Starting positions, bigger goalsquare a step closer

[Chrispiesssss]

The free will be from where the 8nfringement happened. Ie top of the goal rectangle as it can no longer be considered a square, how do you reckon a rabid Richmond/ pies/ west coast crowd will take that?

Especially after a few ales

Why wouldn’t a winger just step into the forward 50? Free kick in their forward 50. Now the ball is 150 meters away from goal.

The defending team floods the backline.

 

[mxett]

Cant get my head around what the increased goal square distance will do. Other than slightly increase the distance of the defences zone. Just seems pointless.

If its to improve scoring ability. Fk it. Its a poor reason. Look at soccer. They average one goal a game. The less goals the more there cherished. The less goals, the closer the games will be, and higher the tension.

The 6-6-6 rule i dont mind. Assuming it reduces congestion and alows for more one on one duals. The halycon days of seeing a jacovic on a carey type combatting was pure joy. But if your going to bring in the 6-6-6 rule. Why stop it at centre bounces. Surely theres enough time to introduce it for all rushed behinds as well with out holding up the game.

they described it on SEN. Current stats show teams are twice as likely to lock the ball into their forward 50 arc after kicking a behind, and then score again. This is essentially rewarding the team that kicks a behind. The larger square will mean the full back can essentially reach either wings or down the middle of the ground with a long kick. Therefore this will spread the defensive zone because more areas need to be protected. This will reduce congestion from kickins and make it easier for teams to exit the defensive 50.

 

[Ron The Bear]

That's the biggest load of garbage I've read in a while. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RICHMOND!!!!!!!!!!!

FFS

Just my opinion, not saying I’d argue it in a courtroom. Richmond was blamed for congestion at the outset of the media crusade.

 

[Ron The Bear]

they described it on SEN. Current stats show teams are twice as likely to lock the ball into their forward 50 arc after kicking a behind, and then score again.

Almost sounds like this change is designed to reduce scoring.

 

[Mr Magic]

they described it on SEN. Current stats show teams are twice as likely to lock the ball into their forward 50 arc after kicking a behind, and then score again. This is essentially rewarding the team that kicks a behind. The larger square will mean the full back can essentially reach either wings or down the middle of the ground with a long kick. Therefore this will spread the defensive zone because more areas need to be protected. This will reduce congestion from kickins and make it easier for teams to exit the defensive 50.

The game is supposed to reward a team for a point, to create spread in the forward line to allow more goals and creativity. If the point is not rewarded defences will clog up the guts and no goals will get scored so big forwards have no chance and the game will become a half court style like basketball!!

If the goal square was 18 metres in pluggers day he would struggle to kick 100 goals for sure!!

 

[mxett]

Did you even listen to hockings justification?

Quote. To prevent repeat 50 entries by teams that bring forward pressure , and this is a whateley inspired move,

You probably played footy as a kid , in primary school , perhaps high school , perhaps even at a club

Whateley didn’t even play in primary school and now he is formulating rules about something he has no “ feel” for.

Just the way it looks

It’s all about the vibe.

no, it's about the style of game that coaches have slowly introduced where pressure on the ball carrier through sheer numbers around the ball causes errors. Then once the turnover occurs it is very difficult for the other team to get the ball back out of their defense due to zoning. Tis has created a low scoring, frustrating, error riddled stalemate.

This isnt against Richmond, it's an attempted solution to tactics employed for years and by numerous sides. In fact it is such a successful style that if the opposition dont employ a similar tactic they just cannot win

 

[mxett]

The game is supposed to reward a team for a point, to create spread in the forward line to allow more goals and creativity. If the point is not rewarded defences will clog up the guts and no goals will get scored so big forwards have no chance and the game will become a half court style like basketball!!

If the goal square was 18 metres in pluggers day he would struggle to kick 100 goals for sure!!

the reward for a behind was too great. I mean it's a missed shot at goal. Allowing the offensive team to keep the ball in their forward line for ages.

As for Plugger, if he was up the other end of the ground the ball is more likely to get down to him because it wont be as easy to lock the ball in the oppositions forward 50

 

[Ron The Bear]

no, it's about the style of game that coaches have slowly introduced where pressure on the ball carrier through sheer numbers around the ball causes errors. Then once the turnover occurs it is very difficult for the other team to get the ball back out of their defense due to zoning. Tis has created a low scoring, frustrating, error riddled stalemate.

This isnt against Richmond, it's an attempted solution to tactics employed for years and by numerous sides. In fact it is such a successful style that if the opposition dont employ a similar tactic they just cannot win

Is that how you'd characterise the great Hawthorn or Geelong teams?

Hawthorn used to seek behinds to the opposition, to the extent they rushed 11 of them in the 2008 GF and precipitated a rule change.

 

[Mr Magic]

the reward for a behind was too great. I mean it's a missed shot at goal. Allowing the offensive team to keep the ball in their forward line for ages.

As for Plugger, if he was up the other end of the ground the ball is more likely to get down to him because it wont be as easy to lock the ball in the oppositions forward 50

This argument lacks substantiation.

A missed shot is a shot on goal that was taken. Do you want players to keeping holding it and go back and wait for the perfect shot like soccer? Soccer has less goals than AFL does it not and no goals in soccer???

Furthermore, by allowing more value in the point defences spread out giving more opportunity for forward lines to penetrate and kick goals allowing the likes of Plugger to have more space to mark and kick a lot of goals. With a point having value defences have incentive at the margin to protect the likelihood of a point as well as a goal and not just the goal which would condense defensive set-ups.

Your argument makes no sense because the ball would not get down to plugger because the opposition would hold on to it for longer before taking a shot like in soccer!!

No one is allowing the ball to stay in their forward line, it just requires skilled defences to get it out rather than a baby sitting subsidy to assist bad defensive types. Such a new rule would bring in ultra defensive type defenders to inhibiting goal scoring because less attacking flair would be required out of the backline for defenders because they are getting babysittered bringing the ball out via the 18 metre goal square!! In the ultra extreme scenario five extremely defensive defenders and others would just shut down the forwards centrally in particular and the sixth defender has a long boot to clear 18metres plus 60 metres etc.. to move it on quickly up to their own forward line after a point has been scored.

By definition if the defense gets a subsidy that has to make it harder for the opposing forward line to compete including kicking goals!!

 

[SunshineBoy]

This argument lacks substantiation.

A missed shot is a shot on goal that was taken. Do you want players to keeping holding it and go back and wait for the perfect shot like soccer? Soccer has less goals than AFL does it not and no goals in soccer???

Furthermore, by allowing more value in the point defences spread out giving more opportunity for forward lines to penetrate and kick goals allowing the likes of Plugger to have more space to mark and kick a lot of goals. With a point having value defences have incentive at the margin to protect the likelihood of a point as well as a goal and not just the goal which would condense defensive set-ups.

Your argument makes no sense because the ball would not get down to plugger because the opposition would hold on to it for longer before taking a shot like in soccer!!

No one is allowing the ball to stay in their forward line, it just requires skilled defences to get it out rather than a baby sitting subsidy to assist bad defensive types. Such a new rule would bring in ultra defensive type defenders to inhibiting goal scoring because less attacking flair would be required out of the backline for defenders because they are getting babysittered bringing the ball out via the 18 metre goal square!! In the ultra extreme 5 scenario extremely defensive defenders and others would just shut down the forwards centrally in particular and the sixth guy has a long boot to clear 18metres plus 60 metres etc.. to move it on quickly up to their own forward line after a point has been scored.

Correct it will narrow the game

 

[vanders]

I've been a member since 92, sat through wooden spoons and almost merging, travelled interstate and barely missed a game in Melbourne in the last 20 years. All the rule changes do my head in and I've already lost so much interest in footy over the last 6 or 7 years. Even during the 3peat I didn't enjoy footy as much. If these new zones and goalsquare come in they might just lose me for good.

 

[iluvparis]

That's the biggest load of garbage I've read in a while. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RICHMOND!!!!!!!!!!!

FFS

Yup - its sad that even intelligent posters like RTB think this is actually a legitimate reason the changes are being made. The rules change because Richmond kool aid drinkers are approaching the Bombers saga levels

 

[mxett]

Is that how you'd characterise the great Hawthorn or Geelong teams?

Hawthorn used to seek behinds to the opposition, to the extent they rushed 11 of them in the 2008 GF and precipitated a rule change.

and the rule change was appropriate because a team used a tactic that wasnt in the spirit of the game and wasnt a good look for the game. If the rule change didnt occur the tactic would have become widespread.

Congestion has been getting worse for years, and the AFL have tried to address it unsuccessfully with small changes. The huge drop in ratings shows the public are losing patience. The timing may be unfortunate for Richmond but changes are needed for the health of the game overall

 

[mxett]

I've been a member since 92, sat through wooden spoons and almost merging, travelled interstate and barely missed a game in Melbourne in the last 20 years. All the rule changes do my head in and I've already lost so much interest in footy over the last 6 or 7 years. Even during the 3peat I didn't enjoy footy as much. If these new zones and goalsquare come in they might just lose me for good.

you've lost interest due to rule changes and not how the game is being played?

 

[Hawthorn United]

Correct it will narrow the game

I've read you post this a few times now, but can't see it yet. Having the longer goal square will allow kicks to make it to the wings, so teams attacking have more space to kick to, rather than just within the 50m arc.

So teams defending the kickins have bigger space to cover.

 

[mxett]

This argument lacks substantiation.

A missed shot is a shot on goal that was taken. Do you want players to keeping holding it and go back and wait for the perfect shot like soccer? Soccer has less goals than AFL does it not and no goals in soccer???

Furthermore, by allowing more value in the point defences spread out giving more opportunity for forward lines to penetrate and kick goals allowing the likes of Plugger to have more space to mark and kick a lot of goals. With a point having value defences have incentive at the margin to protect the likelihood of a point as well as a goal and not just the goal which would condense defensive set-ups.

Your argument makes no sense because the ball would not get down to plugger because the opposition would hold on to it for longer before taking a shot like in soccer!!

No one is allowing the ball to stay in their forward line, it just requires skilled defences to get it out rather than a baby sitting subsidy to assist bad defensive types. Such a new rule would bring in ultra defensive type defenders to inhibiting goal scoring because less attacking flair would be required out of the backline for defenders because they are getting babysittered bringing the ball out via the 18 metre goal square!! In the ultra extreme 5 scenario extremely defensive defenders and others would just shut down the forwards centrally in particular and the sixth guy has a long boot to clear 18metres plus 60 metres etc.. to move it on quickly up to their own forward line after a point has been scored.

No, the square change will allow the ball to travel to both ends of the ground more easily than being locked into 1 half like we currently see. The zoning has become such a successful tactic the rules need to change to allow freer ball movement. I'm sick of watching 36 players within 60 metres of the ball. The game has a lot of players on the ground compared to other sports, but this was reasonable given the size of the ground. Allowing all of them to follow the location of the the ball continuously has resulted in a very unappealing sport

 

[Mr Magic]

Correct it will narrow the game

Well it should narrow defences making it more difficult to score goals!!

 

[mxett]

Well it should narrow defences making it more difficult to score goals!!

it hasnt changed scoring difficulty

 

[QuietB]

I really have no idea how we actually got to this point.

How did we get here?

Unlimited interchange with 4 on the bench. That is how but nobody wants to talk about it.

In my opinion the current interchange limit barely makes any difference.

I would love to see a trial with modern teams and reserves only - no interchange. The entire game would change. I have no idea why it is never discussed - 4 on the bench is the single biggest change that has ever been made to the game.

 

[Mr Magic]

No, the square change will allow the ball to travel to both ends of the ground more easily than being locked into 1 half like we currently see. The zoning has become such a successful tactic the rules need to change to allow freer ball movement. I'm sick of watching 36 players within 60 metres of the ball. The game has a lot of players on the ground compared to other sports, but this was reasonable given the size of the ground. Allowing all of them to follow the location of the the ball continuously has resulted in a very unappealing sport

You are assuming defenders will worry about transition in the middle unlike a basketball game.


Who cares if it travels easier??? They are trying to score more goals and defensive set-ups will occur within the 80 metre arcs no matter how the transition occurs. Your pros are irrelevant and if anything will promote more clustering especially against goals scorers. The game does not provide scoring for ball transition through the midfield!!

If anything defensive teams will drop transitional defense like in a basketball defense and converge at and beyond the 60 metre arc.


If the opposing defense and midfields get a subsidy why compete against that in transition? It makes no sense. Better to wait in your defensive 60 metre line like a 3 point circle in basketball and who cares how they bring it to the forward area?

 

[mxett]

Unlimited interchange with 4 on the bench. That is how but nobody wants to talk about it.

In my opinion the current interchange limit barely makes any difference.

I would love to see a trial with modern teams and reserves only - no interchange. The entire game would change. I have no idea why it is never discussed - 4 on the bench is the single biggest change that has ever been made to the game.

the counter to this argument is it will encourage teams to only draft endurance athletes. I think this argument has merit, although like you I would like to see it trialled.

 

[Mr Magic]

it hasnt changed scoring difficulty

What are you talking about??? Scoring from the same distances at more acute angles from narrower defenses makes it harder to score backed by science!!

 

[mxett]

You are assuming defenders will worry about transition in the middle unlike a basketball game.

not sure what you mean here. Can you explain this?

Who cares if it travels easier??? They are trying to score more goals and defensive set-ups will occur within the 80 metre arcs no matter how the transition occurs. Your pros are irrelevant.

defending an 80 metre arc will be far more difficult than a 60m arc. Given the field is an oval the further way the defense is forced from the goals the more spread out the defensive zone will become, resulting in less congestion.

If the opposing defense and midfields get a subsidy why compete against that. It makes no sense. Better to wait in your defensive 60 metre line like a 3 point circle in basketball and who cares how they bring it to the forward area?

no idea what this is about

 

[mxett]

What are you talking about??? Scoring from the same distances at more acute angles from narrower defenses makes it harder to score backed by science!!

why will scoring be from more acute angles? Why will the defense be narrower?

 

[Mr Magic]

why will scoring be from more acute angles? Why will the defense be narrower?

You don't get it do you? This is the problem.

Please just a moment. I will come back and explain why defenders defend and how forwards try to score goals, I just need a moment for a break.