Rule changes 2019: someone say 'attacking football'?

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Posts
32,121
Likes
38,614
Location
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
#51
Scoring has got nothing to do with the rule changes.
The skill level of the draftees and the stars of the comp are at an all time low.
More money on junior development or it will keep getting worse.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,068
Likes
12,686
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
#52
Low scoring is nothing to do with rules - even though they are stupid rules. Richmond won the flag by destroying teams on the turnover. WCEs won the flag by playing a really tight zone, forcing teams to go down the line marking the down the line kicks. Teams are just too scared to move the ball forward in case they give the ball back to the opposition.
 

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Posts
32,121
Likes
38,614
Location
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
#53
Low scoring is nothing to do with rules - even though they are stupid rules. Richmond won the flag by destroying teams on the turnover. WCEs won the flag by playing a really tight zone, forcing teams to go down the line marking the down the line kicks. Teams are just too scared to move the ball forward in case they give the ball back to the opposition.
Only way i can see a tangible change is if they go back to 16 each on field.

4 less players means it's harder to defend and easier to attack
 

rjslcM

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Posts
1,368
Likes
1,499
Location
Glen Waverly
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Australia, Roger Federer.
#54
Scoring has got nothing to do with the rule changes.
The skill level of the draftees and the stars of the comp are at an all time low.
More money on junior development or it will keep getting worse.
Did you watch GWS on the weekend
Thought their kicking was A class
 

shaqsuns

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Posts
1,158
Likes
886
Location
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Cleveland Cavaliers
#56
Scoring has got nothing to do with the rule changes.
The skill level of the draftees and the stars of the comp are at an all time low.
More money on junior development or it will keep getting worse.
Skills are better then they ever were in the past, just the players don’t have any space to put them on display and this will continue until the AFL have the balls to get rid of the interchange.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Dez!

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Posts
30,157
Likes
20,662
Location
Melbourne, Victoria
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Chicago Bulls
#57
Skills are better then they ever were in the past, just the players don’t have any space to put them on display and this will continue until the AFL have the balls to get rid of the interchange.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Getting rid of the interchange is the most idiotic thing the league could do.
 

shaqsuns

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Posts
1,158
Likes
886
Location
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Cleveland Cavaliers
#58
Getting rid of the interchange is the most idiotic thing the league could do.
We played the game for 150 years with no or limited interchanges and the game was a one on one end to end spectacle with plenty of open spaces (no one complained). As soon the interchange went crazy the game became congested and now we are having conferences on the state of the game.

Now I understand correlation doesn’t equal causation however I would like to try the complete reduction of the interchange, before we make up redundant rules that makes our game unrecognisable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Posts
32,121
Likes
38,614
Location
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
#59
Skills are better then they ever were in the past, just the players don’t have any space to put them on display and this will continue until the AFL have the balls to get rid of the interchange.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Completely disagree

Best mids 95-05
Voss, Buckley, Ricciuto, Goodes, Hird, Kouta, Harvey, Voss, Black, Aker etc

Beautiful kicks of the footy and dual sided by foot and hand

Now
Treloar Kelly Danger Fyfe Oliver Cripps Crouch Sloane Brayshaw Neale Mitchell Merrett Bont etc

Alot of one sided average kicks in that list.

Forwards aren't a patch on the forwards of the 90s and early 00s
 

shaqsuns

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Posts
1,158
Likes
886
Location
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Cleveland Cavaliers
#60
Completely disagree

Best mids 95-05
Voss, Buckley, Ricciuto, Goodes, Hird, Kouta, Harvey, Voss, Black, Aker etc

Beautiful kicks of the footy and dual sided by foot and hand

Now
Treloar Kelly Danger Fyfe Oliver Cripps Crouch Sloane Brayshaw Neale Mitchell Merrett Bont etc

Alot of one sided average kicks in that list.

Forwards aren't a patch on the forwards of the 90s and early 00s
Ask yourself are the forwards getting the same space they were getting 20 years ago????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Posts
32,121
Likes
38,614
Location
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
#61
Ask yourself are the forwards getting the same space they were getting 20 years ago????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Plenty of times. On quick breaks they often have half the field but their leading, their hands in front their eyes and their set shot kicking is all worse.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

harrythetiger

Summited Everest 30/9/17
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Posts
10,034
Likes
25,255
Location
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
#62
We played the game for 150 years with no or limited interchanges and the game was a one on one end to end spectacle with plenty of open spaces (no one complained). As soon the interchange went crazy the game became congested and now we are having conferences on the state of the game.

Now I understand correlation doesn’t equal causation however I would like to try the complete reduction of the interchange, before we make up redundant rules that makes our game unrecognisable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the best part of 150 years the game was nowhere near as tactically advanced as it is now.
In order to cover the field the way they do now, players don’t actually have to hold a very high speed - no more than 10km/h average. That’s easily carried out even by ‘tired’ players. You know what becomes exponentially more difficult when players become fatigued? Skills. Any attempt to fatigue players will lead to the last quarter being a slog with a kicking efficiency of 20%.
 
Joined
May 28, 2017
Posts
2,142
Likes
2,369
AFL Club
West Coast
#63
Only way i can see a tangible change is if they go back to 16 each on field.

4 less players means it's harder to defend and easier to attack
I hear you but the coaches will want even better athletes to cover the same ground. Said athletes will have worse disposal than currently = more stoppages.

And around and around we go.
 
Joined
May 28, 2017
Posts
2,142
Likes
2,369
AFL Club
West Coast
#64
For the best part of 150 years the game was nowhere near as tactically advanced as it is now.
In order to cover the field the way they do now, players don’t actually have to hold a very high speed - no more than 10km/h average. That’s easily carried out even by ‘tired’ players. You know what becomes exponentially more difficult when players become fatigued? Skills. Any attempt to fatigue players will lead to the last quarter being a slog with a kicking efficiency of 20%.
Agree. Passes missing, more stoppages, packs, ball bouncing from one 50m to the next. Worse passing into forward line, worse conversion on goal.

Do you get to the stage where your whole team is camped in defensive 50, playing 25 + chip kicks, regaining a small amount of energy back.... all out 100% attack for 30 seconds, then camp out defensively for another breather.
 

_M_16_

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Posts
2,736
Likes
3,012
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Liv FC, LA Rams, Pitt Pen, Michigan
#65
Only an idiot would think 6-6-6 is to blame for the low scoring as many say. Firstly, you cannot judge the effectiveness of that rule on 4 games, yet alone one season by itself. Secondly, common sense would say, that if teams are struggling to score points with the 6-6-6, imagine them trying to kick scores when every team dropped back an loose intercept defender/spare man when the 6-6-6 rules were not in place. Teams would likely be struggling to kick 20 points with the 6-6-6.

There are two things that have contributed. The overall drop in genuine footballing skills. It's pretty worrying when you have a million kids playing AFL, yet when it comes to drafting 60-80 of those each year, be lucky to find 4-5 of them with elite kicking skills. When coaching is more about who can run 10 laps the fastest over skills and technique development, you wonder why the league is full of athletes who can't play for s**t. Elite level completion yet hardly any players with all round elite skills

The modern game will no doubt lower skills in general even for highly skilled players, with the run and gun, blindly kicking it approach, and the intense pressure levels as well.

Coaching and general tactics, many teams are now more concerned with keeping possession, slow build ups, heavy defensive tactics and flooding the forward half with every single man on the field. Imagine the older days where teams legit left forwards at home in the pocket and the game was open and free flowing.

Its skills, coaching and tactics, not rule changes that stuff the game up
 

rippersnipper

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Posts
9,308
Likes
6,931
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#66
Also because coaches want to reduce scoring. The lower the score of the opposition, the more likely you are to win. Therefore, they flood the stoppages to stop the ball getting out quickly. There's really no easy solution to this, it's just the tactical evolution of the sport.
 

Jack5

Debutant
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Posts
144
Likes
388
AFL Club
Richmond
#68
I think we are seeing a battle between two opposing strategies. One built on pressure / turnover that takes territory at every opportunity and a gameplan designed to thwart that plan by maintaining posession through short kicking and then carefully moving forward until a position is reached where a turnover is much less damaging.

The games where both teams employ a possession strategy are boring AF. Bulldogs v Pies being an example.

Personally I think the new rules favour each of these strategies in different ways.

666 promotes fast ball movement and taking territory - we see all teams do this.

The impact of playing on from a behind is more complicated. My current thinking is that a behind is a turnover which you get rewarded for by 1 point. ie the only difference between an out on the full next the goals and a behind is the point you get. Except now the opposition gets posession AND a little more territory before facing some pressure. Its a small difference but the relative value of a behind compared to a goal is now less than it was because of this extra territory. It may be that teams want a pursue a higher probability goal opportunity than previously as result of this. Hence slower play when defensive structures are already in place. Or it may not make much difference.

The breaks between goals seem longer and quarters seem to be going longer. Longer breaks between goals would counter some of the skills falling away because tired arguments but there has been fewer goals. Not sure how it pans out.

More teams, talent pool thinner, weve known this for a while.
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Posts
129
Likes
52
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
#69
Only an idiot would think 6-6-6 is to blame for the low scoring as many say. Firstly, you cannot judge the effectiveness of that rule on 4 games, yet alone one season by itself. Secondly, common sense would say, that if teams are struggling to score points with the 6-6-6, imagine them trying to kick scores when every team dropped back an loose intercept defender/spare man when the 6-6-6 rules were not in place. Teams would likely be struggling to kick 20 points with the 6-6-6.
Every team deployed a spare in defence up until this year...it allowed them to gain possession, transition the ball quickly up the field and maybe have a shot at the other end. That's why coaches hate their players just bombing the ball forward.. they know how many dangerous attacks start from the back line. The 6-6-6 rule has taken this away to an extent.
 
Top Bottom