End of the Forward Press?

[davis_756]

No it won't, but the team not kicking in will still have to account for the potential roost. Which will spread them out making the forward press less effective. I think?

So they will do the same as they do for any free kick around the ground, guard the 50m in front of the kicker and allow the chip backwards.

Most clubs basically already allow it by letting teams chip it to the back pocket anyway.

 

[HTT]

It won’t do much. Spreads the zone a bit but realistically not that much. Coaches will just have to waste time they could spend figuring out how to actually beat pressure and congestion, repairing structures that worked perfectly fine.

 

[Forward Press]

Forward Press sad to see you go. Good luck.

I must admit the title gave me a mini heart attack, I thought I was being banned.

inb4youshouldleaveanywaylol

 

[The 747]

Out with the forward press, in with the military press!

 

[Bojangles17]

Though I’m not in fav of rule changes I don’t mind this at all , will most def impact the game whereas 666 is questionable

 

[Back One Out]

Next year's premiership will definitely have a big asterisk next to it.

 

[tony__montana]

It will cause 2 reactions

1) teams will sit deep to shore up space
2) a lot more goals will be scored over the top by good running sides as the kick out side presses forward.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Next year's premiership will definitely have a big asterisk next to it.

I guess that's another one to add - a different reason at least.

 

[Jables]

I think this benefits the better sides, the established structures won't be broken because of this, and is going to lead to even less competitive games from the bottom teams, that's about it. At the end of the day if there's not an high percentage option from the kickout it's probably still going down the wing at Hawthorn.

So if you mark on the line now you have to walk fairly far back? That's kind of weird.

 

[NoobPie]

I think this benefits the better sides, the established structures won't be broken because of this, and is going to lead to even less competitive games from the bottom teams, that's about it. At the end of the day if there's not an high percentage option from the kickout it's probably still going down the wing at Hawthorn.

So if you mark on the line now you have to walk fairly far back? That's kind of weird.

I’m loving people’s “this is just going to do this” hot takes

Particularly for hawthorn supporters , you are aware that David Rath is a key person in the research group that is devising and working through these changes?

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-18/hawk-mastermind-to-help-shape-footys-future

 

[Mootsy]

I think the biggest rule change could be the 18m goal square.

Eithad for instance is 160m in length. 80m for the centre to the goals. That means from the edge of the new 18m square it's only 62m to the very centre of the oval. That extra 9 metres lets defenders kicking in the ball kick to the fattest part of the ground quite easily. Plenty of players can roost the ball 65m+ and will get the ball past the halfway mark.

An awfully lot more ground will now need to be covered within the kickers range to be able to lock the ball in forward 50. Obviously this is the whole point of the rule change but this could be a massive change to our game with very little trialling before being implemented.

I'm worried it's going to turn the game into bloody ping-pong or basketball. Teams just except the fact they only kicked a behind and then commit numbers back and allow the side kicking-in free reign until the ball hits the halfway mark.

If Gillion turns our game into that shit that was AFLX I will be furious. Why the **** can't they trial all this in the lower leagues for a season first?

Am I worrying over nothing or do others see this one rule change as quite the game changer?

Anything in better than Rugby that is the Now state of the league. my opinion.

 

[Percel]

Anything in better than Rugby that is the Now state of the league. my opinion.

what does this mean?

 

[Mootsy]

what does this mean?

The ball being stuck in contests for too long, some games still do that, i don't really wanna watch it, it's not a lot of fun. I prefer free flowing football. That's just me.

 

[Dr Tigris]

To me the big difference the longer goal square will make is that now teams can set up with players running from behind into some sort of space from the 'kick out'. So you have another option to how you move the ball out. Higher risk but higher return option. Wave of runners coming at 18 players, sharp handballs and quick short kicks to get until you can break open the press and go over the top. Much as the Tigers play now. Except the entire opposition is set up for it.

Right now there is not enough space for a team to set up behind the kicker in. So teams do this occasionally but usually they are moving slowly (due to run up space) and are in a very narrow part of the ground. Move them aprox 10m further out and there is a lot more space for a group of players to get up speed and handball to one another. Then the defense has the problem of pressing up on a wave of runners, and still keeping that defensive structure deeper. On the other hand the team kicking out has the problem then of keeping possession and moving the ball quickly before they get locked in. Some teams would love the long goal square, some would find it of no benefit - IMHO.

 

[The 747]

So if the defender starts at the goal line and runs to the top of the goalsquare do they have to bounce the ball?

 

[VicPark Bitter]

Next year's premiership will definitely have a big asterisk next to it.

why?

 

[Pessimistic]

Shouldnt we be rewarding the attacking team? award 3 points for a kick from outside 50 which is a behind thus encouraging more shots over the 'flood'

 

[Pessimistic]

Next year's premiership will definitely have a big asterisk next to it.

I'd say there is a very very good chance of that being the case

 

[Maddo11]

So if the defender starts at the goal line and runs to the top of the goalsquare do they have to bounce the ball?

Lol. Yes.

Also, if there's 30 sec left in a game could the defender kicking the ball out run to the top of the square then turn around and kick it back to a player near the point post for a mark?

 

[The 747]

Lol. Yes.

Also, if there's 30 sec left in a game could the defender kicking the ball out run to the top of the square then turn around and kick it back to a player near the point post for a mark?

Ha nice! So we will need some more new rules to resolve issues this rule will create.

 

[Chrizzt]

Gill the Dill on SEN this morning virtually guaranteed that the new rules will be trialed over the last 3 rounds of the season between teams not in contention.

I'm still of the opinion that bringing more fatigue into the game will spread the game out. eg. get rid of ruck nomination and throw the ball up and in ASAP. Reduce the interchange to early 2000s levels ie. 25-30 per game.

Increased fatigue = decreased skills.

A big part of the problem is the decline in kicking skills, bringing more fatigue into the game is the worst thing to do.

 

[M Malice]

Increased fatigue = decreased skills.

A big part of the problem is the decline in kicking skills, bringing more fatigue into the game is the worst thing to do.

Didn't seem to affect the skills of Simon Black, Jason Akermanis, Michael Voss, Chris Johnson etc. from our premiership era sides when the interchange was around the 30 mark per game. Or any of the other great players of the past.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The press will just be pushed back a little. It may even end up more concentrated. The first 25m or so out from goal may be conceded - a de-militarised zone of sorts, allowing the team with ball to pass to each other endlessly...

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I don’t think an extra 9m will mean every kick-in suddenly becomes a roost to the centre of the ground. Coaches and players hate still kicking to contests and would rather maintain possession. Think most will just be a hit-up of a teammate still.

Well you still have the same space to go short (even technically backwards from the top of the square) only difference is you have the extra 9 meters of distance up the ground where a kick can reach.

Say for example you have a player who can kick it 55m+ from full back. At the moment they could kick the ball anywhere in the back 65m's of the ground from the pockets out to beyond the 50.

Move the square to 18m and a player who can kick 55+ can suddenly hit about 75m's out.

The extra 10 meters is also in the thickest part of the ground.

Effectively. The increased kick out position means there is an extra 800m2 of space (I don't know the exact figures, going roughly off about 80 m wide by 10) that a team will have to try and defend on a kick out.


Of all the proposed rule changes this makes the most sense and will be the least damaging

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Lol. Yes.

Also, if there's 30 sec left in a game could the defender kicking the ball out run to the top of the square then turn around and kick it back to a player near the point post for a mark?

Not inside the square but outside you'd think so.