Hocking has lost TV rights an ad per game

Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Posts
1,308
Likes
303
Location
Under the Punt Rd Stand
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Thread starter #1
Actually more than that.

After 7 rounds we were 80 goals down on last year, which is more than a goal a game.

We know the AFL will never admit a mistake or sack someone, but maybe, just maybe, the people who paid 1.2 billion for the broadcast rights can apply some pressure over losing a huge amount of ad revenue. Given the AFL projected an increase to corporate partners after the rule changes, I'd estimate Hocking has stuffed the projected revenue by about 20%.

Only 25 million dollars or so.

Can we now reverse the daft and untested rule changes turning our game into a low scoring slugfest? How about sacking Blight, Hocking and Whateley from anything Aussie rules related before they suggest anything else to 'fix' the game?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

wagstaff

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
4,814
Likes
2,284
Location
The Sea of Holes
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Melbourne Stars, Arsenal
#3
After a couple of rounds, on the Footyology podcast Mark Fine blasted the changes to kicking out after a point, saying it ensures that the player is far more likely to kick towards the boundary and therefore more throw-ins and less attacking play.

Initially I thought he was being harsh but ever since I've noticed he's totally right. It does nothing to help attacking play; instead it just makes it easier for sides to play it safe and kick it towards the boundary 60m out.

Hope that rule is removed from next season.
 

Boxhead_31

Rompinwins is my Chauffeur
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Posts
32,654
Likes
42,132
Location
This Drinking Team has a Football Problem
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
South BHFL, 49ers
#5
What happens is we don't get stupid threads like this on Saturday.
I think the lack of ads is a ploy of Hocking and Whately to upset Richmond, like every other thing they do
 

Cmarsh

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Posts
5,383
Likes
6,956
Location
NSW
AFL Club
GWS
#7
Actually more than that.

After 7 rounds we were 80 goals down on last year, which is more than a goal a game.

We know the AFL will never admit a mistake or sack someone, but maybe, just maybe, the people who paid 1.2 billion for the broadcast rights can apply some pressure over losing a huge amount of ad revenue. Given the AFL projected an increase to corporate partners after the rule changes, I'd estimate Hocking has stuffed the projected revenue by about 20%.

Only 25 million dollars or so.

Can we now reverse the daft and untested rule changes turning our game into a low scoring slugfest? How about sacking Blight, Hocking and Whateley from anything Aussie rules related before they suggest anything else to 'fix' the game?
AFL won't sack anyone? Not unless Gill hears you're screwing another bloke's misses.
 

Teen Wolf

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
1,886
Likes
3,114
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Rancho Carne Toros
#9
Are the greedy league administrators just about $$$$ or aren't they? Relentless critics of Gill and co. can't seem to make up their mind on this matter.

But maybe, just maybe, the people who paid 1.2 billion for the broadcast rights are the ones who insisted on these rule changes.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Posts
17,598
Likes
18,457
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#11
Which rule did the AFL implement that all Players had to flood one half of the field and have 36 players around the ball?
Nominating ruckmen.

Slows the game and keeps the ball in a small area.

Instant ball up with a 3rd man jumping and belting the ball can shift it beyomd the pack meaning players need to stay spread out.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

D-N-R

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Posts
2,396
Likes
2,567
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
#13
So a 5% drop in goals per game that may or may not have anything to do with the rule changes

Meanwhile FTA ratings are up 16 %......is that because of the rule changes or does correlation not equal causation when change is positive?
I don't think the 666 rule has done anything to the game particularly congestion which is why it was introduced. New kick in rules have put the ball a little further from goal so might have an affect on scores.

A tonne of Thursday night games and anzac day and Easter games will have boosted the FTA figures.
 

smasha

Premium Platinum
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Posts
36,562
Likes
30,180
Location
Richmond Paddock
AFL Club
Richmond
#15
Actually more than that.

After 7 rounds we were 80 goals down on last year, which is more than a goal a game.

We know the AFL will never admit a mistake or sack someone, but maybe, just maybe, the people who paid 1.2 billion for the broadcast rights can apply some pressure over losing a huge amount of ad revenue. Given the AFL projected an increase to corporate partners after the rule changes, I'd estimate Hocking has stuffed the projected revenue by about 20%.

Only 25 million dollars or so.

Can we now reverse the daft and untested rule changes turning our game into a low scoring slugfest? How about sacking Blight, Hocking and Whateley from anything Aussie rules related before they suggest anything else to 'fix' the game?
“state of the game” my arse “state of Geelong’s premiership hopes” more like it.
Hocking the rulemaker with Wheatley,the political mouth piece doing a Clive Palmer last year crying about “state of the game.”

The umpires had their own “state of the game “ meeting after Richmond’s flag and we consequently got reamed to the deficit of -230 odd freekicks.
 

iameviljez

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Posts
11,493
Likes
11,381
Location
Dili, Timor-Leste
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Pompey
#17
This is frankly ridiculous. It's not Hocking who is making the game more defensive - it's the coaches. Because they are doing exactly what coaches are supposed to do - setting their sides up to win games.

Teams have become better and better at closing down space in their forward half, and as a result, sides are far more nervous about taking risks out of their back fifty. It's been extremely rare for years that sides have taken Route One out of the kick-in unless they are in dire need of a quick goal.

With the modern forward press, the consequences of making an error in the corridor - even at half-forward - are diabolical. So, sides crab around the boundary like a socially awkward date at a party.

I agree that the committee rushes rules into play far too fast for its own good, but this defensive play is not its doing.
 

StillAtLarge

Premiership Player
Joined
May 12, 2015
Posts
4,832
Likes
9,711
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#19
Can we now reverse the daft and untested rule changes turning our game into a low scoring slugfest? How about sacking Blight, Hocking and Whateley from anything Aussie rules related before they suggest anything else to 'fix' the game?
I'm still befuddled as to how Whateley and Blight were consulted. Madness
 
Last edited:

Ausbenito

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Posts
354
Likes
148
AFL Club
Fremantle
#21
Blaming Hocking how ridiculous the 6/6/6 rule is the best rule change in years ensures centre bounces are compulsory viewing unlike alot the other stuff.
Alot of our coaches should be coaching soccer that is the game they are trying to play possess the ball around defensive half until you can get it to someone in a position to strike or maybe the fast break is occasionally on or a freakish play rarely I hope they continue to change rules as the game always has to legislate against these coaches whatever it takes to protect the core of our game.
 

Gavin Excell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Posts
25,651
Likes
25,959
Location
Bentleigh
AFL Club
Geelong
#22
“state of the game” my arse “state of Geelong’s premiership hopes” more like it.
Hocking the rulemaker with Wheatley,the political mouth piece doing a Clive Palmer last year crying about “state of the game.”

The umpires had their own “state of the game “ meeting after Richmond’s flag and we consequently got reamed to the deficit of -230 odd freekicks.
Sometimes i wonder Smasha whether youre having a lend with the tiger conspiracy stuff or actually believe it
 

iameviljez

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Posts
11,493
Likes
11,381
Location
Dili, Timor-Leste
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Pompey
#23
I don't think the 666 rule has done anything to the game particularly congestion which is why it was introduced.
There have been a number of fast breaks out of the centre resulting in goals that I can think of - though of course there is no way to say for sure that 6-6-6 was what did it.
 

Blue1980

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Posts
9,325
Likes
8,423
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
#24
“state of the game” my arse “state of Geelong’s premiership hopes” more like it.
Hocking the rulemaker with Wheatley,the political mouth piece doing a Clive Palmer last year crying about “state of the game.”

The umpires had their own “state of the game “ meeting after Richmond’s flag and we consequently got reamed to the deficit of -230 odd freekicks.
Yes
 
Top Bottom