List Mgmt. Rule changes 2019

[Hammond]

much has been reported about secret trials of big rule changes

Reports suggest big changes are coming as soon as 2019

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...n/news-story/b6b29e3bfce4bd10b20c34ab6df908e4

Big big big changes

In the article there is a lot of talk about what it mean, which type of players will be advantaged and who will find themselves redundant

Which is fine on one level, but teams have built their lists based on the type of play that currently exists.

If you change the rules in a big way, the entire character of your list could be mismatched with the new type of play.

If you have signed the wrong type of player to big money, long term contracts only for the game to completely move past this type of player and list the consequences for your club are devastating

It takes years to rebuild and rebalance a list and then you have contract management and salary cap considerations

How could this be done fairly so as not to give a massive leg up to some teams and devastate others?

Teams with big bodied midfielders (less congestion) and mobile running defenders (zones) would be in trouble. If you are a slow, powerful side built for congestion you’re stuffed.

If you are a fast skilful team, with forward bigs then bonanza!

Richmond for example would become completely irrelevant again. You couldn’t play a high pressure swarming game style under these new rules

It’s all good and well to say it’s up to coaches to adapt, but that doesn’t take account of the team lists built to play a certain way.

Surely this is the biggest threat to conpetiveness and equalisation since salary cap breaches?

 

[Tyls83]

The fact that Hawthorn is going to have a massive head start in regards to this annoys, but doesn’t surprise me.

 

[Elite Crow]

much has been reported about secret trials of big rule changes

Reports suggest big changes are coming as soon as 2019

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...n/news-story/b6b29e3bfce4bd10b20c34ab6df908e4

Big big big changes

In the article there is a lot of talk about what it mean, which type of players will be advantaged and who will find themselves redundant

Which is fine on one level, but teams have built their lists based on the type of play that currently exists.

If you change the rules in a big way, the entire character of your list could be mismatched with the new type of play.

If you have signed the wrong type of player to big money, long term contracts only for the game to completely move past this type of player and list the consequences for your club are devastating

It takes years to rebuild and rebalance a list and then you have contract management and salary cap considerations

How could this be done fairly so as not to give a massive leg up to some teams and devastate others?

Teams with big bodied midfielders (less congestion) and mobile running defenders (zones) would be in trouble. If you are a slow, powerful side built for congestion you’re stuffed.

If you are a fast skilful team, with forward bigs then bonanza!

Richmond for example would become completely irrelevant again. You couldn’t play a high pressure swarming game style under these new rules

It’s all good and well to say it’s up to coaches to adapt, but that doesn’t take account of the team lists built to play a certain way.

Surely this is the biggest threat to conpetiveness and equalisation since salary cap breaches?

Paywalled, what are the rules

 

[Big Crow]

The fact that Hawthorn is going to have a massive head start in regards to this annoys, but doesn’t surprise me.

The world’s least surprising sports league again fails to surprise.

Odds on that now we’re at the point where “All clubs (have been) invited to trial potential new rules”, that not all access to trials and information will be created equal.

Also completely baffling (but not at all surprising) that one club has had not only the most exposure but also the most input into how the potential new rules might be applied.

 

[Tyls83]

Pooooholke deluxe

 

[Schulzycrow]

Get rid of Gil and his league of muppets. That’s the rule I’d like to see.

 

[Hammond]

Surprised there isn’t more said about this

https://www.heraldsun.com./sport/af...d Sun&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial

 

[Thetrader15]

Here's my two rule changes proposal

1. Instead of introducing new rules, remove all the crap changes you have made over the last 5 years which no one undetstands (especially the umpires) get back to where we were;

2. No more rules changes

 

[Betts are off]

much has been reported about secret trials of big rule changes

Reports suggest big changes are coming as soon as 2019

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...n/news-story/b6b29e3bfce4bd10b20c34ab6df908e4

Big big big changes

In the article there is a lot of talk about what it mean, which type of players will be advantaged and who will find themselves redundant

Which is fine on one level, but teams have built their lists based on the type of play that currently exists.

If you change the rules in a big way, the entire character of your list could be mismatched with the new type of play.

If you have signed the wrong type of player to big money, long term contracts only for the game to completely move past this type of player and list the consequences for your club are devastating

It takes years to rebuild and rebalance a list and then you have contract management and salary cap considerations

How could this be done fairly so as not to give a massive leg up to some teams and devastate others?

Teams with big bodied midfielders (less congestion) and mobile running defenders (zones) would be in trouble. If you are a slow, powerful side built for congestion you’re stuffed.

If you are a fast skilful team, with forward bigs then bonanza!

Richmond for example would become completely irrelevant again. You couldn’t play a high pressure swarming game style under these new rules

It’s all good and well to say it’s up to coaches to adapt, but that doesn’t take account of the team lists built to play a certain way.

Surely this is the biggest threat to conpetiveness and equalisation since salary cap breaches?

I've actually thought about who these changes would help most, and if its indeed what you say "fast skillful teams with big forwards".

Then i'd imagine the current lists that would most benefit would be;
Adelaide
West Coast
GWS
Essendon
Nth

Where-as teams that play the high pressure, swarm the ball forward tactics like;
Richmond
Collingwood
Melbourne
Port
Sydney

 

[Betts are off]

Here's my two rule changes proposal

1. Instead of introducing new rules, remove all the crap changes you have made over the last 5 years which no one undetstands (especially the umpires) get back to where we were;

2. No more rules changes

Love the irony of having 1 of your 2 proposed changes being 'No more rule changes'

Kinda like stopping to read the 'No Stopping' sign.

 

[glengowan]

The only adjustment I'd make is no more ruck nominating but if there is a 3rd man up or involved at the ruck contest - it is a free against.

 

[Thetrader15]

The only adjustment I'd make is no more ruck nominating but if there is a 3rd man up or involved at the ruck contest - it is a free against.

Sliding below the knees - gone
Ruck nomination - gone
Score review - gone if you aren't going to fund it properly
Fix HTB - it's not that hard!
Deliberate 15m rule rushed behind - gone
Unpires telling players how they are backing out and slowing down the game and creating more congestion - gone

 

[kulak]

Hard to predict what will happen but here is my guess

Bigger goal square
- increases space you need to protect on kick in after a behind
- more space to cover
- benefits quick swarming teams like Richmond
- harms slow contest winning teams like Adelaide

Starting positions
- once the initial centre clearance has happened, players will revert to their normal (congested) positions, as quickly as possible
- players will have to cover territory quickly to protect centre breaks and to get into their desired press position
- more space to cover
- benefits quick swarming teams like Richmond
- harms slow contest winning teams like Adelaide

if I am wrong and we DON’T find teams revert to their normal congestion, then there will be less clearances and contests overall, which once again benefits teams who rely on intercepts (ie Richmond, Hawthorn)

Of course it will also be hard to assess what the impact was in retrospect. Coaches will adjust strategies, teams will get better or worse for any number of other reasons.

Everyone will use confirmation bias to find the result justified their initial thought bubble, me included.

Anyway who cares, starting positions is the dumbest idea of all time, I wonder what else is on TV.

 

[AJB84]

Hard to predict what will happen but here is my guess

Bigger goal square
- increases space you need to protect on kick in after a behind
- more space to cover
- benefits quick swarming teams like Richmond
- harms slow contest winning teams like Adelaide

Starting positions
- once the initial centre clearance has happened, players will revert to their normal (congested) positions, as quickly as possible
- players will have to cover territory quickly to protect centre breaks and to get into their desired press position
- more space to cover
- benefits quick swarming teams like Richmond
- harms slow contest winning teams like Adelaide

if I am wrong and we DON’T find teams revert to their normal congestion, then there will be less clearances and contests overall, which once again benefits teams who rely on intercepts (ie Richmond, Hawthorn)

Of course it will also be hard to assess what the impact was in retrospect. Coaches will adjust strategies, teams will get better or worse for any number of other reasons.

Everyone will use confirmation bias to find the result justified their initial thought bubble, me included.

Anyway who cares, starting positions is the dumbest idea of all time, I wonder what else is on TV.

Why did they move away from starting positions at all stoppages?

If it was all stoppages then you would reduce congestion not only at the ball up but always as players would need to keep to a general area and not swarm around the ball. The compromise does nothing to fix the issues.

 

[kulak]

Why did they move away from starting positions at all stoppages?

If it was all stoppages then you would reduce congestion not only at the ball up but always as players would need to keep to a general area and not swarm around the ball. The compromise does nothing to fix the issues.

We have stoppages all the time. Players would constantly be running into and out of their starting positions. Every ball up would be delayed by 10 seconds while they all run back. Umpires watching them like a hawk and if they take too long it’s a 50m penalty. Great!!

Even better, make it permanent positions rather than starting positions. You have to have 4 players inside your F50 at ALL times. We should get the players to wear bibs so we know which ones are allowed to go where.

 

[SaltPeter]

We have stoppages all the time. Players would constantly be running into and out of their starting positions. Every ball up would be delayed by 10 seconds while they all run back. Umpires watching them like a hawk and if they take too long it’s a 50m penalty. Great!!

Even better, make it permanent positions rather than starting positions. You have to have 4 players inside your F50 at ALL times. We should get the players to wear bibs so we know which ones are allowed to go where.

Pretty sure it’s only being touted for centre bounces. Start of quarters and after goals are scored.

 

[Vader]

Pretty sure it’s only being touted for centre bounces. Start of quarters and after goals are scored.

Which begs the question - what's the point?

The rule, as originally proposed, would have significantly reduced the level of congestion. The rule, as it is now proposed, will achieve nothing whatsoever.

 

[SaltPeter]

Which begs the question - what's the point?

The rule, as originally proposed, would have significantly reduced the level of congestion. The rule, as it is now proposed, will achieve nothing whatsoever.

Clubs will place even more emphasis on winning centre clearances. Ruckman may become even more relevant along with elite mids. I’m no real fan of the change atm

 

[Vader]

Clubs will place even more emphasis on winning centre clearances. Ruckman may become even more relevant along with elite mids. I’m no real fan of the change atm

Most teams start with a 6-6-6 configuration anyway. Occasionally you'll see a 5-6-7 configuration, with a quick small forward coming off the back of the square. The only time you see anything more radical than that is in the dying minutes of a close game, when a team is desperate to defend a small lead and opts to stack their back line.

Forcing players to start in the F50 & D50 after every stoppage would mean less players around the contest, and thus less congestion. It would also mean that we'd be giving up fewer "out the back" goals (which hurt us more than most), because we'd have 3 defenders back there already.

Doing it for every stoppage could have a positive impact on the game. Doing it for centre bounces only is a complete waste of time.

 

[SaltPeter]

I don’t know what doing it for every stoppage would look like. Do the umpires wait for everyone to spread before restarting play?

 

[Vader]

I don’t know what doing it for every stoppage would look like. Do the umpires wait for everyone to spread before restarting play?

To be determined.

The one flaw with the ruck nomination rule is that they take too long. The umpires should call for nominations as soon as they're ready to go, and players have 5 seconds (or less) to respond. If nobody from one team responds in time, then that team doesn't get to contest the ruck. As it is now, they wait for the ruckmen to arrive in the contest area before calling for nominations. It's too slow.

I think they should do the same thing with the zones. If you're not in position by the time the umpire throws the ball in the air, then that's your problem - and a 50m penalty. The umpires should not be waiting for players to get into position, just get on with the game. That would force the players to be spread constantly, because stoppages could happen at any time.

 

[SaltPeter]

To be determined.

The one flaw with the ruck nomination rule is that they take too long. The umpires should call for nominations as soon as they're ready to go, and players have 5 seconds (or less) to respond. If nobody from one team responds in time, then that team doesn't get to contest the ruck. As it is now, they wait for the ruckmen to arrive in the contest area before calling for nominations. It's too slow.

I think they should do the same thing with the zones. If you're not in position by the time the umpire throws the ball in the air, then that's your problem - and a 50m penalty. The umpires should not be waiting for players to get into position, just get on with the game. That would force the players to be spread constantly, because stoppages could happen at any time.

Maybe they could make it work. Without to much thought it sounds cumbersome.

 

[Vader]

Maybe they could make it work. Without to much thought it sounds cumbersome.

It doesn't need to be cumbersome. They already have 3x umpires. It can't be that hard for them to count "1,2,3" whenever the ball goes up in the air after a stoppage. The ruck rule doesn't even need to change - just reduce the amount of time the umpires spend waiting for the ruckmen. Get on with it, and if they're not ready then that's their problem.

 

[kulak]

Pretty sure it’s only being touted for centre bounces. Start of quarters and after goals are scored.

Yes that’s what I said. You quoted my post responding to a valued forum associate who suggested it should be at every stoppage.

 

[SaltPeter]

Yes that’s what I said. You quoted my post responding to a valued forum associate who suggested it should be at every stoppage.

I did that yesterday too. I seem to be distracted reading atm