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

[PetterdHoisted]

Someone had better remind Gil, Hocking et al. that they are CUSTODIANS of the game.

That is all. The game does not belong to them in any way, it is not their play thing.

I think the fact that the most kamikaze, mad-attacking side in the league in Richmond has won 3 of the last 4 flags tells us that there is no need to panic. The Tigers defend all the way up the ground instead of flooding, and then go bananas with breathtaking attacking moves as soon as the opportunity presents. You can't get better than that. Champagne attacking footy. Geelong 2007 another wonderful example.

It is when dour defensive sides are in the ascendancy like Swans 2005/2006, or chip-mark-starve-the-opposition-to-death-by-boredom teams like the current Cats side are winning flags, that's when we should worry.

 

[Bombermania]

Someone had better remind Gil, Hocking et al. that they are CUSTODIANS of the game.

That is all. The game does not belong to them in any way, it is not their play thing.

I think the fact that the most kamikaze, mad-attacking side in the league in Richmond has won 3 of the last 4 flags tells us that there is no need to panic. The Tigers defend all the way up the ground instead of flooding, and then go bananas with breathtaking attacking moves as soon as the opportunity presents. You can't get better than that. Champagne attacking footy. Geelong 2007 another wonderful example.

It is when dour defensive sides are in the ascendancy like Swans 2005/2006, or chip-mark-starve-the-opposition-to-death-by-boredom teams like the current Cats side are winning flags, that's when we should worry.

All the great sides of the past 40 years have shared that combination of defense and attack so in many ways Richmond's way isn't unusual but because we now have 18 sides, half of which are not great it shows but in the old days of 12 teams there were only a few poor sides.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

All the great sides of the past 40 years have shared that combination of defense and attack so in many ways Richmond's way isn't unusual but because we now have 18 sides, half of which are not great it shows but in the old days of 12 teams there were only a few poor sides.

the bombers play an exciting brand when they are on, streaming off halfback. I enjoy Melbourne's style too, at times they attack with devil-may-care attitude.

That is genuinely entertaining.

Watching Collingwood and Geelong chip the ball around, more interested in not losing possession than gaining yardage, that is not entertaining.

And yet they change the rules every year to favour such a game style.

Now we are going to have a defender frozen on the mark while a guy who takes a mark is allowed to run around them....just bizarre.

 

[deskc]

If you look at raw numbers on scoring the rule changes the afl bring in every couple of years are making the game lower scoring and more boring. Everything they have done with interchanges, 6-6-6, holding the ball rules, hand in the back rule has made the game lower and lower scoring. Isn't the whole idea of the rule changes to make the game more high scoring and entertaining? Apparently not

 

[RUNVS]

If you look at raw numbers on scoring the rule changes the afl bring in every couple of years are making the game lower scoring and more boring. Everything they have done with interchanges, 6-6-6, holding the ball rules, hand in the back rule has made the game lower and lower scoring. Isn't the whole idea of the rule changes to make the game more high scoring and entertaining? Apparently not

I think this assumption is incorrect. There was a trend of lower scoring thanks to teams getting a lot better defensively, and in the past the AFL have tried to bring in rules to counter this, but either those rules did not work, or they worked slower than coaches were progressing with their defensive setups as scoring kept going down.

However, if the AFL did nothing and the rules went back to 2000 or 2010 I guarantee you scoring would not be better than it is now.

 

[deskc]

I think this assumption is incorrect. There was a trend of lower scoring thanks to teams getting a lot better defensively, and in the past the AFL have tried to bring in rules to counter this, but either those rules did not work, or they worked slower than coaches were progressing with their defensive setups as scoring kept going down.

However, if the AFL did nothing and the rules went back to 2000 or 2010 I guarantee you scoring would not be better than it is now.

Yes probably but we can only talk about what is happening not what might have happened. I can just as easily say that because scoring was higher in 2000 if we went back to those rules the scoring would be much higher than it is now. We deal in facts not what ifs so like all great sports around the world rules should be left completely alone.

 

[RUNVS]

Yes probably but we can only talk about what is happening not what might have happened. I can just as easily say that because scoring was higher in 2000 if we went back to those rules the scoring would be much higher than it is now. We deal in facts not what ifs so like all great sports around the world rules should be left completely alone.

Well not as easily as back in 2000 we didn't really have defensive zones and clubs did not lock the ball into their attacking 50 like they can these days. Coaching strategy has improved more in the last 20 years than it did the previous 120 years.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Well not as easily as back in 2000 we didn't really have defensive zones and clubs did not lock the ball into their attacking 50 like they can these days. Coaching strategy has improved more in the last 20 years than it did the previous 120 years.

Maybe instead of changing the rules of the sport they should get rid of all these coaches. Put in place you are only allowed two coaches in your club. One head coach and one assistant and that’s it.

 

[Viceregal]

Scores close in GF and the ball is about to be tossed up 30m out straight in front in Team A's attacking 50.

Sneaky Team A Backman, carefully timing it so as to be unseen by the relevant umpire, pushes the Team B Forward out over the 50 arc.

Relevant umpire (whose previous if short lived playing history with Team A is irrelevant) calls a penalty against Team B.

Team A forward takes the ball and slots the winning goal.

Afterwards the decision is both defended and castigated but still stands and Team A are the premiers.

Nah could never happen ...

 

[RUNVS]

Maybe instead of changing the rules of the sport they should get rid of all these coaches. Put in place you are only allowed two coaches in your club. One head coach and one assistant and that’s it.

or make a rule stating you can only have stupid coaches, coaches with an IQ of under 90 or something.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

or make a rule stating you can only have stupid coaches, coaches with an IQ of under 90 or something.

Well if there is one organisation that could make a new rule it would be the AFL.
Still trying to fix something that was never broken.

 

[RUNVS]

Well if there is one organisation that could make a new rule it would be the AFL.
Still trying to fix something that was never broken.

It is broken though. Had the AFL made no rule changes odds are scoring would be even worse right now, and fans would be getting annoyed that there are half the goals kicked these days than there were 20 years ago.

The AFL is trying to avoid a situation where only 120 or 130 points a match are scored. They want to get it up to 180 or more.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Scores close in GF and the ball is about to be tossed up 30m out straight in front in Team A's attacking 50.

Sneaky Team A Backman, carefully timing it so as to be unseen by the relevant umpire, pushes the Team B Forward out over the 50 arc.

Relevant umpire (whose previous if short lived playing history with Team A is irrelevant) calls a penalty against Team B.

Team A forward takes the ball and slots the winning goal.

Afterwards the decision is both defended and castigated but still stands and Team A are the premiers.

Nah could never happen ...

AFL (Auskick Football League) of course it could happen

 

[Piggy Smalls]

There’s probably 2 billion soccer fans worldwide and they don’t tweak their rules every 5 minutes to encourage higher scoring. Let the game evolve naturally.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It is broken though. Had the AFL made no rule changes odds are scoring would be even worse right now, and fans would be getting annoyed that there are half the goals kicked these days than there were 20 years ago.

The AFL is trying to avoid a situation where only 120 or 130 points a match are scored. They want to get it up to 180 or more.

It sounds like you are wanting utopia, 9 games each weekend with 30 goals scored. Fans care about whether their teams Win or lose.
Next time you go to a game and see your side win by 1 goal in a 9 goal to 8 goal match have a listen to the crowd as they walk out , no one will be talking about the low scoring game. They will only be talking about the joy of winning or the despair of losing.

It is only the AFL admin that care about this and because they keep bring it up some jump on the bandwagon.

Why do more goals make it better? Never understood why some think this is the case.
If it was broken then why didn’t people stop supporting it?
More people are disenchanted with the sport now than ever in its history.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There’s probably 2 billion soccer fans worldwide and they don’t tweak their rules every 5 minutes to encourage higher scoring. Let the game evolve naturally.

Agree, no natural evolution in AFL. Manufactured evolution through rule changes only

 

[Father Jack]

the bombers play an exciting brand when they are on, streaming off halfback. I enjoy Melbourne's style too, at times they attack with devil-may-care attitude.

That is genuinely entertaining.

Watching Collingwood and Geelong chip the ball around, more interested in not losing possession than gaining yardage, that is not entertaining.

And yet they change the rules every year to favour such a game style.

Now we are going to have a defender frozen on the mark while a guy who takes a mark is allowed to run around them....just bizarre.

Wait, umpires aren't calling play on anymore? I missed that one.

 

[deskc]

Basketball is one sport that chops and changes. Went from being very high scoring 50 years ago to very low scoring 30 years ago and now recently it's the highest it's ever been

 

[dumb]

Is there some form of action fans can take to show disapproval or disappointment in these changes without boycotting games or similar? Is there a way to make voices regarding the rules heard whilst still enjoying the other aspects of watching/going to the football?

Yes. There will be the inevitable survey about new rules where you can try and dodge their loaded questions.

 

[Roby]

Basketball is one sport that chops and changes. Went from being very high scoring 50 years ago to very low scoring 30 years ago and now recently it's the highest it's ever been

Well they made a drastic rule change with the shot clock, so that's made a huge increase in scoring.

 

[eastfreo75]

Rules are complex already, just take 2 players off the field and make it 16 v 16.

 

[deskc]

I'd like to see similar to ice hockey with power plays.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Gill-Hocking is the biggest threat that AFL has faced in a very long time.

How long till Gill is out and we get someone who has a sense for the game (Gale?)

 

[gingernuts]

Even more concerning is word coming out that the afl like the idea of. Like 2020, making up the fixture as they go along.

surely becomes a world wide laughing stock if they do. Why not just have challenges like in boxing

the world dont give a fook about afl

 

[Draft Pick]

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

Rushed behind rule over 10 years ago