Hocking has lost TV rights an ad per game

Remove this Banner Ad

Aug 11, 2004
1,415
503
Under the Punt Rd Stand
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
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?
 

wagstaff

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 28, 2001
5,451
4,275
The Sea of Holes
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Melbourne Stars, Arsenal
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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cmarsh

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 23, 2012
7,698
10,427
NSW
AFL Club
GWS
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.
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
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?
 
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.
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,299
40,464
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2005
2,999
3,443
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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.
 
Oct 20, 2004
17,109
20,897
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Pompey
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

Norm Smith Medallist
May 12, 2015
9,938
18,923
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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
Sep 12, 2013
489
252
AFL Club
Fremantle
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.
 
Apr 22, 2007
42,076
50,222
Bentleigh
AFL Club
Geelong
“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
 
Oct 20, 2004
17,109
20,897
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Pompey
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

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
21,128
27,138
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
“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
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back