Hocking has lost TV rights an ad per game

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
23,789
9,264
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
no rule changes will fix up having 60+ i50 for a return of 60 pts

maybe its as simple as there's a lack of quality forwards (forward lines) in the game? apart from a few teams who can regularly kick 100+ , most forward lines look pretty avg on paper.
it's amazing how being surrounded by defenders can make a forward look average. The number 1 tactic coaches employ to reduce disposal and scoring efficiency is congesting free space and placing pressure on the ball carrier. This requires huge numbers to follow the ball all over the ground. Take a forward line back to 6 forwards on 6 defenders and many 'average' looking forwards would become decent prospects.

Hocking's rules were very minor changes that have limited impact on the play. This was at the behest of footy fans who didnt want major, or even any change. However, scoring is still dropping because the coaches have continued to perfect congestion and pressure plays, therefore reducing scoring even further. Thankfully, close games, better fixturing, and no commonwealth games, have caused an increase in ratings. If this hadn't happen we'd be seeing more drastic rule changes next season.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Johnny_Dogg4

Premiership Player
Apr 5, 2017
4,524
3,206
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
it's amazing how being surrounded by defenders can make a forward look average. The number 1 tactic coaches employ to reduce disposal and scoring efficiency is congesting free space and placing pressure on the ball carrier. This requires huge numbers to follow the ball all over the ground. Take a forward line back to 6 forwards on 6 defenders and many 'average' looking forwards would become decent prospects.

Hocking's rules were very minor changes that have limited impact on the play. This was at the behest of footy fans who didnt want major, or even any change. However, scoring is still dropping because the coaches have continued to perfect congestion and pressure plays, therefore reducing scoring even further. Thankfully, close games, better fixturing, and no commonwealth games, have caused an increase in ratings. If this hadn't happen we'd be seeing more drastic rule changes next season.
to a certain extent imo
congestion was present 5 years ago, and teams scored heavily. so that argument isnt totally valid.
 

iameviljez

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2004
11,679
11,789
Dili, Timor-Leste
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Pompey
to a certain extent imo
congestion was present 5 years ago, and teams scored heavily. so that argument isnt totally valid.
With respect, I don't think teams scored heavily five years ago. I know it's not easy to identify trends simply by inspection (my inner mathematician shudders), but this below chart shows average throughout every season since 1980.

1557620750571.png


There are two clear points where scoring drops heavily (and stays there): 1995, and 2009. I can't talk as to 1995, but 2009 was the start of highly, highly congestive tactics being adopted across the whole league.

I don't know how old you are, but I do remember the pure man-on-man era, which ended sometime about the late 90s with the advent of the spare defender behind the ball, and mxett 's point is something I certainly agree with: forwards looked so good with just one defender to beat. This was particularly true of forwards who were very strong, but couldn't jump all that high - Lockett and Dunstall are prime examples, of course.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2005
2,421
2,596
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
When did the VFL cede control of the league exactly? The rules committee makes the rules for the AFL, and its up to the bodies whether they follow those same rules. If another rules committee existed that made rules for the game in general, what makes you think the AFL wouldnt ignore it and have its own rules anyway - or do you know nothing of the relationship between the ANFC and VFL in its latter years?
Badly worded on my part. An independant VFL Commission was formed to control the game for the benefit of all clubs for the sake of the competition.

Perhaps it does need to revert to the ANFC where the rules are managed separate to the leagues.

Obviously the AFL would have to be on board.

I think the AFL are unduly influenced by the financial side of the game.

There were 9 rule / interpretation changes this year alone. Fans don't understand the myriad of HTB interpretations and are frustrated.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
23,789
9,264
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
It's interesting the fans and media complain about how poor the skills are in the modern game, and how many mistakes are made by players and umpires. Yet the pressure tactics employed by coaches are aimed at causing mistakes or turnovers, and the number of players around the contest make the game far more difficult to umpire.

Players are not less skillful than previous eras, the game pressure is far higher.

Umpires arent worse than previous eras, the sheer volume of player interactions us far higher.

You want to improve the game? Decrease the frantic high pressure game style.
 

Tiger2709

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 27, 2009
24,254
20,288
Perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
It's interesting the fans and media complain about how poor the skills are in the modern game, and how many mistakes are made by players and umpires. Yet the pressure tactics employed by coaches are aimed at causing mistakes or turnovers, and the number of players around the contest make the game far more difficult to umpire.

Players are not less skillful than previous eras, the game pressure is far higher.

Umpires arent worse than previous eras, the sheer volume of player interactions us far higher.

You want to improve the game? Decrease the frantic high pressure game style.
Agree with most of what you say although I do think many players are less skillful in that they can't use their opposite side anymore, this was something that school kids learned back in the day, another issue is sports scientists not allowing fowards to practice goal kicking, this must have an impact on scoring.
 

Seeds

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 15, 2007
29,070
25,101
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
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?
Most ads occur during the half time break, qtr time breaks and post and pre game. Your maths is massively off as a result.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
23,789
9,264
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
One rule will fix the game. Make kicks travel 25 meters for a mark.
would this fix it or make it worse? The defensive zones would be almost impenetrable if sides couldn't short pass their way through them.

For me the only way to free up the game is to make it difficult/impossible for large numbers of players to be around the ball, and in defensive zones behind the ball. This will either require new rules to keep players in specific areas (such as 6 6 6 but after every stoppage), or reduce interchanges so far players won't have the endurance to get to every contest or behind the ball.
 

VictorianCrow85

Club Legend
Jul 22, 2016
2,168
2,680
AFL Club
Adelaide
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.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
23,789
9,264
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
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.
while that may help, sides will still continually zone in defense and pressure the ball carrier at all costs because they know it works.

Watching the hawks GWS game now. To think this **** is what our game has become is really sad. Coaches just put so many players behind the ball to stop scoring, when they eventually win possession back through sheer weight of numbers they have no options up forward to kick to. They are then forced to hold up play by kicking backwards and sideways for a minute or so. However, by this stage the opposition have set up 18 players in a zone behind the ball again so the entire farce happens again. This is how 9 goals are scored for the entire game by both sides in 3 quarters.
 

VictorianCrow85

Club Legend
Jul 22, 2016
2,168
2,680
AFL Club
Adelaide
while that may help, sides will still continually zone in defense and pressure the ball carrier at all costs because they know it works.

Watching the hawks GWS game now. To think this **** is what our game has become is really sad. Coaches just put so many players behind the ball to stop scoring, when they eventually win possession back through sheer weight of numbers they have no options up forward to kick to. They are then forced to hold up play by kicking backwards and sideways for a minute or so. However, by this stage the opposition have set up 18 players in a zone behind the ball again so the entire farce happens again. This is how 9 goals are scored for the entire game by both sides in 3 quarters.
No guarantees it will work but it's a lot more likely to than the rules they are trying this year.
 

Seeds

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 15, 2007
29,070
25,101
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
would this fix it or make it worse? The defensive zones would be almost impenetrable if sides couldn't short pass their way through them.

For me the only way to free up the game is to make it difficult/impossible for large numbers of players to be around the ball, and in defensive zones behind the ball. This will either require new rules to keep players in specific areas (such as 6 6 6 but after every stoppage), or reduce interchanges so far players won't have the endurance to get to every contest or behind the ball.
Defensive zones arent the problem with the game. Big pack marks come from kicking to contests. Big tackles come in contests. Exciting fast ball movement is only exciting when its done with some risk through heavy traffic.

The problem with modern football has never been defensive zones. Its always been with the way teams try to tackle defensive zones. Boring chip kick football that holds up the play. Thats what is wrong with football. Rather them stop defensive zones we need to remove the boring way teams try to deal with them. And that can largely be done with not allowing kicks to be marks unless they travel 25 metres. Could also add they cant be marks if kicked backwards. This will lead to more direct play and long kicks forward to contests the way it used to be. More speccies. More roving contests. More excitement.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
23,789
9,264
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Defensive zones arent the problem with the game. Big pack marks come from kicking to contests. Big tackles come in contests. Exciting fast ball movement is only exciting when its done with some risk through heavy traffic.

The problem with modern football has never been defensive zones. Its always been with the way teams try to tackle defensive zones. Boring chip kick football that holds up the play. Thats what is wrong with football. Rather them stop defensive zones we need to remove the boring way teams try to deal with them. And that can largely be done with not allowing kicks to be marks unless they travel 25 metres. Could also add they cant be marks if kicked backwards. This will lead to more direct play and long kicks forward to contests the way it used to be. More speccies. More roving contests. More excitement.
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.
 

Blue1980

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
9,769
8,978
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
With respect, I don't think teams scored heavily five years ago. I know it's not easy to identify trends simply by inspection (my inner mathematician shudders), but this below chart shows average throughout every season since 1980.

View attachment 672046

There are two clear points where scoring drops heavily (and stays there): 1995, and 2009. I can't talk as to 1995, but 2009 was the start of highly, highly congestive tactics being adopted across the whole league.

I don't know how old you are, but I do remember the pure man-on-man era, which ended sometime about the late 90s with the advent of the spare defender behind the ball, and mxett 's point is something I certainly agree with: forwards looked so good with just one defender to beat. This was particularly true of forwards who were very strong, but couldn't jump all that high - Lockett and Dunstall are prime examples, of course.
Well in 1994 quarters went from 25 minutes (but no stopping for out of bounds) to 20 minutes but stopping for out of bounds. I don’t think they stopped time for ball iOS until 2005 or so.
 

autocol

All Australian
Apr 10, 2011
960
2,024
AFL Club
Melbourne
paid 1.2 billion

Hocking has stuffed the projected revenue by about 20%.

Only 25 million dollars or so.
You’ve undersold your conclusion by an order of magnitude there mate. 20% of 1.2 billion is (close enough to) 250 million.
 

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Aug 29, 2010
33,506
40,692
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
Defensive zones arent the problem with the game. Big pack marks come from kicking to contests. Big tackles come in contests. Exciting fast ball movement is only exciting when its done with some risk through heavy traffic.

The problem with modern football has never been defensive zones. Its always been with the way teams try to tackle defensive zones. Boring chip kick football that holds up the play. Thats what is wrong with football. Rather them stop defensive zones we need to remove the boring way teams try to deal with them. And that can largely be done with not allowing kicks to be marks unless they travel 25 metres. Could also add they cant be marks if kicked backwards. This will lead to more direct play and long kicks forward to contests the way it used to be. More speccies. More roving contests. More excitement.
Wrong. Teams will now know your only option to move the ball is long down the line and will defend there, Also means it'll be harder to switch the play which is one of the more effective ways to score
 

ferrisb

Brownlow Medallist
May 22, 2011
13,204
56,512
The Naughty Corner
AFL Club
Carlton
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.
The AFL created Clive Palmer and the United Australia Party purely as an anti-Richmond tactic to devalue your yellow & black branding.... Pretty sure.... :cool:
 

Seeds

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 15, 2007
29,070
25,101
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
Wrong. Teams will now know your only option to move the ball is long down the line and will defend there, Also means it'll be harder to switch the play which is one of the more effective ways to score
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.
 
Top Bottom