Hocking's "data"

[wowlace]

I agree it wasn't a free. It was a bs decision, but actually an understandable one. I hope they change the rule in the off-season, but as of right now there's not much the umps can do. Incorrect decisions are made all the time, like Breust's unpaid mark which likely also costs a team a goal. But I think we just have to accept that umps will miss stuff, or misjudge a few centimetres here and there.

Not all umpiring mistakes need to be explained. The AFL should only comment when umpires aren't implementing the rules. Unfortunately, they are.

How at all was it understandable? Brayshaw was on the ground. Burgoyne tookout his head. Should have been a free for Angus.

 

[demondavey]

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."

Excellent article.

Basically what Steve Hocking has done is rushed in a set of proposed rule changes in a very humdrum and accelerated manner without much statistical analysis. Interesting to note that other major sporting organisations take 1+ years of trial data before proposing rule changes. That’s what makes our game so pedestrian and unprofessional. The AFL and their ‘executives’ are overpaid former players who are reactive to the media and public. It really is a joke when you consider the lack of cerebral depth involved in making decisions.

The issues I see can all be overcome by adaption;

1. As Aramis said above. Sure, you can have starting positions, but that will be manipulated by the kind of player put in certain places.
2. If you lengthen the square you’ll get a larger kick, ok. What then stops opposition players getting deep behind the ball to impact that kick in? You’re essentially just moving everything back X amount.
3. As the game is being played, even with specific starting positions, the natural effect will be for players to fall back defensively to flood an opposition forward line and Work the ball back to front. Collingwood did this last night. Didn’t look unappealing to me.

The natural form of attack can be defence, and that notion was pioneered probably (as early as I can recall) by Terry Wallace in 2000 when he instituted the flood. It was a precedent for things to come, with Sydney taking on a defensive notion that then saw St Kilda and Fremantle use it with some success.

Essentially the only way to overcome this excessive defensive structure is to recruit footballers. Yes, players that are naturally instinctive to execute their skills at an elite level by hand and foot. Cue Hawthorn and Clarkson. What does this do? Well it means elite skilled players thread their way through a zone or defensive flood and get the ball into a conventional attacking position.

Sure, go ahead and implement these changes, but the only thing I’ll see happening is less athletes in football jumpers and a heap of mature age recruits getting picked from the VFL or suburban leagues. Or kids like Jack Higgins getting picked top 3.

What this will actually do is SLOW the game down and bring it back to football of the mid nineties whereby it’s played in a more conventional approach.

 

[Hawk_francais]

How at all was it understandable? Brayshaw was on the ground. Burgoyne tookout his head. Should have been a free for Angus.

Because he made contact with Burgoyne below the knees. Of course the free is there according to the rule... I'm sure we agree it's a terrible rule. While the umps are required to officiate that rule we will see some howlers.

 

[Pessimistic]

Like the idea they want to radically simplify the rule book

Come up with something, then run an extended pre season trial in 2020


These recommendations are just ineffectual, especially as they acknowledge a huge simplification is needed

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Bullshit. You just took the opportunity to have a crack for the sake of it. It’s actually got nothing to do with Melbourne. I responded that playing ugly had got Sydney to the place they’re at, you could’ve responded directly to that as opposed to bringing in Melbourne just because that’s the club I support.

When Victorian clubs play scores are lower than when non victorian clubs play. The afl have acknowladged they want higher scoring hence the rule changes.

Reading all threads on the rule changes and the vast majority of whingers support Victorian clubs.

Many of these whingers come from clubs reliant on welfare

Highest score kicked this year a non victorian club

Very few swans fans whinging about rule changers. Yet having made finals nearly every year since 2005. Your point is as mute as your team missing the finals nearly every year since 2005. Even after tanking

 

[juss]

I encourage everyone to make their voices heard to the AFL, at every possible opportunity. Surveys, events, emails, social media, letters, etc.
Maybe it won't make a difference, but it's the only defence the fans have against the game. People simply won't not watch the product, because they are too invested in their teams.

 

[Pessimistic]

When Victorian clubs play scores are lower than when non victorian clubs play. The afl have acknowladged they want higher scoring hence the rule changes.

Reading all threads on the rule changes and the vast majority of whingers support Victorian clubs.

Many of these whingers come from clubs reliant on welfare

Highest score kicked this year a non victorian club

Very few swans fans whinging about rule changers. Yet having made finals nearly every year since 2005. Your point is as mute as your team missing the finals nearly every year since 2005. Even after tanking

SA and WA are ok with the rules, so long as they get applied with bias toward their own team

Give then 50 50 umpiring, like the rest of us. Stand back and watch

 

[mxett]

Then take players off the field 16. 15 14 a side and open up the game for the whole quarter?

Anyway the inconvenient data is that interchanges have been cappped for two years now, the years people have complained about the footy. The peak in interchanges was 2010 is, which is now seen as good footy.

Even Hocking can work that one out

for interchange caps to have any effect on fatigue they need to be reduced dramatically, not capped so they dont keep on increasing

 

[the harry]

The 104 is a statistical outlier as well, as could be argued is the 95.

Either way scoring in 2018 is way way way down on what it was 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, and that is over the course of an entire season.

How do you survive watching Sydney when they've been the most consistent team for 15 years in the whole "less goals and we're always in the game" camp?

 

[mxett]

I encourage everyone to make their voices heard to the AFL, at every possible opportunity. Surveys, events, emails, social media, letters, etc.
Maybe it won't make a difference, but it's the only defence the fans have against the game. People simply won't not watch the product, because they are too invested in their teams.

and what if the majority of fans are sick of adult auskick and want change

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Excellent article.

Basically what Steve Hocking has done is rushed in a set of proposed rule changes in a very humdrum and accelerated manner without much statistical analysis. Interesting to note that other major sporting organisations take 1+ years of trial data before proposing rule changes. That’s what makes our game so pedestrian and unprofessional. The AFL and their ‘executives’ are overpaid former players who are reactive to the media and public. It really is a joke when you consider the lack of cerebral depth involved in making decisions.

The issues I see can all be overcome by adaption;

1. As Aramis said above. Sure, you can have starting positions, but that will be manipulated by the kind of player put in certain places.
2. If you lengthen the square you’ll get a larger kick, ok. What then stops opposition players getting deep behind the ball to impact that kick in? You’re essentially just moving everything back X amount.
3. As the game is being played, even with specific starting positions, the natural effect will be for players to fall back defensively to flood an opposition forward line and Work the ball back to front. Collingwood did this last night. Didn’t look unappealing to me.

The natural form of attack can be defence, and that notion was pioneered probably (as early as I can recall) by Terry Wallace in 2000 when he instituted the flood. It was a precedent for things to come, with Sydney taking on a defensive notion that then saw St Kilda and Fremantle use it with some success.

Essentially the only way to overcome this excessive defensive structure is to recruit footballers. Yes, players that are naturally instinctive to execute their skills at an elite level by hand and foot. Cue Hawthorn and Clarkson. What does this do? Well it means elite skilled players thread their way through a zone or defensive flood and get the ball into a conventional attacking position.

Sure, go ahead and implement these changes, but the only thing I’ll see happening is less athletes in football jumpers and a heap of mature age recruits getting picked from the VFL or suburban leagues. Or kids like Jack Higgins getting picked top 3.

What this will actually do is SLOW the game down and bring it back to football of the mid nineties whereby it’s played in a more conventional approach.

yes they're trying to manipulate the rules to make the game look like it did in the 90s but that will never happen because you can't delete all the knowledge the coaches have attained on the optimal way to play the game. it's like taking sebatian vettel and throwing him back to the 90s to race in those ancient cars.

i'd actually argue that a bigger goal square will shorten kick ins because teams will set up their zone further back creating space in that 10-30m out from goal. then once the kick in is marked in that area the the opposition will press up and we're back where we started.

2013 was the highest scoring season in the last 15 years and it was when interchanges were at their absolute maximum (140+ a game). there was still congestion but players were good enough to navigate because they weren't tired and it meant you you didn't have to sacrifice a player footballing ability for players with running ability like we do now. that's the modern game working well, it looks different to how it traditionally does with the 10 goal a game full forwards (and we all know how the old dinosaurs love their traditions) but when the game is played like that it's a great product.

 

[demondavey]

When Victorian clubs play scores are lower than when non victorian clubs play. The afl have acknowladged they want higher scoring hence the rule changes.

Reading all threads on the rule changes and the vast majority of whingers support Victorian clubs.

Many of these whingers come from clubs reliant on welfare

Highest score kicked this year a non victorian club

Very few swans fans whinging about rule changers. Yet having made finals nearly every year since 2005. Your point is as mute as your team missing the finals nearly every year since 2005. Even after tanking

You’re generalising and you’ve gone down the path of bagging Melbourne again. You’re not even contributing to the discussion (probably because you can’t).

Every point you raise is moot.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

I’ll concede that if you’ll concede that clubs will start to recruit elite runners over elite footballers

we drafted troy menzel in 2012 in the first round. in 2013-14 he looked like a very talented footballer similar to chad wingard. but as the aerobic demands of the game increased he couldn't keep up. we traded him for sam kerridge who hasn't got a skillful bone in his body but can run all day. we did well out of that deal

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

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.

You talking about the lewis one ? He purposely dove over the ball and took out the legs . Same thing happened to yeo last week and could have broken his leg .

Good rule as it will slowly train players to keep their feet in a contest . Less leg injuries and less concussions

 

[Dazzler9]

This is why the sliding into legs rule is needed

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

The shit games have been with either shit sides or sides with defensive game styles eg sydney and freo .

Non of those teams have done very well . We also have too many teams which has diluted the quallity of sides thus diluted the qualitiy of games

 

[mxett]

yes they're trying to manipulate the rules to make the game look like it did in the 90s but that will never happen because you can't delete all the knowledge the coaches have attained on the optimal way to play the game. it's like taking sebatian vettel and throwing him back to the 90s to race in those ancient cars.

i'd actually argue that a bigger goal square will shorten kick ins because teams will set up their zone further back creating space in that 10-30m out from goal. then once the kick in is marked in that area the the opposition will press up and we're back where we started.

2013 was the highest scoring season in the last 15 years and it was when interchanges were at their absolute maximum (140+ a game). there was still congestion but players were good enough to navigate because they weren't tired and it meant you you didn't have to sacrifice a player footballing ability for players with running ability like we do now. that's the modern game working well, it looks different to how it traditionally does with the 10 goal a game full forwards (and we all know how the old dinosaurs love their traditions) but when the game is played like that it's a great product.

I think they are trying to bring contests back into the game. Everyone loved watching Carey vs Jokovicz, Dunstall v Frawley, Lloyd v Silvani etc. Now its back 8 vs forward 4. Key forwards are going up against 3 or 4 defenders.

Congestion has resulted in a game where disposals are under such time pressure it's become a mistake ridden mess. You can hear the groans in the crowd. People claim the talent is too dilute by 2 new clubs yet the main cause for poor skills is 36 players trying to win the ball within 50 metres. The game looks shocking when defense at all costs is the primary tactic, even more important than scoring. It needs to return to a form where scoring goals is as important as defense, or even the number one priority

 

[mxett]

The shit games have been with either shit sides or sides with defensive game styles eg sydney and freo .

Non of those teams have done very well . We also have too many teams which has diluted the quallity of sides thus diluted the qualitiy of games

the Geelong v Collingwood and Hawthorn v Essendon games early in the season were absolutely shocking spectacles because of the defensive stalemate congestion from both sides caused. Yet 3 of these sides made the finals. It isnt just the poor sides that produce unwatchable footy

 

[Truckosaurus]

A lot of goals were kicked last night from botched kick-ins. Luckily we have an 18m goal square coming in to make it easier to get the ball out of defence that'll put a stop to this scoring and instead lock the ball up near the wings.

 

[Spursfan]

This is why the sliding into legs rule is needed

Yes this is 'dangerous' contact below the knees and should be penalised. But now we have situations where players are first to the ball, putting their head over it, a second player comes in and trips over their head and gets a free kick - total bs.

 

[Spursfan]

yes they're trying to manipulate the rules to make the game look like it did in the 90s but that will never happen because you can't delete all the knowledge the coaches have attained on the optimal way to play the game. it's like taking sebatian vettel and throwing him back to the 90s to race in those ancient cars.

i'd actually argue that a bigger goal square will shorten kick ins because teams will set up their zone further back creating space in that 10-30m out from goal. then once the kick in is marked in that area the the opposition will press up and we're back where we started.

2013 was the highest scoring season in the last 15 years and it was when interchanges were at their absolute maximum (140+ a game). there was still congestion but players were good enough to navigate because they weren't tired and it meant you you didn't have to sacrifice a player footballing ability for players with running ability like we do now. that's the modern game working well, it looks different to how it traditionally does with the 10 goal a game full forwards (and we all know how the old dinosaurs love their traditions) but when the game is played like that it's a great product.

Great post. I can't understand this obsession with going back in time. What happened in the 80s/ most of 90s is ancient history and irrelevant to anyone in their early 20s now or younger and they're the future supporters of the league.

 

[juss]

and what if the majority of fans are sick of adult auskick and want change

Each to their own, but to me starting positions and an extended goal square are extreme reactionary changes for something that will evolve in its own way regardless.

What's the next step when coaches figure out ways to defend and restrict scoring with these new rules? Such as when you'll have 6 forwards positioned a step behind the 50m line ready to run into defence to save a game. How far do you want the game changed?

 

[mxett]

Each to their own, but to me starting positions and an extended goal square are extreme reactionary changes for something that will evolve in its own way regardless.

it has been devolving, not evolving. The game has a huge number of players on the field, which was fine when they remained roughly in their specified areas, but with no off-side type rule the coaches have incorporated tactics from other sports and changed our game forever. We can either accept the congested play as the future, reduce the number of players on the field, or make rule changes to spread these 36 players out to give the game play some space and time. All I know is if things dont change more fans will turn off. Neutral games just arent as interesting anymore when there are so many numbers around the ball

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

I think they are trying to bring contests back into the game. Everyone loved watching Carey vs Jokovicz, Dunstall v Frawley, Lloyd v Silvani etc. Now its back 8 vs forward 4. Key forwards are going up against 3 or 4 defenders.

Congestion has resulted in a game where disposals are under such time pressure it's become a mistake ridden mess. You can hear the groans in the crowd. People claim the talent is too dilute by 2 new clubs yet the main cause for poor skills is 36 players trying to win the ball within 50 metres. The game looks shocking when defense at all costs is the primary tactic, even more important than scoring. It needs to return to a form where scoring goals is as important as defense, or even the number one priority

the days of those contests are dead because coaches simply won't allow the opponents best player to tear it up all day.

But the modern game is a team based game and sides that spread the scoring load like collingwood, richmond, melbourne and even essendon once daniher went down are able to still produce some good football. i don't understand why 1 guy kicking 9 goals is better than 3 guys kicking 3 goals each.

 

[wowlace]

You talking about the lewis one ? He purposely dove over the ball and took out the legs . Same thing happened to yeo last week and could have broken his leg .

Good rule as it will slowly train players to keep their feet in a contest . Less leg injuries and less concussions

Angus Brayshaw.