AFL Rule Changes & The State of the Game Discussion

[Herbie66]

I posted before the possible lighter iteration of the 666 came out in the media.

I think the full blown starting positions (not just centre bounces) could have massive implications on players scoring in SC.

less stoppages would mean less tackels and hitouts just as a start.

Interesting reading about the St Kilda trial , by eliminating the "prior" opportunity rule and replacing with a quicker ball up they actually had more stoppages and clearances.

I can't see how they expect players to return to their starting positions in time as well as having quicker ball ups and throw ins.

6-6-6 will work for centre bounces after goals , they almost need to have 2-3 players permsnetly in the D50 and F50.

Hopefully they have fully thought things through.

 

[baz_machine]

the new rule will be what they play in TAC Cup which is -

At every stoppage (including kick ins) there needs to be:

2 men inside forward/defensive 50
3 others behind half way

They're allowed to roam elsewhere in general play but you can still put a man behind the ball if you want.

i assume free kick paid if you aren't back in position from where the ball is and i'd hazard a guess last one back if both teams aren't setup in time.
Also i assume that the 3 behind half way don't need to be manned up but it'd be tactical suicide not too

 

[Bermi]

I reckon the AFL should be looking at making the game and rules simpler, not complicating it more.

 

[PC]

People need to stop viewing previous 'versions' of the game through rose coloured glasses. Cut the interchange cap and let the coaches and players fitness and skills decide the way in which it is played.

 

[Manikato1]

Paul Roos made an observation about the possible rule changes as suggested. He noted that while it may (used cautiously) create a more open style of game it would depend on the teams playing. Evenly matched teams may be okay but a top team playing a bottom one could see a blow out by the first or second quarter. Which means people will change stations or not go to games as they will be over in an hour of starting.

 

[Bermi]

People need to stop viewing previous 'versions' of the game through rose coloured glasses. Cut the interchange cap and let the coaches and players fitness and skills decide the way in which it is played.

Would doing the opposite stop congestion? Have no interchange (cut out the interchange). If a player is substituted (because of injury, exhausted, tactics, etc.), then that player is not allowed back on. Maybe this SIMPLER rule could reduce congestion as players would not be able to cover as much ground, to save their energy for the last quarter?

It would also allow a player to play longer in his career. In his later years, he would have reduced game time with a reduced wage. Not to mention it would be a step towards simplifying the AFL's complex game rules.

Does anybody know why the interchange replaced the substitutes, in AFL, back in the seventies?

 

[Manikato1]

On Perth ABC radio this morning I heard part of an interview with some AFL honcho (don't know who, I was driving and missed that part) and when asked about what happens if the rule changes that are almost certain to be introduced don't work the way they hope. Answer? "Well I'm sure Hocking knows what he is doing and if we find they don't work then we will review the situation and change them accordingly."

Really? *** sake they implied if it goes pear shaped we will just keeping f**king around with the game until we find something that works. What kind of bulltish is that! They just have no idea what they are doing and he basically admitted it by default. Even if the rule changes do work the process they have in place and the potential impact on the game seems to be totally misunderstood.

Should this be in the rant thread????

 

[Leroy]

On Perth ABC radio this morning I heard part of an interview with some AFL honcho (don't know who, I was driving and missed that part) and when asked about what happens if the rule changes that are almost certain to be introduced don't work the way they hope. Answer? "Well I'm sure Hocking knows what he is doing and if we find they don't work then we will review the situation and change them accordingly."

The very fact there's a rules committee that reviews things every year basically says "we want to tinker around with things to just to keep people busy (us, media, coaches, fans)". Otherwise, why have a committee at all?

I can't think of anywhere else in the world that would consider changing the rules every year based almost entirely on some people's opinion that something is "wrong".

Where is the data? What is the metric of "watchability" they talk so much about and how do they measure it? How many people have they surveyed who actually watch games to understand if what they're changing will make things "better"? It's amateur hour out there on all fronts

 

[Manikato1]

So if one of the rule changes brought in is a free kick against the last team to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds how would that have changed the Dees/Crows game tonight. Massively I would have thought. A mad pinball scramble near the point post ricochets off a Melbourne player OOB and then Eddie banana kicks it for a major. Or worse a Crows player deliberately slaps the ball against a Melbourne player to get it OOB.

 

[Bermi]

So if one of the rule changes brought in is a free kick against the last team to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds how would that have changed the Dees/Crows game tonight. Massively I would have thought. A mad pinball scramble near the point post ricochets off a Melbourne player OOB and then Eddie banana kicks it for a major. Or worse a Crows player deliberately slaps the ball against a Melbourne player to get it OOB.

Last to touch the ball out of bounds, surely the opposite team would be expected to handball it into play, not kick it.

That also would mean less work for the ruckmen to do

 

[KLo30]

So if one of the rule changes brought in is a free kick against the last team to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds how would that have changed the Dees/Crows game tonight. Massively I would have thought. A mad pinball scramble near the point post ricochets off a Melbourne player OOB and then Eddie banana kicks it for a major. Or worse a Crows player deliberately slaps the ball against a Melbourne player to get it OOB.

When they've used this rule it's been a free kick outside the 50m arcs and a throw in inside the arcs. The scenario you just described is the reason for structuring the rule in this manner.

 

[Bomber18]

I'm not a fan of a send-off rule in the AFL as I worry that it'll just create more headaches for the game when it's incorrectly exercised.

I do however think criminal charges for players who commit clear acts of assault in off the ball incidents should be pursued more often. Not sure what changes need to happen but the AFL needs to create a bigger deterrent than just suspension of matches.

A lot of media commentators rightly point out that Gaff would face jail time/criminal charges if he had punched someone like that in public. Why shouldn't he be charged in any case? Football players do not consent to being "king hit" on the field.

I'd only support criminal charges in clear off the ball punches/king hits resulting in severe injury (ie: Barry Hall, Gaff, possibly Bugg) and not injuries from football acts like spoils, bumps and tackles (ie: Cameron). Letting the courts decide the outcome also would add fairness to the process.

Just my own two cents. Fwiw I read that the police might look into the incident in any case.

 

[blue dreamer]

Wasn't there a criminal case from a Geelong V Hawthorn game at Princes Park last century.

 

[Leroy]

I'm not a fan of a send-off rule in the AFL as I worry that it'll just create more headaches for the game when it's incorrectly exercised.

I do however think criminal charges for players who commit clear acts of assault in off the ball incidents should be able to be charged criminally. Not sure what changes need to happen but the AFL needs to create a bigger deterrent than just suspension of matches.

A lot of media commentators rightly point out that Gaff would face jail time/criminal charges if he had punched someone like that in public. Why shouldn't he be charged in any case? Football players do not consent to being "king hit" on the field.

I'd only support criminal charges in clear off the ball punches/king hits resulting in severe injury (ie: Barry Hall, Gaff, possibly Bugg) and not injuries from football acts like spoils, bumps and tackles (ie: Cameron). Letting the courts decide the outcome also would add fairness to the process.

Just my own two cents. Fwiw I read that the police might look into the incident in any case.

If it does go to the police (and I'm of the opinion that perhaps it should), Gaff is lucky in a sense that Brayshaw is 18. Totally disgusting act to punch a kid like that but if he was a minor it could be even worse. I don't imagine the AFL even has a policy about what to do if a 17 old was assaulted on field...

 

[Herbie66]

Wasn't there a criminal case from a Geelong V Hawthorn game at Princes Park last century.

Matthews on Bruns from memory

 

[30BucketsofRo]

I think there should be a send-off rule, particularly for nasty incidents like last night. Think about it, one team loses a player immediately for the rest of the game while the offending player receives no immediate punishment (not counting acts of 'retribution') - he can still influence the game. That's just silly. Yes, we may not have got the legendary Derm/Yeates moment of the 89 GF, but that's another reason to have a rule like this.

It won't be perfectly applied and mistakes will be made, but that's the same with all the other rules in the game anyway. But to deter and punish unnecessary acts like Gaff's/Hall's/Bugg's etc, this needs to be looked at. It may also be in the best interests of the offending player to be sent off. It may prevent the opposition from looking to snipe, which is also a bad look for the game.

 

[freowho]

I'm not a fan of the zones but I like the suggestion for an extended goal square so kick ins can clear the forward press.

 

[Herbie66]

I'm not a fan of the zones but I like the suggestion for an extended goal square so kick ins can clear the forward press.

hahaha

I like the idea of starting zones but for the life of me can't see what extended the goal square does , just "moves" the congestion a extra 10 metres.

Does it also mean they again change the deliberate rush behind under no pressure rule ?

 

[freowho]

hahaha

I like the idea of starting zones but for the life of me can't see what extended the goal square does , just "moves" the congestion a extra 10 metres.

Does it also mean they again change the deliberate rush behind under no pressure rule ?

I only saw a quick grab on the news where they said a team that has just scored a point is twice as likely to have the next shot at goal. My understanding is that the length of the ground, the shape of the ground and the number of players on the ground all contribute to a team being able to choke the small parts of the ground more so than in other invasion sports where it is easier to move the ball to the other end of the ground. What this does is increase the advantage the better team already has. So if we were to judge a team as being approximately 5 goals better than their opposition based on skills and coaching the three factors I mentioned before mean they are likely to win by more than 5 goals. Extending the goal square allows the opposition taking the kick in to quickly move the ball to the centre where the ground is wider, the ball is closer to the opposition's goal, the players from both teams are more spread out and the dominant side has less oportunities to lock the ball up in their forward half reducing the amount of a blow out game.

 

[Herbie66]

I only saw a quick grab on the news where they said a team that has just scored a point is twice as likely to have the next shot at goal. My understanding is that the length of the ground, the shape of the ground and the number of players on the ground all contribute to a team being able to choke the small parts of the ground more so than in other invasion sports where it is easier to move the ball to the other end of the ground. What this does is increase the advantage the better team already has. So if we were to judge a team as being approximately 5 goals better than their opposition based on skills and coaching the three factors I mentioned before mean they are likely to win by more than 5 goals. Extending the goal square allows the opposition taking the kick in to quickly move the ball to the centre where the ground is wider, the ball is closer to the opposition's goal, the players from both teams are more spread out and the dominant side has less oportunities to lock the ball up in their forward half reducing the amount of a blow out game.

absolutely no idea what all that means , baffle me with science , so go for it.


all teams just need to recruit a Ben Graham type and roost it straight down the guts 70+ metres and bypass the zones.