Analysis Rule Changes Discussion and Vent thread

[DanWCE]

I don’t like the sound of Simpson saying they might have to change their drafting going forward - away from ‘power athletes’ toward what I can only presume is endurance athletes.

I don’t want to see a return to drafting track and field runners like Tim Houlihan at the expense of contested strength.

Richmond are proving that a combination of an outside running game style plus contested ball winning ability = dominance.

Clearly someone like NN won’t be able to rely on so many stoppages to get his breath back, but that doesn’t mean his strength around the ball isn’t still crucial

He's just flexing publicly about how much he dislikes the interchange cap, and using the most marketable player in the game to threaten why the rule is bad.

Simmo would want to be careful. It's getting close to hub areas of complaining. Mind you, we won a flag with that kind of arrogance

 

[RookiePick]

I don’t like the sound of Simpson saying they might have to change their drafting going forward - away from ‘power athletes’ toward what I can only presume is endurance athletes.

I don’t want to see a return to drafting track and field runners like Tim Houlihan at the expense of contested strength.

Richmond are proving that a combination of an outside running game style plus contested ball winning ability = dominance.

Clearly someone like NN won’t be able to rely on so many stoppages to get his breath back, but that doesn’t mean his strength around the ball isn’t still crucial

The scary part is if Simmo thinks they have been drafting "power" athletes.

 

[FKASC]

The scary part is if Simmo thinks they have been drafting "power" athletes.

 

[RookiePick]

View attachment 1086382

Too powerful /delist

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

I know I'm late to the party on the medical sub rule, but I really don't see the point of it. It solves the problem it's trying to solve occasionally at the expense of creating new issues.

If a player rolls his ankle and the doc says he can't come back, the other side is essentially disadvantaged by you getting a fresh player to come on (leaving aside for a moment that the player going off is nearly always preferable to the sub). If an opponent can be disadvantaged by your injury it's not really having the effect it was supposed to have.

I am in favour of just allowing teams to declare that a particular player is no longer able to play and increasing their rotations for each player that is out of the game (up to 3 obviously). So if we lose a player, you get an extra 10-15 rotations or something like that. It's a simple rule that everyone can understand, and I don't see that it's really going to be open to abuse - opposing sides can hardly argue that they are disadvantaged by you exercising that option if you have to lose a player to get it.

Not sure if that possibility has been mentioned by other people as I've hardly kept up with the discussion over the off-season but this thing is such a frustratingly typical rule change by the AFL.

 

[TY24]

time for me to have a whinge

The 6/6/6 rule has been in place for a whole season now.

Get rid of the warning for breaching it and just pay a free kick. There’s zero excuse for teams not being aware of it now.

You don’t get a warning for any other infringement.

 

[ioppolo]

time for me to have a whinge

The 6/6/6 rule has been in place for a whole season now.

Get rid of the warning for breaching it and just pay a free kick. There’s zero excuse for teams not being aware of it now.

You don’t get a warning for any other infringement.

Climbing up the goal post

 

[Bender_]

Umps need to get onto calling play-on far quicker with this new rule. Guy just standing there while the kicker just runs past him is embarrassing for the game.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Uncontested aerial ping pong is how I would describe the footy we have seen this year so far. Bruise free circle work against an opponent doing the same thing. Not happy what they have done to our sport but it is what it is, a hybrid version of Aussie Rules Football.

 

[RookiePick]

Uncontested aerial ping pong is how I would describe the footy we have seen this year so far. Bruise free circle work against an opponent doing the same thing. Not happy what they have done to our sport but it is what it is, a hybrid version of Aussie Rules Football.

Except for all the blokes getting KO'd.

Kicking, marking, KPP showing their wares one out. Getting to laugh my ass offbat sides that can't kick for shit too(looking at you St Kilda).

Beats the arse off rugby mauls imo.

 

[Ok Boomer]

I prefer aerial ping pong over the slogs we witnessed in 2020 which killed my love for footy. Defensive structures will get better during the season.

 

[DanWCE]

In regards to the aerial ping pong in a smaller sense, I don't recall a single knock-on or volleyball type paddle coming off for us at all today. Duggan tried a few from memory and butchered them all. Think we need to leave the champagne footy tricks to Ryan.

Some of the boys must be hyper sensitive to getting caught HTB. Just need to learn how to drop it in a tackle to avoid a stoppage and the umps will let it go.

 

[Bender_]

In regards to the aerial ping pong in a smaller sense, I don't recall a single knock-on or volleyball type paddle coming off for us at all today. Duggan tried a few from memory and butchered them all. Think we need to leave the champagne footy tricks to Ryan.

Some of the boys must be hyper sensitive to getting caught HTB. Just need to learn how to drop it in a tackle to avoid a stoppage and the umps will let it go.

They got their technique from Sam Mitchell smashing the gatorade our of their hands; sure it was great for proving a point but it wasn't very accurate.

On a serious note there did seem to be more taps in this one game (from us) than I can remember in any other, and I'd say maybe 33% came off. Maybe the coaching staff told them that they were up against a quick tackling team and not to take time and space for granted.