Hocking's "data"

[Dazzler9]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-15/afl-rules-changes-may-reduce-scoring-not-increase-it/10247576

Can't be bothered reading? - 3 trial games is a pissy little sample size which tells us nothing.

"Three late-season dead rubbers involving relatively weak VFL teams is not a real trial. It is a pretext to a rubber stamp."

 

[wowlace]

Have a look at the current state of of the below the knees rule. This should be enough to slow down on any further rule changes. The game needs fewer rules, not more.

 

[gavaniacono]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-15/afl-rules-changes-may-reduce-scoring-not-increase-it/10247576

Can't be bothered reading? - 3 trial games is a pissy little sample size which tells us nothing.

"Three late-season dead rubbers involving relatively weak VFL teams is not a real trial. It is a pretext to a rubber stamp."

Very happy to read an iconoclast contrarian article. Hopefully more of this before the ideologues push the button.

 

[Sttew]

Have a look at the current state of of the below the knees rule. This should be enough to slow down on any further rule changes. The game needs fewer rules, not more.

If Dees had lost last night by a goal or two they would have been entitled to make a formal complaint, FWIW. Two blatant bad calls, one resulting in a Hawks goal

 

[wowlace]

If Dees had lost last night by a goal or two they would have been entitled to make a formal complaint, FWIW. Two blatant bad calls, one resulting in a Hawks goal

The Brayshaw free against should definitely be worthy of a response from the AFL. Can't have that shit going by without a word to the ump.

 

[HTPunter]

Still not convinced that `speeding the game up` or promoting attacking actually does decrease congestion. If anything, the evidence so far with the interchange rules shows that as teams tire and become more exposed on defence, they shut games down and make it a scrap, put numbers around the ball and pressure the ballwinners if your prime mids are off/resting. Then reset/reload and try to counter.

A 15% increase in scoring is hardly noteworthy. Cool a team won 75-54, now it's 82-62, football is saved!!

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Still not convinced that `speeding the game up` or promoting attacking actually does decrease congestion. If anything, the evidence so far with the interchange rules shows that as teams tire and become more exposed on defence, they shut games down and make it a scrap, put numbers around the ball and pressure the ballwinners if your prime mids are off/resting. Then reset/reload and try to counter.

A 15% increase in scoring is hardly noteworthy. Cool a team won 75-54, now it's 82-62, football is saved!!

Mostly Victorian clubs shut games down so mostly Victorian supporters are going to complain.

 

[RUNVS]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-15/afl-rules-changes-may-reduce-scoring-not-increase-it/10247576

Can't be bothered reading? - 3 trial games is a pissy little sample size which tells us nothing.

"Three late-season dead rubbers involving relatively weak VFL teams is not a real trial. It is a pretext to a rubber stamp."

Guess what, the AFL tried to do much more detailed research, using actual AFL teams in the AFL season and when the AFL suggested it a large percentage of people lost it and the backlash forced the AFL to back down. People who complained about the AFL wanting to test the rules in some games that did not matter do not have the right to complain about the small sample size of data as they actively fought against making the sample size much bigger.

 

[Dazzler9]

Guess what, the AFL tried to do much more detailed research, using actual AFL teams in the AFL season and when the AFL suggested it a large percentage of people lost it and the backlash forced the AFL to back down. People who complained about the AFL wanting to test the rules in some games that did not matter do not have the right to complain about the small sample size of data as they actively fought against making the sample size much bigger.

Another 3 games bigger is still a piddly sample size I'm afraid. We should be talking an entire season as a bare minimum.

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

According the the article the rules changes actually made the scores LOWER than they should have been.

Hocking faceplant

 

[BF Tiger]

Still not convinced that `speeding the game up` or promoting attacking actually does decrease congestion. If anything, the evidence so far with the interchange rules shows that as teams tire and become more exposed on defence, they shut games down and make it a scrap, put numbers around the ball and pressure the ballwinners if your prime mids are off/resting. Then reset/reload and try to counter.

A 15% increase in scoring is hardly noteworthy. Cool a team won 75-54, now it's 82-62, football is saved!!

Or that extra 15% might make it 90-54 and the game over as a contest even sooner. They have NFI.

 

[RUNVS]

Another 3 games bigger is still a piddly sample size I'm afraid. We should be talking an entire season as a bare minimum.

It would have made a big difference as it would have been 3 games involving AFL teams, and those games would be more valuable than 10 games of VFL teams.

 

[Dazzler9]

It would have made a big difference as it would have been 3 games involving AFL teams, and those games would be more valuable than 10 games of VFL teams.

The dataset would have been statistically irrelevant. Too small a sample size. That was the point of the article.

 

[RUNVS]

The dataset would have been statistically irrelevant. Too small a sample size. That was the point of the article.

It still would have helped, and people did nothing but complain about it when the AFL suggested it.

 

[Dazzler9]

I'm with the author on this one. It needs to be trialled for a season or two first in a lower tier league. Rather than just 3 games where the stats have no value.

"Ask any statistician what they can infer with any significance from three data points and the answer will invariably be "nothing". Trends can't be identified. Factors such as weather, accuracy and team style can't be controlled for. Causation can't be proved."

 

[Suma Magic]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-15/afl-rules-changes-may-reduce-scoring-not-increase-it/10247576

Can't be bothered reading? - 3 trial games is a pissy little sample size which tells us nothing.

"Three late-season dead rubbers involving relatively weak VFL teams is not a real trial. It is a pretext to a rubber stamp."

Can you edit the title to:

Hocking’s “data”

 

[deck]

Guess what, the AFL tried to do much more detailed research, using actual AFL teams in the AFL season and when the AFL suggested it a large percentage of people lost it and the backlash forced the AFL to back down. People who complained about the AFL wanting to test the rules in some games that did not matter do not have the right to complain about the small sample size of data as they actively fought against making the sample size much bigger.

The AFL weren't even contemplating having trials until a few media commentators questioned it and then followed by a talkback radio backlash from fans. Whateley assured fans this committee would not be making any knee jerk reactions. Yes implementing rules off the back of trials in less than a handful of games is a knee jerk reaction.

 

[RUNVS]

The AFL weren't even contemplating having trials until a few media commentators questioned it and then followed by a talkback radio backlash from fans. Whateley assured fans this committee would not be making any knee jerk reactions. Yes implementing rules off the back of trials in less than a handful of games is a knee jerk reaction.

Something needs to be done. I mean scoring has plummeted in the last 15 years and this finals series has been a slog fest in terms of goal scoring.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Another 3 games bigger is still a piddly sample size I'm afraid. We should be talking an entire season as a bare minimum.

Why couldn't they trial it for a season in all the state leagues and see if it makes any difference? That way you'd get over 500 games of data. Gives coaches time to adapt to the rules and see if they find any loopholes. Why does everything need to be rushed in so quickly?

 

[living_in_syd]

Something needs to be done. I mean scoring has plummeted in the last 15 years and this finals series has been a slog fest in terms of goal scoring.

Why is that a bad thing? Do you need a goal fest to keep entertained? How about 15 goal wins?

 

[deck]

Something needs to be done. I mean scoring has plummeted in the last 15 years and this finals series has been a slog fest in terms of goal scoring.

The issue is they come up with a idea that could help the problem but fail to do the due diligence on what negatives these rules could bring to the game causing another problem.

18 metre square you lead with 3 minutes left by 3 points. Do you have a shot from 50 and risk giving the opposition the ball 18 metres out or do you hang on and chip the ball around. Are you now penalising the attacking team for attacking?

 

[Dazzler9]

The issue is they come up with a idea that could help the problem but fail to do the due diligence on what negatives these rules could bring to the game causing another problem.

18 metre square you lead with 3 minutes left by 3 points. Do you have a shot from 50 and risk giving the opposition the ball 18 metres out or do you hang on and chip the ball around. Are you now penalising the attacking team for attacking?

This is precisely the issue with rushing in this change. The law of unintended consequences.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Guess what, the AFL tried to do much more detailed research, using actual AFL teams in the AFL season and when the AFL suggested it a large percentage of people lost it and the backlash forced the AFL to back down.

How do you not see the ridiculous contradiction in that statement.

Given such backlash, why is Hocking still trying to push through these new rule changes? The AFL sure has a funny way of backing down.

 

[Struggle]

Hocking is an embarrassment to himself and the league with all these shit ideas he's forcing through

 

[Aramis]

6-6-6 is an absolute fallacy... They realise teams are going to stick their 2 wingers in the backline and play 2 defenders on the wings.. then put them on the defensive side of the square... literally making no difference to a problem that never existed in the first place.... absolute f***ing nonsense.