Rumour New rules for 2019 ticked off by AFL Clubs

YeOldTiger

All Australian
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Posts
993
Likes
2,785
AFL Club
Richmond
#76
There is none
Channel 7 need more goals so theres more ads. Best thing we can do is vote with our feet next year and not watch at all. Ads need an audience too.
The thing is, half their ads are actually promos for their garbage reality programs. They know where the audience is so they drop all their promos is football when they could be placing paid ads. Advertisers must be pissed off to see these AFL telecasts chock full of self congratulatory promotion by the very mob pushing for more goals for more ads. Ch7 enemy of the game due to corporate greed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

YeOldTiger

All Australian
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Posts
993
Likes
2,785
AFL Club
Richmond
#77
6-6-6 won't change much. Complaining about it is short sighted also as the centre square came in around 45 years ago so there is precedent for change.

The double goal square is going to have a big effect though. Will really reward attacking teams and fast break footy. Potentially will also encourage teams to keep more players rather than press up to counter, which the AFL will be happy with
The 666 changes are the thin end of the wedge. What they want is to split the game wide open to allow LOTS more goals. All this pressure means less goals, less ads. That's not good for business looking forward. Ch7 has thrown the toys out of the cot and hey, they bankroll the game so they want more goals. Once the 666 set ups at the start of each qtr and after each goal is bedded in, then comes the 666 where they're the new starting positions for EVERY stoppage. Imagine the space. Dangerfield is the players rep and he LOVES these changes. He sees Brownlows 2 and 3 glimmering in the shadows for him. All that space. All those goals. All that cashola.

That's why fans are complaining. Maybe not so short sighted at all...maybe they see through the bs and rulewashing.

Are either of these two rules actually necessary in the game right now ? Or are they the Trojan Horse that Ch7 have pressured the AFL to push up against our castle ?

The game is basically OK...it doesn't need this.
 
Last edited:

docko911

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Posts
7,069
Likes
13,371
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Richmond
#80
They would be better off introducing tv timeouts in true NBA style.

Or alternatively they could focus on developing players that can kick so they can break through pressure with ease... I mean that will be the logical solution to our high pressure gameplan. Our loss to Adelaide last year and West Coast this year were the result of a team at their best hitting their targets and there was little we could do.

In both games the score exceeded 200
 

parmy2balmey

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Posts
4,696
Likes
20,187
Location
under the bain marie
AFL Club
Richmond
#81
Extraordinary Radical New 7-10 AFL Scoring Rule Proposed

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/afl-radical-move-stunning-score-revolution-061855842.html
7Sport•10 Aug 2018, 11:18 pm

A radical scoring revolution dubbed the 7-10 rule will widen the goals to double their width and get rid of behinds altogether, taking goal scoring to a whole new level. "Goals will be worth 7 points and goals from outside the 50 metre paint worth 10, with a bonus premiership point awarded to teams who kick 16 goals in a game", said AFL CEO Gillan McLaughlin. "Fans have really got behind Supergoals in the pre-season competition, and reacted positively towards the Zooper goal in AFLX, so we feel this is the next natural progression and will result in more goals and higher scoring games, and the bonus premiership point will further encourage coaches to adopt attacking game styles".

When asked if the extraordinary rule change would be introduced in conjunction with any of the other new rules, McLaughlin stated "Certainly this will go hand in hand with the 6-6-6 rule. Obviously with the behind posts removed the goal square becomes redundant, so the 18m goal square idea has been scrapped. The fan feedback and optics from those trials in the VFL were pretty negative anyway, so Steve and his team went away and came up with 7-10. The costs at grassroots level for 8 posts is also prohibitive for many local clubs who are now turning to rugby, so that's another positive by-product of these scoring changes. AFLW will also see a net scoring benefit, and the ambiguity in the deliberate rushed behind rule dissolved".

Scoreboards would also be stripped back to show just the total score of teams, simplifying the clunky format of the traditional scoring system, long a confusing deterrent to newcomers of the sport.

"We feel that combined with the 6-6-6 rule to reduce congestion, 7-10 will open the game up considerably. 20 to 30 goals a side is not inconceivable with the projections that have come back to us. Who doesn't want to see 60 goals kicked in a game and the return of 100 goal Coleman medalists?"

McLaughlin conceded that the death of the kick out was a price to pay but believes it is a small one in contrast to some of the other mooted changes. “Steve Hocking, at the end of the year, will look at all the possibilities,” McLachlan told 3AW on Friday.

its all about scoring –with your secretary and shelving coke
 

SunshineTiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Posts
19,347
Likes
28,991
Location
Somewhere in Queensland
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC
#83
Vote with your feet. Seriously if people are fed up it’s what they should do, and clubs will in turn get filthy on the idiots running the game too by losing revenue.
That’s exactly what should happen
 

Rodney Dangerfield

Formerly 'RodneyDangerfield'
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Posts
28,337
Likes
62,205
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool,Bournemouth
#86
**** voting with my feet...i'll vote with my remote instead! ;)
The amusing thing is that people’s television viewing habits won’t change.
For one there is too much footy to watch now so we are all very blasé about it, and amongst that are putrid teams playing footy that you just can’t be ****** watching.
Then there is just too much to distract t everyone now right at the fingertips. Once upon a time it was a real treat to watch a game on television, a football show or you’d devour every written word about it etc.
These ******* dimwits really think it’s the games aesthetic quality that defines television ratings.
You could have 1980’s footy and nothing would change apart from more ads per goal.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Shazza_

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Posts
8,853
Likes
33,796
AFL Club
Richmond
#87
6-6-6 is stupid, teams right now start with 4-4-4 or 5-5-5 which means each arc is less congested, by having 6-6-6 means you are adding players to each arc thus creating congestion, dumb ******* idiots.
new rules will favour us then they’ll want to change back mid season when we’re on top of the ladder
 

scarecrow2k1

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
5,524
Likes
3,460
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#88
The 666 changes are the thin end if the wedge. What they want is to split the game wide open to allow LOTS more goals. All this pressure means less goals, less ads. That's not good for business looking forward. Ch7 has thrown the toys out of the cot and hey, they bankroll the game so they want more goals. Once the 666 set ups at the start of each qtr and after each goal is bedded in, then comes the 666 where they're the new starting positions for EVERY stoppage. Imagine the space. Dangerfield is the players rep and he LOVES these changes. He sees Brownlows 2 and 3 glimmering in the shadows for him. All that space. All those goals. All that cashola.

That's why fans are complaining. Maybe not so short sighted at all...maybe they see through the bs and rulewashing.

Are either of these two rules actually necessary in the game right now ? Or are they the Trojan Horse that Ch7 have pressured the AFL to push up against our castle ?

The game is basically OK...it doesn't need this.
Agree that the game is in a fine state and doesn't need it.

Disagree that it will have any significant impact. Mostly teams line up like this after a goal anyway. Given it's 6-6-6, the extra two can wait just outside defensive 50 and jump in when the balls bounced and have an 8 man back line.

The only significant impact will be when a team goals to bring it within a goal with a short time left - now it keeps the game open rather than allowing a team to flood back.

I'm normally staunch anti change, and would be happy with no change, but have no problem with this rule. There's precedent with the centre square, and it won't effect much.
 

scarecrow2k1

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
5,524
Likes
3,460
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#89
I think it will disadvantage attacking teams and make all teams less attacking. Each behind is a turnover, which will now be bigger.
So their will more of a focus to not get behinds.

Missed goal kicks and kicking too deep to packs and teams give up a huge advantage to the other side.
So that may reduce long kicks for exciting big marks in the goals square, which is probably the opposite of what they want.

It may also reduce exciting long shots at goal, and increase more sideways movement to try to set up a better shot on goal which will take more time.
Therefore less direct play coming out of the centre, more coming in from the boundaries, gives teams time to get back to defend the 50, more congested foward lines, again which is probably the opposite of what they want.

Got a feeling they sit there presenting data and only looking at the possible benefits, without anyone picking the new rule ideas apart, and bringing up easily apparent possible risks.

At the very least it will mean more rules to adjudicate, interpret, and get wrong, when they don't do a great job on the most basic existing rules.
Yeah I agree with you hear - I was referencing more an attacking ball movement team and what it means for their prospects once a behind is scored.

You're right that it makes the penalty for missing a shot at goal significantly worse. It also makes rushing a behind much more attractive. I doubt the AFL have considered these factors
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Posts
2,422
Likes
4,302
Location
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
#90
The 6 6 6 only at centre bounces I agree wont change much at all. So why do it. As someone pointed out, the end game is at all ball ups, and this is how they are bringing it in. Trying to sneak it in by saying this small change hasnt worked, so we 'have to' go next level.
The goal square change seems more likely to make big changes to the game. I cant be fkd watching the vfl game, but I'm sure next week we'll get lots of feedback.
 

Tiger2709

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Posts
22,530
Likes
18,952
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
#93
Yeah I agree with you hear - I was referencing more an attacking ball movement team and what it means for their prospects once a behind is scored.

You're right that it makes the penalty for missing a shot at goal significantly worse. It also makes rushing a behind much more attractive. I doubt the AFL have considered these factors
The AFL stumble from one knee jerk reaction to another, when all thats needed is the removal of a couple of their recent disasterous rules, such as sliding in and ruck nominations and then instruct the umpires on correct application of the rules that have been in place all along, if a player drops or throws the ball blow the whistle pay the free, simple way to stop congestion.

Leave our game alone ffs and Gill needs to go, he is little more than an upperclass fence sitting twat, bye Gill.
 

Bojangles17

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
27,960
Likes
23,122
Location
Punt Rd
AFL Club
Richmond
#94
The 666 changes are the thin end if the wedge. What they want is to split the game wide open to allow LOTS more goals. All this pressure means less goals, less ads. That's not good for business looking forward. Ch7 has thrown the toys out of the cot and hey, they bankroll the game so they want more goals. Once the 666 set ups at the start of each qtr and after each goal is bedded in, then comes the 666 where they're the new starting positions for EVERY stoppage. Imagine the space. Dangerfield is the players rep and he LOVES these changes. He sees Brownlows 2 and 3 glimmering in the shadows for him. All that space. All those goals. All that cashola.

That's why fans are complaining. Maybe not so short sighted at all...maybe they see through the bs and rulewashing.

Are either of these two rules actually necessary in the game right now ? Or are they the Trojan Horse that Ch7 have pressured the AFL to push up against our castle ?

The game is basically OK...it doesn't need this.
666 at ea stoppage is impractical as it would **** with the flow of the game , quicker ball ups and stricter interpretation of HTB are soft levers they can pull that clear the play
 

scarecrow2k1

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
5,524
Likes
3,460
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#95
666 at ea stoppage is impractical as it would **** with the flow of the game , quicker ball ups and stricter interpretation of HTB are soft levers they can pull that clear the play
They trialled quicker baller ups at the saints intra club. Was apparently a disaster and increased congestion, as players didn't have time to spread out or reposition. Turned into one big scrum
 

Bojangles17

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
27,960
Likes
23,122
Location
Punt Rd
AFL Club
Richmond
#96
They trialled quicker baller ups at the saints intra club. Was apparently a disaster and increased congestion, as players didn't have time to spread out or reposition. Turned into one big scrum
That’s odd as the longer the umpire takes to ball up , the more players drawn toward the contest
 

Dr Tigris

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
4,999
Likes
9,974
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Richmond
You go play your Yank version of our game in your own parallel universe with the AFL committee flakes. I'll be here supporting Aussie Rules the way it's always been played. Beautiful and unique, indigenous to us and perfectly ok how it is (maybe tidy up some dodgy interpretations of a couple of rules). Richmond are killing it, why you'd want to change anything right now is beyond me.
Do you think I want these changes?? :mad: I have consistently stated that if they just applied the rules properly, rather than having stupid interpretations changing every week that would do me. :rolleyes::fire:

I said that 666 is worthless. :drunk:

My comment re set ups from an 18 m square are just additional to people saying that it would allow Short to kick it to the middle of the ground. I couldn't an f&$^ if they introduced that rule or not. Except it'd change the game in a way that I don't see much use for.

Goodbye and good night

BTW nice win today
 
Top Bottom