News AFL to trial new zone rule in second-tier competition next season (Full rule changes inside)

[Suma Magic]

It’s going to be so easy to run around the man on the mark now.

And also when taking a shot to just move slightly late and just kick it past the man on the mark instead of over him.

 

[HTT]

Coaches already finding loopholes so new rules have no or opposite effect

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

Rules have the opposite effect because they are poorly thought out and based on gut feel rather than proper analysis. AFL house thinks they can outsmart the coaches. They can’t.

Exhibit A: Relaxed kick in rules - theory was that the ball would automatically move to a wider part of the ground, forcing defending teams to cover more ground, making it easier to go coast to coast from a kick in. But kick ins are by far the lowest scoring source in the sport (pretty much 1 goal per game), no one wants to put the effort into making it a scoring source because it relies on the other team scoring in the first place which is obviously bad, so all it did was move the ball closer to the middle of the ground, which means both teams are now further from scoring which means less scoring

Exhibit B: 6-6-6. Theory was that teams wouldn’t be able to have an extra off the back of the square, freeing up space for midfielders to get a quick clearance and score. But in reality the 7th defender was rarely used as an actually defensive player, as without a direct opponent they could find space to move the ball more precisely forward. Also forwards could no longer really drag defenders out to leave more space for a one on one match up. The only remotely intended effect it had was teams can’t drop numbers back for the centre bounce late in the game.

Exhibit C: interchange cap. Theory is the more tired players can’t cover the ground as well therefore less pressure is applied which will make it easier to attack late in games. In reality tired players kicking drops off more quickly than their running.

 

[FRUMPY]

Rules have the opposite effect because they are poorly thought out and based on gut feel rather than proper analysis. AFL house thinks they can outsmart the coaches. They can’t.

Exhibit A: Relaxed kick in rules - theory was that the ball would automatically move to a wider part of the ground, forcing defending teams to cover more ground, making it easier to go coast to coast from a kick in. But kick ins are by far the lowest scoring source in the sport (pretty much 1 goal per game), no one wants to put the effort into making it a scoring source because it relies on the other team scoring in the first place which is obviously bad, so all it did was move the ball closer to the middle of the ground, which means both teams are now further from scoring which means less scoring

Exhibit B: 6-6-6. Theory was that teams wouldn’t be able to have an extra off the back of the square, freeing up space for midfielders to get a quick clearance and score. But in reality the 7th defender was rarely used as an actually defensive player, as without a direct opponent they could find space to move the ball more precisely forward. Also forwards could no longer really drag defenders out to leave more space for a one on one match up. The only remotely intended effect it had was teams can’t drop numbers back for the centre bounce late in the game.

Exhibit C: interchange cap. Theory is the more tired players can’t cover the ground as well therefore less pressure is applied which will make it easier to attack late in games. In reality tired players kicking drops off more quickly than their running.

Yep exactly. The more tired players are, the less exciting play they will attempt

Kick ins: as you say, clubs are happy to get a goal or two from end to end hit don't plan or rely on it

6-6-6 had zero impact in my eyes but they will push for 6-6-6 from every stoppage and totally change the game forever

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

 

[HairyO]

When was the last time the AFL made a positive rule change?

The move from 1 central umpire to 2.
50m penalties. Mostly.
Deliberate out of bounds. Mostly.
Intentional rushed behinds. Mostly.

Thats about it for my lifetime.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Steve hocking translation
“We hate Richmond’s pressure and chaos game plan and will constantly tinker with sh*t until they fu** off down the ladder”

more like 'we couldn;t get Geelong over the line with the 3 previous years of rule changes, let's double down'

 

[NeutralFan]

Prefer if they trialed 17 on the field rather than set up zones every stoppage??

Reducing interchange may cause fatigue, sure, but skills also get worse with fatigue. Find it strange to advocate the best way the game is played is when players are absolutely ran off their feet to complete exhaustion. Good sport.

 

[quotemokc]

Would suck to be a player in one of these leagues being used as a guinea pig.

 

[NeutralFan]

Rules have the opposite effect because they are poorly thought out and based on gut feel rather than proper analysis. AFL house thinks they can outsmart the coaches. They can’t.

Exhibit A: Relaxed kick in rules - theory was that the ball would automatically move to a wider part of the ground, forcing defending teams to cover more ground, making it easier to go coast to coast from a kick in. But kick ins are by far the lowest scoring source in the sport (pretty much 1 goal per game), no one wants to put the effort into making it a scoring source because it relies on the other team scoring in the first place which is obviously bad, so all it did was move the ball closer to the middle of the ground, which means both teams are now further from scoring which means less scoring

Exhibit B: 6-6-6. Theory was that teams wouldn’t be able to have an extra off the back of the square, freeing up space for midfielders to get a quick clearance and score. But in reality the 7th defender was rarely used as an actually defensive player, as without a direct opponent they could find space to move the ball more precisely forward. Also forwards could no longer really drag defenders out to leave more space for a one on one match up. The only remotely intended effect it had was teams can’t drop numbers back for the centre bounce late in the game.

Exhibit C: interchange cap. Theory is the more tired players can’t cover the ground as well therefore less pressure is applied which will make it easier to attack late in games. In reality tired players kicking drops off more quickly than their running.

Fully agree.
Although I do like that you don't have to kick to yourself before leaving the square. Always thought that was a silly unneeded tradition thing along with bouncing the ball in the centre. Maybe i'm just young and don't understand all that stuff but yknow

 

[Rimmer]

Witches hats on the mark? That seems a pretty pointless change. What about the tendency for players on the kickers team to jostle the man on the mark? If they push him over a meter is that a 50 meter penalty. I like the 75 rotations. Rule changes are usually made to suppress a dominant side or coaching strategy ... can't see how any of these changes are going to change Richmonds present advantage.

 

[Daddoo]

When will the AFL STOP FU***** with the game? Seriously, they’re like a bunch of 3 year olds with zero ability to focus for 10 seconds.

I like AFL (except the Vic centric-ness) but I’m tired of having to learn different rules every year. GIVE IT A REST, HOCKING!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Xtreme]

AFL House 22 year old Social Media Adviser just outed himself.

 

[hawkman]

The drop to 75 rotations will mean little when they reduce quarter lengths

 

[The Passenger]

I'm not a fan of the 6-6-6 rule, but there's a big difference between requiring zones briefly at the resumption of play, and requiring zones for every single stoppage in the entire match.

The latter will be an absolute farce. Either almost forcing zones at all times during gameplay, or introducing so much delay at each stoppage as players move back into zones that the game is unwatchable

Hard to see how it's going to be anything but farcical.

I'm not sure this solution would work either, but I believe this would be a better variant. The 3 in a zone rule only applies for stoppages in the forward 50 arcs. When there is a stoppage between the arc we tend to see players spread out a fair bit anyway so congestion isn't as big as factor in that situation.

- For stoppages umpires just ball up at normal pace - no waiting.
- The 3 in a zone only applies to the far end of the field (it's unlikely to be a factor at the attacking end anyway).
- If one team has less players than the opposition in the right zones, they concede a free kick (obviously if it's 4-3, 5-3 or 5-4 then no free kick is given).
- If it's 2-2, 1-1 or 0-0 in the correct zones, the responsibility is on the defensive team and thus the attacking team would get a free kick and most likely a shot on goal.

At least in this scenario if the forwards of the defensive team know that getting caught out of position at a stoppage would result in a shot on goal, they won't stray too far from where they need to be and should keep the game a bit more open permanently.

Under the current proposal, there is no downside for forwards to stray down the defensive end during general play (as the coach would often want them to do), when all that will happen at a stoppage is we just wait for them to head back to the zone in their attacking end.

But a few issues I can see straight off the bat with the variant I've put forward:
1 - Officiating this is tricky. At AFL level it will probably be OK with 3 umpires but even that will be a stretch cause one umpire needs to be a long long way from the play to keep an eye on it. I think it's three umpires at VFL, but if it's only two then it becomes a big question of where the second umpires focus needs to be.
2 - Feels bloody jammy to give a shot on a goal - and if the stoppage is something like 20 metres out right in front it's a gift - because the opposition full forward is two metres short when running back to the goal square from a stoppage 120 metres away. I can't envision too many people thinking that how we want to see goals scored.
3 - It's going to look stupid to see a stoppage at one end of the ground and 6 blokes at the other end sprinting anywhere between 20 and 40 metres to get into position before the ball up.

I think overall the best way to decrease congestion is to tire the players out and the best way to do that is to keep decreasing the number of interchanges, which they have done this year. I believe that number needs to get down to 40, but it needs to be slowly decreased over a number of years to allow the players to adapt. Decreasing to 40 in one hit would be a huge risk in terms of soft tissue injuries. From the mid 90's to the mid 00's when running open football was at it's zenith, the number of interchanges per game was in that vicinity.

I think we can (mostly) all agree the aesthetics of the game is absolutely horrible at the moment.

 

[coniglio_number1]

Zones? Really? I can’t wait to see a player chasing a midfielder out of his forward 50 and have to stop running once he reaches the end of his zone and see the opposing midfielder slow to a jog to conserve energy and fire off an uncontested kick inside 50 to a leading forward of choice

 

[Bombermania]

The idea of zones isn't new afterall there was a time when the forwards stayed in the forward line and the backman stayed with the forwards. Those positions were not set in stone but players use to play in fairly set areas.

 

[Bombermania]

Easier to enforce back then as there were not the fast paced handballs there are now. Plus these days there are twice as many disposals per match as back in the 80's.

A good number of today's handballs would be pinged for throwing back in the 80s. The other reason for less handballing was that there were forwards always up field so players had targets to go too.

 

[Bombermania]

It seems fine to trial new things, don't see a problem with it.

This thread will end up as 50 pages of boomers moaning and "back in my day" type posts though.

Boomers are more likely to want a return to stay at home forwards.

 

[mr bagcroft]

If they introduce this at AFL level, I would consider giving up the game for good.

Enough of the bullshit rule changes

No consideration for me. Id be gone like a bat out of hell. Barely hanging on as it is.

 

[mr bagcroft]

lol, the game is truly and utterly ****ed.
Add in shorter quarters....
Yeah, nah.
Got better things to do.
BUt I do enjoy all the banter from you fukkies here on BF. Thats my footy enjoyment going foward.

 

[Gaborone]

Is there any other serious game in the world where the rules are constantly changed as they are by the fools that run the AFL? It has become a plaything owned by a couple of people in AFL house. If they think that they are making the game more attractive they are not, they are only creating more confusion and increasing anger. And while I am on it, the job of every coach is to coach a winning team, This means that they will exploit any rules that are put in place. The AFL should let the game develop naturally where tactics evolve to counter other tactics around the same set of rules.

 

[RUNVS]

Is there any other serious game in the world where the rules are constantly changed as they are by the fools that run the AFL? It has become a plaything owned by a couple of people in AFL house. If they think that they are making the game more attractive they are not, they are only creating more confusion and increasing anger. And while I am on it, the job of every coach is to coach a winning team, This means that they will exploit any rules that are put in place. The AFL should let the game develop naturally where tactics evolve to counter other tactics around the same set of rules.

If the AFL made no rule changes in the last 20 years the game would be considerably worse today than it is now. You would have constant deliberate out of bounds and as a result a lot more stoppages.

The game is in trouble, and I personally think 15 a side is the solution, but I am willing to let things play out and let the AFL try a few things at the VFL level.

 

[juss]

It’s going to be so easy to run around the man on the mark now.

And also when taking a shot to just move slightly late and just kick it past the man on the mark instead of over him.

That's not the worst part of it either, we are going to see so many cheap 50m penalties paid when the man on the mark takes a step to the side because when the player with the ball moves they won't want to be flat footed. The penalty will far, far outweigh the offence and its a really unbalanced rule.

 

[Struggle]

That's not the worst part of it either, we are going to see so many cheap 50m penalties paid when the man on the mark takes a step to the side because when the player with the ball moves they won't want to be flat footed. The penalty will far, far outweigh the offence and its a really unbalanced rule.

Having to wait for the umpires to call play on too, the guy could get a 5m advantage before it's actually called. Go at the same time as the man with the ball and its 50 because the umpire wasnt paying attention

 

[Chaisa]

The drop to 75 rotations will mean little when they reduce quarter lengths

Isn't it confirmed that 20+time-on is almost certainly coming back? I think the only reason they haven't committed to it is because there's still the risk of hubs.

 

[Aussie in exile]

This is great news!!

Today's kids love the flair of the NBA and the only way the AFL can compete is to promote high scoring!

Nobody wants to watch games where it's an uneven playing field where defence rules.

They certainly don't want to see blow outs either