Hocking’s Mess

[HTT]

Because fewer players on the field makes defensive zones impossible to implement. A player with the ball can kick the footy 50m in a a second or two. If you have players set up in a zone in the field ahead of the player with the ball fewer players will stretch the zone meaning the player with the footy can just pick their way through. The defensive players will not be able to cover the ground in between them in the time it takes the ball to get from the kicker to his teammate. It will force teams to go more man on man.

No doubt there will still be instances of teams "flooding" but for the most part general play will open up and get back to more one on one contests that we grew up loving (Jakovich/Carey, Silvagni/Ablett, Knights/Van Der Haar etc)

Every club knows how to defend the ground and how effective it is. Taking out players may make it more difficult, but definitely not impossible.

Look at it from a coach’s perspective

The game gets cut to 15 a side. Your 18 man defence is now broken. But you know that a system like that is going to work, you just need to dedicate the time to adapt it to the new conditions. If you don’t do this, every other team that does will have a distinct advantage over you.

Another thing you can do is develop a method to break down opposition defence. This will be a great asset if it comes off. But that’s not guaranteed, your method cannot be fully proven until it is tested in game.

It is clearly the best option to fix the defence first, and then use whatever time is left to develop new methods.

So we end up with almost the same game again the next season, and the cycle repeats - another poorly thought out rule is brought in, defensive structures are fixed, very little development on attack. If we’re lucky, the rule will have a laughable loophole that teams will exploit.

The one thing that can be done to ensure the game stays in its current state, is to continue tinkering with rules every year.

 

[brutus76]

So can't even wave your arms about and jump around when on the mark whilst they kick for goal to try to put them off?

That's ridiculous - bring back the place kick then FFS or put a cardboard cutout instead that they need to kick over

Steve Shocking - your "stand" rule - needs to go.

My suggestions:
1. Centre circle to be extended to 15m than 10m currently to generate more midfield space to run into
2. Centre square to be extended width ways to 60m or 70m than the 50m currently to generate more midfield space to run into
3. More rewarding the tackler for the HTB rule
4. A 25m line at each end where 1 player from each team needs to be within at all times (between the 25m line and the goals)

 

[Dr Tigris]

So if you take it to the extreme and it becomes say 8 players per team (it won't happen but just for arguments sake), teams will still implement zone defense? No, they won't be able to because the field is too large to implement a zone with fewer players on the field. So then it becomes what is the magic number. I think reducing the number of players to 14 or 15 makes sense, there will still be an element of zoning the further you get up the ground but it will make full ground zones (ala Clarko's Cluster) obsolete because the zone will be spread too thin so it will become ineffectual.

Not only will this free up space it will also mean the talent pool isn't spread as thin and may also help make a case for a 19th & 20th team.

And all this without fundamentally changing the way the game is played.

Nb I'm not necessarily against this "stand the mark" rule - I hope it isn't officiated in too strict a manner as no one wants to see 50m penalties resulting in multiple goals a game or deciding games. But I don't think it is the silver bullet, none of the newly introduced rules are. The elephant in the room is that there are too many players on the field, in the early 20th century 18 a side was fine when players were amateur/part time, held their positions and didn't have the capacity to run half marathons every game. But in the 21st century these factors mean the ground has shrunk relative to the capacity of the players and the game has become far more congested as a result. As I said previously, if you were creating the game from scratch today I don't think you would have 18 a side. On SEN last week Watson & Lyon were discussing the game and Watson said the issue is players no longer have the time and space to actually play the game. Well, the answer is staring everyone in the face but for some reason they are so dogmatic about "18 a side" that they refuse to look at the simplest solution.

"the elephant in the room is that there are too many players on the field"

Only if you take it that the game must be like it was in the "past". But which past? Back around 100+ year ago there was a serious attempt to merge rugby league and Australian football. Partly because the way they were played was quite similar. https://www.footyalmanac.com.au/uni...between-australian-football-and-rugby-league/

At times the VFL/AFL has been very high scoring. At times low scoring. There is no period where it was ever the 'real' game. What we have now is the current version of the game, not a debased form of footy. So the 18 men on the field is just footy.

I remember the Saints at a muddy Moorabbin playing a game of scrag and punch in the VFL. If that real footy with 18 players per side? Or is it the elite teams tearing the ground up. People remember the elite teams and forget that most teams have never been elite and were actually pretty crap.

I love the contest and would much rather watch two teams going hammer and tongs for a 52 - 50 final score than 2 teams playing AFLX for a 131-130 game. The current game is not the 1990s game because smart people worked out how to win game using good tactics and fitter more skilled players. The best 1990s teams would be torn apart by Gold Coast - because Gold coast has better tactics and better prepared players. You cannot tell people to forget what they know and have learnt - well you can but they won't do it.

A definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result - making rule and interpretation changes constantly without trialling them properly, and expecting 1990s football to return. If my team ever tried to play 1990s football I would be so angry. I like being competitive and winning, not trying to play flashy losing football.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Anyone with half a brain knows this is a good rule change that will result in open football.
If you like rolling stoppages leave the rule alone but who likes rolling stoppages?

 

[Bluelegs]

Anyone with half a brain knows this is a good rule change that will result in open football.
If you like rolling stoppages leave the rule alone but who likes rolling stoppages?

I'm not sure I agree. The AFL has made a mark/free kick so much more valuable. Every time you have a free kick or a mark you are basically given open lanes to kick into on either side of the mark. Based on what we've seen so far the player taking the kick is able to run significantly off their line before play on is called, so the kicker will likely have 30-45 degrees of space to run into until the lateral mark where they can find a target directly in front of them. I predict this will actually result in more short kicking and labourious ball movement. We might get fewer stoppages but only because it will be way more beneficial to play keepings off with the footy. I guess if you like mid-10s Clarko ball you'll enjoy it but if the AFL are trying to legislate more open free-flowing football I doubt this will achieve that long term.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Anyone with half a brain knows this is a good rule change that will result in open football.
If you like rolling stoppages leave the rule alone but who likes rolling stoppages?

How is this rule going to effect rolling stoppages? all this rule will do is make the simple little sideways 20m kick easier than it currently is. Stoppages will still occur at same rate.

 

[HPKS]

I'm not sure I agree. The AFL has made a mark/free kick so much more valuable. Every time you have a free kick or a mark you are basically given open lanes to kick into on either side of the mark. Based on what we've seen so far the player taking the kick is able to run significantly off their line before play on is called, so the kicker will likely have 30-45 degrees of space to run into until the lateral mark where they can find a target directly in front of them. I predict this will actually result in more short kicking and labourious ball movement. We might get fewer stoppages but only because it will be way more beneficial to play keepings off with the footy. I guess if you like mid-10s Clarko ball you'll enjoy it but if the AFL are trying to legislate more open free-flowing football I doubt this will achieve that long term.

imo I think it’s part of a long term strategy to open up the play. This in conjunction of further reduction in the interchange over the next few years with the trial of zones In The vfl which I expect to be eased in over a number of years. So if you went the full vfl zone your looking at 12 less players around the ball at stoppages. Which means now you could see how this Manning the mark rule could work. Whether people agree with it or not or think it’ll work or not I think the writing is on the wall. Imo big change will happen

 

[owen87]

no, the point is to prevent the man on the mark from moving sideways to cut off kicks going on a slight angle, not to allow the player with the ball to run around the mark unchallenged

The point was to make offensive play easier, whether that opens up the corridor or allows the player with the ball to run and carry where they wouldn't normally be able to, I don't think the AFL cares.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

"the elephant in the room is that there are too many players on the field"

Only if you take it that the game must be like it was in the "past". But which past? Back around 100+ year ago there was a serious attempt to merge rugby league and Australian football. Partly because the way they were played was quite similar. https://www.footyalmanac.com.au/uni...between-australian-football-and-rugby-league/

At times the VFL/AFL has been very high scoring. At times low scoring. There is no period where it was ever the 'real' game. What we have now is the current version of the game, not a debased form of footy. So the 18 men on the field is just footy.

I remember the Saints at a muddy Moorabbin playing a game of scrag and punch in the VFL. If that real footy with 18 players per side? Or is it the elite teams tearing the ground up. People remember the elite teams and forget that most teams have never been elite and were actually pretty crap.

I love the contest and would much rather watch two teams going hammer and tongs for a 52 - 50 final score than 2 teams playing AFLX for a 131-130 game. The current game is not the 1990s game because smart people worked out how to win game using good tactics and fitter more skilled players. The best 1990s teams would be torn apart by Gold Coast - because Gold coast has better tactics and better prepared players. You cannot tell people to forget what they know and have learnt - well you can but they won't do it.

A definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result - making rule and interpretation changes constantly without trialling them properly, and expecting 1990s football to return. If my team ever tried to play 1990s football I would be so angry. I like being competitive and winning, not trying to play flashy losing football.

For me, the scoring isn't the issue. It's a byproduct. My issue is the lack of time and space players have to work in making it extremely difficult to display the skills of Australian Football. There are probably a raft of reasons for this (umpiring is a huge issue). I can enjoy defensive slogs, I enjoyed the 05/06 GF's as much as anyone. The 2009 GF is one of the best games of all time as far as I'm concerned. But to say high scoring = AFLX is rubbish. Not every game is going to be a classic but the style of game has changed dramatically in the last 15 years or so. The ball used to be in relatively constant movement but this is not the case anymore. The game has had similar issues in the past and dramatic rules were brought in to ensure it didn't devolve into a bastardised game of rugby (ie out on the full, centre square, deliberate out of bounds etc).

 

[Ceehook]

I get the gist of your post which is a good one but this could read confusing to someone if they did not live around the time of VFA football.
VFA admin and VFL admin were not connected. The VFL did not trial things in the VFA. The VFA did their own thing, just as the VFL did theirs. One may copy the others ideas but they were not working together.

Just out of interest, when did the VFA first use interchange? The VFL did it in 1978. So when did VFA start doing it?

yes the VFL & VFA weren't friends
interchange - geez exact date is beyond me now I'm thinking 76-77
Geelong West and a very old Warwick Yates was what forced the first change
our family would see the Tiges on Saturdays and Preston on Sundays

the VFA trialled and kept a centre square concept , having no wingers they had two lines across the ground
it was deemed success and the VFL introduced a centre diamond then next year , the points of the diamond almost touched the boundary line at Glenferrie so the next year it became a centre square

in 1971 the VFA Grand final started with a free kick to the Dandenong full forward Frosty Miller in the goal square , he duly kicked a goal ,
the final results was a 6 point win to Dandenong , you could imagine what a mess that become , protests legal challenges

then end result was the result to stand and they tightend the rule about the start of the game , had to commence with a centre bounce
I'm pretty sure the VFL announced they made a similar change

so things were watched closely , adopted if appropriate but not "co ordinated "

 

[footyfan1978]

yes the VFL & VFA weren't friends
interchange - geez exact date is beyond me now I'm thinking 76-77
Geelong West and a very old Warwick Yates was what forced the first change
our family would see the Tiges on Saturdays and Preston on Sundays

the VFA trialled and kept a centre square concept , having no wingers they had two lines across the ground
it was deemed success and the VFL introduced a centre diamond then next year , the points of the diamond almost touched the boundary line at Glenferrie so the next year it became a centre square

in 1971 the VFA Grand final started with a free kick to the Dandenong full forward Frosty Miller in the goal square , he duly kicked a goal ,
the final results was a 6 point win to Dandenong , you could imagine what a mess that become , protests legal challenges

then end result was the result to stand and they tightend the rule about the start of the game , had to commence with a centre bounce
I'm pretty sure the VFL announced they made a similar change

so things were watched closely , adopted if appropriate but not "co ordinated "

Interesting stuff.
I wonder if we extended the line through the centre circle all the way to the boundary line how we could use it in future to clean up some of the mess they made of our great game in last few decades. Along with removing some of mistakes from these recent decades to go with it.

The centre square and pre-ceding discussion that went into it before they implemented is something that interest me to see if we can learn anything of it for the games current issues of congestion at both ends of the ground.

 

[WilloTree]

1927
Goal umpires required to compare scorecards at the conclusion of each quarter.

It was all downhill from here really.

Thanks 1927.

 

[Do the Dew]

What about changing where fielders were allowed to field? Is that considered a drastic tactical change to you?

Sure because it's akin to zones. The Bodyline series and the rules that followed drastically changed cricket. Zones in footy would too.

 

[Do the Dew]

Correct. He’s acting as if no other sport has made changes to try and better the game. Basketball 3 point line, hockey offside. AFL if anything refuses to change enough.

Have you read any of my previous posts? The rules committee are trying to make changes to supposedly "improve" footy, although what the improvement is isn't explicitly stated.

I've been arguing that in general they've brought in dumb rules rather than fixing up the stuff that's already in the game.

 

[Do the Dew]

I'm still convinced to this day that they brought in the 6-6-6 rule to nullify Ross Lyons tactics of extreme defence and many players around the ball in boundary throw ins to minimise the opposition spread.

Funny how when a team kicks a goal, they are forced to be in their position. It does open up the game.

Except there's no statistical evidence to prove that.

 

[Brickwall]

How can people in high positions make this up , this has to be the worst decision ever
you really have to be brain dead to even think this shxt up

 

[NoobPie]

So if you take it to the extreme and it becomes say 8 players per team (it won't happen but just for arguments sake), teams will still implement zone defense? No, they won't be able to because the field is too large to implement a zone with fewer players on the field. So then it becomes what is the magic number. I think reducing the number of players to 14 or 15 makes sense, there will still be an element of zoning the further you get up the ground but it will make full ground zones (ala Clarko's Cluster) obsolete because the zone will be spread too thin so it will become ineffectual.

Not only will this free up space it will also mean the talent pool isn't spread as thin and may also help make a case for a 19th & 20th team.

And all this without fundamentally changing the way the game is played.

I think the problem is that:

- it is not a linear equation. Reducing to 16 for instance will likely have less than
- there is no magical number / sweet spot. As soon as you hit the point where zoning becomes ineffective to slow play you have created what rugby 7s is to rugby.
- you will fundamentally change the way the game is played. It will be a game nearing pure endurance athleticism in a way that is far worse than what people currently imagine the current game to be. It will also just as likely descend into chippy catchy and teams putting numbers behind the ball

 

[NoobPie]

How is this rule going to effect rolling stoppages? all this rule will do is make the simple little sideways 20m kick easier than it currently is. Stoppages will still occur at same rate.

It increases the chance of an inbound kick at the expense of going down the line to a contest with the resulting high likelihood of a stoppage.

 

[hairy biker]

This video from the NM v St Kilda practice match (~10 secs in), for me, highlights the potential major problem with the new man on the mark rule.
I'm less concerned about the man on the mark moving and much more that the play on call has to be immediate when the player with the ball moves off his line.

 

[footyfan1978]

why did player number 12 stop chasing McKay there ?

 

[NoobPie]

This video from the NM v St Kilda practice match (~10 secs in), for me, highlights the potential major problem with the new man on the mark rule.
I'm less concerned about the man on the mark moving and much more that the play on call has to be immediate when the player with the ball moves off his line.

I think the way to look at it is that the player on the mark is effectively taken out of action.

We can't see the umpire but it appears there that the play on call was too late

 

[NoobPie]

why did player number 12 stop chasing McKay there ?

Presumably because he hadn't been called to play on yet

 

[dont bowl there]

Sure because it's akin to zones. The Bodyline series and the rules that followed drastically changed cricket. Zones in footy would too.

You’re missing the point by trying to directly link it to an AFL example. The point was that cricket saw something they didn’t like and made a drastic change to the rules to combat it.

 

[footyfan1978]

Presumably because he hadn't been called to play on yet

He had been because he did start moving towards Mckay then he just stopped and gave up trying.
A 50 metre penalty would have been applied if it had not already been said to play on by ump. The fact there was no 50 m penalty tells me umpire said play on and he just gave up trying to chase.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Presumably because he hadn't been called to play on yet

Surely the coaches will simply instruct their players to not man the mark and instead just push back 5-10m, especially from defence all the way to outside goal scoring range.