Collingwood rule exploit/breach vs Eagles?

(Log in to remove this ad.)

InTheWings

Premium Gold
Jan 9, 2013
1,247
1,570
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
South Fremantle
Not technically against it so well played to Collingwood.. but it defeats the purpose of the entire 6-6-6 if you allow something like that to happen. Similar if you wanted a spare back. Just line your quickest defender up on the corner of the square and get him to start running back as soon as the umpire moves, Crippa type small forward run from half forward to cover the wing. Spare back successful.

Thought something like this would come up when they introduced the rule last year. Players and coaches are going to try and find ways around it.. they aren’t going to just play by the rules and sit a player in the middle of the wing at every centre bounce like I assume the rule was designed to do.
Imagine if every player did the same with their position. It would render the 6-6-6 pretty impotent, especially on grounds like the SCG where the 50m line is so close to the centre square anyway.

It is clearly a loop hole that needs to be fixed to maintain the integrity of the rule.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Coasters7

Premiership Player
Nov 27, 2014
3,374
3,965
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Chelsea
Imagine if every player did the same with their position. It would render the 6-6-6 pretty impotent, especially on grounds like the SCG where the 50m line is so close to the centre square anyway.

It is clearly a loop hole that needs to be fixed to maintain the integrity of the rule.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Wonder what the reaction would have been if we were the first ones to try it out on our way to a one point victory over the Pies. If we go by any other WC controversial incidents you can guarantee it would be the top story of the week. #arrogance #cultureissues
 
Jul 2, 2018
18
4
Somerset Tasmania
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Swan Districts FC WAFL
Noticed at the game on the weekend everytime Nicnat was rucking, Sidebum would start at the side of the square and run to the back of the square prior to the ball being bounced.

Can acknowledge the tactic of cutting off the big smack by Nicnat, was well implemented all game.

Steele runs by the umpires everytime and my question is - does the movement prior to the bounce breach the starting position rules?

Starting positions this year have changed, one player must start on each wing in the shaded area.

A free kick under 17.2.2 (a) stipulates that if a player is in breach of the starting area when the ball is bounced or thrown up then a free kick is to be given.

Have a look at the GIF and have a say, I may be missing something :/

What's the point of starting positions if movement before the bounce is allowed out of there?? View attachment 710495View attachment 710497View attachment 710498View attachment 710500

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Whether or not it is legal , these umpires wouldn't have the guts or no-how to pick up on that.
 

Avalor

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 15, 2009
9,660
4,190
Jakarta
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth, Donnybrook, Chelsea
Looks within the rules - it will become common place.

But, and a big but - the umps have trouble with simple rules like push in the back, shepherding / blocking when the ball is more than 5m away etc.
^^^
This!
 

Doughboy

Premiership Player
Jun 14, 2012
3,530
2,763
#returnofthewings
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Royals, Wildcats, Warriors
The 6-6-6 rule was a knee jerk reaction to the almighty broadcast rights holders.

The rule was brought in to address the issue of flooding back lines and therefore hampering scoring (alegedly)

More goals = more ad breaks = more revenue for Ch7.

Simple. Nothing to do with the game or equalizing the weaker teams. It was ch7 placing pressure on the AFL for more revenue

6-6-6 has taken a coaches ability to nullify the opposition through tactics.

The team with the strongest midfield will win - Geelong and there is pretty much nothing that can be done to nullify that...


AFL will profess 666 is working to appease the almighty broadcast rights overlords.
 

Astro7

Official Oranges Man
Aug 6, 2017
1,812
2,016
South Of Dreamsville
AFL Club
West Coast
More goals = more ad breaks = more revenue for Ch7.
Ain't that the truth!!
Buckley (and maybe Sidebottom/Pendles) did have a chat with the umps pre-game, obviously about that tactic, so in a sense it was cleared, no?
Further to the allowing of Sidebum freedom to roam, this from a Pies visitor/poster -
"The Hutchings out was key as it allowed Sides freedom with the footy, as was Mayne's game on Hurn it gave the Pies forward set up a chance at the marking contests...."
"The one ace in WC deck is to nullify our outside players, no tag on our outside mids spells danger. Am surprised Simmo didn't put Yeo or Shuey on either of Sides or Pendles they are a danger but with respect it's highly probable that those two (Yeo and Shuey) get on top and get the transition game back on track. If Simmo did use one of those as a nullify role he risks the ball going the wrong way given the contested game in that last qtr and a half. Fair enough, back your mids to win it but didn't come off.
Mayne curbed Hurn's influence - no doubting that..."
 

Coasters7

Premiership Player
Nov 27, 2014
3,374
3,965
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Chelsea
The 6-6-6 rule was a knee jerk reaction to the almighty broadcast rights holders.

The rule was brought in to address the issue of flooding back lines and therefore hampering scoring (alegedly)

More goals = more ad breaks = more revenue for Ch7.

Simple. Nothing to do with the game or equalizing the weaker teams. It was ch7 placing pressure on the AFL for more revenue

6-6-6 has taken a coaches ability to nullify the opposition through tactics.

The team with the strongest midfield will win - Geelong and there is pretty much nothing that can be done to nullify that...


AFL will profess 666 is working to appease the almighty broadcast rights overlords.
Except it’s backfired and we’re having an extremely low scoring year. In before they push it further down the hole rather than admit they were wrong and take it back to how it was.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HoneyBadger35

Friends, Family, Flex
Aug 11, 2011
16,242
36,053
Gaffy's Dojo
AFL Club
West Coast
Imagine if every player did the same with their position. It would render the 6-6-6 pretty impotent, especially on grounds like the SCG where the 50m line is so close to the centre square anyway.

It is clearly a loop hole that needs to be fixed to maintain the integrity of the rule.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
I’ve often wondered why clubs haven’t lined up a back six with your interceptor starting on the defensive point of the wing and then just sprinting back to the 50 on the umpire’s approach.

Set up our backline, Hurn Barrass Cole Jetta McGovern Duggan, start Shep on the defensive point of wing, umpire walks in and Shep makes his way as the loose. Would be well inside the 50 by the time the rucks have touched it, and unless the opposition got the cleanest centre bounce going Shep is now in place.
 

Doughboy

Premiership Player
Jun 14, 2012
3,530
2,763
#returnofthewings
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Royals, Wildcats, Warriors
I’ve often wondered why clubs haven’t lined up a back six with your interceptor starting on the defensive point of the wing and then just sprinting back to the 50 on the umpire’s approach.

Set up our backline, Hurn Barrass Cole Jetta McGovern Duggan, start Shep on the defensive point of wing, umpire walks in and Shep makes his way as the loose. Would be well inside the 50 by the time the rucks have touched it, and unless the opposition got the cleanest centre bounce going Shep is now in place.
I never really understood why we didn't do it either.

You could change the 666 structure very quickly by some good structures and hard running.
 

InTheWings

Premium Gold
Jan 9, 2013
1,247
1,570
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
South Fremantle
Wait until the first players start running in from the 50m line when the ump begins his routine.... you could get a good 10 metres in those couple of seconds.
See if the AFL does anything them.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Wild Kelly

Team Captain
Suspended
Mar 23, 2019
336
515
AFL Club
West Coast
I’ve often wondered why clubs haven’t lined up a back six with your interceptor starting on the defensive point of the wing and then just sprinting back to the 50 on the umpire’s approach.

Set up our backline, Hurn Barrass Cole Jetta McGovern Duggan, start Shep on the defensive point of wing, umpire walks in and Shep makes his way as the loose. Would be well inside the 50 by the time the rucks have touched it, and unless the opposition got the cleanest centre bounce going Shep is now in place.
You can bet your ball that the minute we start using this ploy successfully the VFL will modify the rules.
 

Agent93

Ninety Three
Sep 10, 2010
14,795
17,170
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Toronto Maple Leafs
The AFL never learns that the smartest minds in football are employed by the clubs. Every idea they come up with triggers coaches/strategists to immediately think of ways to exploit it.

This rule is stupidly worded. Section 13 says the players must be in position when the umpire commences their approach to bounce, but 17 talks about contravening section 13 at the point the ball is bounced/thrown.
Worth noting 13.1 is part of the match provisions section which deals with how things are supposed to operate.

Rule 17.2 is in the free kicks section which deals with penalties.

Sidebottom's movement comes under 17.2 - he moves out of a legal starting position (defined in 13.1) before the ball touches the ground - and should be a free kick against.

Well done to Collingwood for getting away with it.
 

frenchconnection

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
5,865
3,363
Wembley downs
AFL Club
West Coast
The rule is that you have to be in set positions as the umpire approaches the bounce. You can move once they start the approach. It may be a pointlessly AFL grey area rule, but it’s the rule. Similar happened at the final centre bounce of the Carlton/Freo game.

There’s no issue with it and, given they did it from the first bounce, the problem becomes us failing to address it defensively.

Similarly, the result was we had a winger standing alone at nearly every centre bounce, nothing stopping us from capitalising on that more.

Non issue, clever coaching by Bucks.
And was bad coaching by Simmo - was asleep at the wheel.
 

frenchconnection

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
5,865
3,363
Wembley downs
AFL Club
West Coast
Imagine if every player did the same with their position. It would render the 6-6-6 pretty impotent, especially on grounds like the SCG where the 50m line is so close to the centre square anyway.

It is clearly a loop hole that needs to be fixed to maintain the integrity of the rule.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
didn't Carlton apply the same tactics when they recently played Freo, thus managing to cause an upset win in the dying minutes?
 

frenchconnection

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
5,865
3,363
Wembley downs
AFL Club
West Coast
Wonder what the reaction would have been if we were the first ones to try it out on our way to a one point victory over the Pies. If we go by any other WC controversial incidents you can guarantee it would be the top story of the week. #arrogance #cultureissues
And even with this tactic Collingwood still only managed to win by a point! Anyway Bucks has shown his hand now so very unlikely any team they play in future will let it happen again as the coaching staff will or should put tactics in place to prevent this happening thus making it nul and void!
 

Avalor

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 15, 2009
9,660
4,190
Jakarta
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth, Donnybrook, Chelsea
Just watched the 1stQ again of that match. Some scintillating footy by us, and blatant blocking by the pies. They got away with it though. Simmo needs to be sharper on that and point it out to the umps - what's going on here?
That 1st 5 minutes was a disaster for us though - Ryan, Cripps, Nik Nat and Gov all hurt. That sucked the juice out of our sails.
 

MrKK

Club Legend
Mar 11, 2012
2,474
3,172
City of churches
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
Worth noting 13.1 is part of the match provisions section which deals with how things are supposed to operate.

Rule 17.2 is in the free kicks section which deals with penalties.

Sidebottom's movement comes under 17.2 - he moves out of a legal starting position (defined in 13.1) before the ball touches the ground - and should be a free kick against.

Well done to Collingwood for getting away with it.
13.1 defines what position he must be in when the umpire begins their approach; it doesn't say whether they can move after that point so it's not clear that any rule has been broken by what Sidebottom did.

I wouldn't expect clarity from a rule book that gets updated every bloody year and wasn't even released until the season was already underway.
 

Agent93

Ninety Three
Sep 10, 2010
14,795
17,170
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Toronto Maple Leafs
13.1 defines what position he must be in when the umpire begins their approach; it doesn't say whether they can move after that point so it's not clear that any rule has been broken by what Sidebottom did.
It's good to see Simmo is above the public 'seeking clarification' tactics employed by other coaches.
 

Top Bottom