Analysis New Rules Stats

[Ron The Bear]

Round 5 scoring update

Year​	2021​	2020​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2016​	2015​	2014​	2013​	2012​
Round 5 average	79.1​	77​	84.8​	76.4​	93.9​	94.2​	85.4​	85.3​	95.3​	84.3​
Round 5 2021 - % above or below		+2.7%​	-6.7%​	+3.5%​	-15.8%​	-16.0%​	-7.4%​	-7.2%​	-17.0%​	-6.1%​
Round 5 - lowest since	2020​	2018​	2018​	1970​	2015​	2015​	2014​	2012​	2012​	2010​
Round 5 - highest since	2019​	2019​	2017​	2017​	2016​	2013​	2013​	2013​	2008​	2011​
Season average to Round 5	82.8​	79.1​	81.7​	85.6​	94.5​	93.1​	86.3​	86.4​	98.3​	90.6​
Season to Round 5 2021 - % above or below		+4.7%​	+1.4%​	-3.2%​	-12.4%​	-11.0%​	-4.0%​	-4.1%​	-15.7%​	-8.6%​
Season to Round 5 - lowest since	2020​	1967​	1967​	1968​	2016​	2015​	1968​	1968​	2012​	2010​
Season to Round 5 - highest since	2018​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2013​	2013​	2014​	2013​	2008​	2011​

 

[Roby]

Round 5 scoring update

Year​	2021​	2020​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2016​	2015​	2014​	2013​	2012​
Round 5 average	79.1​	77​	84.8​	76.4​	93.9​	94.2​	85.4​	85.3​	95.3​	84.3​
Round 5 2021 - % above or below		+2.7%​	-6.7%​	+3.5%​	-15.8%​	-16.0%​	-7.4%​	-7.2%​	-17.0%​	-6.1%​
Round 5 - lowest since	2020​	2018​	2018​	1970​	2015​	2015​	2014​	2012​	2012​	2010​
Round 5 - highest since	2019​	2019​	2017​	2017​	2016​	2013​	2013​	2013​	2008​	2011​
Season average to Round 5	82.8​	79.1​	81.7​	85.6​	94.5​	93.1​	86.3​	86.4​	98.3​	90.6​
Season to Round 5 2021 - % above or below		+4.7%​	+1.4%​	-3.2%​	-12.4%​	-11.0%​	-4.0%​	-4.1%​	-15.7%​	-8.6%​
Season to Round 5 - lowest since	2020​	1967​	1967​	1968​	2016​	2015​	1968​	1968​	2012​	2010​
Season to Round 5 - highest since	2018​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2013​	2013​	2014​	2013​	2008​	2011​

At this rate we're heading for the lowest scoring season in a while.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Round 6 scoring update

Year​	2021​	2020​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2016​	2015​	2014​	2013​	2012​
Round 6 average	83.1​	72.5​	80.8​	79.6​	92.6​	89.7​	83.4​	81.9​	91.7​	92.2​
Round 6 2021 - % above or below		+14.6%	+2.9%	+4.4%	-10.2%	-7.3%	-0.3%	+1.5%	-9.3%	-9.8%
Round 6 - lowest since	2020​	1965​	2018​	1968​	2016​	2015​	2014​	1968​	2010​	2010​
Round 6 - highest since	2017​	2019​	2017​	2017​	2011​	2013​	2013​	2013​	2012​	2011​
Season average to Round 6	82.9​	78​	81.5​	84.6​	94.2​	92.5​	85.8​	85.6​	97.2​	90.8​
Season to Round 6 2021 - % above or below		+6.3%	+1.7%	-2.0%	-12.0%	-10.4%	-3.4%	-3.2%	-14.7%	-8.8%
Season to Round 6 - lowest since	2020​	1967​	1967​	1968​	2016​	2015​	2014​	1968​	2012​	2010​
Season to Round 6 - highest since	2018​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2013​	2013​	2013​	2013​	2008​	2011​

 

[Ron The Bear]

Round 7 scoring update

Year	2021​	2020​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2016​	2015​	2014​	2013​	2012​
Round 7 average	84.7​	78.8​	77.4​	82.1​	95.4​	100.1​	94.4​	85.1​	97.2​	86.1​
Round 7 2021 - % above or below		+7.4%	+9.4%	+3.2%	-11.2%	-15.4%	-10.4%	-0.5%	-12.9%	-1.6%
Round 7 - lowest since	2020​	2019​	1968​	1981​	2015​	2015​	2014​	1981​	2012​	1995​
Round 7 - highest since	2017​	2018​	2018​	2017​	2016​	2008​	2013​	2013​	2008​	2011​
Season average to Round 7	83.1​	78.1​	80.9​	84.2​	94.4​	93.6​	87​	85.5​	97.2​	90.2​
Season to Round 7 2021 - % above or below		+6.4%	+2.7%	-1.3%	-11.9%	-11.2%	-4.5%	-2.8%	-14.4%	-7.8%
Season to Round 7 - lowest since	2020​	1967​	1968​	1968​	2016​	2015​	2014​	1968​	2012​	1995​
Season to Round 7 - highest since	2018​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2013​	2013​	2013​	2013​	2008​	2011​

 

[Ron The Bear]

Round 8 scoring update

Year	2021​	2020*​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2016​	2015​	2014​	2013​	2012​
Round 8 average	81.1​	69.7​	79.7​	82.6​	85.2​	91.8​	88.8​	92.0​	86.7​	90.6​
Round 8 2021 - % above or below		+16.5%​	+1.7%​	-1.8%​	-4.8%​	-11.6%​	-8.6%​	-11.8%​	-6.5%​	-10.5%​
Round 8 - lowest since	2020​	1985​	1985​	1985​	1985​	2015​	2013​	2013​	2005​	2009​
Round 8 - highest since	2018​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2016​	2014​	2014​	2011​	2012​	2011​
Season average to Round 8	82.9​	77​	80.8​	84​	93.2​	93.4​	87.2​	86.1​	95.9​	90.2​
Season to Round 8 2021 - % above or below		+7.6%​	+2.6%​	-1.3%​	-11.1%​	-11.2%​	-5.0%​	-3.7%​	-13.5%​	-8.1%​
Season to Round 8 - lowest since	2020​	1966​	1968​	1968​	2015​	2015​	2014​	1968​	2012​	1974​
Season to Round 8 - highest since	2018​	2019​	2018​	2017​	2016​	2013​	2013​	2013​	2008​	2011​

 

[CaptchaProofBot]

2 games/4 teams in round 8 just seem incapable of scoring goals....despite a lot of HELP from SHocking....and nice weather.

 

[Roby]

2 games/4 teams in round 8 just seem incapable of scoring goals....despite a lot of HELP from SHocking....and nice weather.

Pretty hard to score when flooding has returned. Maybe even due to the new rules over the last few years.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Round 9 scoring update - lowest-scoring Round 9 for 35 years

Year	2021	2020*	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015	2014	2013	2012
Round 9 average	77.1	82.0	82.4	82.6	87.9	85.6	83.8	84.1	95.9	85.8
Round 9 2021 - % above or below		-6%	-6.5%	-6.7%	-12.3%	-9.9%	-8.0%	-8.4%	-19.7%	-10.2%
Round 9 - lowest since	1986	1995	1995	1995	2016	2015	1995	1995	2012	1998
Round 9 - highest since	2020	2019	2018	2017	2013	2013	2014	2013	2011	2011
Season average to Round 9	82.2	77.6	81	83.9	92.7	92.5	86.9	85.9	95.9	89.7
Season to Round 9 2021 - % above or below		+6.0%	+1.6%	-1.9%	-11.3%	-11.1%	-5.3%	-4.3%	-14.2%	-8.3%
Season to Round 9 - lowest since	2020	1966	1967	1968	2016	2015	2014	1968	2012	1968
Season to Round 9 - highest since	2018	2019	2018	2017	2013	2013	2013	2013	2008	2011

 

[btdg]

Could you compare injury lists from previous years too? It feels like there's a lot more across the league.

And I don't know how you measure this but to me with the new rules:
- it feels more open. Less congestion and stoppages which might have been the issue rather than scoring
- it feels like good teams score and bad teams dont. This week was heavily influenced by Collingwood, St Kilda, GC, Essendin/Freo putting up very low scores, even relative to their margin of defeat . Hawks/North the exceptions but I'd wonder about a top 6/ bottom 6 split and how that compares year on year

If the game feels more open and scoring is up for good teams and maybe down for bad teams that could still be a positive result

 

[Sttew]

- it feels like good teams score and bad teams dont. This week was heavily influenced by Collingwood, St Kilda, GC, Essendin/Freo putting up very low scores, even relative to their margin of defeat . Hawks/North the exceptions but I'd wonder about a top 6/ bottom 6 split and how that compares year on year

If the game feels more open and scoring is up for good teams and maybe down for bad teams that could still be a positive result

St Kilda should have kicked 18 goals

 

[Ron The Bear]

Could you compare injury lists from previous years too? It feels like there's a lot more across the league.

And I don't know how you measure this but to me with the new rules:
- it feels more open. Less congestion and stoppages which might have been the issue rather than scoring
- it feels like good teams score and bad teams dont. This week was heavily influenced by Collingwood, St Kilda, GC, Essendin/Freo putting up very low scores, even relative to their margin of defeat . Hawks/North the exceptions but I'd wonder about a top 6/ bottom 6 split and how that compares year on year

If the game feels more open and scoring is up for good teams and maybe down for bad teams that could still be a positive result

I don't keep injury stats. It would be possible to get them from the Season Guide though.

Scoring is up 0.6 points per quarter on 2019. More detectable than global warming, I guess.

 

[HTT]

The rate of injuries always seems to be in the news this time of year. Non issue. Footy media follows the same path each year
->Wow the new rules are fantastic!
-> Injuries are on the up from previous years, what should the AFL do?
-> Coaches are ruining the game and causing injuries to players
-> We need more new rules to fix the mess the coaches have created

Rinse and repeat

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

This thread is irrelevant now given the new rules have been wound back.

 

[HTT]

This thread is irrelevant now given the new rules have been wound back.

The thread is irrelevant because it’s been proven the new rules didn’t work

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The thread is irrelevant because it’s been proven the new rules didn’t work

Don't work?

Doesn't that depend on the intent of them?


But regardless, they've wound it back anyway so it's a moot point.

 

[HTT]

Don't work?

Doesn't that depend on the intent of them?


But regardless, they've wound it back anyway so it's a moot point.

The intent of them was to increase scoring and ‘improve the look of the game’
They’ve done neither. They’ve not been wound back. Teams have worked them out as they inevitably do so they no longer have an impact. Much like every other rule change with similar intentions.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The intent of them was to increase scoring and ‘improve the look of the game’
They’ve done neither. They’ve not been wound back. Teams have worked them out as they inevitably do so they no longer have an impact. Much like every other rule change with similar intentions.

It definitely improved the game. Absolutely zero doubt.

Which is why I can't understand for the life of me why they've wound it back. Just baffling.
They've stopped paying 50s for guys moving on the mark, and also countered the rule by calling the player with the ball to play on apmost immediately. It's removed the advantage that they'd given the team with the ball.

 

[HTT]

It definitely improved the game. Absolutely zero doubt.

Which is why I can't understand for the life of me why they've wound it back. Just baffling.
They've stopped paying 50s for guys moving on the mark, and also countered the rule by calling the player with the ball to play on apmost immediately. It's removed the advantage that they'd given the team with the ball.

Players have learnt where the limits of the rule lie. They still pay the 50s. But teams have adapted. Nathan Broad smothered Toby Greene on a set shot where Greene ran around on Saturday night, completely within the rules.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Players have learnt where the limits of the rule lie. They still pay the 50s. But teams have adapted. Nathan Broad smothered Toby Greene on a set shot where Greene ran around on Saturday night, completely within the rules.

There are no limits. The rule was that you once the umpire says 'stand', you can't move.

That's changed over the past 3 weeks. For some unknown reason.


The other change is that the umpires are ridiculously red hot on call Play On when the player with the ball deviates even slightly off their mark, or holds the ball for longer than about 3 seconds. That's also only started happening in the past few weeks.
It counters the advantage that the new rule gave the team with the ball, and also reduced the free flowing element that was happening early in the year.

It's incredibly strange by the AFL. I can't understand the logic.

 

[HTT]

There are no limits. The rule was that you once the umpire says 'stand', you can't move.

That's changed over the past 3 weeks. For some unknown reason.


The other change is that the umpires are ridiculously red hot on call Play On when the player with the ball deviates even slightly off their mark, or holds the ball for longer than about 3 seconds. That's also only started happening in the past few weeks.
It counters the advantage that the new rule gave the team with the ball, and also reduced the free flowing element that was happening early in the year.

It's incredibly strange by the AFL. I can't understand the logic.

They are adjudicating play on properly now. As soon as you deviate off the line of the mark, it should be play on. Didn’t really matter when the mark could move but now the mark can’t move its another thing for umpires to be concerned about. But good on them for improving.
What I am gathering is that you don’t want rules to be adjudicated correctly, and that will improve the game. I’m not sure I agree.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

They are adjudicating play on properly now. As soon as you deviate off the line of the mark, it should be play on. Didn’t really matter when the mark could move but now the mark can’t move its another thing for umpires to be concerned about. But good on them for improving.
What I am gathering is that you don’t want rules to be adjudicated correctly, and that will improve the game. I’m not sure I agree.

They've changed the interpretation in recent weeks.

'Deviating' from the mark used to mean a few steps either side. Now it's literally the slightest deviation at all.
In some cases, as BT has highlighted, they call Play On when the guy hasn't even moved at all!

Whether you agree with it or not isn't the point - the point is that it's changed. And as a result it's counteracted the improvements that the new man on the mark rule made.

This, and the easing of the man on the mark rule itself, has basically undone all the good stuff that was on display at the start of the year.

 

[HTT]

They've changed the interpretation in recent weeks.

'Deviating' from the mark used to mean a few steps either side. Now it's literally the slightest deviation at all.
In some cases, as BT has highlighted, they call Play On when the guy hasn't even moved at all!

Whether you agree with it or not isn't the point - the point is that it's changed. And as a result it's counteracted the improvements that the new man on the mark rule made.

This, and the easing of the man on the mark rule itself, has basically undone all the good stuff that was on display at the start of the year.

It used to be a few steps because they didn’t need to adjudicate it strongly. The mark could still cover it, there were more important things for them to look towards.
The intent of the rule was never to have the man on the mark be a statue while the kicker could run around. That was a terrible look for the game. Like netball.
The more important change is that defensive structures have strengthened as the season has gone on and it renders the rules ineffective.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The intent of the rule was never to have the man on the mark be a statue while the kicker could run around.

That's literally precisely what it was introduced to do.

 

[HTT]

That's literally precisely what it was introduced to do.

Not so they could run around. The theory was it would open up the angles for the kicker to kick to.

 

[Chopperdave]

They are adjudicating play on properly now. As soon as you deviate off the line of the mark, it should be play on. Didn’t really matter when the mark could move but now the mark can’t move its another thing for umpires to be concerned about. But good on them for improving.
What I am gathering is that you don’t want rules to be adjudicated correctly, and that will improve the game. I’m not sure I agree.

The problem is they are calling play on when a player even feigns a handball... or even looks to kick it somewhere... some of the play on calls have been absolutely ridiculous.