New rules likely to be trialled this season

[bornadog]

Link (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-25/new-rules-likely-to-be-trialled-this-season)

THE AFL is considering trialling major rule changes in up to three games for premiership points before this season is over.

AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan has revealed conversations at League headquarters in recent days have identified possible games which will have no bearing on the finals in whuh trials could take place.

"Certainly thinking about it," McLachland told SEN radio on Wednesday morning.

"I can tell you that there's three fixtures on consecutive weekends that I don't think will have any bearing on the eight, as we stand today, we've got another couple of weeks to play.

"I know enough to know there's fixtures available to do it and we're certainly discussing whether that's appropriate, and the emerging view is that I think it is."

McLachlan said trials in the season-proper would have significant benefits.

"You get to see it in real time, in a game, with four points, with a win and loss on the end of it."

And the League chief insists if the competing clubs agreed he couldn't see "any way that there can be a risk to the integrity of the competition".

It comes ahead of the League's newly formed Competition Committee meeting on Wednesday afternoon.

Possible rule changes

* Starting positions – six forward, six centre, six back
* A bigger goal square
* Reducing interchange rotations

Possible trial games

R21 – Fremantle v Carlton
R22 – Gold Coast v Brisbane
R22 – Carlton v Western Bulldogs
R23 – St Kilda v North Melbourne
R23 – Carlton v Adelaide

[Axe Man]

Just because a game doesn't have any bearing on the 8 doesn't mean it does not matter. Draft picks, membership, sponsorship, players re-signing or signing from other clubs are just some of the things I can think of off the top of my head that may be influenced by the results of these games. As Pauline Hanson said, I don't like it.

[bulldogtragic]

Just because a game doesn't have any bearing on the 8 doesn't mean it does not matter. Draft picks, membership, sponsorship, players re-signing or signing from other clubs are just some of the things I can think of off the top of my head that may be influenced by the results of these games. As Pauline Hanson said, I don't like it.

Yep 100%!! As Pauline Pantsdown said, when you turn my voice around, I don't like it.

[bornadog]

Possible rule changes


* Starting positions – six forward, six centre, six back

Is a nothing rule - what is the purpose of this, what is it trying to achieve? For 20 seconds there will be 6.6.6


* A bigger goal square - FMD



* Reducing interchange rotations

Recruiters will start to recruit athletes that can run all day. The purpose of the reduced interchange is to fatigue players. But if we recruit guys that run all day then it defeats the purpose. Also, I don't want to see a Bont fatigued in the last quarter and he can't perform at his best.

I am slowly but surely getting put off the AFL

[Bulldog Joe]

Well we could trial a thing like paying a ****ing free kick for just hanging onto the ball when tackled.

We could also get rid of nominating ruckmen and just have the umpire throw the ball straight up at a stoppage.

You know things that stop players actually getting into a 30 player maul, and getting the game moving.

[macca]

Possible rule changes


* Starting positions – six forward, six centre, six back

Is a nothing rule - what is the purpose of this, what is it trying to achieve? For 20 seconds there will be 6.6.6


* A bigger goal square - FMD



* Reducing interchange rotations

Recruiters will start to recruit athletes that can run all day. The purpose of the reduced interchange is to fatigue players. But if we recruit guys that run all day then it defeats the purpose. Also, I don't want to see a Bont fatigued in the last quarter and he can't perform at his best.

I am slowly but surely getting put off the AFL

More fatigue , more likelihood of injury . players association should tell afl to f* and stop putting players health at risk. Or at least extend the interchange bench to 6 players and keep the same rotating numbers

Every week I am watching footy less and less and that’s becasue the new stupid rules make the game less exciting, predictable . Players now are genuinely confused and playing on less instinct. AFL your destroying the game, stop it or the fans just won’t show up

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I’m all for changing rules to better the game. I’m not at all a traditionalist. I don’t care if a rule drastically changes the game so long as it makes the game a better spectacle. But the only thing that is really a concern with the game is the endless stoppages and congestion. That’s it. Low scores is not the problem. It might be a symptom but it’s not the problem. The focus should not be on higher scoring (I’m almost certain the AFL wants more goals so that more ads are played). I couldn’t care less if the final score was 69-59 so long as the game was entertaining and I’m sure most would agree. So how can we reduce stoppages and thus the congestion? Oh I don’t know, not have ruck nominations, throw the ball up ASAP, bring back 3rd man up (or penalise 3rd man up). That would go a long way. I still can’t get my head around why the AFL banned 3rd man up. The 2016 finals series was fantastic but they want to bring a rule in that slows the game down to protect two unco lumbering ruckman?

This starting positions stuff and bigger goal square is just nonsense. Starting positions at centre bounces will do nothing and implementing it at stoppages will be farcical as we sit and wait for players to return to the 50 before the ball can be bounced. And what the hell does a bigger goalsquare achieve? I’d rather 16 players per team than these rules

[azabob]

I like the longer goal square rule. It should encourage longer kick outs.

[Topdog]

Farcical to trial during the season proper.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I like the longer goal square rule. It should encourage longer kick outs.

If it's just a longer goal square then fine. But i've read about goal squares within goal squares

[bulldogtragic]

Farcical to trial during the season proper.

Virtually unannounced. This is the issue. What if the rule changes impact game plans and teams lose? What remedy does the club and players have? Nine. If they want to change it, well they’re in charge, but not in a season already well underway.

[The Pie Man]

Absolute peanuts - what happened to all games matter?

Not sure I can keep following this sport like I have

[Scraggers]

My advice to the AFL ...

Watch a game of Lacrosse. Watch the way the game is slowed by requirement to always have three backs and a goalie in the back half. Watch the confusion from players who have been playing these rules all their lives and the confusion with referees and supporters. This is a quick game that is slowed by these rules. This is the maelstrom you will create if you bring in definitive areas for forwards/centres/backs.

[bornadog]

My advice to the AFL ...

Watch a game of Lacrosse. Watch the way the game is slowed by requirement to always have three backs and a goalie in the back half. Watch the confusion from players who have been playing these rules all their lives and the confusion with referees and supporters. This is a quick game that is slowed by these rules. This is the maelstrom you will create if you bring in definitive areas for forwards/centres/backs.

In a recent under 18 match, a player didn't get back to starting position on time, the penalty was a shot at goal for the opposition. I would hate to lose a game like that.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

In a recent under 18 match, a player didn't get back to starting position on time, the penalty was a shot at goal for the opposition. I would hate to lose a game like that.

How much time do they get?

[bornadog]

How much time do they get?

Sorry, I am not sure on that.

[westdog54]

Gerard Whateley discussed this at length on talkback this morning after Gil's appearance and the discussion was fascinating to listen to. Even though I disagree with his views on this (he was a supporter of an in - season trial) he is a breath of fresh air on the airwaves.

There is far more to worry about than the eight. There is draft order for the clubs involved, the clubs around them, traded future picks are affected. Brownlow votes may be affected.

Luke Beveridge is on record as saying that he is concerned about rule changes. I can see him resting players if one of our games is used for one these trials.

[Twodogs]

Gerard Whateley discussed this at length on talkback this morning after Gil's appearance and the discussion was fascinating to listen to. Even though I disagree with his views on this (he was a supporter of an in - season trial) he is a breath of fresh air on the airwaves.

There is far more to worry about than the eight. There is draft order for the clubs involved, the clubs around them, traded future picks are affected. Brownlow votes may be affected.

Luke Beveridge is on record as saying that he is concerned about rule changes. I can see him resting players if one of our games is used for one these trials.

We'll be lucky to have 22 fit players left by then anyway the way things are going.

[Sedat]

It's seriously time for Gilligan, Hocking and the rest of the office of the executive to be sacked and replaced by competent individuals. The clubs need to join forces and initiate this revolution, because sure as shit the entire AFL meedya are in their pocket.and won't speak ill of their masters.

[jeemak]

Absolute peanuts - what happened to all games matter?

Not sure I can keep following this sport like I have

Lucky they made Dean Bailey's life a misery before the poor poor bastard died of cancer a sacrificial lamb on the basis of every game being super important.

What a pack of duplicitous pricks the AFL are.

[bornadog]

It's seriously time for Gilligan, Hocking and the rest of the office of the executive to be sacked and replaced by competent individuals. The clubs need to join forces and initiate this revolution, because sure as shit the entire AFL meedya are in their pocket.and won't speak ill of their masters.

THis 1000 times

[Rocket Science]

Oh well, forget pacy mids, we're clearly going to have to target more jugglers and trapeze artists in the next draft. Let the trials begin!

https://preview.ibb.co/kxfdio/IMG_6940.jpg (https://ibb.co/cU8nb8)

The game's being held hostage by autocratic vandals.

[mjp]

Why wouldn’t you trial the rules as long as it doesn’t compromise finals? The draw (amongst a million other things) already has a huge impact on things like draft order Brownlow votes etc that a 3-match trial of some rules being proposed for NEXT year seems like a minor bump in the road.

[Happy Days]

Why wouldn’t you trial the rules as long as it doesn’t compromise finals? The draw (amongst a million other things) already has a huge impact on things like draft order Brownlow votes etc that a 3-match trial of some rules being proposed for NEXT year seems like a minor bump in the road.

Why would you though? Does the compromise to the competition actually bring about any benefit that waiting until next pre-season wouldn't?

[Sedat]

Why wouldn’t you trial the rules as long as it doesn’t compromise finals? The draw (amongst a million other things) already has a huge impact on things like draft order Brownlow votes etc that a 3-match trial of some rules being proposed for NEXT year seems like a minor bump in the road.
There are existing rules that, if actually used properly, will do exactly what is required to improved the aesthetic of the game. A couple of simple things like elimination of prior opp and quick ball-ups/thrown-ins will automatically result in less congestion and coaches will then structure up organically with players positioned ahead of the ball without needing something contrived like 6-6-6. And we need to eliminate interpretation in our rules as much as possible.

Coaches are incredibly smart and will come up with measures to counter any new rules - we'll be back to square one.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I get the feeling a rogue league may not be too far away the way things are going....

[bornadog]

Why wouldn’t you trial the rules as long as it doesn’t compromise finals? The draw (amongst a million other things) already has a huge impact on things like draft order Brownlow votes etc that a 3-match trial of some rules being proposed for NEXT year seems like a minor bump in the road.

Do you think the 6.6.6. will do anything to enhance the game? I am struggling to see what this extra layer of complicating the game will achieve,

[Topdog]

Why wouldn’t you trial the rules as long as it doesn’t compromise finals? The draw (amongst a million other things) already has a huge impact on things like draft order Brownlow votes etc that a 3-match trial of some rules being proposed for NEXT year seems like a minor bump in the road.

The caps you have used is exactly the problem. It absolutely shouldn't be for next year as they wont have enough time to properly validate if these changes will work and if there will be follow on impacts from the rule changes.

Also announcing it in season and 2 weeks before just randomly adding it in is extremely poor change management.

[jeemak]

Why wouldn’t you trial the rules as long as it doesn’t compromise finals? The draw (amongst a million other things) already has a huge impact on things like draft order Brownlow votes etc that a 3-match trial of some rules being proposed for NEXT year seems like a minor bump in the road.

If there was a genuine safety element then I would think a change of rules mid season is warranted, though every team starts and plans for a particular season knowing or pretending to know, what the rules are. Changing rules mid way through or at the end of the season fundamentally alters the integrity of the game.

That the AFEL is actually thinking of doing this is a testament to how poorly they are managed, and how little respect they have for the integrity of the competition. They have no strategic direction, or ability to execute whichever strategic direction they have without it becoming a calamity. Every indicator suggests that they are managing poorly through their intervention, and they counter this by intervening more regularly and more drastically. This is an extremely unprofessional and incompetent response.

[Doc26]

Do you think the 6.6.6. will do anything to enhance the game? I am struggling to see what this extra layer of complicating the game will achieve,

As you say it might help fix congestion in the forward half for 5 seconds until more defensive forwards push back.

The game is far more mired with congestion with around the ground stoppages. This is where the focus of any change should be centered. Not quite sure how but consider re-introducing more randomness to each stoppage e.g bring back 3rd man up, remove the silly ruck nomination, essence must be on a quick ball up rather than a full umpire reset. Then to address the more complicated piece and most significant piece of how to reward the player genuinely trying to exit the ball from the stoppage rather than rewarding the opponents immediately trying to jump all over them to inhibit its release.

[Scraggers]

Fremantle Football Club have come out and said they will have no part of an in-season trial of these rules. LINK (http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2018-07-26/club-response-to-possibility-of-rule-change-trial-games)

We should be doing the same !!

[chef]

We should be next. Stand up to the morons.

[mjp]

There are existing rules that, if actually used properly, will do exactly what is required to improved the aesthetic of the game. A couple of simple things like elimination of prior opp and quick ball-ups/thrown-ins will automatically result in less congestion and coaches will then structure up organically with players positioned ahead of the ball without needing something contrived like 6-6-6. And we need to eliminate interpretation in our rules as much as possible.

Coaches are incredibly smart and will come up with measures to counter any new rules - we'll be back to square one.

But...this is just an opinion. Saying that elimination of prior opportunity will fix congestion is as much of an arse-pluck as any commentary about whether 6.6.6 will make a difference is...

Coaches might be incredibly smart (though I am not so sure this means there are many/any true innovators) but a rule like 6.6.6 - whether you think it will work or not - makes it more of a players game and less of a coaches game...

Preventing them from moving players around like chess pieces, playing extra numbers deep inside d50 etc and forcing 1-on-1 contests following a CBD doesn't sound like a terrible idea to me. And who does it hurt? How does doing this change the 'fabric' of the game? Eliminating prior opportunity will probably lead to players refusing to take possession of the footy inside a contest because they will be penalised for holding the ball...and whilst you say COACHES are smart, I think it is actually PLAYERS who are smart...and the smartest of them will quickly adapt the new rules to their advantage...meanwhile, the rest of us will be screaming at them for 'tapping' at the ball instead of grabbing it...

This is complicated and they need to run some trials. It can't be done in pre-season which the clubs treat as a joke. It can't be done at State level because state footy is a completely different SPORT to AFL footy...it has to be done in the AFL. And however small the sample is (3-games for example) it will be better than NO games. And I saw the link about Freo saying they will have no part of the trials? Ross Lyon has been ruining the game for 10 years and now he is saying he wont help trial any changes? Honestly wish they would just shut up and play...they play in the AFL, not the FreoFL...assisting in creating a better product should be something that they WANT to do.

[Doc26]

Lucky they made Dean Bailey's life a misery before the poor poor bastard died of cancer a sacrificial lamb on the basis of every game being super important.

What a pack of duplicitous pricks the AFL are.

From memory it was more Chris Connelly who took the brunt of the AFL's punishment for the 'tanking' probe and findings at Melbourne although Bailey was no doubt implicated to a lesser extent.

With priority picks no longer assessed based on games won i.e. <4 in a season, and the AFL stating that they wouldn't trial a game in season if it could effect draft positions it is no doubt a different scenario to that back in '09 but it doesn't sit at all well from an overall 'integrity' aspect to have premiership matches played in the same round but under different rules

[bornadog]

Fremantle Football Club have come out and said they will have no part of an in-season trial of these rules. LINK (http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2018-07-26/club-response-to-possibility-of-rule-change-trial-games)


We should be doing the same !!

Carlton have said the same

[bornadog]

But...this is just an opinion. Saying that elimination of prior opportunity will fix congestion is as much of an arse-pluck as any commentary about whether 6.6.6 will make a difference is...

Coaches might be incredibly smart (though I am not so sure this means there are many/any true innovators) but a rule like 6.6.6 - whether you think it will work or not - makes it more of a players game and less of a coaches game...

Preventing them from moving players around like chess pieces, playing extra numbers deep inside d50 etc and forcing 1-on-1 contests following a CBD doesn't sound like a terrible idea to me. And who does it hurt? How does doing this change the 'fabric' of the game? Eliminating prior opportunity will probably lead to players refusing to take possession of the footy inside a contest because they will be penalised for holding the ball...and whilst you say COACHES are smart, I think it is actually PLAYERS who are smart...and the smartest of them will quickly adapt the new rules to their advantage...meanwhile, the rest of us will be screaming at them for 'tapping' at the ball instead of grabbing it...

This is complicated and they need to run some trials. It can't be done in pre-season which the clubs treat as a joke. It can't be done at State level because state footy is a completely different SPORT to AFL footy...it has to be done in the AFL. And however small the sample is (3-games for example) it will be better than NO games. And I saw the link about Freo saying they will have no part of the trials? Ross Lyon has been ruining the game for 10 years and now he is saying he wont help trial any changes? Honestly wish they would just shut up and play...they play in the AFL, not the FreoFL...assisting in creating a better product should be something that they WANT to do.

But how will 6.6.6 stop congestion? The 6.6.6 formation is only at start of quarters and after goals. In other words for what 20 seconds at a time (or less), and then players are free to still apply forward pressure, or get numbers around the ball.

I can't see what they are trying to achieve?

[Twodogs]

So as soon as the ball is bounced players can go where they like? At first I was dead against it but now I'm in the "why not" category, I don't think I will ever get to "hell yeah!" stage. If it's just at centre bounces I don't see how it would interfere significantly with the fabric of the game and maybe it will make thecgame a better spectacle?

We are still going to have waves of players arriving at centre bounces though. The players will just run in from the 50, at most grounds the top of the arc of the 50 is only a few metres from the centre square anyway.

[bornadog]

So as soon as the ball is bounced players can go where they like? At first I was dead against it but now I'm in the "why not" category, I don't think I will ever get to "hell yeah!" stage. If it's just at centre bounces I don't see how it would interfere significantly with the fabric of the game and maybe it will make thecgame a better spectacle?

We are still going to have waves of players arriving at centre bounces though. The players will just run in from the 50, at most grounds the top of the arc of the 50 is only a few metres from the centre square anyway.

why the hell make the game even more hard to umpire. How does it fix congestion throughout a game

[mjp]

why the hell make the game even more hard to umpire. How does it fix congestion throughout a game

1. How is that hard to umpire?
2. The reset after a goal will help but you are right, this doesn’t go far enough!

[mjp]

But how will 6.6.6 stop congestion? The 6.6.6 formation is only at start of quarters and after goals. In other words for what 20 seconds at a time (or less), and then players are free to still apply forward pressure, or get numbers around the ball.

I can't see what they are trying to achieve?

A stoppage exit from cbd gets kicked to even numbers...stops the continuous sticking extra blokes behind the ball stuff...if a winger has to ‘work back’ to become the extra, then they still have to push in to get there...it will create more space.

I just don’t see how this isn’t a good idea.

[bornadog]

1. How is that hard to umpire?

Not hard, just another layer of rules the umpires have to watch out for. My mate use to be an umpire in the 80s and the rule book was paper thin, have a look at it now.

[bornadog]

A stoppage exit from cbd gets kicked to even numbers...stops the continuous sticking extra blokes behind the ball stuff...if a winger has to ‘work back’ to become the extra, then they still have to push in to get there...it will create more space.

I just don’t see how this isn’t a good idea.

For 1 minute till players flood back.

You will never stop the forward press that sees 36 players in half of the ground, unless you have radical zones like all backs stay back and all forwards stay forward. Even if you insist 6 players each stay back, still have 24 players in forward 50.

Unless coaching tactics change dramatically, we have to live with it.

[GVGjr]

I get what MJP is saying that it's the best time to trial it but I'm against rules being changes once the season starts in fact I'm against it once the trade period starts. I suggest that the AFL should hand all teams notice now that if you happen to be in the bottom 6 clubs on the ladder come round 18 in 2019 then these are the rules you will play with for the balance of the season. This gives team sufficient notice to plan and train for it. Participating clubs and their fans should also be compensated for it. Clubs should be incentivized if they win games over and above the 4 premiership points

If the AFL need to make a change of this magnitude then they should pay the unwilling participants in some manner.

[azabob]

But how will 6.6.6 stop congestion? The 6.6.6 formation is only at start of quarters and after goals. In other words for what 20 seconds at a time (or less), and then players are free to still apply forward pressure, or get numbers around the ball.

I can't see what they are trying to achieve?

My understanding is the centre 6, 2 can actually stand anywhere on the square, wing, forward or back.

[Twodogs]

I get what MJP is saying that it's the best time to trial it but I'm against rules being changes once the season starts in fact I'm against it once the trade period starts. I suggest that the AFL should hand all teams notice now that if you happen to be in the bottom 6 clubs on the ladder come round 18 in 2019 then these are the rules you will play with for the balance of the season. This gives team sufficient notice to plan and train for it. Participating clubs and their fans should also be compensated for it. Clubs should be incentivized if they win games over and above the 4 premiership points

If the AFL need to make a change of this magnitude then they should pay the unwilling participants in some manner.


Yeah, I think we could organise something like too. What sort of recompense would you be thinking? Rather than a reward for each game why not make the make the bottom four teams a seperate competition for the last four weeks (if we are going radical...) trial the rules and all that and the team that wins that competition gets a start of second round pick? A sort of anti-tanking measure that breathes a bit of life back into the season for the straglers.

[bornadog]

My understanding is the centre 6, 2 can actually stand anywhere on the square, wing, forward or back.

MY point is it is a nothing rule, and does nothing to make the game better.

[Sedat]

But...this is just an opinion. Saying that elimination of prior opportunity will fix congestion is as much of an arse-pluck as any commentary about whether 6.6.6 will make a difference is...

Coaches might be incredibly smart (though I am not so sure this means there are many/any true innovators) but a rule like 6.6.6 - whether you think it will work or not - makes it more of a players game and less of a coaches game...

Preventing them from moving players around like chess pieces, playing extra numbers deep inside d50 etc and forcing 1-on-1 contests following a CBD doesn't sound like a terrible idea to me. And who does it hurt? How does doing this change the 'fabric' of the game? Eliminating prior opportunity will probably lead to players refusing to take possession of the footy inside a contest because they will be penalised for holding the ball...and whilst you say COACHES are smart, I think it is actually PLAYERS who are smart...and the smartest of them will quickly adapt the new rules to their advantage...meanwhile, the rest of us will be screaming at them for 'tapping' at the ball instead of grabbing it...

This is complicated and they need to run some trials. It can't be done in pre-season which the clubs treat as a joke. It can't be done at State level because state footy is a completely different SPORT to AFL footy...it has to be done in the AFL. And however small the sample is (3-games for example) it will be better than NO games. And I saw the link about Freo saying they will have no part of the trials? Ross Lyon has been ruining the game for 10 years and now he is saying he wont help trial any changes? Honestly wish they would just shut up and play...they play in the AFL, not the FreoFL...assisting in creating a better product should be something that they WANT to do.
I might be against the implementation of the above, but only because I genuinely believe that there are existing levers in the rules that can be used to get the same effect. I honestly believe the following will alleviate congestion, promote positional play/corridor ball movement, remove interpretation of rules and increase scoring organically:

1. Umps call ball-up as soon as 2 players have the ball in dispute, not when the cavalry of 20 players arrive
2. Umps then throw it up immediately - absolutely no ruck nominating
3. Get rid of prior opp - onus on player to dispose of the ball and onus on tackler to tackle correctly (too many tackles in the back and high currently not penalised and instead rewarded)
4. Last kick/handball OOB is a free to the opposition - will promote corridor footy and get rid of interpretation of deliberate OOB
5. Start of qtr and centre bounce after a goal - nobody allowed in centre square except the 4 players on each side until ball is out of square (centre square came in the early 70's and increased scoring immediately, ditto OOB on the full which came in around the same time)
6. Drastically reduce rotations - 10 per qtr and none in open play (after a goal only). Happy to increase interchange to 6.

Just in relation to your 2nd last paragraph on tapping it on instead of taking possession, that's EXACTLY what players did prior to the late 90's - they would tap the ball on instead of take possession, depending on the situation. That's because they were smart footballers - there's nothing smart and there's no risk for a player to simply hatch it in the tackle and choosing to wait for the inevitable secondary stoppage. I like seeing smart players make good decisions, and choosing to either take possession or tap to advantage is no less a smart decision than kicking inboard to the fat side or handballing laterally instead of bombing it blindly forward under pressure.

If the above levers don't have the desired effect, I'm all for bringing in artificial means such as 6-6-6 to free up congestion. My worry is that it will add further difficulty to umpiring, which is already horrendously difficult due to the grey areas and far too many rules relying on interpretation. And I'd rather we exhaust all existing options at our disposal first, which we haven't done.

[bornadog]

Sedat

The one thing your ideas will not stop is 36 players in one half of the ground.

[Sedat]

Sedat

The one thing your ideas will not stop is 36 players in one half of the ground.
They will promote much quicker speed of ball movement, and as a result coaches will have no choice but to structure up more traditionally so that they can either take advantage of the space in F50 or defend in D50.

Congestion happens when the ball doesn't move quickly.

[jeemak]

This is such a polarising argument, everyone thinks their version of how to fix the game is right.

I don't mind the free kick for out of bounds off a direct kick or handball, not a fan of the last touch version. I love watching how teams structure up throw ins, I love watching players break away from them. I don't want the game to lose that aspect.

Immediate ball ups and throw ins, a massive yes for me. How we got ourselves into this position is beyond me, the umpire balling up the ball should just get it done, and if a player makes contact with the umpire trying to get into position or carelessly it should be an immediate free kick and fine. That will take care of the umpire safety aspect.

I don't like the removal of prior opportunity or team holding the ball rules. The tackling capabilities of players is amazing now compared to what it used to be, we need players going for the ball without hesitation.

Fatiguing players will just result in more numbers behind the ball because coaches are inherently defencive. I'll dust off my crackpot theory of incentivising the coaches to actually score more once again...........

[Flamethrower]

Rather than inventing rules that they just assume will make for a more attractive game - to the theatregoer, not the hard core fan, I just wish they would address the real reason for all the congestion.

Too many players that are not elite caused by too many teams. The most congested games always seem to be when there is a large mismatch between opponents, causing the lesser team to crowd the contest to attempt to nullify the superior team.

[bulldogtragic]

For me it's simple:

- Zone the ground into three and make them stay in the zone. Like a full forward could be 'goal attack'. That will stop congestion.
- To promote the ball movement through the corridor and kicks to marks inside 50, we could incentivise the goal kicker by taking the shot in correlation to what we could call a 'try'. That should get play away from the wings and boundary line, nullify deliberate OOB or last touched rule.
- To stop thuggish behaviour, we could use some sort of system for our referees to tell players, 'no that's not acceptable'. We could use the international colour of caution, yellow, as a 'card'. And the international colour of angry face, red, as a more serious 'card'.
- To take goal kicking accuracy levels to 100%, for the fans, by simply removing the point posts and eliminating behinds altogether I think we can get goal kicking accuracy to 100%. It's a goal or a miss, no behinds to bring that accuracy rate up. There will be no missed shots on goal stats though, especially for our club.
- If players get too many frees, maybe 5 or 6, they get 'freed' out of the game. This could apply to all.
- I think it will make life easier for our referees if the players jumper numbers relate to their position on the field.
- Insread of AFELX, we could look to get Ice Cube to bring his 3 on 3 concept to our game in the preseason.
- Try a state versus state series.
- Absolutely go to four referees. Our centre square kind of looks like a diamond on an angle, so maybe a referee on each base of the diamond would help make calls better.
- And to really bring in the fans, have folded aluminium chairs dotted around around our ring and when the referee isn't watching, have someone like Zaine Cordy grab one and smack Harry Taylor into retirement.

So a part from these answers, I don't have a definitive position yet. I'd like to see the answers for fixing our game, born from the current questions posed of our game. I'm not sold that big changes need to come along before we've tried many of the smaller changes which could arguably fix them if tried. So perhaps start with seeing if the least fabric changing rule changes work first. If not, then progress up until the results change. The game evolves by players and coaches, and over time the league has had to step in. I'm not adverse to change, but the current mob in AFEL house are the experts of stuffing stuff up or masters of the law of unintended consequence (sliding/lower leg contact, deliberate/insufficient intent boundary, ruck calling etc, etc). So I would think spending the off season reviewing the season in full and working out their best changes and trialling in a preseason format would seem to be the prudent move. For me, at least, it would like I've bought tickets to a special cinema screening of The Godfather Part 1 and just as I'm getting to the baptism scene, the cinema changes the reel to The Godfather Part 3 ending. I want to watch the end of the movie I started watching. Yes it's still The Godfather, but I can watch Part 3 next year if I want to. Just leave me to watch Gil McLaughlin denounce satan and our match committee kill the 5 last chances of winning.

[Twodogs]

While we are talking about new rules I've wanted to get rid of the need for goal reviews and everyone getting worked up about what they think the ball hit on the way through by just bringing in thatif it bounces off the inside of the goalpost and goes through the goalposts then it's a goal. Why is Aussie rules the only game that it matters if the ball hits the post.

If it goes through for a goal then it's a goal, if it goes through for a behind then it's a behind, if it hits one of the post and bounces back into play then it's play on. It shouldn't matter if it hit anything on the way through.

[azabob]

MY point is it is a nothing rule, and does nothing to make the game better.

Agree. If my understanding is correct coaches can still have 2 behind the ball before a centre bounce.

[Twodogs]

What's the penalty likely to be for breaching the 6-6-6 rule? It's in at TAC cup isn't it?

[Ghost Dog]

In Australia, the more they try to fix the things we love, the more they ruin them. It's a national pastime.

[Mofra]

What's the penalty likely to be for breaching the 6-6-6 rule? It's in at TAC cup isn't it?
Honestly I've only seen one team get penalized for it and that was Vic Metro at the champs (twice!). From memory it was a free kick where the ball is, which is generally going to be at the other end of the ground.

[bornadog]

Honestly I've only seen one team get penalized for it and that was Vic Metro at the champs (twice!). From memory it was a free kick where the ball is, which is generally going to be at the other end of the ground.

and a goal resulted in at least one of those, as they got the free inside 50.

[Topdog]

I get what MJP is saying that it's the best time to trial it but I'm against rules being changes once the season starts in fact I'm against it once the trade period starts. I suggest that the AFL should hand all teams notice now that if you happen to be in the bottom 6 clubs on the ladder come round 18 in 2019 then these are the rules you will play with for the balance of the season. This gives team sufficient notice to plan and train for it. Participating clubs and their fans should also be compensated for it. Clubs should be incentivized if they win games over and above the 4 premiership points

If the AFL need to make a change of this magnitude then they should pay the unwilling participants in some manner.

YES YES YES! Exactly, come out in October and say in Rounds 18-22 in 2019 we will be trialling the following rules. Not 2 weeks before!

[Axe Man]

Gil should be in the circus with backflips like these!

Rule change trials 'unlikely' this season: CEO (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-27/rule-change-trials-unlikely-this-season-ceo)

THE AFL is unlikely to trial rule changes in games this season following intense public backlash and questions about the integrity of the game, CEO Gillon McLachlan says.

On Wednesday, the League boss floated the possibility of introducing major rule changes for up to three games for premiership points in the final five rounds of the season.

However, after McLachlan made those comments on radio station SEN, the reaction from those in the game and from the general public has largely been negative.

Asked whether in-game trials were a feasible thing for this season, McLachlan said it was looking more doubtful by the day.

"I think it's unlikely," McLachlan told 3AW on Friday morning.

"The way it's running is that two-thirds of people think it's a bad idea and a one-third think it's good, that's my assessment after a couple of days."

The core issue is the integrity of the game, according to McLachlan, with prominent AFL greats Leigh Matthews, Matthew Lloyd and Cameron Ling expressing their strong opposition to the idea.

"Clearly some questioned whether it was an integrity issue and that's what I think the majority think, so I don't think you can do it," McLachlan said.

McLachlan hinted that his personal view was that in-game trials this season should be explored further, but was happy to accept the prevailing consensus from knowledgeable people in the game.

Possible rule changes include introducing starting positions, a bigger goal square and reducing interchange rotations.

The AFL Commission must sign off any proposed rule changes made by Steve Hocking and the competition committee should they be raised.

The competition committee met on Wednesday, where the state of the game was discussed in detail.

[Rocket Science]

"The core issue is the integrity of the game, according to McLachlan" ...

Delivered with the conviction of a mob who floated an idea to test the winds and would be proclaiming pressing ahead with trials with the same conviction had the footy public not howled the ham-fisted concept down.

He'd make a great mainstream party politician.

[Sedat]

Gil should be in the circus with backflips like these!

Rule change trials 'unlikely' this season: CEO (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-27/rule-change-trials-unlikely-this-season-ceo)

THE AFL is unlikely to trial rule changes in games this season following intense public backlash and questions about the integrity of the game, CEO Gillon McLachlan says.

On Wednesday, the League boss floated the possibility of introducing major rule changes for up to three games for premiership points in the final five rounds of the season.

However, after McLachlan made those comments on radio station SEN, the reaction from those in the game and from the general public has largely been negative.

Asked whether in-game trials were a feasible thing for this season, McLachlan said it was looking more doubtful by the day.

"I think it's unlikely," McLachlan told 3AW on Friday morning.

"The way it's running is that two-thirds of people think it's a bad idea and a one-third think it's good, that's my assessment after a couple of days."

The core issue is the integrity of the game, according to McLachlan, with prominent AFL greats Leigh Matthews, Matthew Lloyd and Cameron Ling expressing their strong opposition to the idea.

"Clearly some questioned whether it was an integrity issue and that's what I think the majority think, so I don't think you can do it," McLachlan said.

McLachlan hinted that his personal view was that in-game trials this season should be explored further, but was happy to accept the prevailing consensus from knowledgeable people in the game.

Possible rule changes include introducing starting positions, a bigger goal square and reducing interchange rotations.

The AFL Commission must sign off any proposed rule changes made by Steve Hocking and the competition committee should they be raised.

The competition committee met on Wednesday, where the state of the game was discussed in detail.
This pin-head proves time and time again that he is completely out of his depth running a supposedly professional and sophisticated multi-billion dollar business. More light-weight than a dandelion spore.

Get rid of him, and as an added bonus his dickhead brother Hamish will get the arse not being able to hide behind his powerful brother. One day the useless prick might even pay back all those creditors that lost millions from the AFL Hall of Fame and Sensation - https://tvtonight.com.au/2008/03/seven-plucks-controversial-host-for-new-footy-show.html

[Twodogs]

This pin-head proves time and time again that he is completely out of his depth running a supposedly professional and sophisticated multi-billion dollar business. More light-weight than a dandelion spore.

Get rid of him, and as an added bonus his dickhead brother Hamish will get the arse not being able to hide behind his powerful brother. One day the useless prick might even pay back all those creditors that lost millions from the AFL Hall of Fame and Sensation - https://tvtonight.com.au/2008/03/seven-plucks-controversial-host-for-new-footy-show.html

The Daddo brothers were similiar talentless hacks but nobody had the bright idea of putting Cameron in charge of the AFL.

[EasternWest]

The Daddo brothers were similiar talentless hacks.

You take that back right now.

[mjp]

This is such a polarising argument, everyone thinks their version of how to fix the game is right.



I'm not sure about this. I think it is more about 2x camps where the guiding sentiment for each is:

Group 1: Stop changing the rules. You guys caused all this by changing the rules. Stop changing the rules.
Group 2: The game is unrecognisable. The coaches value 'not losing' more than they value winning. Please dear god do SOMETHING to try and create some one-vs-one contests and positional play.

I actually have no idea what will 'FIX IT' but am firmly in camp 2...if nothing changes and we are sooking about congestion half-way through next year, then we have only ourselves to blame. The rules have evolved over the years - out on the full was never a thing, there was no centre square etc etc etc...some of the changes have been positive and others not so much - and opinions vary on which ones fall into which camp.

Maybe I have enough footy to watch with coaching and all, but I have to tell you I was once a 'watch every game' person and my tv was playing a game of some sort 24x7. Now? I watch the 'Dogs (no wonder I am unhappy with the state of the game) and I like watching the Giants 'cos they run...but aside from that...

[bornadog]

Maybe I have enough footy to watch with coaching and all, but I have to tell you I was once a 'watch every game' person and my tv was playing a game of some sort 24x7. Now? I watch the 'Dogs (no wonder I am unhappy with the state of the game) and I like watching the Giants 'cos they run...but aside from that...

Richmond are pretty good to watch

[bornadog]

I'm not sure about this. I think it is more about 2x camps where the guiding sentiment for each is:

Group 1: Stop changing the rules. You guys caused all this by changing the rules. Stop changing the rules.
Group 2: The game is unrecognisable. The coaches value 'not losing' more than they value winning. Please dear god do SOMETHING to try and create some one-vs-one contests and positional play.

I am an advocate of don't change the rules, for one reason only, I don't trust the AFL will get it right.

I can't think of one rule in the last 15 years that I can say has improved the game, I think it has gone the other way, and I am starting to think the interchange restrictions is when the game started going backwards. I need to look up some old games and think about it more, but all I know is when the players were running hard and fast and resting, the game was extremely fast. Have a look at some of our games from the Rocket years, and the ball movement as an example.

The business of making players fatigue so they can't get to a stoppage is absolute rubbish - do I want to see a Bont so tired he can't play, I want to see him at his best.

Whatever we do, will not stop the current tactics of the forward press and all out being defensive. When you have 36 players on the ground, prepare for congestion, unless you force zones, and it would need to be drastic, as even 26 players in the FWD 50 is too many.

Anyway some thoughts without proof. :D

[jeemak]

I'm not sure about this. I think it is more about 2x camps where the guiding sentiment for each is:

Group 1: Stop changing the rules. You guys caused all this by changing the rules. Stop changing the rules.
Group 2: The game is unrecognisable. The coaches value 'not losing' more than they value winning. Please dear god do SOMETHING to try and create some one-vs-one contests and positional play.

I actually have no idea what will 'FIX IT' but am firmly in camp 2...if nothing changes and we are sooking about congestion half-way through next year, then we have only ourselves to blame. The rules have evolved over the years - out on the full was never a thing, there was no centre square etc etc etc...some of the changes have been positive and others not so much - and opinions vary on which ones fall into which camp.

Maybe I have enough footy to watch with coaching and all, but I have to tell you I was once a 'watch every game' person and my tv was playing a game of some sort 24x7. Now? I watch the 'Dogs (no wonder I am unhappy with the state of the game) and I like watching the Giants 'cos they run...but aside from that...

How many polar opposites can you have? You don't have to answer, I think we actually agree broadly speaking. However, each camp tends to fight more furiously with itself (a bit like political parties, it gets ugly) than it does with the other.

I'm with you with respect to being in the second camp. What can we do to incentivise the coaches to value winning and winning well over not losing and not losing by much?

[Twodogs]

You take that back right now.

No! I won't. I will concede they are more talented than the Maclachlans. And that Cam probably would have done a better job of running the AFL than Gil currently is.

I beat Lochie at pool at Chasers one night.


I'm not sure about this. I think it is more about 2x camps where the guiding sentiment for each is:

Group 1: Stop changing the rules. You guys caused all this by changing the rules. Stop changing the rules.
Group 2: The game is unrecognisable. The coaches value 'not losing' more than they value winning. Please dear god do SOMETHING to try and create some one-vs-one contests and positional play.

I actually have no idea what will 'FIX IT' but am firmly in camp 2...if nothing changes and we are sooking about congestion half-way through next year, then we have only ourselves to blame. The rules have evolved over the years - out on the full was never a thing, there was no centre square etc etc etc...some of the changes have been positive and others not so much - and opinions vary on which ones fall into which camp.

Maybe I have enough footy to watch with coaching and all, but I have to tell you I was once a 'watch every game' person and my tv was playing a game of some sort 24x7. Now? I watch the 'Dogs (no wonder I am unhappy with the state of the game) and I like watching the Giants 'cos they run...but aside from that...


I can remember telling you one Monday when we were playing that I was planning on watching Four Corners that night and you looked at me as if I was deranged. "But what about Monday Night Football?" you asked. I had forgotten about the footy being on and ended up watching it.

[bulldogtragic]

Since when did the AFEL stop doing focus groups to test opinions on proposed changes? If they had just stopped them a little sooner we wouldn't have GWS.

[Sedat]

I'm not sure about this. I think it is more about 2x camps where the guiding sentiment for each is:

Group 1: Stop changing the rules. You guys caused all this by changing the rules. Stop changing the rules.
Group 2: The game is unrecognisable. The coaches value 'not losing' more than they value winning. Please dear god do SOMETHING to try and create some one-vs-one contests and positional play.
There's a 3rd camp who is a close cousin to the 2nd group - game is unrecognisable but there are existing rules that need to be used/tightened to have the desired effect to the game that group 2 want.

[mjp]

Richmond are pretty good to watch

Nah - don't like them. It is the sort of footy that a club supporter would love but as a neutral it isn't very inspiring...what it does do is make me wonder why we don't play like that (any more).

Lot's of crappy i50 entries to a group of small-medium forwards who do it with effort rather than skill...they are admirable but that wears off after 5 minutes when you realise you are admiring Richmond.

[Eastdog]

Farcical to trial during the season proper.

Yep agree. They should leave for the pre season games.

[bornadog]

Nah - don't like them. It is the sort of footy that a club supporter would love but as a neutral it isn't very inspiring...what it does do is make me wonder why we don't play like that (any more).

Lot's of crappy i50 entries to a group of small-medium forwards who do it with effort rather than skill...they are admirable but that wears off after 5 minutes when you realise you are admiring Richmond.

I don't watch many other teams, I never have. I may flick the remote to a game and if its the last quarter and a close game, i will most likely watch. Right now I am watching the Tour and have been most nights.

[Sedat]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/dennis-cometti-footy-needs-to-go-back-to-the-future-to-survive/news-story/3dddc1e62987bb2573de39a49c14ac34

Dennis Cometti's take on the current rule change debate - don't mind some of his suggestions at all ;)

[The Pie Man]

Can any of our more esteemed senior woofers let us know what the introduction of the 50M arcs did for the aesthetic of the game?

Watching old footage it looks odd to me, but the view of the established fan at the time will mean more.

Reason I ask - of the proposed changes, making the goal square larger has me the most worried that it’s going to start to look like a hybrid sport.

Starting positions don’t worry me as much (as long as they are just that - *starting* positions) but a larger goal square will look seriously weird

[Twodogs]

I remember being a bit mystified about what they were for because they just appeared out of the blue at the start of the 1989(I think?) season. The thing I remember most was the crisis and the meeting of minds that took place when the bloke who did the ground markings realised that he didn't know how to write a '50' so they had to call in the sign writer from the council to go down and help and of course my dad being one of the councils painters went along as well (he was good mates with the sign writer and he had nothing else to do and it was Friday afternoon and, and). They ended up with cast of thousands down at the ground watching them work on something the VFL didn't want anyone to know about.

[Ghost Dog]

Is it really that bad that anything needs to change?

[Rocket Science]

Is it really that bad that anything needs to change?

It is if you run the competition and fancy making more advertising coin by making it rain goals, however you get there.

[bornadog]

I remember being a bit mystified about what they were for because they just appeared out of the blue at the start of the 1989(I think?) season..

Introduced in 1986. Originally the groundman drew a straight line across the ground. The following week it became an arc realising the ground is oval shape. :eek:

It was introduced simply for the spectators to see how far players can kick.

[Twodogs]

Introduced in 1986. Originally the groundman drew a straight line across the ground. The following week it became an arc realising the ground is oval shape. :eek:

It was introduced simply for the spectators to see how far players can kick.


That's right, I remember the straight line thing now. Heh!

I wonder if there is footage? We played St Kilda at home, I remember a friend pointing out the we were as far in front at halftime as Collingwood were in the 1970 grand final.

[The Pie Man]

It is if you run the competition and fancy making more advertising coin by making it rain goals, however you get there.

This is the bit that shits me - if Gil & co could schedule a decent Friday night then this thread would probably not exist.

There are still good games of footy around. Then there’s Carlton 4 times on Fridays

[Topdog]

Dane Swan summed it up well. Shit teams will always be shit to watch.

From an aesthetics point of view North, GWS and Essendon are the best teams to watch for me but I hate Essendon with a passion so dont watch their games. Us, Carlton and Freo are the worst teams to watch.

Melbourne are fun too, usually because they self destruct.