Where the hell is our game now?

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Presumably aggregate points scored?

It'd be a great suggestion if all grounds were created equal, e.g. Giants Stadium is producing about 15 points more per team than the MCG after 10 points last year. Then there's pot luck with the weather. You'd hate to need 100 on the last Sunday in order to play finals and e.g. Carlton parks the bus to lose 65-20.

 

[AngryAnt]

An idea like that would have perverse effects. High scoring teams will still be high scoring, lower scoring teams will place even more value on the four points and go even more defensive. If a team is going likely to lose the game they will go even more defensive to minimise blowouts. That will be a terrible spectacle.

It's marginal anyway, the only time it comes into effect is when teams are level on points at the end of the season. Coaches will stay always put priority on the four points.

 

[Baloo]

Presumably aggregate points scored?

You'ld want to play all your games at Marvel under cover then

 

[Carter]

removing the against column would be no more inconsistent than what we get now.

teams know how to defend their own dung heaps; Richmond is a prime example. Geelong. Sydney when they’re half decent.

this change would simply pivot scoring patterns in the opposite direction.

the age of the mark and goal forward would return. Fat bush footballers would be in vogue for the first time since plugger

to sweeten the pot I would also consider awarding a point to any team that scores over 100 points in a match.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

removing the against column would be no more inconsistent than what we get now.

The percentage system is perfect, 30-27 results in the same percentage as 100-90. But under the pure scoring system you might be two games behind if you have a 30-27 win on a mudheap and never be able to claw it back.

Put it this way - as a solution to defence-heavy football, it's one of the least-flawed suggestions I've seen.

 

[DavidSSS]

It's getting as bad as the media here.

Why would you change the game on the basis of a skewed season where games are shortened and everything is haywire?

Leave the rules alone, enforce the bloody rules - all the time not part of the time, break up packs quicker and ball it up much quicker, like they used to.

DS

 

[Carter]

The percentage system is perfect, 30-27 results in the same percentage as 100-90. But under the pure scoring system you might be two games behind if you have a 30-27 win on a mudheap and never be able to claw it back.

Put it this way - as a solution to defence-heavy football, it's one of the least-flawed suggestions I've seen.

yeah I appreciate the argument around the variability of weather, but how many games are mud fests these days?

the MCG drains superbly well and we’ve kicked 12-14 goals on wet days in the last few years

 

[22nd Man]

It's getting as bad as the media here.

Why would you change the game on the basis of a skewed season where games are shortened and everything is haywire?

Leave the rules alone, enforce the bloody rules - all the time not part of the time, break up packs quicker and ball it up much quicker, like they used to.

DS

what about paying pack marks when a player controls the ball. At the moment a bloke has to stick it up his jumper to be paid. when they are not paid invariably another stoppage results. Look back to as recently as 90s for how long (or should I say short) ball was held before mark was paid (but not at a couple of Ablett Snr's "attempts" that were paid on style and degree of difficulty)

 

[22nd Man]

It's getting as bad as the media here.

DS

That would be the worst accusation ever made on this forum.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Didn’t they try 16 a side in the VFA? All the trouble started when the AFL attempted to speed the game up and fiddled with the rules to do it. Then they realised they’d made it too quick and introduced more rules to slow it back down again. They’ve been tinkering ever since and everything they do only makes it worse.

 

[AngryAnt]

It's a storm in a teacup. Last year Richmond had no problems scoring freely.

On the basis of four rounds of shortened quarters with everyone weirded the *smile* out anyway due to COVID, it's knee-jerk to start mooting radical rule changes IMO. It's what the AFL does though, and now supporters have picked up the bug.

 

[tigermike]

Presumably aggregate points scored?

How do you compensate for teams that play in different ground conditions (dry/wet) and weather (under roof/rain/snow)?
Percentages are not perfect but I think they can handle those differences better.

 

[tigermike]

Didn’t they try 16 a side in the VFA?
...

Yes they did and it was effective even though a long time ago.

From...https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/sport-thought-stop-mass-gatherings-go-16-a-side-20200314-p54a1p.html
"When the VFA played 16-a-side between 1959-1991 they scored more points than the VFL.
Brett Anderson, who is now a Port Adelaide recruiter, pointed out in an excellent Inside Football article in 2017 that the VFA outscored the VFL by nearly 20 points a game during that 'sweet 16' period.
In 20 of the 33 seasons the leading goalkicker in the VFA kicked 100 goals with only two players repeating that feat in the state league competition since they reverted back to 18-a-side. Last year Port Melbourne's Jordan Lisle won the VFL goalkicking medal with 40 goals while the Giants' Jeremy Cameron won the Coleman Medal with 67 goals in the home-and-away season."

Current AFL player fitness and congestion makes the option worth trying imo.

 

[UKTiger]

Didn’t they try 16 a side in the VFA? All the trouble started when the AFL attempted to speed the game up and fiddled with the rules to do it. Then they realised they’d made it too quick and introduced more rules to slow it back down again. They’ve been tinkering ever since and everything they do only makes it worse.

Regarding the incessant tinkering of the rules by the AFL that is damaging the games spectacle those in charge (Hocking et-al) should remember the saying of 'when you are deep in a hole it is best t stop digging '

 

[Tigaman]

Yes they did and it was effective even though a long time ago.

From...https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/sport-thought-stop-mass-gatherings-go-16-a-side-20200314-p54a1p.html
"When the VFA played 16-a-side between 1959-1991 they scored more points than the VFL.
Brett Anderson, who is now a Port Adelaide recruiter, pointed out in an excellent Inside Football article in 2017 that the VFA outscored the VFL by nearly 20 points a game during that 'sweet 16' period.
In 20 of the 33 seasons the leading goalkicker in the VFA kicked 100 goals with only two players repeating that feat in the state league competition since they reverted back to 18-a-side. Last year Port Melbourne's Jordan Lisle won the VFL goalkicking medal with 40 goals while the Giants' Jeremy Cameron won the Coleman Medal with 67 goals in the home-and-away season."

Current AFL player fitness and congestion makes the option worth trying imo.
[/QUOTE

Used to watch VFA sides Coburg & Preston when they played 16 a side iln the 1960's. No wing men. It was crap compared to the 18 man game. More goals kicked yes but man on man contests had diminished. Only went to those games as pubs were shut on Sundays. Actually the Sunday Amateur League was the in thing. Tough well Murray Weidieman ex Pies strong man lasted about two games as a paid player .

 

[DavidSSS]

what about paying pack marks when a player controls the ball. At the moment a bloke has to stick it up his jumper to be paid. when they are not paid invariably another stoppage results. Look back to as recently as 90s for how long (or should I say short) ball was held before mark was paid (but not at a couple of Ablett Snr's "attempts" that were paid on style and degree of difficulty)

I think they paid them too easy in the 90s and tried to fix that. But they have gone too far now. Some unpaid marks I've seen in the last few years were a travesty.

But again, they have to be consistent, which I don't think they are.

DS

 

[graystar1]

Funny it is.

Many on here want to change the rules and god knows what else.

The thread was about where our game is going and it appears many have ideas on how to change the game and the rules.

Fair enough, everyone has a right to their opinion, but it those in charge who may want to change things, not necessarily for the better, that worry not only me but many others.

 

[French Tiger]

Clarkson had no issues throwing heaps of players into our forward 50 making it hard for us to score. Didn't worry about how ugly it looked then.

 

[Tenacious]

Based on yesterday’s game - it’s completely comatose and cactus.
Even discounting yesterday’s game but judging the overall trend of recent seasons - it’s heading towards cactus.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I'd like to think yesterday's game isn't becoming the norm. It resembled a match against GWS in 2012 when we had 65-33 inside 50's and only got home thanks to a couple of late Dan Connors goals.

Average team score this year is 62 points, multiplied by 1.25 to simulate 20-minute quarters = 78. Last year's average score was 80.

Given that scoring tends to increase towards the end of quarters in modern footy and that we have shortened quarters this year, it's not out of line with recent seasons.

Reckon a lot of what appears to be humdrum play is brought into focus by the lack of crowd/atmosphere. It's been that way for many years.