Starting positions, bigger goalsquare a step closer

[giggler99]

AFL rule changes 2018: Grant Thomas slams 18m goal square as ‘absurd’, congestion
MICHAEL WARNER, Herald Sun
4-5 minutes
EX-ST KILDA coach Grant Thomas says the AFL’s proposed 18m goal square is an “absurdity” that will do nothing to ease congestion.

The league’s powerful Competition Committee meets in Melbourne today to press ahead with plans to make significant “game adjustments” for next season.

An extended 18m goal square (up from 9m) and six-six-six starting positions after goals are among serious options being trialled at lower levels under the eye of AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking.

AUSSIE RULES: A HISTORY OF RULE CHANGES

FUTURE OF FOOTY: WHEN TO CHANGE RULES?

Will an 18m goal square fix congestion? Picture: Getty Images
EXPERIMENT: HAWKS TRIAL STARTING POSITIONS

ROUNDTABLE: HOW RULE CHANGES CAN IMPROVE GAME

Thomas yesterday likened the lengthened goal square to “egos on golf committees making unnecessary changes so that they can tell their siblings that they put that bunker there”.

He said the move would forever change the aesthetics of Australian Rules and be rapidly exploited by coaches.

“It’s just an absurdity,” Thomas told the Herald Sun.

“The first thing I would like to understand is why? Everyone is going to play on and why wouldn’t you when the man on the mark is 23m away from you?

“And the coaches are going to say, ‘Thanks Steve Hocking, thanks Gill (McLachlan), you’ve just given us another reason to get back into the war room and work out ways to take advantage of that extra 14m you’ve given us’.

“If they think having 23m between the bloke on the mark and the bloke kicking the ball in is going to do anything for congestion, they don’t understand the game.

“And if they’ve spoken to AFL coaches about whether this will work or not and they say it will, they are bullsh*ting them and piddling down their back and telling them it’s raining, because they’ve already got another solution for it - they are one step ahead of them.”

Macca’s take on the 18m goal square.
Almost 90 per cent of the game’s 820 players said they opposed an increased goal square in a recent Herald Sun-AFL Players’ Association survey.

Thomas said the proposed rule changes were knee-jerk reactions to negative game styles that typically dominate the first half of seasons.

“I’m just trying to understand the rationale in wanting to change a game that has its problems early in every year because of coaching paranoia,” Thomas said.

“Fearful coaches who are too afraid to lose to win, playing a terribly brand of defensive football, and then everything opens up and one half of the competition are striving to play finals and the other to get draft choices.

“It keeps getting expenionally better as we get closer to finals … culminating in the prelims and Grand Final, which are just amazing games of football because they play the right style.

Coburg and Werribee trialled an 18m goal square in the VFL earlier this season. Picture: Tony Gough
“We’ve heard nothing but positives about the brand of football in the last couple of months.

“Is Steve Hocking feeling so insecure and so in need of attention that he has to make these incredibly dramatic changes that bear no resemblance to the game we know?

“Is this for Steve, is this for Gill or is it for the competition? Why are they doing this?”

Thomas said the root cause of congestion was being overlooked.

“The reason we have congestion isn’t from kicking behinds and having kickouts - the reason we have congestion is strategy, tactics and most importantly a poor interpretation of one rule - holding the ball,” he said.

“The causes of congestion are coaches who apply an unbelievably negative brand of football, but enough good coaches realise that if you are going to win a premiership, you’ve got to have the right balance between offence and defence.”

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...e/news-story/abe706a7d445dc52b14f6931f6f24609

 

[smasha]

All because Richmond won a single premiership.
The Charles Trevalyning of Richmond has started once again.

 

[giggler99]

Kick outs from 18m out is going to really open things up after a point, which is obviously the idea, but it will lead to more rushed behinds.

especially when matches are close late in games, but not to worry the brains trust at AFL house will just come up with another knee jerk rule change to counter the rushed behinds.

 

[The 747]

All because Richmond won a single premiership.
The Charles Trevalyning of Richmond has started once again.

Yeah it's all because of Richmond. I hear the game will be called RFL from next year.

 

[tony__montana]

Yeah it's all because of Richmond. I hear the game will be called RFL from next year.

The carry on from your moron coach after the granny last season where he stated "do we really want to watch that type of football be successful as supporters?" probably didnt help

 

[Gongswan]

limit tackles to strictly one on one, and throw teh ball up quick if there is ever a stoppage, maybe even a protected zone around teh boundary throw ins, congestion, gone, well, partly

 

[Suma Magic]

How close can the opposition get to the sides of the goal-rectangle?

 

[Rob]

So I wonder what rule change they'll bring in when coaches exploit these new rule changes and make the game more boring?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That or simply get the umpires to start umpiring the rules we already have rather than creating new rule books. There's nothing wrong with the rules, it's how the umpires decide which ones they are going to enforce and which ones they aren't which is the problem

Their reluctance to ball it up or pay holding the ball is what creates congestion. Waiting for 5 or 10 seconds to see if the ball will come out when they could blow the whistle and ball it up is ugly viewing.

What they really should do is reduce the amount of players on the ground but for some reason that seems sacrosanct even though it wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on the actual play of the game.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Anyone who thinks a 18m goalsquare will be good are kidding themselves, as soon as a team kicks out from 18 to a contest and then gets done on the turnover from the resultant open D50, guess where the next kick out will go, thats right into the pocket to the unmarked player 15m away on the boundary line.

******* clowns have this imaginary cartoon in their heads and think it will become reality when it actual fact they will be complaining that these stupid rules have not worked out how they imagined they would and everyone will just go " no s**t sherlock "

Congestion wont be solved, there will be no increase in scoring, scores from centre bounces wont increase, teams will go gun shy and be instructed to keep kicking to the safe option from a kick out.

 

[Tulip]

Steve Hocking is a c u next tuesday.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Shannon Hurn is going to lead the comp in inside 50s from kick outs.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The AFL will focus on tightening up the way the ball is disposed of, with Hocking saying the rule book was often clear but interpretations drifted over time.

Players who take possession but do not have the ball knocked out of their hands or attempt to get rid of the ball will be penalised regardless of whether they have prior opportunity and the AFL is expected to crack down on incorrect disposal.

This has the makings of absolute disaster written all over it. So prior opportunity will no longer exist? If you are tackled you just need to throw/drop the ball to ensure play continues but if you are tackled the second you possess the ball and are unable to get a kick or handball away you'll be pinged. This is going to be a farce.

 

[The 747]

The carry on from your moron coach after the granny last season where he stated "do we really want to watch that type of football be successful as supporters?" probably didnt help

Well if he is a moron coach why would anyone be listening to him? Not everything is actually about Richmond you know.

 

[calyam]

This season was the lowest scoring season in 50-years. Average scoring is down almost 7 per cent on last season and almost 10 per cent on five seasons ago.

It is absolutely no surprise that they are tinkering with the rules. The only saving grace this season has been the relative evenness of the competition, if you combine these scoring numbers with blowouts then the competition would be almost unwatchable.

I doubt that the 6-6-6 rule will have much of an impact simply because most teams already adhere to some variation of this and because low scoring football reduces the importance of the centre bounce. A soft-zone utilised at all times would actually reduce congestion because it tackles the problem at its source: too many players are around the ball.

If the AFL was really serious though they'd introduce a turnover when the ball goes out of bounce (to speed up play), the super goal (so defenders have to defend far more space), while also instructing umpires to adjudicate forwards in the same manner they do midfielders (forcing defenders to beat forwards on their merits). A 3-player soft-zone would then be used to drag players away from the ball and create more space offensively, while simultaneously making it more difficult for defensive teams to successful zone.

 

[giggler99]

Big reward for the other team missing a goal. Behinds will be strikes like frees against

Imagine the pressure kicking for goal!

 

[Milanista28]

The 6-6-6 set up will be the only thing that comes in so they can justify their committee lunches and meetings, It won't make a difference and it will look identical.

 

[Saint12]

Almost 90 per cent of the game’s 820 players said they opposed an increased goal square in a recent Herald Sun-AFL Players’ Association survey.

The other 10% are the kicker inners

 

[Happy Mastenator]

This is purely the fault of the media hacks that drove the game is in crisis narrative in the first half of the season.

They’ll be the ones now complaining about the proposed changes.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Reduce interchanges and pay holding the ball if ball is not disposed properly even with no prior

 

[Gydafud]

I wouldn't have minded if they just made it an arc instead of extending the square. Put an 18m arc but leave the goal square as it is.

 

[tigertigertiger]

Oh hellllll no to a bigger goal square! Let’s ban tackling and remove scores everyone gets trophies after every game ect ect too angry face emoji

 

[Teagueeee15]

This has the makings of absolute disaster written all over it. So priority opportunity will no longer exist? If you are tackled you just need to throw/drop the ball to ensure play continues but if you are tackled the second you possess the ball and are unable to get a kick or handball away you'll be pinged. This is going to be a farce.

I can just picture a situation where the ball is in dispute and two players look at each other waiting for the other to pick it up so that he can tackle him. I’m guessing the hack kick of the ground will become pretty popular.

 

[beema limapep]

This is purely the fault of the media hacks that drove the game is in crisis narrative in the first half of the season.

They’ll be the ones now complaining about the proposed changes.

well said

 

[Struggle]

Why bother with a longer goal square, just have a kick off spot 25m out for the man on the mark. Do marks from 18m out on a slight angle now get moved directly in front too? Ball ups if they step over the line at 18m too?