Analysis Effect of new rules on scores round 1 - 10

Remove this Banner Ad

tony__montana

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 25, 2018
5,367
17,750
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
Before even entering the thread or reading the OP. I was going to guess that there had been absolutely little to no change in overall scoring.
It's actually an indictment on those who manage the game. That their rule changes have no impact whatsoever.


and yet all we hear is positive mumbo jumbo from the afl certified media about the effect of the new rules on the game
 

tony__montana

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 25, 2018
5,367
17,750
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
No it's not. It's indictment on the broad stupidity of the whingers around here

No-one ever said increasing scoring was the primary objective of the rule changes. No-one guaranteed that everything would work absolutely

The data apparently suggests that scoring has increased after centre bounces and that the game is opened up for up to 60 seconds afterwards

The data apparently suggests no impact around the kick in changes. But it is too soon surely to confirm whether or not the coaching response has been overly focussed on defending these new rules rather than exploiting them

On that note, it is too early to tell whether dominant coaching strategies have dominated any positive (in terms of scoring) impacts due to the rules.

My take is the games seem to be relatively more open/posession based rather than territory / congestion based which has little to do with any rule changes

But games seem more alive in the late stages because of 6-6-6. I find it hard to accept anyone debating that as being worthy of serious treatment


Are you sure about that? Couldve sworn that was one of the main drivers of the media pushing this agenda last season.

I really like the fact runners are no longer on the field during play. I also believe this change has had the most significant impact of all the changes in the higher possession style football we're seeing from more sides this season. It leaves sides more structured and not as open to a slingshot counter from a turnover. I believe this is bc coaches cant get their messages out there with runners so prefer to keep setups and structures a little tighter defensively until players get used to making their own in game decisions.

I also like the new kick out rules although its not having the original desired effect of long bombs over the zone(lol as if that was ever going to happen) but it has spread the field and allows sides to bring it in easier.
 
Mar 17, 2014
10,809
12,705
AFL Club
Collingwood
The 6 6 6 scores more quick goals from the bounce, but if its not scored its dire dirge defence. So if the scoring is relatively the same we get a few quick goals, but longer periods without a goal so it looks worse to me.
Some sides try and deaden the ball after the first bounce so more mids can go in and force more packs. (gold Coast i am looking at you)
As for the kick in rule. it just makes defences defend from deeper and are forced towards the boundary line. That rule has added nothing to scoring.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

hcd199

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2009
2,375
2,540
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
I'm no statistician, but this sounds more like slippery phrasing than anything. If the decrease in winning scores is statistically significant (i.e., sufficiently unlikely to be random), and the change in losing scores is effectively nil, it's ridiculous to then say the sum of the two "hasn't meaningfully changed" - one is "meaningfully" lower and the other is the same, how does that "meaning" just evaporate when you add effectively the same number to it? I'm not trying to invalidate basic notions of statistical significance here, but the point is that language use is critical when using hard and arbitrary thresholds, and treating all changes that are too likely to be random as equivalent to "hasn't changed" is immensely misleading. The average score is lower, that's a simple fact - the fact we can't say with enough confidence that it's not a random/meaningless fluctuation is a relevant detail about that fact, but the difference doesn't just go away, especially not when a component part of that difference can be isolated and shown to be significant...

In any case, nothing about a basic statistical analysis of average scores/margins can confidently be attributed to either a specific rule changes or the suite of changes as a whole, since no other factors are controlled for. I wouldn't say the changes have "wrecked the game" per se, but I've also seen nothing this season that justifies the substantial alterations to the sport, and have plenty of qualms about the basic principles behind the rules and the general direction in which change has been directed recently - unfortunately, not anything I can really quantify.
 

Belnakor

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 10, 2005
26,269
18,820
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
The data apparently suggests no impact around the kick in changes. But it is too soon surely to confirm whether or not the coaching response has been overly focussed on defending these new rules rather than exploiting them

my thought is the kick in changes have actually been negative on scoring.

Fremantle for example had have a "good defense" but we also have Nathan Wilson who would typically run out of the square and kick it 50-60m so it lands near the boundary 70m out from goal. That would be causing more shallow rebounds back into the 50 at the very least.

A significant portion of goals come from locking in the ball in after a point... that rule has made it harder. Which is why IMHO the games are closer as well, you don't have the games where one team is just continuously attacking until they kick a goal when they win 1 clearance.
 

Belnakor

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 10, 2005
26,269
18,820
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
But games seem more alive in the late stages because of 6-6-6. I find it hard to accept anyone debating that as being worthy of serious treatment

the GCS/Melbourne game basically cemented the 6/6/6 rule indefinitely. In the old system Melbourne would have been kicking into a defense with 3-4 extra men.
 

saints_333

Senior List
Feb 16, 2018
240
201
AFL Club
St Kilda
There have been 90 games so far this year for a total of 180 scores.
To the end of round 10 last year there were 89 games, as Suns & Power had a bye in round 10 to allow time to clear customs in China.

The average score for all teams to round 10 this year has been 80.4 points.
The average score to round 10 last year was 83.1 points.

Now this might seem like a drop in scores, but a simple statistical analysis (2-tailed Student t-test for those who care) shows that these two numbers are not statistically different (p=0.28*). That is to say, statistically that difference in numbers could be just due to random variation and do not represent a meaningful change in either direction.
Conclusion: average score for all games is no different to last year. Not lower, but not higher either.

WTF you might say. Surely scoring has been lower this year.
Well not on average it hasn't. However....
If you look at the average score for winning teams there has been a drop.
2018 average winning score: 99.8
2019 average winning score: 93.9
That does represent a significant fall (p=0.040), so the average score for winning teams has fallen.

What about average score for losing teams? Well, that hasn't changed at all:
2018 average losing score: 66.3
2019 average losing score: 66.9
Not surprisingly, these are statically the same (p=0.83). Average losing scores are unchanged.

Now, since the winning score has fallen but the losing score is the same, that must mean the games are closer right?
Well actually it does. The average margin has fallen so far this year:
2018 average margin: 33.4
2019 average margin: 27.0
These are (just) statically significant (p=0.049), meaning that the margin this season is really lower than last season. The difference may not be meaningful in your mind but has change a bit.
Want more proof that games are closer? Well, the number of games decided by less than two goals and less than one goal has also risen:
2018 margin < 12 points: 15 games —- 2018 margin < 6 points: 7 games
2019 margin < 12 points: 20 games —- 2019 margin < 6 points: 15 games

In summary:
For the first 10 rounds of the season, compared to the first 10 rounds of 2018, the average score has not changed but the games are closer.


Now, it's not possible to say why this has happened. Certainly the new rules have not increased scoring to this stage, but they probably haven't wrecked the game in the way that some people, including me, thought they would.
If you have any questions, or would like any further analysis, I'd be happy to have a look (within the limits of my basic statistical abilities).

*I've included the p values for those who are familiar with statistical analysis. Essentially, if the p value is < 0.05 it means that there is less than 1 in 20 chance that the difference in numbers is due to random variation, a commonly accepted cutoff for a real (rather than a random) difference.

For some reason teams seem to be happy at the moment player the game at a close scoreline rather than trying to blow out the game and run their legs off. Plenty of times we have seen this season key players have long spells on the bench, teams dropping off etc etc which has resulted in the closer games. The skill level, and spread of players due to having more clubs is also taking its toll on level of the games as we have clearly seen.

It's hard to tell sometimes with certain teams like Collingwood etc whether they are actually playing really hard and the competition is that close or they are just taking the piss.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back