The 2019 kick-in rule destroyed the forward press

[Always Ballin]

Looking back, it's been a really good rule change.

Teams used to be able to zone up and press -- the kicker was lucky to get 5m from the goal square playing on.

Long kicks were lucky to clear 60 metres.

But now?

That long ball can consistently reach 60-70m...

And it makes ALL the difference.

Defenses cannot afford to load up in the FWD 50 so strongly.


Everyone still pushes up, but it's man to man... And the flood happens more in the midfield during the kick ins.

The old style forward press worked because you could squeeze the kick-in man.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

I think it was more the end of having to do that weird little kick to your self before playing on, that really slowed down the kick out.

 

[theyellowsash]

But didn't scoring go down last year on average, which was the point of the rule changes?

 

[blitzer]

I thought the kick-in rule was great. The 6-6-6 rule didn't work though because the AFL didn't correctly evaluate how important having an extra + 1 in defense was for offensive chains. The AFL don't have the cajones to admit they stuffed up big time with 6-6-6 though.

 

[Blue1980]

I thought the kick-in rule was great. The 6-6-6 rule didn't work though because the AFL didn't correctly evaluate how important having an extra + 1 in defense was for offensive chains. The AFL don't have the cajones to admit they stuffed up big time with 6-6-6 though.

6-6-6 doesn’t achieve anything. I was for it but yeah it’s pointless.

Most high scoring footy is from quick movement from defence to attack anyway.

 

[Do the Dew]

I thought the kick-in rule was great. The 6-6-6 rule didn't work though because the AFL didn't correctly evaluate how important having an extra + 1 in defense was for offensive chains. The AFL don't have the cajones to admit they stuffed up big time with 6-6-6 though.

I think it was brought up on AFL 360 last year that teams weren't scoring as much from their defensive half when 6-6-6 was in place. An ex-player mentioned that often a team will win a clearance but just grub it forward, where the extra defender can get their hands on the ball and start running forward with numbers. It was a really interesting point that sometimes having an extra in defense isn't just about defending, but also about rebounding quickly from a stoppage.

Of course Whateley and co dismissed it completely because it didn't fit their narrative. I haven't heard them bring it up once since because it contradicts their thinking.

 

[TryAnHit]

I think it was brought up on AFL 360 last year that teams weren't scoring as much from their defensive half when 6-6-6 was in place. An ex-player mentioned that often a team will win a clearance but just grub it forward, where the extra defender can get their hands on the ball and start running forward with numbers. It was a really interesting point that sometimes having an extra in defense isn't just about defending, but also about rebounding quickly from a stoppage.

Of course Whateley and co dismissed it completely because it didn't fit their narrative. I haven't heard them bring it up once since because it contradicts their thinking.

That is correct... Adel is 2017 was the highest scoring team and super attacking and we played majority 8 6 4....

The 6 6 6 has achieved nothing

 

[PorcelainBus]

1 minute left and a goal in it and the 6-6-6 is good i reckon?

 

[HTT]

When you consider that probably the biggest user of the press won the premiership the year it was brought in, no.

All it does is make the turnover move back 5 or 10m. Which makes scoring off the turnover marginally more difficult. But scoring off the kick in no easier.
When you consider the point of the rule changes was to increase scoring, and scoring has only gone down markedly since the introduction, it’s clear they’ve been an absolute failure and evidence we shouldn’t listen to the dinosaurs who insist it was ‘better back in my day’.

 

[boncer34]

1 minute left and a goal in it and the 6-6-6 is good i reckon?

In theory yes.

But I think in reality with no 666, as mentioned above, the kick either gets scrubbed forward or an extra man behind streams past for the ball.

If it's a scrubbed kick then whether you have extra blokes flying for that isn't as big a problem as the AFL made out. And with 666 it's impossible to have that unmanned player coming from behind.

 

[Luv_our_club]

The kick-in rule pushed zones backward to the midfield.

This is one reason why teams are doing better against the Tigers - teams now let the Tigers have the ball on the HBF, and they wait to defend when the Tigers attack from there.

It has also led to less scoring, because the zone is partly a forward 50 flood now.

 

[Billy ray]

whatever happened to the huddle for kick-ins?

 

[Always Ballin]

If y'all can't see this, then IDK what to tell you. You must not remember the true forward press.

It's evidently clear watching this game right now. Both Port and Melbourne have had easy transitions from kick-outs.

 

[Dazzler9]

whatever happened to the huddle for kick-ins?

Zoning?

 

[Billy ray]

Zoning?

I wonder what the opposition would do if a team huddled up. Would they stay n their zone formation?

 

[Dazzler9]

I wonder what the opposition would do if a team huddled up. Would they stay n their zone formation?

The Flying 'V' would succeed every time.