Firstly, the rules need to change. At times, the current games looks like a rolling scrum, and it's not uncommon to see all 36 players on the field in one quarter of the ground. Yes, 5 games this round were decided by less than a goal, but that's one round out of 20. For the majority of the rest of the season, the game has been near unwatchable. The drop in TV audiences attest to this.
It's visually a mess. And this leads to the major reason why I think the rules need a change - if I'm a broadcaster, who's paid billions of dollars or the rights, I want the game to be aesthetically pleasing. I understand that a visually perfect game is an impossibility, but the current game-style is too unattractive for casual viewers in my opinion.
Having said that, paradigm-shifting rules are not necessary. If you look at the history of the game, the rules of the game have been tweaked every few years, and that's all that I think is necessary - a few tweaks that on their own don't do a lot, but combined, enhance the game play. For example, there was a time in the history of the game where the kick off line was 20-yards out. It's been 10 yards for some time, but we shouldn't be blind to the idea that rules can and have changed over time.
I also don't think rule changes should be left up to the coaches alone. Coaches are there to win games, and they don't necessarily care how the game looks - winning is their priority, and no one blames them for that. Coaches, and players for that matter, should definitely be consulted, but not held solely responsible for advising on rule changes.
In addition to rule changes, I think games and seasons should be shortened. Players and coaches themselves are saying the games and season is too long, and I'd argue that a shorter season means less player injuries, and more games of consequence. In the NFL for example, teams only play 16 regular season games, so every game has a lot of consequence. While a shorter season may mean that a team that looses it's opening 4 games of the year has little to play for, I believe this could be alleviated with some inventive or dynamic fixturing. Perhaps after 66% of the season, the bottom 4 sides play off against each other for draft positions, or something like that. Ideally, I think an 18-round season is ideal - each team plays each other once, plus an extra round for 'rival' matches or some other 'cause' round. Games should also be shortened to around the 20-25 minute mark, so maybe make it 15 minute quarters with time on? And get rid of the countdown clock at games. Players know the time via runners. Crowds know the time via radio/mobile phones. Get rid of the unnecessary appearance of suspense.
I'd also advocate for either a floating fixture in the final round OR a week between the end of the season and finals. We don't need both. Either or. I understand the purpose of it - to give players an equal rest before finals, but both is too much, and as Ian Robinson on AFL 360, suggested, if you keep the bye after the final round, and keep the final round as a floating round, it floating round basically just becomes a tool for the TV networks to secure the largest audience. Again, while I don't have an issue with that per se, it does leave fans feeling cynical and jaded about the relationship between the game and the media. I also like the idea of a wildcard weekend, between the end of the season and the finals proper, where, say team 7 plays team 10, and 8 plays 9, in a play-off for the final two spots.
So, here are the rule changes I would like to see:
- A ball kicked or handballed over the boundary line results in a free-kick to the opposition. A ball rushed over the boundary line is thrown in as normal. This motivates players to keep the ball in play, reducing boundary line throw-ins and associated congestion, and also leading to more direct play and higher scoring. I saw this rule in Adelaide, and I have no doubt it results in a more aesthetically pleasing, high scoring game.
- A reduction in the number of interchange rotations. Initially, I wasn't a fan of this idea, as I though fatigued players were more likely to get injured, but I think I've seen data that suggests that fatigued players are no more or less likely to get injured than non-fatigued payers. Also, fatigued players will be less likely to make contests and stoppages, so the game would open up a bit more, although another potential side-effect of this rule could be a drop-off in skill levels due to fatiguing.
- The 6-6-6 formation rule for all center square bounces. Obviously this rule would have the most impact late in close games by preventing coaches from flooding backlines. I also like the idea that one player from each team in the 50-metre arcs must be inside the goal square at the bounce downs.
- The 20-yard extended goal square. Obviously allows players kicking-in after a behind to send the ball deeper into play. It also gives the player who plays on from the goal square more room to run and carry before kicking off. And as was also identified in the VFL trial, kicking a behind is discouraged, as it gives the team kicking in more of an advantage. While this may discourage some teams from having a shot of goal, it could also potentially result in better goalkicking, as teams spend more time and effort in making sure they don't score a behind.
- Boundary umpires come in 10 metres from the boundary line for throw-ins. This would reduce the likelihood of repeat throw-ins and would move the ball back into the corridor. We already assess 15 meters for a kick, and I don't think it would have to be too precise, so no need for more markings on the field. Conversely, the grass could be cut on grounds to indicate where the 10m line would be.
- Automatic play-on for backward kicks that are marked inside the defensive 50m.Kicks have to start and finish inside the defensive 50m. A friend told me the coaches don't like this rule (probably because they all use it) but I remember seeing it in a pre-season comp a few years ago, and I think it would encourage teams without the ball to put forward pressure on the team with the ball to try and force a turnover.
- Eliminate the nominated ruckman rule, but keep the 'no third man up' rule. Teams should be able to figure out for themselves who is rucking and who is not. If a team sends up a third ruck, pay a free kick against. Teams will soon work it out.
- Throw the ball up at stoppages and at boundary throw-ins immediately. There is an unnecessary amount of gesticulating from umpires at stoppages, which slows the play down and allows more players to arrive at the contest.
That's all I can think of at the moment. If I think of any others, will update the post.
Another rule that came up over the weekend was the possible introduction of a red card for an 'unsportsmanlike' act, such as striking a player in a game. A West Coast player broke the jaw of a Fremantle player off the ball last weekend, and the West Coast player went on to kick a goal. Other Fremantle players then also targeted the West Coast player in question.
Before jumping on-board with the red card rule, I'd have some questions, such as: Do you also introduce a yellow card for lesser infractions? How long does someone get sent off for under a yellow card? What constitutes 'unsportsmanlike' behaviour? How far off the ball does it have to be? What if a player stages being hit/knocked out in an attempt to get another player red-carded. What if the player being struck has a glass jaw and is more susceptible to being knocked out? What if the action that knocked a player out was accidental, or can't clearly be determined as being deliberate?
I think some data and feedback is needed from the leagues where this rule is already in place, to gauge the impact of the rule, before deciding if this should be instituted as a rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment