Rule changes 2019: someone say 'attacking football'?

Remove this Banner Ad

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
19,819
25,107
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
Without my being a senior footy coach...

I'd go a step further and say that successful coaches think "defence first, attack second"

So when you change the rules, these coaches think about how to defend the new rule, and only once that is worked out and bedded in, then consider how to better attack without compromising the defensive aspects.

Vice versa, leave the rules alone and you'll start to see more attacking football. Change the rules and in the affected aspect of the game you start again on defence.

Just my 2c worth.
Great point, agree.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Do the Dew

All Australian
Feb 14, 2019
855
1,841
Stuart Dew's Gut
AFL Club
Richmond
I'm wondering when the "experts" will learn that the game constantly changes through evolution and new strategies, and that you can't manipulate it into a desirable product with rule changes. Coaches will always be able to influence the game how they like, and it's much easier to restrict scoring than to go the other way.

The AFL treat the public like fools when any half sensible footy punter can see otherwise.
This is exactly the point. Yet one that commentators, media, and AFL officials don't seem to understand. If we cut back the rules (mainly most of the recent changes) and stop trying to restrict and control the game, different gamestyles will evolve organically. It's so frustrating when people want the game to be perfect (mainly heard this on AFL360 all last year) when it is and always has been an imperfect, chaotic game (also doesn't help that prime time featured STK and CARL last year). Hopefully the next AFL CEO has the balls to not pander to the media unlike lickspittle Gil.
 

rogiebear93

Norm Smith Medallist
May 17, 2017
5,634
11,894
AFL Club
Hawthorn
There's no 'rule change' answer to creating attacking football whilst maintaining the integrity and quality of the product.

You could implement set zones for 100% of the time, restricting a set number of players to specific areas like netball. That fundamentally changes the game, and would really only contribute more blow outs.

In reality, the only thing that the AFL can do is roll back rules it brought in more recently. Who was the most recent club to slice people up with better skill? Probably the Hawks in 2013-2015, and the game plan we used to do that wouldn't be allowed now because most of it has been torn apart by rule changes.

Want more accurate goal kicking? Extend the shot clock.
Want a better display of skills? Bring back more rotations, let players actually rest.
Want more daring play? Let people shepherd on the mark again.
Sick of congestion? Call a stoppage as soon as the ball is locked in.
Want competitive games? Get rid of the 6-6-6 and allow clubs to throw a spare back or forward.

On that last point, calling the rules they have already is another good start. Instead of focusing on new ones, perhaps penalise incorrect disposal more consistently and stop rewarding those that draw free kicks by their own actions.
 
Last edited:

Big Cox 88

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 1, 2010
5,850
7,518
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
AC Milan, Chelsea
This round has been one of the lowest scoring rounds I can remember. AFL rule changes are doing the opposite of what they assumed would happen.
 

PowerForGood

Deleting account. No interest in AFL anymore Enjoy
Sep 1, 2006
15,513
13,484
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
Remember all that time ago (like a week) when every AFL outlet and every AFL-media mouthpiece were screaming plaudits about the wonderful impact of the rule changes on attacking football?

Using JLT scores as an example?

And yet early signs in the season proper are that this is not the case and that players are playing more defensive individual 1 on 1 football.

Not to say that isn't more attractive than the rolling mauls we saw on occasion last year, but scoring is looking like it will suffer. The first 3/4 games Rd 1 the scores are well down (4 goals per team) on past years. What I'm seeing is players are worried about being caught on the wrong side of their opponent that there is less risk taking. Defenders now have the additional advantage of the changes to hands in the back.

Hope that changes as players and coaches settle in.

Once we get a few rounds in it will be interesting to see how the scoring plays out.
Well, I'm here purely to say that this year ain't going in the right direction.

Looking forward to winter. :rolleyes:
 

PowerForGood

Deleting account. No interest in AFL anymore Enjoy
Sep 1, 2006
15,513
13,484
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
Without my being a senior footy coach...

I'd go a step further and say that successful coaches think "defence first, attack second"

So when you change the rules, these coaches think about how to defend the new rule, and only once that is worked out and bedded in, then consider how to better attack without compromising the defensive aspects.

Vice versa, leave the rules alone and you'll start to see more attacking football. Change the rules and in the affected aspect of the game you start again on defence.

Just my 2c worth.
Bump: Jimmy Bartel on Talking Footy said exactly this.

(first thing I've ever agreed with him on I think)
 

cleomenes

Club Legend
Nov 18, 2010
1,444
1,956
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
The AFL cannot put the genie back in the bottle and return us to the football of any previous era. Everyone knows too much about how players work for that, but:

A great many of the rules introduced to counter particular coaching and playing tricks could probably be discarded, and new ones to deal with new tricks avoided in almost all circumstances.

The "deliberate" frees are mostly unnecessary. Throw ins are not something to avoid. They reset play, and allow ruckmen to have influence. Only becasme a problem when Dimitriou was trying to get rid of ruckmen.
Rushed behinds only became a problem when kick ins were time constrained. Perhaps we go back to plenty of time to kick in, and only free kick players who actually turn around and take the ball through because there is no acceptable target, not when they knock it through at some arbitrary distance.

6-6-6 makes the field look better for a few seconds after each goal, but achieves nothing else.

Pushes in the back in marking contests are now rife. The umpires directives are at fault here rather than the rule. Use the rule phrasing and interpretation from 1965 and things will be fine.

Because of blood and concussion concerns, interchange can't be abolished. It could be restricted to umpire directed send offs, removing the tactical element that coaches are so enamoured of. Runners would not be so necessary if there were no interchange for them to manage.

Holding the ball decisions need to be much more sudden death. As soon as there is an element of choice in what a player does, then he is holding the ball, be it trying to barge through a pack or being swung in a tackle and waiting for an option as he swings.

Reversion to the original interpretation of holding the ball in ruck contests has been a success. The AFL rule watchers should note this and take the same measuring stick to the other rule fiddles of the last 30 years. The studs out change is a case. It wasn't needed. Dangerous play covered it. A pointless rule change.

Coaches are defensive animals, and will find ways to exert defensive control no matter what rules are altered. The AFL reacts to this with rule changes. It is a solution of last resort being used as a first defense. Perhaps deregistration of coaches who persistently violate the spirit of the game would be a more productive approach. Or loss of premiership points for clubs that are recalcitrant. Or reversal of match results when they are the result of unacceptable rorting of the rules. There are many possibilities less draconian than these.
 

Ghost of Punt Road

Club Legend
Aug 11, 2004
1,387
407
Under the Punt Rd Stand
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
So how did the rules changes finally pan out? Kick-ins and 6 6 6...

Half way through the year the scores had declined as compared to before the rule changes.

I'm not sure how to check and compare sorry.

I know Hocking will say everything he did worked out amazingly, but I'm asking what REALLY happened?
 

Hawk_francais

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2015
3,079
5,981
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The AFL cannot put the genie back in the bottle and return us to the football of any previous era. Everyone knows too much about how players work for that, but:

A great many of the rules introduced to counter particular coaching and playing tricks could probably be discarded, and new ones to deal with new tricks avoided in almost all circumstances.

The "deliberate" frees are mostly unnecessary. Throw ins are not something to avoid. They reset play, and allow ruckmen to have influence. Only becasme a problem when Dimitriou was trying to get rid of ruckmen.
Rushed behinds only became a problem when kick ins were time constrained. Perhaps we go back to plenty of time to kick in, and only free kick players who actually turn around and take the ball through because there is no acceptable target, not when they knock it through at some arbitrary distance.

6-6-6 makes the field look better for a few seconds after each goal, but achieves nothing else.

Pushes in the back in marking contests are now rife. The umpires directives are at fault here rather than the rule. Use the rule phrasing and interpretation from 1965 and things will be fine.

Because of blood and concussion concerns, interchange can't be abolished. It could be restricted to umpire directed send offs, removing the tactical element that coaches are so enamoured of. Runners would not be so necessary if there were no interchange for them to manage.

Holding the ball decisions need to be much more sudden death. As soon as there is an element of choice in what a player does, then he is holding the ball, be it trying to barge through a pack or being swung in a tackle and waiting for an option as he swings.

Reversion to the original interpretation of holding the ball in ruck contests has been a success. The AFL rule watchers should note this and take the same measuring stick to the other rule fiddles of the last 30 years. The studs out change is a case. It wasn't needed. Dangerous play covered it. A pointless rule change.

Coaches are defensive animals, and will find ways to exert defensive control no matter what rules are altered. The AFL reacts to this with rule changes. It is a solution of last resort being used as a first defense. Perhaps deregistration of coaches who persistently violate the spirit of the game would be a more productive approach. Or loss of premiership points for clubs that are recalcitrant. Or reversal of match results when they are the result of unacceptable rorting of the rules. There are many possibilities less draconian than these.
Great post. I happen to disagree with you here but it's very interesting reading.

Right now the entire look and flow of a game is pretty much out of the players' hands. Instead, it's in the hands of the coaches and the umpires. It's about numbers around the ball, and about the speed (and frequency) of the whistle. It's interesting that you mostly advocate slowing down the game. I think the game is far too structured and that reducing the amount of stoppages is essential for the game to develop. To do that, someone at AFL house needs to simply make a stoppage a less structured situation. There's a whole thread about getting rid of prior opportunity, and I think it's got legs.
 

Top Bottom