Hocking's "data"

[juss]

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

Increases in crowds and memberships would suggest otherwise.

"More fans will turn off" the game has never been stronger in terms of audience.

Also, evolution means a growth in effective tactics or strategy, the game cant "devolve", defensive tactics are just evolving faster. That's what evolution is, adapting to survive or in this case win.

Fewer rotations is by far and away a better solution, that doesnt change any fundamentals of the game. Starting positions are a step away from zones, that's the beginning of the death of footy as we know it.

 

[mxett]

Increases in crowds and memberships would suggest otherwise.

"More fans will turn off" the game has never been stronger in terms of audience.

Also, evolution means a growth in effective tactics or strategy, the game cant "devolve", defensive tactics are just evolving faster. That's what evolution is, adapting to survive or in this case win.

Fewer rotations is by far and away a better solution, that doesnt change any fundamentals of the game. Starting positions are a step away from zones, that's the beginning of the death of footy as we know it.

increased crowd numbers has primarily occured because of Perth and Adelaide's new stadiums in recent seasons. It masks a gradual drop in crowds over the last 5 years. The sign neutrals are turning off is a 10% decrease in TV ratings this season alone.

I agree a decrease in rotations could help, but given the coaches now realise how effective it is to clog up the contest and defensive 50m arc they may end up recruiting a team of endurance athletes over footballers. The we will never see the likes of players such as Dunstall, Lockett etc again.

There must be a way of alleviating this congestion so players have the time and space to execute their skills. Maybe we need to look at reducing the number of players to 14. 4 in the midfield 5 defenders and 5 forwards. The game just doesnt work properly when everyone is within a kick of the ball. It's like basketball with 20 players on each team

 

[jdisc]

still waiting on some form of evidence that the slight drop in viewership is related to the "state of the game"

 

[D-N-R]

increased crowd numbers has primarily occured because of Perth and Adelaide's new stadiums in recent seasons. It masks a gradual drop in crowds over the last 5 years. The sign neutrals are turning off is a 10% decrease in TV ratings this season alone.

I agree a decrease in rotations could help, but given the coaches now realise how effective it is to clog up the contest and defensive 50m arc they may end up recruiting a team of endurance athletes over footballers. The we will never see the likes of players such as Dunstall, Lockett etc again.

There must be a way of alleviating this congestion so players have the time and space to execute their skills. Maybe we need to look at reducing the number of players to 14. 4 in the midfield 5 defenders and 5 forwards. The game just doesnt work properly when everyone is within a kick of the ball. It's like basketball with 20 players on each team

You could also argue that the introduction of GWS and GC tanked the attendance numbers in the years prior. TV audiences have faltered and that has a lot to do with people having other things to watch and do - footy isn't alone in this regard.

I do agree with a reduction in numbers on the field as an option and I think reducing interchanges would cause coaches to assess how much they allow players to chase the ball all game and may end up with players moving back to traditional positions to conserve energy.

But I think the most important thing to do is to approach these changes with good data backing them up.

 

[demondavey]

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.

Agreed

 

[PT Bar None]

Multiball

 

[Damon_3388]

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.

Was/is always going to be the logical outcome. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't actually have an understanding of how the game is played in 2018.

Teams are not going to suddenly forget defensive responsibilities when they tire, they'll just fall back into them further, to hold on and not lose.

 

[hcd199]

The AFL has shown zero interest in actually articulating the specific problem they're trying to address, zero interest in examining the root causes of that problem (and how recent rule changes have contributed to it), and zero interest in listening to the many fans who've voiced their discontent with these ludicrous proposals.

If the problem is players crowding around the ball, the direct cause of "rolling mauls" is umpires being directed to keep play going rather than call for a stoppage - it makes tactical sense to have numbers lurking near the tackle, since it's highly likely to spill out and when it does you want your team to take possession. If the problem is low scoring, then maybe interchange restrictions have contributed (and why on earth would you suggest shorter games?!). Either way, it makes no sense to propose enforced starting positions and a longer goalsquare as solutions to those "problems" - neither of those is the cause of the issue. It won't bring back whatever imagined ideal the reactionaries are lusting after, and it's a good chance to cause unexpected harm to the game in other ways (look no further than what they've done to ruck contests... but even largely reasonable changes, like standardising the time available to a player with a mark or free, have generated new problems needing to be grappled with).

In the supposed halcyon days of 20-50 years ago, you could be much more overt about getting the ball over the boundary (and, when quarters were 25 minutes, kill time by doing so), could deliberately rush behinds with impunity, could take a lot longer after a mark to dispose (both around the ground and for set shots), could dive on the ball to force repeat stoppages, could chop the forwards' arms... all these defensive options have already been taken away, and somehow that's still not enough for the people so obsessed with high scores that they'll tamper with the game's fundamentals to achieve it. Perhaps the AFL should stop trying to placate them; what they should definitely stop doing is issuing bogus arguments in support of their consistently awful management of the sport.

 

[Back One Out]

WTF has this got to do anything? You simply can’t help yourself, can you?

My thoughts exactly about your whinging post.

Self awareness isn’t your strong suit, huh?

My post was basically a pisstake of your biased anti-Hawthorn Geelong supporter drivel. Someone posts an off topic remark about the ‘dangerous low contact’ rule and you just couldn’t help yourself from chiming in about the umpires looking after Hawthorn.

All of you petty Geelong flogs need to build a bridge and get over your Hawthorn negativity. The 1989 and 2008 Grand Finals were run and won. You won’t ever get them back.

 

[Back One Out]

“We want better skills”
“Let’s make players more tired, that should do it”

I genuinely laugh.

”Player safety is paramount. We need to reduce injuries.”

“Let’s tire the players out with a cap on interchanges. That will fix the congestion problem”

Geniuses...

 

[Firestarter]

”Player safety is paramount. We need to reduce injuries.”

“Let’s tire the players out with a cap on interchanges. That will fix the congestion problem”

Geniuses...

It's lip service.

 

[mxett]

still waiting on some form of evidence that the slight drop in viewership is related to the "state of the game"

it isnt slight. 10% is massive for a single year. Imagine if that happened next year too.

I'm sure the AFL has done research to see the level of dissatisfaction with the current state of the game. Anecdotally I find most of my friends have said "I cant watch this rubbish anymore. I watch my own side but I cant watch other games, they're just rubbish"

 

[jdisc]

it isnt slight. 10% is massive for a single year. Imagine if that happened next year too.

I'm sure the AFL has done research to see the level of dissatisfaction with the current state of the game. Anecdotally I find most of my friends have said "I cant watch this rubbish anymore. I watch my own side but I cant watch other games, they're just rubbish"

I know you're aware that anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much. I don't think its ridiculous to suggest that perhaps if the AFL want to completely alter the way this game is played then maybe, just maybe, they give us a look at this research? They have little reason to keep it a secret, so the fact that we haven't received anything suggests they have nothing.

 

[mxett]

I know you're aware that anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much. I don't think its ridiculous to suggest that perhaps if the AFL want to completely alter the way this game is played then maybe, just maybe, they give us a look at this research? They have little reason to keep it a secret, so the fact that we haven't received anything suggests they have nothing.

The game has altered substantially already due to coaching. There's no way the AFL would make a substantial change on a whim. They would be well aware the game looks ugly and that many fans have that view

 

[jdisc]

The game has altered substantially already due to coaching. There's no way the AFL would make a substantial change on a whim. They would be well aware the game looks ugly and that many fans have that view

Yes, the game is different due to coaching, as are all other professional team across the planet. They've all changed. We're talking about creating additional rule changes, not due to injuries or due to player safety, but purely because of a drop in viewership. It's more than reasonable to ask that the AFL first provide some kind of evidence that the drop in viewership is correlated to concerns over the "state of the game". I can think of a dozen other factors that could've influenced the drop, but we're expected to just take the AFLs word on it without a shred of information.

 

[Underdog]

If the umpires were given direction to actually police the laws as they're written rather than all this interpretation bulldust, I'd be willing to bet that many of the issues would clear up themselves. Call throws, call holding the ball, call high tackles. There would be a huge quantity of free kicks initially, but teams need to adjust. They need to reboot, not keep tweaking until beyond recognition.

 

[btdg]

With any rule changes you have to take into account unintended consequences.

With zones, the weird thing is that it isn't the zone itself that is lowering scoring. It is the hesitation it is causing in opposition teams. I went to the GWS game last night, and it was palpable how cautious they were agianst Collingwood's tackle pressure and zone. They were completely afraid to take risks and ultimately it didn't work. But teams will figure this out without needing rule changes (that they'll have to adapt to,etc). GWS are way too talented to go into next season with a game plan against forward pressure of 'chip it around and don't risk giving it back to them'. They'll figure it out (or the coach will get sacked and replaced by someone who can figure it out).

This happened previously - in 2005-06, flooding was the big deal, and we had grand finals with scores in the 50s. Then a talented Geelong team (who had lost narrowly to Sydney in finals) figured out how to run through the ball up the middle, Collingwood and Hawthorn figured out how to turn the 'flood' into an advantage with their forward press while also moving the ball effectively along the wings, St Kilda managed to build around Riewoldt, etc. Scoring rose again as teams adjusted. We even almost got two 100+ goal-kickers in the one year.

Teams will figure out how to deal with the Richmond/Collingwood territory game. Honestly, to me the solution is simple - you have to play possession back at them, keeping the ball moving forward at all times rather than collapsing below their zones. The weakness of the forward pressure model is the space behind... and if you can get the ball forward into that space consistently then suddenly it makes a huge amount of sense to put a leading forward in the goal square to receive that fast-moving ball... and we'll suddenly have 5x 80+ goalkickers every year again.

If you have to change rules, it is far better to actually apply the current ones first. The current model of trying to keep play rolling just doesn't work. 'Holding the ball' is an absolute mess, as umpires try to guess whether the player 'had prior opportunity (whatever that means), whether the 'ball came out in the tackle' or was just dropped/thrown, etc. Just get rid of the prior opportunity rule - if you take possession of the ball you must get out a clean kick or handball. If not, it is illegal disposal/holding the ball, and that includes players who take possession before being tackled over the boundary line. Tackling becomes critical, but on top of that, every clearance is a one-off, as the ball is either coming out, or someone is getting pinged for a free kick and the ball is coming out anyway. No repeat ball-ups. If you bring 30 players to the stoppage, you better be careful, cos if you take possession and get wrapped up, now the ball is coming back out and you don't have a defensive setup, etc.

 

[pizzor]

The "data" this fool is pulling is from his rear end.

 

[Starburns_]

The high scoring argument is BS. AFLX was high scoring and that was a f***ing horrenfous spectacle.

still waiting on some form of evidence that the slight drop in viewership is related to the "state of the game"

If 7 are so concerned by the drop in ratings, perhaps they should direct their attention to their commentary box...

 

[footyfan1978]

There is no indication that lowering the interchange will increase scoring..

Nothing in my post was about scoring. Nothing about lowering interchange either. Fixing the rotations is what I am about. Until they do it , the spectacle will always be less than it could be.

 

[footyfan1978]

[

“We want better skills”
“Let’s make players more tired, that should do it”

I genuinely laugh.

I do too at muppet like non thinking people. The thinking of lets make players tired is just lowest denominator comprehension. Just let the 18 players play and the best teams win over 4 quarters. The more pure the more interesting and exciting to watch.

 

[Rob]

I'm becoming more convinced that if this long goalsquare does actually make it easier for the team kicking out to score, then it will have the outcome of less scoring.
Teams will be a lot less likely to have a ping at goal, knowing that a point will be a big disadvantage. So they'll always be looking for the shot at goal from right in front. Defences will set up for it, making it harder to have that shot.

 

[HTT]

[


I do too at muppet like non thinking people. The thinking of lets make players tired is just lowest denominator comprehension. Just let the 18 players play and the best teams win over 4 quarters. The more pure the more interesting and exciting to watch.

Lol nice cover. Enjoy soft tissue injuries do you?

 

[footyfan1978]

Lol nice cover. Enjoy soft tissue injuries do you?

I enjoy good pure football where the best players get to maximise their brilliance over a full game. I hate a zillion players coming on and off. Give me purity every day of week than nanny state management of players on and off. But we are not going to get it any time soon so this other tinkering around edges of other stuff will keep nimrods busy talking about a million other things than the real issues of just letting footballers play football.

 

[HTT]

I enjoy good pure football where the best players get to maximise their brilliance over a full game. I hate a zillion players coming on and off. Give me purity every day of week than nanny state management of players on and off.

So you'll appreciate that the good players having a quick break every so often allows them to perform at their absolute best all game, rather than slowly decreasing in ability all game and then eventually pinging a hammy and having 4 weeks off.