The teams bordering on unwatchable, are those who, instead of applying the spirit of the game, (score more goals than your opponent) apply the opposite, make sure the opposition don't get a chance at scoring. The umpires and rules committee share the blame with coaches like Lyon, Hinkley, Roos, T Wallace, B Scott etc.
The constant decisions by umpires to bounce the footy instead of paying free kicks, which are usually an option at most stoppages, just encourages negative coaches and their tactics. Going back to paying frees for in the back, incorrect disposal, holding the man without the ball, interference and blocking in marking contests, will open the game up, but will not make it faster. It will encourage players to play the old fashioned full forward, pockets and flanks positions and negate the need for a rolling maul for 90 of the 100 minutes of the game.
Most of all it will encourage, no necessitate the training and honing of skills, giving players who are not "pure athletes" more of an opportunity to get drafted as 18 year olds, rather than "mature age picks".
People of knowledge, coaches with a vested interest eg Lyon, and the so called experts howl down the idea of more frees, but would that really occur on a season by season basis? Smart coaches would make sure their players were not giving away frees, and smart players would be doing that anyway.
I am sure most spectators would rather see 1 free kick instead of 5 ball-ups in a row then a free plucked out for the same offense that has just led to 5 ball-ups in a row. We could keep the same number of players on the field, make the bench 2 interchange, 2 non replaceable. When the AFL tried the sub rule previously, they bowed to the coaches and experts, instead of forcing them to adapt the game to what the rule was intended to create.
