Rule changes 2019: someone say 'attacking football'?

[hawkman]

The goal kicking has been terrible in this round at 46%, every year in the last decade it has been at 52 or 53%. If it improves to around the average it is lift of around 8 or 9 points a game

 

[Mister B]

No that happened years ago, when the interchange exploded and became a rotation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Certainly started the rot. The new roles have well and truly entrenched it.

 

[footyfan1978]

First round is neither here nor there on showing us anything. Higher humidity in early season night games and teams rusty due to not fully ready for intensity rise always going to have a lot of players fumble more than a few rounds in. I reckon 8 rounds in will have a good enough sample size to see what good things have happened and what bad may result from tinkering with some of game setups. But I never expected too much difference myself once they did nothing about the interchange still used as a rotation system. Until they fix that mess, the bulk of improvement needed is not likely to be seen to any great extent. But I will keep an open mind to see if any of these adjustments making anything significant impact after 8 rounds.

I will say at this stage as a spectator I LOVE seeing less of runners and do not care what the coaches want on that.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

One thing I did like so far was the umpire telling those who played for a free to get up rather than giving them the free. Would like to see far more of that.

 

[HTT]

Both night games have been slippery and most have team have looked rusty. Need a bigger sample size.

Night games at this time of year are always greasy.
Teams are always rusty at this time of year.
Yet this is usually the highest scoring time of the year.
If this is the highest scoring will be this year, then at it’s lowest, scoring WILL be an actual issue.

 

[Scotland]

High scoring doesn't mean good football. I've seen my team score 100 and lose by 7-8 goals. 2006, 2009, 2012, 2016, 2018 Grand finals weren't shootouts.

Jakovich vs Carey wasn't exciting because Carey kicked 10 each time, it was exciting because they'd engage in 10+ contests and after each game you could score the match up like a boxing match.

The whole reason we have a square in the middle is to start after each goal with 4 on 4 to win the ball. The 50m arcs were just for show. Modern coaching has seen repeat stoppages turned in to 20-30 around the ball and kick ins turn into a defensive zone of 18 in the forward half. The rule changes are designed to push the game away from this.

 

[PowerForGood]

High scoring doesn't mean good football. I've seen my team score 100 and lose by 7-8 goals. 2006, 2009, 2012, 2016, 2018 Grand finals weren't shootouts.

Jakovich vs Carey wasn't exciting because Carey kicked 10 each time, it was exciting because they'd engage in 10+ contests and after each game you could score the match up like a boxing match.

The whole reason we have a square in the middle is to start after each goal with 4 on 4 to win the ball. The 50m arcs were just for show. Modern coaching has seen repeat stoppages turned in to 20-30 around the ball and kick ins turn into a defensive zone of 18 in the forward half. The rule changes are designed to push the game away from this.

Agree wholeheartedly.

But the AFL pushed this idea of attacking football through its mouthpieces. And the media obsessed over more scoring during the JLT.

I like that the game seems to flow more one on one rather than a rolling maul. But individuals play more defensive these days when one on one and hence it was always more likely to impact scoring.

I'm being there will be some more talk this week out of AFL House that the rule changes were always about aesthetics and not scoring.

A small sample size so far of course. Let's hope we stay with good football

 

[Scotland]

I don't think attacking has to mean high scoring. Compare it to soccer. A game can be free flowing and attacking and end 0-0. Or you can park the bus and turn it into a grind.

You are right that the AFL are the ones who keep referring to scoring averages.

 

[PowerForGood]

I don't think attacking has to mean high scoring. Compare it to soccer. A game can be free flowing and attacking and end 0-0. Or you can park the bus and turn it into a grind.

You are right that the AFL are the ones who keep referring to scoring averages.

Remembering that goals equal ads.

 

[Rotayjay]

Was at the ground yesterday. Despite my team playing like rubbish, and despite the low score, it was actually a much more watchable style of football. I'd actually rather an attractive low-scoring match than a constant rolling maul broken by lots of goals.

 

[Chaisa]

Anyone talking up the new rules as a game changer based on the JLT is dumb.

I think the biggest problem seems to be the skills being off the boil. Don't know if it's a talent issue, a rust issue or a congestion issue.

EDIT: I'll also add that the humidity this round seems unusually high, which can't be helping the skills. Next week the weather seems drier so we'll see if the skills improve.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

When will people realise that the rules were never the issue, the issue is the players’ skill level has dropped over time because there has been more of a focus on gameplan and intense pressure, meaning players are more fatigued and therefore skill errors are made more often than not.

Find it funny that all these rule changes were designed to create a more ‘open’ game and higher scoring, but coaches ‘want pressure’ and plenty of tackles, that’s why the games are scrappy.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Simmo of all people predicted this.

Seemed pretty certain the new rules wouldn't equate higher scoring.

 

[Chaisa]

When will people realise that the rules were never the issue, the issue is the player’ skill level has dropped over time because there has been more of a focus on gameplan and intense pressure, meaning players are more fatigued and therefore skill errors are made more often than not.

Find it funny that all these rule changes were designed to create a more ‘open’ game and higher scoring, but coaches ‘want pressure’ and plenty of tackles, that’s why the games are scrappy.

Yeah the goal to "improve the game" should be to try and encourage coaches to adopt attacking gameplans rather than force it, so to speak. Now I don't know the best way for that to happen, but given how hyped the new rules were the goal from coaches looks clearly "how do I defend under these" rather than "how does this improve our attack".

I do feel the current stagnation with coaches might not be helping and not enough of them seem to think outside the square and find a fun revolutionary attacking tactic.

 

[caloschwaby]

OP just wait till we play the Suns tomorrow. We'll show you some attacking footy.

This aged well

 

[projectv]

This aged well

Yeah I mean, at least we weren't 4.10 half way through the third quarter.

 

[Blue1980]

Attacking football is know known as Freo football

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Attacking football is know known as Freo football

*Attacking football is now known as Ross Lyon Football

 

[Blue1980]

*Attacking football is now known as Ross Lyon Football

We have moved into the 4th dimension

 

[Duskfire]

Was at the ground yesterday. Despite my team playing like rubbish, and despite the low score, it was actually a much more watchable style of football. I'd actually rather an attractive low-scoring match than a constant rolling maul broken by lots of goals.

Agreed. Last year was stoppage after stoppage until a team managed to break through by sheer weight of numbers and score. There is definetly more of a flow, more if a run and carry.

The problem is that the execution wasn’t great. But all in all I thought the game is great to watch at the moment.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Everyone just needs to learn from Ross "High-Scoring" Lyon then you'll be fine.

In all seriousness, the games were much better to watch at this stage with some really good free-flowing football.

I think we'll see the average scores come up, and, even if they dont it wont matter as long as the brand stays the same as this first round which seemed more attractive to my eyes

 

[PetterdHoisted]

I've not seen anything more breathtaking than watching my Tigers team defence and attack in the last two years-swarm a contest, win the ball, then spread kamikaze-like with multiple handballs and knock-ons, sometimes for 150 m right to the goal line.

1:1 contests are fine, but nowhere near as intellectually or aesthetically pleasing as great collective play.

Anyway, I digress. I think the footy will be better this year because the AFL has introduced 6-6-6 which changes nothing but removed their previous meddling like the insane 'hands in the back' rule. Umpiring has been far les pedantic (below the knees the glaring exception) and that really changes the game for the better.

 

[Cdog71]

Hard to get a read onnit but it did look like players where blowing up at the end of quarters and fatigue = crap skills.
If thats right the teams with more preseasons in the legs will start pulling away rnd 15 and onwards

 

[caloschwaby]

Yeah I mean, at least we weren't 4.10 half way through the third quarter.

Completely different match, day, conditions, team and skill level of opposition.
Nice try at a roast haha

 

[PowerForGood]

An update after 4 rounds.

-----------
Courtesy of Swamp
sirswampthing

No team in the competition is currently averaging 100 points per game for the season (BRIS with 95.3 is currently the highest) First time since 1968 R20 that no team in the comp has averaged 100 points per game
----
My additional comments

Half the teams averaging 80 points or less per game.
Overall it's between 1-2 goals less per team per game
from 2 less scoring shots per team per game.

Now aesthetically the game might be a little better I think, however the umpiring is now really struggling to keep up with the rule changes every year inflicted on them.