Hocking has lost TV rights an ad per game

[HTT]

Might have lost an ad per game, but 16% more people are watching this year, making all those other ads worth more.

With all due respect, that’s probably got a lot to do with Carlton and St Kilda being evicted from the highest rating slots.

 

[Wojcinski]

Then most people don't get to watch footy anymore and the game suffers significantly more

Anymore? It's always been this way though

 

[HTT]

to a certain extent imo
congestion was present 5 years ago, and teams scored heavily. so that argument isnt totally valid.

“Congestion” isn’t some throwaway tactic that coaches use and teams have always used the same method. It’s a byproduct of teams playing the numbers game and determining how to get more of your players to every contest - because that team will usually win more contests and hence win the game. Clubs are getting better and better at that so instead of in the past where there were flaws and teams could find the space to move and score, they can’t now.
And that’s going to happen until you change the rules and say the ladder will be ranked on points for alone and nothing else.

 

[Topkent]

Thats what we want. Teams to kick it long to packs and not to switch play. Watching teams switch the play is as boring as watching grass grow. Its literally circle work.

The * are you on about, that's all teams do now that's why scoring sucks because there's no tactics. They just slam it to s**t forwards who can't take contested marks

 

[Seeds]

No, defensive zones were only introduced once clubs began putting big numbers behind the ball in the early 2000's. Zones guard areas where as the previous defensive strategies were one on one with maybe a spare or 2 if the coach tried to protect a lead or stem a run on. Zones have evolved to include all 18 players behind the ball in a matrix.

In the late 2000's coaches began keeping large numbers of players near the ball which denies the opposition of the ball. Once they win possession players would spread to become a target. The added bonus was the massive numbers limited the time players had to dispose of the ball, increasing mistakes/turnovers.

Zones make it harder for sides to effectively hit a target. Congestion around the ball reduces time to dispose of the ball, making turnovers more likely. Together they are an extremely effective way to limit scoring. Thes two tactics have resulted in lower scores and mistake-riddled games.

Reducing the ability to move through the zone wont fix the issue. What you will end up with is both sides kicking long to zones where they are grossly outnumbered. Long kick, turnover, long kick, turnover.

I know the history of defensive zones. It is not what makes football bad to watch. Its the way teams try to deal with defensive zones that is horrible to watch.

 

[Seeds]

The **** are you on about, that's all teams do now that's why scoring sucks because there's no tactics. They just slam it to **** forwards who can't take contested marks

My club spends half the game chipping it around the back flanks like its soccer. When we go long the game gets interesting. Hawkins might mark or ablett or kelly might rove a contest. Or the opposition win the ball back. Something happens. You are naive to think there arent strategies of how to rove a pack or create space to lead into.

Plus clubs dont just apply defensive zones. They also apply forward zones. You cant do both at the same time.

 

[Topkent]

My club spends half the game chipping it around the back flanks like its soccer. When we go long the game gets interesting. Hawkins might mark or ablett or kelly might rove a contest. Or the opposition win the ball back. Something happens. You are naive to think there arent strategies of how to rove a pack or create space to lead into.

Yeah when they go long its a surprise, if the only game plan is just always go long down the line because thats all the rules allow, teams will just flood the contest down the line and it will lead to multiple stopagges

 

[Seeds]

I'd just reduce players on field by 2 each side, more free space opens up as defending grounds gets a bit harder. Forget all these other rule changes that just create other flow on effects.

Yay more circle work.

 

[Topkent]

Yay more circle work.

You mean teams actually kicking it from one bloke to another rather than playing U10s rugby in the centre of the ground for 100 minutes. Itll mean more run and carry and more skills on show.

I cant ******* believe you enjoy this s**t version of the sport.

 

[captain blood 17]

The game never needed 6-6-6. Honestly, who watched last years GF and thought you know what? The game needs zones or a 6-6-6 concept here. What BS. The AFL once again trying to manufacture outcomes and creating more headaches. How about they fit the umpiring up before stupid s**t like this?

 

[Freomaniac]

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?

We are hitting Hyundai A league standards are we?

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Well that is three AFL coaches (Fagan, Clarkson and Pyke) that have come out and said that is mainly the new rules that have taken away scoring methods coaches used to have, which has led to reduced scoring.

Hocking of course told the rules of the game committee recently that his new rules were awesome and it was just coaches playing more defensively that were at fault. Basically whether scoring went up or down Hocking claims a win!

Brad Scott is the only other coach I have heard discuss the new rules and he was 50/50 On how it all was working.