How do you think the AFL's proposed rule changes will effect out list?

[jackcass]

I’m not proclaiming to be an expert in anything, except perhaps lovemaking but that’s a discussion for another day

You should try introducing a partner, at least that would allow the discussion to be "on the day"

 

[Baltimore Jack]

One of the more simple fixes is to apply the rules to the letter of the rule.

For instance if the rule says a player, once tackled, must dispose of the ball by hand or foot and they don't, then pay the free kick
How many times do you see a player have the ball knocked from his grasp, the ball falls out and the umpire just balls it up.
The crowd is very knowledgeable, because I hear them time after time yell out "How did he get rid of it Ump?"

A push in the back is a push regardless of it being done with a hand or forearm, just pay the free kick

There are many more examples too

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Newspaper from....1983

 

[Horaceg]

Yes the roads leading to the MCG are very congested on game day...
Getting out of the carpark after the game is ridiculous...
I’m not sure how less Interchanges will improve this.

If you stay on the bench a little longer, have another beer or three and wait for the congestion to naturally dissipate

 

[jonbe54]

If I wanted to watch f*cken rugby I'd buy a storm season ticket

 

[Scodog10]

This discussion is twofold:

1. Are changes necessary and if so what do they look like.
2. The question of the OP and the impact of the changes on our club.

I’m anti changes unless they can be considered cosmetic and they appear imminent so we might as well all have an opinion on it.

From my perspective we instantly rule out zones and reductions to numbers on the field because they irrefutably alter the game we all grew up with by limiting players from running wherever they choose whenever they choose and 18 down to 16 is obvious.

That leaves three options currently being discussed that I would consider worth debating. Starting points, to me are a waste of time, but they probably need to be explored in controlled environments to see if they lead to more individual contests. I’m inclined to think that as soon as the balls in play they feed up and we’re left in the same position.

Reductions in the interchange are worth discussing, but to a logical degree. I’d ask anyone pushing for reserves/ subs a simple question, what has changed since the sub rule was scrapped? It was canned for a reason and I don’t see any reason to bring it back. I do think a 20 rotation cap is worth exploring to determine if interchange numbers are a contributor to congestion. IMO, that provides enough flexibility for teams to balance player loads, but still have coaches needing to move away from the contest to contest mentality. If it doesn’t change things so be it and I’m really doubtful that it’ll impact the spectacle negatively because players fail to execute basic skills with high levels of interchange.

The one I like the most is increasing the size of the goalsquare to 20 metres and encompassing the point posts. It allows for defenders kicking out to really lengthen the ground and any mark taken within 20 metres of goal is almost assured of being converted. I’m certain scoring will rise and I’m confident congestion will be eased. My maths is horrible, but if you increase the length of an oval by 10 metres at its widest part the extra ground defending teams need to cover is enormous (on the MCG it’s 1100-1200 metres). If we take it further and any kick in from a point is called play on if you mark in your D50 there’s a clear incentive to go long and lengthen the ground.

In terms of drafting I don’t see any significant impacts. My feel is that coaches are still going to coach for their careers which is to say some will coach to minimise damage, others will coach within the confines of their list and others will coach to entertain. That means that a coach like Bolton this week, regardless of any rule changes, is going to coach to minimise the damage regardless of the rules. He’ll select committed blokes that will provide a contest and cover the ground well. That won’t change from a drafting POV except when there’s a 50-50 with impending changes I believe club’s will move further toward the athlete than footballer.

My gut feel is that the teams that are quickest to adapt will be the most successful under the new rules so I’d advise Collingwood to volunteer to be a guinea pig and thoroughly consider what the league and media types are trying to accomplish with the new rules. IMO, they want footy played like “the good ol days” which brings with it a focus on old fashioned attributes (crumbing, contested marking, kicking on both feet etc.) and away from newer philosophies like pressure and tackling.

Like Sam Mitchell I’m erring closer to it being a storm in a teacup than the issue some see it to be, but change is inevitable so I hope it’s people like me that aren’t pressing for change that inevitably decide on what it looks like because they’re more inclined to be conservative.

My worst case scenario is a drastic change that does stuff all leading to another drastic change. Like the snake eating it’s tail we go on and on...

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Another wacky idea I just thought of. Most of the other suggestions are equally as wacky so hear me out. I've done a lot of research on this, about two minutes.

One problem in stoppages is that nobody can get a proper clearance kick out as theres just too much traffic. Its easier to get a handball away just because most players hands are a few feet above sea level.

How about paying a mark after a handball from a clearance? The handball, just like a kick will need to have covered a legal distance eg 15 metres, and maybe not "touched" as per marking rules.

My idea for this rule is that will encourage players to spread to ensure marks are taken (or not taken) and will also mean you'll need to cover behind the ball as well as forward of it, rather than on the ball n case you lose possession. And it will be a far less of a fundamental change than zones or starting positions.

 

[loki04]

But it will be last man in. If teams from both sides are outside the zone at a stoppage, how else can a free kick be paid if they both have infringed?

My comment was purely one example plucked out of the air of the types of tactics coaches might think about employing to take advantage of the rules.

In that situation I'd pay it to the team who's forward player is furthest from their own goals, the whole point is to stop those forwards coming down to press. Creating 2 issues congestion and also stopping transition play as often the forwards are our of position hence teams having to stop across HB and wing.

If the defender sneaks up on his own then he rolls the dice, both in that his opponent is free and that he can get back in time not not give away the free at stoppages.

But yes it will open up new tactics, not all bad mind you.

 

[loki04]

This discussion is twofold:

1. Are changes necessary and if so what do they look like.
2. The question of the OP and the impact of the changes on our club.

I’m anti changes unless they can be considered cosmetic and they appear imminent so we might as well all have an opinion on it.

From my perspective we instantly rule out zones and reductions to numbers on the field because they irrefutably alter the game we all grew up with by limiting players from running wherever they choose whenever they choose and 18 down to 16 is obvious.

That leaves three options currently being discussed that I would consider worth debating. Starting points, to me are a waste of time, but they probably need to be explored in controlled environments to see if they lead to more individual contests. I’m inclined to think that as soon as the balls in play they feed up and we’re left in the same position.

Reductions in the interchange are worth discussing, but to a logical degree. I’d ask anyone pushing for reserves/ subs a simple question, what has changed since the sub rule was scrapped? It was canned for a reason and I don’t see any reason to bring it back. I do think a 20 rotation cap is worth exploring to determine if interchange numbers are a contributor to congestion. IMO, that provides enough flexibility for teams to balance player loads, but still have coaches needing to move away from the contest to contest mentality. If it doesn’t change things so be it and I’m really doubtful that it’ll impact the spectacle negatively because players fail to execute basic skills with high levels of interchange.

The one I like the most is increasing the size of the goalsquare to 20 metres and encompassing the point posts. It allows for defenders kicking out to really lengthen the ground and any mark taken within 20 metres of goal is almost assured of being converted. I’m certain scoring will rise and I’m confident congestion will be eased. My maths is horrible, but if you increase the length of an oval by 10 metres at its widest part the extra ground defending teams need to cover is enormous (on the MCG it’s 1100-1200 metres). If we take it further and any kick in from a point is called play on if you mark in your D50 there’s a clear incentive to go long and lengthen the ground.

In terms of drafting I don’t see any significant impacts. My feel is that coaches are still going to coach for their careers which is to say some will coach to minimise damage, others will coach within the confines of their list and others will coach to entertain. That means that a coach like Bolton this week, regardless of any rule changes, is going to coach to minimise the damage regardless of the rules. He’ll select committed blokes that will provide a contest and cover the ground well. That won’t change from a drafting POV except when there’s a 50-50 with impending changes I believe club’s will move further toward the athlete than footballer.

My gut feel is that the teams that are quickest to adapt will be the most successful under the new rules so I’d advise Collingwood to volunteer to be a guinea pig and thoroughly consider what the league and media types are trying to accomplish with the new rules. IMO, they want footy played like “the good ol days” which brings with it a focus on old fashioned attributes (crumbing, contested marking, kicking on both feet etc.) and away from newer philosophies like pressure and tackling.

Like Sam Mitchell I’m erring closer to it being a storm in a teacup than the issue some see it to be, but change is inevitable so I hope it’s people like me that aren’t pressing for change that inevitably decide on what it looks like because they’re more inclined to be conservative.

My worst case scenario is a drastic change that does stuff all leading to another drastic change. Like the snake eating it’s tail we go on and on...

On starting positions, the players won't have the ability to surge up and down to get back (within time) over a course of a game it will inevitably spread the field, they will need to stay closer to 50m arcs especially as the game goes on and they tire. It also may promote coaches to try new (or old if you like) game styles and move away from the forward and defensive flood of modern AFL.

On widening the goal square (and lengthening).

Widening will take away some of the skill involved when on tight angles it may increase goal rates from those shots (rather then points) but it wont increase scoring nor will it address the 36 players in one end of field of the last 8 years (this is not the game we grew up playing as you suggest, soft zones aka starting positions would however go a long way to restoring positional play of which we grew up on).

Lengthening it will not do much difference players can already play on to get length and it will only cause teams to flood centre of the ground instead of the back 60.

 

[Scodog10]

On starting positions, the players won't have the ability to surge up and down to get back (within time) over a course of a game it will inevitably spread the field, they will need to stay closer to 50m arcs especially as the game goes on and they tire. It also may promote coaches to to try new (or old if you like) game styles and move away from the forward and defensive flood of modern AFL.

On widening the goal square (and lengthening).

Widening will take away some of the skill involved when on tight angles it may increase goal rates from those shots (rather then points) but it wont increase scoring nor will it address the 36 players in one end of field of the last 8 years (this is not the game we grew up playing as you suggest, soft zones aka starting positions would however go a long way to restoring positional play of which we grew up on).

Lengthening it will not do much difference players can already play on to get length and it will only cause teams to flood centre of the ground instead of the back 60.

I was talking about starting positions from scores I’ve got little interest in discussing starting positions from every stoppage. It fundamentally changes the game, IMO.

I actually flat out don’t understand the logic of acknowledging that increasing the size of the goal square will increase goal rates, but not scoring? If you’re concern is it will take a skill out of the game I accept that, but the other element of your argument is fundamentally flawed, IMO.

In terms of lengthening the ground at the centre of the field smart coaches will adjust and go short. The receiver inevitably has to play on and their next kick is well past the wing. It’s taking the zoning area and almost doubling it because it now stretches the widest part of the ground. If you then couple that with starting positions from scores then from an initial kick in you’re probably tripling the amount of area a defensive zone needs to cover.

If it’s 3 per team in the other 50 a 70 metre player increases the zone to cover by 1100-1200 metres with three less players to cover it. I just don’t know how you can’t accept that sort of change wouldn’t impact on congestion?

Edit: I’m not overly invested in these discussions so long as we don’t touch the fabric of the game I’m happy and much of this is to clarify understanding. Otherwise it’s a black hole discussion so I’m out.

 

[loki04]

I was talking about starting positions from scores I’ve got little interest in discussing starting positions from every stoppage. It fundamentally changes the game, IMO.

I actually flat out don’t understand the logic of acknowledging that increasing the size of the goal square will increase goal rates, but not scoring? If you’re concern is it will take a skill out of the game I accept that, but the other element of your argument is fundamentally flawed, IMO.

In terms of lengthening the ground at the centre of the field smart coaches will adjust and go short. The receiver inevitably has to play on and their next kick is well past the wing. It’s taking the zoning area and almost doubling it because it now stretches the widest part of the ground. If you then couple that with starting positions from scores then from an initial kick in you’re probably tripling the amount of area a defensive zone needs to cover.

If it’s 3 per team in the other 50 a 70 metre player increases the zone to cover by 1100-1200 metres with three less players to cover it. I just don’t know how you can’t accept that sort of change wouldn’t impact on congestion?

Edit: I’m not overly invested in these discussions so long as we don’t touch the fabric of the game I’m happy and much of this is to clarify understanding. Otherwise it’s a black hole discussion so I’m out.

Actually it really brings the game back to what it used to be, prior to the press forwards didn't stray so far from goal or 50m arc except when providing an outlet on the wing. It would also deter defenders from flooding but in the end it still allows freedom of movement but you just have to either hand over to a teammate or get back yourself.
The starting positions would only be workable with fwds/defnders not sure what this other stuff is about re mids and rucks too (that's unworkable and does change the fabric of the game).


The longer kick out wouldn't help congestion as they would concede the fwd 50m arc and just zone between the arcs heavily and it has no effect when the game is *in play* rather then just restarted from kick outs.

 

[MyManLynch]

Only one rule change required.
When Howe takes Mark of the Year...make sure it is awarded Mark of the Year.
The rest can remain unchanged.

 

[barrackers]

We’ve been fortunate this year to only be involved in 2 defensive arm wrestles, but if the ugliness of Sunday’s match is any guide to the broader season tactics it’s no wonder the AFL is considering zones.

With a massive defensive flood in play on Sunday and all the recent talk I did wonder during the game how zones would have changed the show. I came to the conclusion that both sides would have scored more, Carlton because they’d have someone down the line to kick the footy to, Collingwood because we’d have some space. It may have meant Carlton had a chance or at least the mindset to win the game too, the flip side is they may well have lost by more.

Ultimately I’d rather see more thrashings and shoot outs than dour defensive ugliness. Perhaps it needs to be taken out of the hands of coaches if Sunday is a fairer indication to other non-Collingwood matches this season.


Note: if any blues fans are reading this I get why you played with those tactics and you executed them extremely well. With the rules the way they are the blues were within their rights to do so I just wonder if such play means the AFL will take control.

 

[domin8tors]

Up until this point I've been against spending 1M+ on lynch but with the possible rule changes and essentially a stay at home forward then I say spend 2M+ on him because the 100 goal kickers will be back in vogue.

 

[Maggie5]

Well looks like rule changes are being recommended:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-13/afl-recommends-new-rules-to-reduce-congestion

AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking confirmed on Thursday the Competition Committee had signed off on recommendations that would see six-six-six starting positions enforced at every centre bounce and the length of goal squares stretched from nine to 18m.

The committee's plan to combat congestion also involves tightening the rules around when runners and water carriers can enter the field and the interpretations of some existing rules, such as holding the ball, protected zones and deliberate out of bounds.

Hocking said the AFL executive had already approved the Committee's recommendations, but stressed the Commission would have the final say when it met on the day of the Brownlow Medal count (September 24).
However, the AFL footy boss was confident the Committee's recommendations, if adopted, would help create a better style of play.

"I feel like what's been put in front of the Commission is well researched, it's been trialed well beyond any of the trials that have ever gone on previously – the centre diamond was plugged in for one game and it's now a square," Hocking said.

"We've done it across multiple games, we've done it with AFL clubs, all the stuff that we're putting forward is well researched. (I'm) very, very comfortable and satisfied with the work that's been done and the response today from the comp committee I couldn't be happier with."

Hocking said the recent three rules trials in VFL games had resulted in a 15 per cent increase in scoring and a 14 per cent decrease in tackles.

 

[jackcass]

Well looks like rule changes are being recommended:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-13/afl-recommends-new-rules-to-reduce-congestion

AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking confirmed on Thursday the Competition Committee had signed off on recommendations that would see six-six-six starting positions enforced at every centre bounce and the length of goal squares stretched from nine to 18m.

The committee's plan to combat congestion also involves tightening the rules around when runners and water carriers can enter the field and the interpretations of some existing rules, such as holding the ball, protected zones and deliberate out of bounds.

Hocking said the AFL executive had already approved the Committee's recommendations, but stressed the Commission would have the final say when it met on the day of the Brownlow Medal count (September 24).
However, the AFL footy boss was confident the Committee's recommendations, if adopted, would help create a better style of play.

"I feel like what's been put in front of the Commission is well researched, it's been trialed well beyond any of the trials that have ever gone on previously – the centre diamond was plugged in for one game and it's now a square," Hocking said.

"We've done it across multiple games, we've done it with AFL clubs, all the stuff that we're putting forward is well researched. (I'm) very, very comfortable and satisfied with the work that's been done and the response today from the comp committee I couldn't be happier with."

Hocking said the recent three rules trials in VFL games had resulted in a 15 per cent increase in scoring and a 14 per cent decrease in tackles.

I thought they'd moved to a system of trialling prospective rule changes during the entire preseason comp rather than just in a couple of scratch matches. I guess that might still happen. If only their goal was to genuinely improve the game rather than just improve scoring to appease FTA broadcasters needs for commercial breaks.

 

[Maggie5]

I thought they'd moved to a system of trialling prospective rule changes during the entire preseason comp rather than just in a couple of scratch matches. I guess that might still happen. If only their goal was to genuinely improve the game rather than just improve scoring to appease FTA broadcasters needs for commercial breaks.

The way I read, heard on TV was that they are going to the Commission for approval to be implemented next year?

 

[Mooresome]

Would think in the interests of the game they may consider putting any game changing proposals to the supporters
seeing as we are the ones who pay to watch it .
Leave our game alone should be on every banner across the finals