The 15m Kick

[Pessimistic]

It was refreshing to see an AFL official on TV talking frankly and honestly without bull****, stonewalling, spin or putting down the questioner.

The sooner demetriou is CEO the better in my view.

But they did wash over the proposer 15m minimum kick before a mark can be played. They went on and on about fring rules and flooding but I would like to see more discussion on the kick.

Andrew's rationale was that it's the same distance they can run with the ball. But there is no mention yet of the effect it is hoped it will have on the game.

My concern is that it will assist the flooding team and hinder the attacking team. Short kicks have been used as a counter to flooding yet they will be taken away.

Take two senarios.

1. Defensive flooding - Currently the defensive team floods or sets up a zone defence in its own 50m arc. The attacking team can chip it around until it sees a way through or have a long bomb from 50m out.
If the minimum distence is to be 50% longer then perhaps the zone will be able to be extended over 50% more of the ground. A smart team might now be able to flood teh entire back half of the ground and perhaps even the centre square. Hence not only are short kicks outlawed as a counter, but long bombs on goal impossible too.

They will trial it in the ansett cup but has anyone seen flooding used in the ansett cup ? It may not be a true test. I can see terry wallace working on his new strategy right now.

2. Kick outs from full back - Already hard for the defending team. Often it spends ages trying to get out - very boring football. Again the team defending can cover more area. They say hey will allow the kicking out team to kick in sooner but whats to stop the players who only kicked a point with thelast shot making sure every shot goes into the crowd ? The crowd might be quicker and slower returning the ball depending on its bias. Hacing your cheersquads at both ends of the ground would be a distinct advantage.

Perhaps the onus should be on poicing the current rules effectively and consistently before radical changes. If they umpired closer to the letter then flooding etc might not be as effective

 

[GOALden Hawk]

I don't think it's really that radical a change...5m isn't a huge difference. But I'm surprised after all their talk about not tampering with flooding they have suddenly rushed out this rule all of a sudden.

Still, I think it will work OK, may lead to a small increase in contested marks.

Good to see the melee and kicking out rules are to be changed as well.

I'm still unsure what purpose the 6m centre circle does, seemed to be a total failure in this years Ansett Cup to me.

 

[happy hawker]

95% of kicks are more than 15m.

A waste of time!.

 

[topdon]

Actually, watching the news last night, all the kicks they showed in their highlights package went more than 15 metres anyway.

I don't know if changing this rule was really necessary. They're just tinkering with a rule that is totally based on an umpires 'perception' of a distance. I'm sure you have seen players run more than 15 metres without a bounce, and i am sure you've seen kicks travel no more than 7-8 metres (being awarded a mark).

I get nervous when the rules committee get together. Although it was good to see that Demetriou acknowledged the counter arguement when talking about 'throwing-up'. Our game is based on the unpredictability of the football, the bounce is no different. If you want to make the game so predictable, why not revert to a round ball?