so fast that they don't know how players manage to complete 5 minutes before they are hurled off for a 10 minute rest.
andyincanberra
Guest
One suggestion that Nathan Buckley has had that I think could be worth exploring is the reinterpretation of holding the ball. At the moment, a ball-up will be called if a player is tackled, but has not had a realistic opportunity to release the ball, irrespective of what happened just prior to the player taking possession of the ball. Nathan Buckley has suggested that holding the ball be reinterpreted, so that if team has had a continuous possession of the ball, and at least one of the players that possessed the ball, legally disposed of the ball to a team-mate, once the team-mate is tackled, they will have holding the ball paid against them, even if they did not have a realistic individual opportunity to release the ball legally. Basically, the onus would be on the team, rather than the individual player to clear the ball. The idea is that teams would be less willing to congest the play as it would more likely to result in a free-kick. Another option that has been suggested is increasing the distance a player can run before bouncing, allowing players to break out of congestion more easily. I'm not saying that these options will reduce congestion, and we'd need to wait for a trial to see how they would in practice.
DJW
Guest
I don't think starting positions at each centre bounce will make much difference. Soon as there is the first stoppage the congestion may return, Starting positions at each stoppage is incomprehensible, imagine waiting for players to return to zones. Longmire and Lyon will definitely not vote for it,. There game plans are built around numbers at stoppages.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Coaches opinions will be biased to their lists carefully built over years. With endorsement by Dangerfield and the AFLPA, the changes are coming and the first to adapt over Summer will have a gap on the others. It now seems certain that one rule that will come in is the 6 x 6 x 6 starting positions at each centre bounce. Anti clog rules for when the game is in play are much harder to come up with that won't be manipulated by coaches.