Rule Changes? What Rubbish!

There is plenty of commentary around proposed rule changes by AFL.

Unfortunately the application of logic and rationale being applied to the “dilemma” seems in short supply.

The AFL need to define the problem. Congestion doesn’t cut it with me nor should it with anyone.

Why is there congestion? That’s the question.

Let’s remember there was massive congestion 40-50 years ago.

Huge glue-pots in the centre square from cricket wickets were a standard feature at every ground and teams – namely Kennedy’s Commandoes from Hawthorn – exploited the anomaly by having vast numbers at the centre bounce to win possession. This had the added benefit of leaving a 150 goal-a-year full forward – namely Peter Hudson – one out in the goal square with acres of space in front of him.

The centre diamond was born followed by the centre square.

Do we need it now?

If you apply logic the simple answer is no. Why? Because the problem no longer exists. Grounds do not have cricket wickets and centre squares are pristine.

The next obvious question is what would happen if it was not there? This is not the forum to speculate on potential outcomes save to say it is worth thinking about.

The real message is this; we are creatures of habit and we keep doing what we have always done without considering the why? Its called habitual behaviour. If you asked most long term footy fans why there was a centre square introduced, they may say congestion? That’s is the outcome, the root cause was cricket wicket glue-pots! So something as significant as the centre square has “morphed” over time into a congestion solver but its simply wrong.

The best rule adjustment I have seen over the decades is the out-on-the-full rule. Its smart, its beneficial, it works.

The AFL seem reluctant to identify the root cause of congestion. I can only put that down to ignorance, intimidation or strategy.

In a nutshell the coaches cause congestion. I have written enough articles on this site around risk averse defence, zoning and structures to identify the root cause of the problem.

The AFL simply say congestion occurs because there are too many players around the ball because they are too fit so we may need to restrict their zones or interchanges to reduce their ability to get to contests. What a load of unadulterated rubbish!

The coaches are already in their war rooms devising counter tactics to regain control of the game by congesting it more and not allowing free flow. There will always be a “checkmate” tactic that coaches apply to whatever brainstorms the AFL implement – be sure of that.

Another factor is the trial games.

Coaches will play the trial games devoid of their tactical overlay and the AFL will say “There we go – nailed it!”. The coaches will go off sniggering away at the unused strategy to curtail the newly adopted rules changes. In essence any trial must also include significant coaching strategy and tactics applied otherwise its just plain dumb and solves nothing. Its not a pure test.

I am concerned about Steve Hocking’s view on football as it stands along with the credentials of people on his a committee.

With the greatest respect I do not want to be having the future of the game in the hands of an inexperienced person such as recently retired player James Podsiadly. I understand Hocking may have liked him when he was at Geelong but I would expect more. He’s clearly a smart guy, clearly a good bloke but pleeeeease!

David Rath is an interesting choice also. He is a “biomechanics genius”, he is a high-performance coach, clearly a data guru and was once described as a “mad scientist in running shorts”.

Who is representing the actual game?

One simple solution that is “coach-proof” is paying a free kick to any player caught with the ball. There should be no prior opportunity. Players would significantly reduce handballs, perhaps even not take possession and importantly release it by hand or foot instantly rather than waiting for an option which creates ball ups. Coaches would need players forward of the ball to receive haphazard kicks, handballs and knock-on’s.

Coaches hate this scenario as they potentially lose control of the footy and reduce their defensive mechanisms.

Those congested areas of a dozen players firing off 8 handballs in a “keeping’s off” manner would be a thing of the past. There would be many more contests and it reduces the benefits of zoning players behind the ball. Players would be reluctant to take possession if they sensed a tackler nearby. My great bugbear is the lack of speed players have getting rid of footy when they don’t have an option – so they create a ball up and start again. When there is an option available watch how quickly a player can fire off a handball! Its a tactic and strategy. Unfortunately we just think the tackler has wrapped him up and we need a ball up.

There are great games, good games and crap games. Always have been – always will be.

I implore the AFL to not adopt rule changes. The current process has been worthwhile to go through but the need to implement is not apparent to me.

Coaches will always dictate the flow of the ball, the defensive, secure, risk-averse ball movement – irrespective of what rules are put in front of them. Control is their mantra.

Let’s not confuse congestion with rule changes. The look of the game sits squarely with coaching strategy and tactics.

Let’s also not confuse scoring with rule changes. There will be high scoring and low scoring. The issue is the tactic that allows 36 players in a F50 area. Put the heat on coaches about this and fix up the interpretation of the player tackled in possession will be a great first step before significant rule changes.