How to fix footy?

[toomanysquibs]

I think almost the polar opposite that having extra players and fresher legs means it will just continue in the same vein.

I'm completely stumped by people who disagree with the fact that reducing rotations will return things to a version of footy that is recognisable as footy.

With the benefit of hindsight, the rot started with a single team working out that their star player could play a lone hand version of Richmond's ballistic game style way back in the early 2000s, if he rested on the bench. His numbers didn't go down because of the rest, and his impact on the game actually went up.

Midfield 'Rotations' weren't even in the game until not long after this became apparent to other teams.

Then Midfield rotations became almost entire team rotations by the 2009/11 era (I might be wrong by a year or two... but think commentators talking about 'guys running off the ground after they kick a goal in the modern game', and you'll remember.

Hawthorn resisted big rotations under Clarko when Collingwood were going nuts with it. But he soon realised we also had to embrace big rotation numbers in order to compete.I don't remember which year, but this was an actual story in the press at the time.

Massive rotations led to more of an emphasis on team defence and ballistic running.

Richmond's defensive and offensive game style of 2017 highlighted that increased physical endurance and sustained ballistic attack on the ball and man could actually be more effective than traditional football skills (though they did still have some highly skilled players).

There is a clear advantage for teams playing this game style, so everyone followed to some degree.

The idea that injury will somehow become a factor if the advantage that produced this style of play is removed, is only assuming that guys are going to try and play the same way.

The fact is that if they do, it almost certainly won't work. Players will be gassed by half time. Their team will lose, and we'll likely return to a style of play that asks players to pace themselves or risk blowing themselves up.

And even if sports science gives us far better runners than we've ever had, removing the constant rests will significantly dull the ballistic element of team defence and physical force/rolling mauls we've got now.

Currently, it's a load of crap to watch most games.

It's not even a change either. It's returning to the way it used to be.

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

Tried to watch Roos vs Dogs last night but after I saw about three or four tacklers land in the middle of the back of opponents without attempting to roll left or right off the players and then no frees paid for in the back I turned off.
Just umpire to the rules.

 

[Pessimistic]

I'm completely stumped by people who disagree with the fact that reducing rotations will return things to a version of footy that is recognisable as footy.

With the benefit of hindsight, the rot started with a single team working out that their star player could play a lone hand version of Richmond's ballistic game style way back in the early 2000s, if he rested on the bench. His numbers didn't go down because of the rest, and his impact on the game actually went up.

Midfield 'Rotations' weren't even in the game until not long after this became apparent to other teams.

Then Midfield rotations became almost entire team rotations by the 2009/11 era (I might be wrong by a year or two... but think commentators talking about 'guys running off the ground after they kick a goal in the modern game', and you'll remember.

Hawthorn resisted big rotations under Clarko when Collingwood were going nuts with it. But he soon realised we also had to embrace big rotation numbers in order to compete.I don't remember which year, but this was an actual story in the press at the time.

Massive rotations led to more of an emphasis on team defence and ballistic running.

Richmond's defensive and offensive game style of 2017 highlighted that increased physical endurance and sustained ballistic attack on the ball and man could actually be more effective than traditional football skills (though they did still have some highly skilled players).

There is a clear advantage for teams playing this game style, so everyone followed to some degree.

The idea that injury will somehow become a factor if the advantage that produced this style of play is removed, is only assuming that guys are going to try and play the same way.

The fact is that if they do, it almost certainly won't work. Players will be gassed by half time. Their team will lose, and we'll likely return to a style of play that asks players to pace themselves or risk blowing themselves up.

And even if sports science gives us far better runners than we've ever had, removing the constant rests will significantly dull the ballistic element of team defence and physical force/rolling mauls we've got now.

Currently, it's a load of crap to watch most games.

It's not even a change either. It's returning to the way it used to be.

Like everything else, it’s the way it’s introduced, and that should go for removing the amount of rotations too. What runs against the reduced rotations arguments is 2010 when they maxed out wasn’t regarded as a poor spectacle. And since we have had reduction in rotations, people have complained much more

 

[theiaofseed]

Hawthorn were the highest scoring team in 2012-16 period, the AFL intorouced two major rule changes which heavily impacted something unique about our play style and ultimately affected our scoring yet the AFL act surprised when scores have been lowered as a result.

1. Allow people to sheppard on the mark, this encourages faster movement and more run and carry in the game.
2. Allow the third man up, if it limits the impact of the ruckmen so what? Why introduce rules just to keep an outdated position more relevant.
3. Last kick out of bounds that hasn't been touched is a free kick, cleans up deliberate out of bounds and still allows teams to kick down the line.
4. Allow more wrestling in a marking contest, less time the ball is spent in dispute the less scraggly the game becomes.
5. Don't use ball ups on the wing, throw the ball in 5 or so meters to open the game up more.
6. Zones, Mids can travel the entire ground, defenders and Forwards can't pass the start of centre square. Red bands to identity mids?
7. Blow the damn whistle for holding the ball when it's there, stop waiting for will it come out?? Blow the whistle for a free kick or throw the ball up, stop allowing players to crowd the contest.

 

[Pessimistic]

Grumble guts here , but the word pressure is in every fourth sentence on fox during games, they show the pressure gauge.

then when the games are over, the spent days the week whinging how poor the games are as spectacles

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Generally speaking, the games this round have had less mauls. A direct result of players knowing there is a greater possibility of being free kicked for bullshitting the ball to a teammate. Amazing.

there has been a few commentators waiting with guns drawn to counter how big bad Clarkos influence has been this round. Alas the little master is correct. Again.

 

[bris tarangau]

Generally speaking, the games this round have had less mauls. A direct result of players knowing there is a greater possibility of being free kicked for bullshitting the ball to a teammate. Amazing.

there has been a few commentators waiting with guns drawn to counter how big bad Clarkos influence has been this round. Alas the little master is correct. Again.

Yes, and I wonder what that Cornes clown will say now

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Yes, and I wonder what that Cornes clown will say now

Silence of course. Or he will pluck some obscure Incorrect decision to push his own barrow.

watching the Rich and Melb, very few scrimmages and players are genuinely trying to move the ball on. Those that don’t, have been penalised. Perfect.as it should be.

 

[Spursfan]

Generally speaking, the games this round have had less mauls. A direct result of players knowing there is a greater possibility of being free kicked for bullshitting the ball to a teammate. Amazing.

there has been a few commentators waiting with guns drawn to counter how big bad Clarkos influence has been this round. Alas the little master is correct. Again.

100% Clarko is right. Lot of sooks on the MB game day thread for tigers v demons blaming Clarko for every HTB call. Lol, win 4 flags and people may listen to you

 

[danielG]

The umpires have the power to fix a lot of the issues that have crept in.. be vigilant about paying the free kicks that are there, especially when there is congestion around the ball.. I’d like to see last touch Free kick out of bounds rule applied.. boundary line ruck contests add very little to the spectacle of the game..I’d also extend the minimum kick distance and also start applying it correctly but that may have negative knock ons ...I’d also like to see trialled paying playing for backwards kicks in the back half..
The big one would be to maintain 2-3 players in each teams 50 metre zone..to have 12 players out of the action in the middle of the ground would create a tonne of extra space..it’s been done before with the addition of the centre square so there is a precedent for zones of sorts..
The games a bit of an eye sore really so im
Not against radical change..

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

Only Two changes.

1. Give the man gathering the ball prior opportunity, but if he handballs to anyone, that person doesn’t get any prior opportunity. He has to get rid of it before he’s tackled. If he’s tackled and doesn’t dispose of the ball a free kick is awarded.

That should satisfy the AFL charter’s guiding principles which reads “A priority of the laws, interpretations and officiating is to reward and protect the player who makes winning the ball their primary objective”. The person who gathers the ball is rewarded, while the receiver is not because he hasn’t won the ball.

2. Reduce the number of rotations to 15 a quarter. 60 for the match. As I understand it you can have a further 4 rotation at the end of quarter, giving another 12 interchanges for a total of 72. This gives most players a rest 3 times during a game.

From 1859 to 1978 there were no interchanges. From 1978 to 1994 there were 2 interchange players. It is only since 1998 that there have been 4 interchange players with a minor change between 2011 to 2016 when it went back to 3. Players are fitter now than they have ever been and will cope. Just as players did for over 120 years without interchanges.

Allowing rule changes to run for a couple of years will allow everyone to see how they work, unless it is apparent that the rule isn't working.

We have had 67 rule changes since 2000, the last season teams averaged 100 points a game for a season.

From 1859 to 1918 there were 49 changes.

1918 to 1978, 52 changes

1978 to 2020, 96 changes with 67 taking place between 2000 to 2020.

Is the state of the game a result of all the rule changes since 2000. It’s a debate worth having.

 

[Pessimistic]

Only Two changes.

1. Give the man gathering the ball prior opportunity, but if he handballs to a team mate, that person doesn’t get any prior opportunity. He has to get rid of it before he’s tackled. If he’s tackled and doesn’t dispose of the ball a free kick is awarded.

That should satisfy the AFL charter’s guiding principles which reads “A priority of the laws, interpretations and officiating is to reward and protect the player who makes winning the ball their primary objective”. The person who gathers the ball is rewarded, while the receiver is not because he hasn’t won the ball.

2. Reduce the number of rotations to 15 a quarter. 60 for the match. As I understand it you can have a further 4 rotation at the end of quarter, giving another 12 interchanges for a total of 72. This gives most players a rest 3 times during a game.

From 1859 to 1978 there were no interchanges. From 1978 to 1994 there were 2 interchange players. I t is only since 1998 that there have been 4 interchange players with a minor change between 2011 to 2016 when it went back to 3. Players are fitter now than they have ever been and will cope. Just as players did for over 120 years without interchanges.

Allowing rule changes to run for a couple of years will allow everyone to see how they work, unless it is apparent that the rule isn't working.

We have had 67 rule changes since 2000, the last season teams averaged 100 points a game for a season.

From 1859 to 1918 there were 49 changes.

1918 to 1978, 52 changes

1978 to 2020, 96 changes with 67 taking place between 2000 to 2020.

Is the state of the game a result of all the rule changes since 2000. It’s a debate worth having.

Fiddling designed to improve the game doing the opposite. Afl has not objectively rated themselves in this respect. Suggests they will continue to wreck the game more trying to ‘fix it’

shouldn’t 6-6-6 and the kick out rule be abandoned as we are still having the same discussions, and apparently it’s worse

plus they cant decide if they want free scoring or close games. Time travel is probably easier than achieving both

 

[Brishawk]

Only Two changes.

1. Give the man gathering the ball prior opportunity, but if he handballs to anyone, that person doesn’t get any prior opportunity. He has to get rid of it before he’s tackled. If he’s tackled and doesn’t dispose of the ball a free kick is awarded.

That should satisfy the AFL charter’s guiding principles which reads “A priority of the laws, interpretations and officiating is to reward and protect the player who makes winning the ball their primary objective”. The person who gathers the ball is rewarded, while the receiver is not because he hasn’t won the ball.

2. Reduce the number of rotations to 15 a quarter. 60 for the match. As I understand it you can have a further 4 rotation at the end of quarter, giving another 12 interchanges for a total of 72. This gives most players a rest 3 times during a game.

From 1859 to 1978 there were no interchanges. From 1978 to 1994 there were 2 interchange players. I t is only since 1998 that there have been 4 interchange players with a minor change between 2011 to 2016 when it went back to 3. Players are fitter now than they have ever been and will cope. Just as players did for over 120 years without interchanges.

Allowing rule changes to run for a couple of years will allow everyone to see how they work, unless it is apparent that the rule isn't working.

We have had 67 rule changes since 2000, the last season teams averaged 100 points a game for a season.

From 1859 to 1918 there were 49 changes.

1918 to 1978, 52 changes

1978 to 2020, 96 changes with 67 taking place between 2000 to 2020.

Is the state of the game a result of all the rule changes since 2000. It’s a debate worth having.

Your interchange rules are not quite right or the AFL website is wrong. I have made a note of the major rule changes since 1965 and in 1948 through to 1977 there was one interchange and one substitute (total of 2 players).

History of Rule Changes - AFL.com.au

Every Rule Change dating back to 1858.

www.afl.com.au

That website doesn't give a good account of interpretation changes which are effectively rule changes. I am doing some work to code up a model taking into account the rule changes and the recent changes and interpretation changes are missing. Do you have a better source?

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

Up until 1978 you had 19th and 20th men. If you went off the field and were replaced by either the 19th or 20th men you could't come back on. They were replacements. There was no interchange as we know it now until 1978.

The AFL website you linked shows changes from 2017 onwards for the AFLW competition. Changes to the AFL rules since 2013 are not shown, which is strange considering everything before that date covers the men's game.

I did use that website to do a rough count of the rule changes. To find out the changes from 2014 I simply did a search for the rule changes for each year. eg AFL rule changes 2014. You should find a number of places about the rule changes for each year with detailed descriptions. Sorry but it will take a while. Good luck.

 

[Brishawk]

I guess the first step in proposing improvements is to understand what the problem is in the first place.

The Problem: The game gets bogged down and scoring has reduced.
Evidence:

The data dates back to 1965 (thank you footywire!). We can see goal scoring peaked in the early eighties before collapsing suddenly. (worth noting that accuracy has improved a lot since 1980 and certainly not as terrible as is made out.). Looking at the trend from 1980 onwards (see below), the trend is clearly down. The passage of time (Years) explains about 75% of the decline in goal scoring from 1980 to 2019. From this we conclude, the sum total of everything the VFL/AFL has done, along with the rise of professionalism, has led to an unerring decline in goal scoring. Note, the bit dip in 1994 coincides with a change in quarter length from 25 mins to 20 mins.


However, the story is more complicated. When we control for changes in game time, we see a slightly different story.


Scoring per minute actually peaked in 2000. Looking back at the same period and adding trend lines, we can see that scoring per minute rose through the period of 1980 to 2000 and then falls away again from 2000 to 2019.


So we can conclude from this that reducing game time reduces scoring of goals (who would have thought, right?). But we can also see that scoring per minute has changed through different periods and is in decline for the past 20 years. So either some of what the AFL did has improved scoring but it has been cancelled out but other things the AFL changed, Or professionalism first improved scoring and then decreased scoring.

So essentially, to me it looks like the best case for the AFL is that it has done more harm than good. I have more on this but I'll need more time to put it together.

But to get the discussion started on why this has occurred, I'll add one more chart.

Here is a snapshot of how the game has changed. I have converted everything to a per minute base to make comparisons across years easier.


Firstly, the inclusion of more umpires in 1976 (1 to 2) and then again in 1994 (2 to 3) gave rise to fewer free kicks per minute overall with most of that impact correlating with to going from 1 to 2 umpires in 1976. Tackles began rising from the early 90s up until 2011 and has plateaued. Hitouts (which largely correlate with clearances except that I have whiteout data all the way back but not clearance data) don't track upward at the same rate as tackles indicating that the rise is not just specifically a one-to-one relationship with stoppages. Of great interest, is the sharp increase in hitouts in 1998. This is the year the fourth interchange was introduced. We went to 3 interchange in 1994 and we went to two interchange in 1978. Marks increased almost perfectly correlated with the increase in tackles until about 2007 at which point the rise in more aggressive zones (moving from a flood towards a press) began to emerge (with Geelong and Hawthorn leading the charge) and decrease the number of marks.

There is a lot to unpack here but it is late and I'm off to bed.

I have the week off so should have time to flesh out a decent model here which will show where changes need to be made. Early signs are promising

 

[Brishawk]

Up until 1978 you had 19th and 20th men. If you went off the field and were replaced by either the 19th and 20th men you could't come back on. They were replacements. There was no interchange as we know it now until 1978.
The AFL website you have shows changes from 2017 onwards only for the women's competition and not the men's, which is strange considering everything before that date covers the men's game..

yes, the AFL website is frustratingly missing recent changes. Fortunately it won't affect what I am doing much anyway.

 

[MightyHawks]

I guess the first step in proposing improvements is to understand what the problem is in the first place.

The Problem: The game gets bogged down and scoring has reduced.
Evidence:
View attachment 906900
The data dates back to 1965 (thank you footywire!). We can see goal scoring peaked in the early eighties before collapsing suddenly. (worth noting that accuracy has improved a lot since 1980 and certainly not as terrible as is made out.). Looking at the trend from 1980 onwards (see below), the trend is clearly down. The passage of time (Years) explains about 75% of the decline in goal scoring from 1980 to 2019. From this we conclude, the sum total of everything the VFL/AFL has done, along with the rise of professionalism, has led to an unerring decline in goal scoring. Note, the bit dip in 1994 coincides with a change in quarter length from 25 mins to 20 mins.

View attachment 906913
However, the story is more complicated. When we control for changes in game time, we see a slightly different story.

View attachment 906915
Scoring per minute actually peaked in 2000. Looking back at the same period and adding trend lines, we can see that scoring per minute rose through the period of 1980 to 2000 and then falls away again from 2000 to 2019.

View attachment 906918
So we can conclude from this that reducing game time reduces scoring of goals (who would have thought, right?). But we can also see that scoring per minute has changed through different periods and is in decline for the past 20 years. So either some of what the AFL did has improved scoring but it has been cancelled out but other things the AFL changed, Or professionalism first improved scoring and then decreased scoring.

So essentially, to me it looks like the best case for the AFL is that it has done more harm than good. I have more on this but I'll need more time to put it together.

But to get the discussion started on why this has occurred, I'll add one more chart.

Here is a snapshot of how the game has changed. I have converted everything to a per minute base to make comparisons across years easier.

View attachment 906924
Firstly, the inclusion of more umpires in 1976 (1 to 2) and then again in 1994 (2 to 3) gave rise to fewer free kicks per minute overall with most of that impact correlating with to going from 1 to 2 umpires in 1976. Tackles began rising from the early 90s up until 2011 and has plateaued. Hitouts (which largely correlate with clearances except that I have whiteout data all the way back but not clearance data) don't track upward at the same rate as tackles indicating that the rise is not just specifically a one-to-one relationship with stoppages. Of great interest, is the sharp increase in hitouts in 1998. This is the year the fourth interchange was introduced. We went to 3 interchange in 1994 and we went to two interchange in 1978. Marks increased almost perfectly correlated with the increase in tackles until about 2007 at which point the rise in more aggressive zones (moving from a flood towards a press) began to emerge (with Geelong and Hawthorn leading the charge) and decrease the number of marks.

There is a lot to unpack here but it is late and I'm off to bed.

I have the week off so should have time to flesh out a decent model here which will show where changes need to be made. Early signs are promising

This impresses me greatly

All I can contribute is to say I often think of the story of The King, The Mice & The Cheese

The AFL change something, and then when they get something worse, rather than going back to the way things were they bring in another new rule to compensate for the new problem they created.

I did ask Clarko before the 2019 season started about how he thought the new rules would impact on the way the game is played. He had some very interesting things to say about it which I can't seem to remember now, and if I did I probably wouldn't share on this forum. Great story I know!!

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

But to get the discussion started on why this has occurred, I'll add one more chart.

Here is a snapshot of how the game has changed. I have converted everything to a per minute base to make comparisons across years easier.

View attachment 906924
Firstly, the inclusion of more umpires in 1976 (1 to 2) and then again in 1994 (2 to 3) gave rise to fewer free kicks per minute overall with most of that impact correlating with to going from 1 to 2 umpires in 1976. Tackles began rising from the early 90s up until 2011 and has plateaued. Hitouts (which largely correlate with clearances except that I have whiteout data all the way back but not clearance data) don't track upward at the same rate as tackles indicating that the rise is not just specifically a one-to-one relationship with stoppages. Of great interest, is the sharp increase in hitouts in 1998. This is the year the fourth interchange was introduced. We went to 3 interchange in 1994 and we went to two interchange in 1978. Marks increased almost perfectly correlated with the increase in tackles until about 2007 at which point the rise in more aggressive zones (moving from a flood towards a press) began to emerge (with Geelong and Hawthorn leading the charge) and decrease the number of marks.

There is a lot to unpack here but it is late and I'm off to bed.

I have the week off so should have time to flesh out a decent model here which will show where changes need to be made. Early signs are promising

Interesting that your graph showing the data for these 4 items shows that tackling frequency has roughly tripled while frees have halved.
That's why I feel that only the player who has won the ball should be given prior opportunity. I'd like to see the handball data for the same period if you can do that.

 

[Pessimistic]

Was the 80s peak violence? No wonder they disposed of the ball quickly. It would be unacceptable now Nd some of the most violent men of the 80s in the media now seem to tut tut the most

not sure you can legislate for the lack of violent retribution.I’m not saying that’s a bad thing

 

[toomanysquibs]

Like everything else, it’s the way it’s introduced, and that should go for removing the amount of rotations too. What runs against the reduced rotations arguments is 2010 when they maxed out wasn’t regarded as a poor spectacle. And since we have had reduction in rotations, people have complained much more

The 2010 maxed out argument doesn't really hold up either though. The seed for maxing out burst running had been planted, and coaches and players became far better at working with less to generate tighter team defence. A few players rotated less after that time, to allow the whole team to rotate in a way that supports structures.

The main point though, is that the game used to be a lot more like Soccer with interchange. Now it's more like basketball, and the change is designed to facilitate hyperbolic game styles and team defence.

Eliminate that, and you go back to the game before it. Maybe something else comes along to stink it up again. But it won't be the same.

More importantly, you won't have to introduce some wacky, egg head change to the game that actually alters it so that it's not the same thing w'eve been watching our whole lives.

Almost every single change, from deliberate rushed behinds on has made the grey areas in our game bigger.

We need less, not more interpretation in our umpiring – including the game returning to being a legitimate endurance event, not a series of pinball explosions that lead to an outnumber and soft goal.

Having so many players with crap skills, whose sole function is to sprint in bursts and smash bodies to break the ball loose is a s**t spectacle. Why make it easy for them by giving them bursts of rest every time they gas out?

 

[Pessimistic]

The 2010 maxed out argument doesn't really hold up either though. The seed for maxing out burst running had been planted, and coaches and players became far better at working with less to generate tighter team defence. A few players rotated less after that time, to allow the whole team to rotate in a way that supports structures.

The main point though, is that the game used to be a lot more like Soccer with interchange. Now it's more like basketball, and the change is designed to facilitate hyperbolic game styles and team defence.

Eliminate that, and you go back to the game before it. Maybe something else comes along to stink it up again. But it won't be the same.

More importantly, you won't have to introduce some wacky, egg head change to the game that actually alters it so that it's not the same thing w'eve been watching our whole lives.

Almost every single change, from deliberate rushed behinds on has made the grey areas in our game bigger.

We need less, not more interpretation in our umpiring – including the game returning to being a legitimate endurance event, not a series of pinball explosions that lead to an outnumber and soft goal.

Having so many players with crap skills, whose sole function is to sprint in bursts and smash bodies to break the ball loose is a sh*t spectacle. Why make it easy for them by giving them bursts of rest every time they gas out?

‘whatever the changes, the process of testing implementing and reviewing needs to be much better. But actually doing that not a massive PR exercise like 2018

I’m convinced they need to start there, then changes will work as intended not otherwise

 

[Brishawk]

Interesting that your graph showing the data for these 4 items shows that tackling frequency has roughly tripled while frees have halved.
That's why I feel that only the player who has won the ball should be given prior opportunity. I'd like to see the handball data for the same period if you can do that.

From this I'd suggest that tackling pressure forced teams to kick out of stoppages more than handball. You can see in the last few years that tackling per min declined slightly which was associated with a decline in handballs per minute. From about 2008 until 2020 the handball curve is like an exaggerated complement of the tackle curve. Kicks generally upward trending through the same period. I think most of this movement is due to tactical changes as opposed to rule changes. But it could also be the 90 interchange cap reduced the ability of runners to get free so less handballs and more long kicks down the line.

 

[Brishawk]

‘whatever the changes, the process of testing implementing and reviewing needs to be much better. But actually doing that not a massive PR exercise like 2018

I’m convinced they need to start there, then changes will work as intended not otherwise

Developing an evidence base for changes in the VFL would be one model. The preseason hasn't proved a reliable performer and even when it suggests that scoring won't be improved, they go ahead anyway. So aside from safety concerns, rules could be played out across an entire season in the VFL before making it to AFL. Would possibly create extra interest in the VFL.

 

[4THAWN]

Not sure why we're always losing free kick counts, but it's a trend.

Hawks have lost the Free kick count 9 times out of the last 11 games.

r18 2019 v Geelong -8 free kicks
r19 2019 v Bris +6 free kicks
r20 2019 v North -5 free kicks
r21 2019 v GWS -6 free kicks
r22 2019 v Suns -2 free kicks
r23 2019 v Eagles -1 free kicks
r1 2020 v Bris +5 free kicks
r2 2020 v Geel -7 free kicks
r3 2020 v Rich -4 free kicks
r4 2020 v North -9 free kicks
r5 2020 v GWS -14 free kicks

Overall -45 free kicks in last 11 games (average of -4 free kicks per game)


Anyone have a potential reason why we get smashed on free's every week?

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

Not sure why we're always losing free kick counts, but it's a trend.

Hawks have lost the Free kick count 9 times out of the last 11 games.

r18 2019 v Geelong -8 free kicks
r19 2019 v Bris +6 free kicks
r20 2019 v North -5 free kicks
r21 2019 v GWS -6 free kicks
r22 2019 v Suns -2 free kicks
r23 2019 v Eagles -1 free kicks
r1 2020 v Bris +5 free kicks
r2 2020 v Geel -7 free kicks
r3 2020 v Rich -4 free kicks
r4 2020 v North -9 free kicks
r5 2020 v GWS -14 free kicks

Overall -45 free kicks in last 11 games (average of -4 free kicks per game)


Anyone have a potential reason why we get smashed on free's every week?

We are not the Bulldogs.