Will the new rules help us?

[Tiger Spirit]

I’m not sure whether the new rules will help us or not.  But judging by the comments from some coaches, I doubt they will fix anything really, just create different problems.  So you have to wonder what is going on with our game.

What I don’t understand most is why mess with the rules, unless it’s absolutely necessary?

The current administrators of the game seem too quick to bow to pressure.  It’s understandable that they want to bring the game back to what it should be, or used to be.  Because of their decision making process, you have to question if these people are the right people to lead or take this game/competition into the future.

Changing rules effectively changes absolutely nothing if the mindset of coaches remains the same.  Already, coaches have come up with ways to counter some of the changes.  Simply, there are no rules, however many times they are changed, that can counter human ingenuity.

If rule changes are seen as the saviour of the game then Aussie Rules needs help, and lots of it.

In order to maintain the integrity of this great game, leave the rules well alone, otherwise, over time, the game could become unrecognisable.

If coaches have been able to take the rules of a game that was once played in its purest form and use them to make the game resemble a combination of rugby, soccer, basketball and whatever else is out there, how is changing the rules going to change anything now, when coaches are still in charge of how the game is played?

To change anything, go to the core of where the problems start – the Coaches.  They are ultimately responsible for the way the game looks and is played.

Why didn’t coaches of the past coach in the same way they do today, with basically the same rules? 

Ask the current coaches why they coach the way they do and whether their coaching style considers the welfare of the game/competition?

Without having any answers, the way the game is currently played suggests that the majority of coaches have an insular view of coaching, i.e. they only worry about their own little world, with disregard for any responsibility to players, spectators and the game.

If coaches changed their mindset and started coaching with a big picture view of things and for all the reasons that one would become a coach in the first place then the game could easily be restored, without the change of any rules whatsoever.

The answer seems simple, but those in charge basically seem to have little or not much idea of what they are doing to the game, with their small time mentality, even though they seem to have good intentions.  Instead of standing back and taking a big picture view of things, they get swayed by emotion and make decisions to ease the pressure.  Their approach can only sail the game up the creek.  If it doesn’t then they either won’t have had enough time to do so, or it’ll be a testament to the strength of the game itself, rather than any good management on their part.

[mightytiges]

To change anything, go to the core of where the problems start – the Coaches.  They are ultimately responsible for the way the game looks and is played.

Why didn’t coaches of the past coach in the same way they do today, with basically the same rules? 

Ask the current coaches why they coach the way they do and whether their coaching style considers the welfare of the game/competition?

Without having any answers, the way the game is currently played suggests that the majority of coaches have an insular view of coaching, i.e. they only worry about their own little world, with disregard for any responsibility to players, spectators and the game.

If coaches changed their mindset and started coaching with a big picture view of things and for all the reasons that one would become a coach in the first place then the game could easily be restored, without the change of any rules whatsoever.

That's true TS but unfortunately the coaches are only answerable to their respective club and its supporters. Winning is all that matters and someone like Paul Roos isn't going to get complaints from Swan supporters about the negative gameplan they use every week while their winning flags. Without any rule changes you would hope that the game would evolve with another coach coming up with new ways to break down the negative gameplans with fast flowing footy.

The use interchange has had alot to do with the way footy is currently played. Clubs that resort to negative shutdown tactics wouldn't be able to last 4 quarters if there was no midfield rotation that kept running players fairly fresh. What makes the Swans successful is Roos has recruited a very even list and 22 he puts on the park each week so they can maintain their shutdown and counterarttack tactics all over the ground for a whole game. If the strategy only lasted 3 quarters (like the Pies did to us this year because they tired without the playing depth) then the game would open us and clubs would need to find more positive ways to win games. I guess I'm wishfully hoping the play on straight away after a point rule will reduce the number of rests and cause players to tire faster. 

Even without these rule changes I thought the pendulum was starting to swing anyway. The Eagles, Saints, Doggies and us play an open atacking running game. If these clubs end up becoming the premiers then everyone else will need to follow suit which will benefit the game as a whole. 

[mightytiges]

a high percentage of balls go into the crowd anyway. It won't be like soccer where they have multiple balls ready to go next to the post.

It will be like soccer Tiga - they are planning to have spare balls at each end for the kick-ins like they did in the 2005 Wizz Fizz Cup - so you don't have to wait for the ball to come back from the crowd

Thanks for the correction WP, I didn't know that. Well that sucks!! I bet You'll find defenders hanging on and trying to keep defending forwards out of position and I reckon coaches will form plays specifically to exploit this new rule. I bet as soon as the all clear is given there will be a defender with is hand on the new pill ready to rebound. Will a player be allowed to have his hands on the replacement ball before the all clear is given or will it be given out by an official?? 

They were talking about this on 3aw today. The defender can kick out anytime once the all-clear is given. As the player can hold the ball now waiting for the flags to be waved, you'd presume they'll be able to pick up a footy from behind the goals anytime between a score and when the all-clear is given.

One thing I'd like to know is what happens when the ump is still waving the flags with the ball in play and there's an immediate turnover and snap at goal due to a poor kick straight to an opponent. That's going to interesting  .

[Tiger Spirit]

Sorry about the off the beaten track rant MT.  I just need to vent.

That's true TS but unfortunately the coaches are only answerable to their respective club and its supporters. Winning is all that matters and someone like Paul Roos isn't going to get complaints from Swan supporters about the negative gameplan they use every week while their winning flags. Without any rule changes you would hope that the game would evolve with another coach coming up with new ways to break down the negative gameplans with fast flowing footy.

If that’s always going to be the case, as you say, leave the rules alone and things will evolve.

If you look at different eras, it doesn’t appear as though Coaches of the past were as negative in their approach as some seem to be now.  I’m sure they wanted to win as much as the coaches of today.  So what pressures are coaches now under to ‘win at all and any cost’?  Whatever they are, they aren’t helping the game.

I really struggle with some of the tactics and just don’t understand what sort of pressures could create such a negative mindset in coaches and I get so ticked off that current day players seem to be coached to play through fear (fear of losing), rather than trying to get the best out of them and coaching them to take risks, use initiative, be creative, etc., etc.

Instead a lot of time and energy seems focused towards limiting and negating the opposition.  What does that teach players and where’s the fun in that for them or those watching?  I don’t understand the mentality of curbing the natural instincts of people to be creative and instead instructing them to be the opposite.  Maybe it’s just me, but that would seem to go against what coaching is all about. 

And what difference does it effectively make which rules are changed if coaches are going to go negative anyway?  I’m not sure which rule(s) it was that initially dictated flooding was inevitable?  Maybe they could change it back.

Learning from other games is understandable, but our game at times resembles a form of Rugby, basketball, or soccer more than it does Aussie Rules.  Those other games already exist without our help and if we wanted to watch them we could and would.  How about someone helping our code and coaching players to play Aussie Rules; the game some of us are interested in and do want to watch.  A bit radical and far fetched I know, but just a suggestion.

The use interchange has had alot to do with the way footy is currently played. Clubs that resort to negative shutdown tactics wouldn't be able to last 4 quarters if there was no midfield rotation that kept running players fairly fresh. What makes the Swans successful is Roos has recruited a very even list and 22 he puts on the park each week so they can maintain their shutdown and counterarttack tactics all over the ground for a whole game. If the strategy only lasted 3 quarters (like the Pies did to us this year because they tired without the playing depth) then the game would open us and clubs would need to find more positive ways to win games. I guess I'm wishfully hoping the play on straight away after a point rule will reduce the number of rests and cause players to tire faster.

What you say makes sense MT.  We could do away with wishful thinking if they left well alone.  The bench was increased because 2 wasn’t enough and now 4 is too many.  It’s possible that we can’t create the ideal situation by changing the rules.  Actually, the more you think about it, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with the way the rules were.  It’s just the way each generation of coaches sees the rules and then wants things changed to suit their individual needs that seems to cause problems.  Ok, there are instances where some things change and evolve, but in the main rules should be left alone to maintain the integrity of the game.

Even without these rule changes I thought the pendulum was starting to swing anyway. The Eagles, Saints, Doggies and us play an open atacking running game. If these clubs end up becoming the premiers then everyone else will need to follow suit which will benefit the game as a whole.

Maybe so and I hope you’re right, but the other side is that now that Clubs have seen that you can win a premiership without necessarily having the best players, who knows how that will influence things.  Worst case scenario would not pretty.

[mightytiges]

Blame Robert Walls lol when he introduced the huddle and zoning for kickins at Fitzroy IIRC in the early-mid 80's. The beginning of the "flood"

Risk management has alot to do with the negative tactics we see. The game now is so professional that we've probably outsmarted outselves with tactics. Why kick the ball to a contest like in the old days where the chances of your team keeping possession is 50/50 (give or take a few % for strength and skill of the players involved), when you can play a uncontested style of footy that increases your team's chances of maintaining possession to as much as 100%?! Why set up in a traditional 6-6-6 formation (backline, midfield, forward) when the other side has the footy when you can reduce the chances of the other team scoring by flooding with say a 15-3-0 style?! You don't necessarily have to worry about your midfielders tiring from runnning up and down the field all day because a good side will have about 12 of them rotating on and off the bench. A year or two ago the only midfielder who stayed on the park for virtually the whole game was Simon Black. The days of rovers and ruck rovers remaining on each other for the whole game are long gone. 

I would add that soccer has gone the same way. All this back passing in your own half while the opposition sits back waiting for you to move forward is exactly the same thing. A philosophy of "if the opposition don't have it then they can't score against us".

As for the Swans winning a flag with negative tactics, IMO although there's no question they deserved to win the flag this year, I doubt they would have won it in most other years. Think of Port Adelaide, Brisbane, Essendon and North before them. Pretty proactive sides that could beat floods. 2005 was just a very even year and there wasn't an outstanding side. Hopefully someone playing mostly attacking footy steps up next year or the next to take the flag (and let it be the Tigers in at least one of those years )

[Tiger Spirit]

Risk management has alot to do with the negative tactics we see. The game now is so professional that we've probably outsmarted outselves with tactics.

I think professionalism explains a lot about the direction of the competition and the major concern I see is that the game has become way too clinical for its own good.  A professional competition is great, but where does it say anywhere that professionalism and natural flair are mutually exclusive?  Surely we can so easily have both.

As things are, each Club tries to outdo, or at least keep up with the other and we finish up with something completely different to what we started with.  And a lot of it stems from the fact that many results can be dictated and influenced more by pre planning, rather than the ability of the players on any list.  Because so much emphasis is placed on planning through the week, any spontaneity in the game becomes mostly accidental or coincidental.  That’s the feeling I get anyway.

Regardless of what rules are changed, whether it’s to speed up the game, or whatever, it doesn’t alter the fact that the game has become clinical, purely because of the level of preparation and pre-planning that goes on.  That whole process would seem to discourage players from using too much initiative out on a footy field.  Instead, at any given time, it seems that coaches press a button and this player will do this; press another button and that player will do that.  And if they don’t then Plan E.1.3.6 comes into play.  Maybe that’s being over the top about it, but it does seem that any spontaneity in the game is being lost, which is probably as much a concern as anything else, because people lose their passion for the game, without really knowing why.

Occasionally we see glimpses of a spark, like in the last few minutes of a game when it’s crunch time and someone provides something to lift an otherwise dull affair, or certain players have special permission ‘to do their thing’ and afterwards everyone says ‘how unreal was that’.  But what about the rest of the game, what was the purpose of that?

Why kick the ball to a contest like in the old days where the chances of your team keeping possession is 50/50 (give or take a few % for strength and skill of the players involved), when you can play a uncontested style of footy that increases your team's chances of maintaining possession to as much as 100%?!

I think what attracts people to Aussie Rules in the first place is the lack of rules regarding the style of play; i.e. no off-side rule, or nothing like in rugby or grid iron where one team attacks for a time and the other defends.  Aussie Rules is pretty much open slather – attack at any time and defend at any time, plus all the other facets that make it different to anything else.

Yet we’re now making the game more and more unlike footy.  And what you describe with the formations and players waiting for the right moment or best opportunity to kick the ball sounds more like chess.  Everything combined serves to inhibit and stifle any human element in the game and some of the features that make footy so unique.

Why set up in a traditional 6-6-6 formation (backline, midfield, forward) when the other side has the footy when you can reduce the chances of the other team scoring by flooding with say a 15-3-0 style?! You don't necessarily have to worry about your midfielders tiring from runnning up and down the field all day because a good side will have about 12 of them rotating on and off the bench.

The reason you’d do that is for the good of players and the game.  By nature, any ‘elite’ competition challenges those involved and forces them to do things out of their comfort zone.

But who is the game geared towards now; players or coaches?  Coaching in the way the game is played now, to me, says that coaches don’t put enough faith in their players and instead rely more on ‘planning’ to bring them results.  A lot of that has to do with the professionalism of the game, but this is supposed to be the best competition this game can provide.  That almost seems a nonsense when you consider that professionalism is taking away the opportunity a competition such as this should provide to players to get the best out of themselves.  And any system that stifles that natural process needs to be re-assessed.

If the competition isn’t at the stage where it needs a major re-think then it seems to be headed down that track because, in many ways, the pre-planning and pre-preparation that goes into games potentially hides and stifles some of the individual strengths of players and the game itself.  Where’s the human element in the game and the exciting uncertainty that individual flair provides?  What’s the purpose of an elite competition that doesn’t promote that possibility as a priority?

Effectively, the game is being changed by coaches to suit coaches and to also eliminate or minimise the potential for a loss, or the degree of a loss.  What’s in it for the players (apart from the financial rewards) and those who watch the game?

[mightytiges]

Excellent post TS.

Effectively, the game is being changed by coaches to suit coaches and to also eliminate or minimise the potential for a loss, or the degree of a loss.  What’s in it for the players (apart from the financial rewards) and those who watch the game?

Interesting what we've been taking about TS when you relate it to what Brian Royal said on EOTT:

"In our training drills, we’re certainly putting a high price on not giving the ball back to the opposition when we have it . . ."

And if you asked the 15 others clubs they'd be saying the same thing. In other words, avoid 50/50 contests unless you have no other choice.

The game has changed and if most sides were to play footy like it was played say 20-30 years ago kicking long to contests you'd get chopped to shreads on the rebound. So there's no incentive for most coaches to do things differently unless they could come up with a way that makes opposition negative tactics not only useless but totally disasterous. Leigh Matthews was able to do it with simply long direct footy to Lynch and Brown when the Lions were at their peak but superstar teams like that one are rare these days with the draft and the resultant even competition. Yes the coach comes up with the many strategies that he expects the players to implement but the strategy itself still depends on the quality of the players.

They had Rodney Eade on the radio and he seemed to think the new kick-in rule would force teams to keep more players in their forward line as insurance. So instead of 2-3 as we've had over recent years, you'd have 4 to 5 guys. It came across as he thinks the new rule would reduce the number of blokes a coach pushes behind the ball and hence reduce the flood.

Yet we’re now making the game more and more unlike footy.  

Not directly related to your comment TS but some caller rang up on the radio the other day and mentioned how the elite competition was becoming to different to your surburban/country footy. He said with the new rules your average ameteur or weekend footballer won't have the fitness to run continously without a break in play so number of participants may drop. There was also the cost value of having 6 footballs behind the goals. These local clubs are just getting by as it is. IIRC KB's response was that local leagues have the authority to implemen local rules.