Rules The AFL has introduced rules that goes against sporting integrity

[TheOptimum18]

People will call me a salty Richmond supporter, but I will stand by what I'm about to post.

Recent rule changes completely goes against sporting integrity. How? With 2 different rules: the stand rule and the 6-6-6 rule.

AFL is the only sport in the world that I know of that limits what coaches can do from a tactical perspective, and as such, manipulates the way teams can play to produce a certain result.

Melbourne is currently the best team in the competition, not purely down to their defense, but also because they are the best ball movement team in the competition at the moment.

A lot of speculation (rightly or wrongly) suggested that the reason why the 6-6-6 and the stand rule was brought in was to stop Richmond. Do I subscribe to that? Partly. But, I'm going to give the AFL the benefit of the doubt, and trust their word that the main reason they brought in these two rules was to reduce congestion, to improve ball movement and to increase scoring, as the "look" of the game didn't look 'right'.

Now, whether or not the AFL was right to think that isn't here nor there, nor is using hindsight to say that the rules have worked as an argument to support these two rule changes. What I, as a sporting fan, cannot condone or accept is the governing body of a sport dictate how coaches should instruct their players to play.

If the AFL wanted less congestion, better ball movement and increased scoring, what they shouldn't do is to set in stone rules to achieve this goal. Ultimately, it should be left to the coaches of each team as to how they want to play, whether that is to set up 6-6-6, 7-6-5, 5-6-7, 8-6-4, etc. or whether its to aggressively stand the mark or not. These parts of the game should not, and never should be influenced by what is meant to be an impartial body.

 

[hcd199]

I greatly dislike both of the rules you're referring to, and have voiced my criticisms of them both on here plenty; I think they're both fundamentally retrograde moves, inherently flawed in attempting to cudgel the sport into a 'traditional' form it never previously had, and the notion that the sport is better for narrowing the tactical options available is quite simply incorrect. In general, I think the AFL is completely wrong-headed in their constant attempts to engineer an aesthetic for the sport, and the experience of watching the game is poorer overall as a result of their efforts.

But your idea, that the governing body of a sporting code shouldn't alter the laws as required to tweak the way the game works, makes no sense either. There's no 'integrity' concern in adding rules that limit what players can and can't do, that's literally what laws of the game are for - just like the limitation on the number of fielders you can have behind square on the leg side in cricket, previously there wasn't a prohibition, then the governing body decided there should be, and now there is, and that "limits what coaches can do from a tactical perspective" and "manipulates the way teams can play".

Or, for an Australian rules example, consider the introduction of a minimum distance the ball had to travel through the air for a clean catch to be considered a mark. The governing body has to be able to adjust those rules to, at a minimum, ensure the contest continues to be fair - that there aren't loopholes the exploitation of which could fundamentally ruin the code. Coaches, as always, work out their tactics within (and sometimes nudging up against) the rules of the sport; the league doesn't "dictate how coaches should instruct their players to play".

 

[footyfan1978]

your idea, that the governing body of a sporting code shouldn't alter the laws as required to tweak the way the game works, makes no sense either. There's no 'integrity' concern in adding rules that limit what players can and can't do, that's literally what laws of the game are for - just like the limitation on the number of fielders you can have behind square on the leg side in cricket, previously there wasn't a prohibition, then the governing body decided there should be, and now there is, and that "limits what coaches can do from a tactical perspective" and "manipulates the way teams can play".

Or, for an Australian rules example, consider the introduction of a minimum distance the ball had to travel through the air for a clean catch to be considered a mark. The governing body has to be able to adjust those rules to, at a minimum, ensure the contest continues to be fair - that there aren't loopholes the exploitation of which could fundamentally ruin the code. Coaches, as always, work out their tactics within (and sometimes nudging up against) the rules of the sport; the league doesn't "dictate how coaches should instruct their players to play".

Well said.
Really stupid title to thread.
Richmond fan looking for excuses is the crux of his post it would seem.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

People will call me a salty Richmond supporter, but I will stand by what I'm about to post.

Recent rule changes completely goes against sporting integrity. How? With 2 different rules: the stand rule and the 6-6-6 rule.

AFL is the only sport in the world that I know of that limits what coaches can do from a tactical perspective, and as such, manipulates the way teams can play to produce a certain result.

Melbourne is currently the best team in the competition, not purely down to their defense, but also because they are the best ball movement team in the competition at the moment.

A lot of speculation (rightly or wrongly) suggested that the reason why the 6-6-6 and the stand rule was brought in was to stop Richmond. Do I subscribe to that? Partly. But, I'm going to give the AFL the benefit of the doubt, and trust their word that the main reason they brought in these two rules was to reduce congestion, to improve ball movement and to increase scoring, as the "look" of the game didn't look 'right'.

Now, whether or not the AFL was right to think that isn't here nor there, nor is using hindsight to say that the rules have worked as an argument to support these two rule changes. What I, as a sporting fan, cannot condone or accept is the governing body of a sport dictate how coaches should instruct their players to play.

If the AFL wanted less congestion, better ball movement and increased scoring, what they shouldn't do is to set in stone rules to achieve this goal. Ultimately, it should be left to the coaches of each team as to how they want to play, whether that is to set up 6-6-6, 7-6-5, 5-6-7, 8-6-4, etc. or whether its to aggressively stand the mark or not. These parts of the game should not, and never should be influenced by what is meant to be an impartial body.

That deliberate/insufficient out of bounds rule and sliding tackle rule are also abominable and should be scraped. Horrible to see players giving away free kicks for having their heads over the ball.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

AFL is the only sport in the world that I know of that limits what coaches can do from a tactical perspective, and as such, manipulates the way teams can play to produce a certain result.

Literally every sport does this.

 

[TheOptimum18]

But your idea, that the governing body of a sporting code shouldn't alter the laws as required to tweak the way the game works, makes no sense either. There's no 'integrity' concern in adding rules that limit what players can and can't do, that's literally what laws of the game are for - just like the limitation on the number of fielders you can have behind square on the leg side in cricket, previously there wasn't a prohibition, then the governing body decided there should be, and now there is, and that "limits what coaches can do from a tactical perspective" and "manipulates the way teams can play".

Or, for an Australian rules example, consider the introduction of a minimum distance the ball had to travel through the air for a clean catch to be considered a mark. The governing body has to be able to adjust those rules to, at a minimum, ensure the contest continues to be fair - that there aren't loopholes the exploitation of which could fundamentally ruin the code. Coaches, as always, work out their tactics within (and sometimes nudging up against) the rules of the sport; the league doesn't "dictate how coaches should instruct their players to play".

Note:
I don't follow cricket at all, so wouldn't be able to comment


Just to clear up and responde to a few point:

• The limits that are placed on players (ie. not being allowed to throw the ball) is a basis and structure as to how to play the game. Its the fundamentals that make up a game. Hard to explain this point, but you should understand what I mean be this.
• The laws of the game SHOULDN'T dictate how a coach should be able to setup tactically within the laws of the game. For example, if coach A decides to play 7-6-5, there's nothing stopping the coach B to play 5-6-7 to equal all 3 lines. However, if coach B tries to use a 6-6-6, and doesn't work well against coach A's tactic, we shouldn't be restricting what coach A is able to do to make it 'look fair'. Same can be said for the stand rule.
• I watch European football a lot, and a clear parallel between the minimum distance for a mark rule in the AFL can be made with the pass back to the goalie rule in European football. But the one fundamental thing they both do is to ensure fairness. This rule that you mention regarding minimum distance a player can kick isn't a tactical weapon that coaches can employ in matches. It goes under the firstpoint of fundamentals that construct a game of AFL. Neither the 6-6-6 rule nor the stand rule does.
• If we didn't have the 6-6-6 rule or the stand rule, we would still recognise what a game of AFL looks like. It doesn't break what people like to call the fabric of the game. If you take away the handball or the mark, that fundamentally changes what our game looks like.

the league doesn't "dictate how coaches should instruct their players to play"

And just to be more specific on this point. My main point is that the AFL has told coaches that they can't play a certain way; they MUST set up a certain way and players MUST defend certain situations in a specific manner.

You don't see the Premier League telling clubs that they MUST play a 4-4-2, do you. Or you don't see the Premier League telling clubs that the goalkeeper MUST stand behind the wall at freekicks, do you.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Literally every sport does this.

Not in the way the AFL has.

The closest example I can think of is this:

Do you see a world in which the Premier League:

• Forces clubs to always play a 4-4-2?
• Forces goalkeepers to always stand behind the wall at direct freekicks?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Not in the way the AFL has.

The closest example I can think of is this:

Do you see a world in which the Premier League:

• Forces clubs to always play a 4-4-2?
• Forces goalkeepers to always stand behind the wall at direct freekicks?

Probably not those specific rules, because there’s no push for them. But they have played around with the offside rule and the back-pass rule.

NFL is extremely prescriptive about who can stand where and who’s allowed to be passed the ball.

Cricket has introduced rules about how many fielders you can have behind square leg and how many bouncers you can bowl, to stop sides tactically bowling a heap of short pitched balls.

Basketball introduced the keyway to stop tall players from just stationing themselves under the basket.

That’s just the sports I know a bit about.

 

[TheTassieHawk]

You don't see the Premier League telling clubs that they MUST play a 4-4-2, do you. Or you don't see the Premier League telling clubs that the goalkeeper MUST stand behind the wall at freekicks, do you.

At the commencement of each half and after each goal the 2 sides in a match of world football must start in their own half.

This is broadly consistent with a 6-6-6 in AFL as thereafter the required restriction is removed.

I agree though the 6-6-6 is a unneeded time waster and that the AFL is conflicted as rule setter and overseer of the one professional men’s comp in the world.

That is very different to professional (world) football where onfield rule changes are agreed at FIFA level then applied worldwide.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Probably not those specific rules, because there’s no push for them. But they have played around with the offside rule and the back-pass rule.

NFL is extremely prescriptive about who can stand where and who’s allowed to be passed the ball.

Cricket has introduced rules about how many fielders you can have behind square leg and how many bouncers you can bowl, to stop sides tactically bowling a heap of short pitched balls.

Basketball introduced the keyway to stop tall players from just stationing themselves under the basket.

That’s just the sports I know a bit about.

And all of those rules that you've mentioned sounds like a fairness rule first and foremost.

The two rules that I can talk confidently about is offside and the back pass rule.

Is there a tactical element that is being removed? Of course. But the bigger question is, is it fair? If those two rules aren't put in place, is it fair? Is it fair to have goal hanging if there was no offside rule? Is it fair if you can waste 10, 20, 30 minutes of game time by back passing to the keeper?

Then ask yourself the same question with 6-6-6 and the stand rule. Is there an element of unfairness if a team chooses to play 7-6-5? Is there an element of unfairness if a team chooses to aggressively man the mark?

 

[Taylor]

A coach playing three spare back defending a ten point lead with five minutes to go doesn't make for a good show.

You can argue that the interchange restriction was more of a target at Collingwood than 6-6-6 is against Richmond

 

[TheOptimum18]

At the commencement of each half and after each goal the 2 sides in a match of world football must start in their own half.

This is broadly consistent with a 6-6-6 in AFL as thereafter the required restriction is removed.

I disagree. The more apt comparison is forcing teams to start in a 4-4-2.

There are fundamental differences between the way both games start which dictates how the two games start. The big one is the ball up at the start of quarters/after each goal. If, like in football, AFL teams started off with the ball already in their possession, and didn't need to compete for a 50/50 ball in a ruck contest, then your comparison is more apt.

Cause similarly, being forced to play a 4-4-2 doesn't mean it stays that way the whole game. As an Arsenal supporter, we start off in a 4-3-2-1, but that can change to a 4-3-3, or a 3-4-1-2, where the restriction is also removed.

My use of the 4-4-2 as the example is more the fact saying Premier League clubs are forced to play 4 defenders, 4 midfielder and 2 forwards, the same way AFL clubs are told they need to play 6 defenders, 6 midfielders and 6 forwards.

 

[TheOptimum18]

A coach playing three spare back defending a ten point lead with five minutes to go doesn't make for a good show.

You can argue that the interchange restriction was more of a target at Collingwood than 6-6-6 is against Richmond

But the AFL shouldn't mandate a change so its a better show. Thats not what rules are meant to be used for.

Also, what's stopping the opposition to match the 3 defenders with 3 forwards? Or try and outnumber the opposition at the contest so that they are more likely to win the ball, and either have a shot from 50m, or find a 1v1 contest inside the fwd50? I remember back in 2017 this was exactly what Fremantle was able to do against Richmond, so it is not impossible to do.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

And all of those rules that you've mentioned sounds like a fairness rule first and foremost.

The two rules that I can talk confidently about is offside and the back pass rule.

Is there a tactical element that is being removed? Of course. But the bigger question is, is it fair? If those two rules aren't put in place, is it fair? Is it fair to have goal hanging if there was no offside rule? Is it fair if you can waste 10, 20, 30 minutes of game time by back passing to the keeper?

Then ask yourself the same question with 6-6-6 and the stand rule. Is there an element of unfairness if a team chooses to play 7-6-5? Is there an element of unfairness if a team chooses to aggressively man the mark?

Not all rules are about fairness. Some are there to make the game more attractive.

The AFL brought in rules like the stand rule and the 6-6-6 rule to speed the game up and improve scoring. In the same way that basketball introduced a shot clock and cricket banned overly negative bowling.

You can argue about their effectiveness and whether they were warranted. But don’t try to say the AFL has done something unprecedented in the history of sports. It’s so far from that it’s not funny. Every sport plays with its rules, every sport’s coaches try to work around the rules.

 

[Taylor]

But the AFL shouldn't mandate a change so its a better show. Thats not what rules are meant to be used for.

Also, what's stopping the opposition to match the 3 defenders with 3 forwards? Or try and outnumber the opposition at the contest so that they are more likely to win the ball, and either have a shot from 50m, or find a 1v1 contest inside the fwd50? I remember back in 2017 this was exactly what Fremantle was able to do against Richmond, so it is not impossible to do.

Why shouldn't a team be allowed to send two ruckmen up with ten followers under him?

 

[TheOptimum18]

Not all rules are about fairness. Some are there to make the game more attractive.

The AFL brought in rules like the stand rule and the 6-6-6 rule to speed the game up and improve scoring. In the same way that basketball introduced a shot clock and cricket banned overly negative bowling.

You can argue about their effectiveness and whether they were warranted. But don’t try to say the AFL has done something unprecedented in the history of sports. It’s so far from that it’s not funny. Every sport plays with its rules, every sport’s coaches try to work around the rules.

Again, the cricket negative bowling thing is about fairness, cause as the batsman, you're physically unable to stop or counter the negative bowling. As the batsman, you are left with no options.

In AFL, if a team swings one behind the ball, you have the option to match that spare defender with one of your own players. In regards to standing the mark, a team can also aggressively stand the mark as well. There are options for the opposition coach to counter these kind of situations.

And AFL aslo has a shot clock, so not sure what your point on the basketball is about.

I don't think anyrule you can mention is about purely about making a game looke more attractive. Any rule I can think of has either a fairness element to it, or a safety element to it.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Why shouldn't a team be allowed to send two ruckmen up with ten followers under him?

At centre bounces, the 6-6-6 rule.

At around the ground stoppages, the ruck nomination rule stops the 2 ruckmen (which I understand and accept), but nothing stops them from having 10 followers, if coaches are willing to leave either forwards or defenders unmarked in the fwd and def 50 areas.

 

[CheapCharlie]

The 6-6-6 rule would be unfair if it only applied to some teams and not all teams.

As it is, the rule has worked well and keeps games open

 

[TheOptimum18]

The 6-6-6 rule would be unfair if it only applied to some teams and not all teams.

As it is, the rule has worked well and keeps games open

It shouldn't be the AFL mandate rules to make the game as such, and the sporting organisation should never implement rules that should influence how a game looks. Their only job is to make sure the rules are fair for all teams, doesn't break the fundamentals of the game and ensure player safety. That is all.

 

[CheapCharlie]

It shouldn't be the AFL mandate rules to make the game as such, and the sporting organisation should never implement rules that should influence how a game looks. Their only job is to make sure the rules are fair for all teams, doesn't break the fundamentals of the game and ensure player safety. That is all.

Fundamentals of a game?
How has the 6-6-6 rule changed any of the fundamentals?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It's an entertainment product (arguable a gambling product also, but that's another story), like all sports.

The Premier League would change rules in a heartbeat if people were switching off.


The UFC had to change the rules of their version of MMA just so they could actually show it on TV. Basketball changed their rules a lot, and significantly. Cricket the same. All sports do it, and for the same reasons - to keep people watching. The AFL had to make changes, because the product was becoming pretty shit, and people were dropping away. Not in huge numbers, but in the key metrics that the AFL care about.


I can't stress this enough....the only way to protest this stuff is to stop watching. You can whinge about it all you want, but if crowd numbers remain high and people are still watching, then the AFL don't give a shit what you think.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

is that you, Falcon?

 

[kickazz]

AFL is the only sport in the world that I know of that limits what coaches can do from a tactical perspective

All sports do this, it's called rules?

Most sports change their rules also, and is not corruption, it is about watchability of the game, and to perhaps a lesser extent, an attempt to support the foundation principles of how the game should be played. All games still evolve, some governing bodies let it go more than others.

 

[smasha]

Richmond got another new rule added to their rulebook.
Balta tells the umpire I am going for goal which he is 200 percent in his rights to do,Umpire says no and calls play onwhich is ridiculous and so Balta confused .plays On and gets tackled by Gawn.

We have a different rulebook.

And everyone wonders why we get so worked up?

That's just one incident.

 

[Spearman]

Richmond got another new rule added to their rulebook.
Balta tells the umpire I am going for goal which he is 200 percent in his rights to do,Umpire says no and calls play onwhich is ridiculous and so Balta confused .plays On and gets tackled by Gawn.

We have a different rulebook.

And everyone wonders why we get so worked up?

That's just one incident.

that's cause the Tigs are the orcs of the AFL

I remember the NBA before the 3 point shot, everyone thought it was a ABA style gimmick.
I've watched football my whole life, recently commanded less of my attention and when I looked in last year I noticed rules changes to kickoffs; kickers were just sending out of the endzone each time. In the past, around the same time as the NBA 3 pointer, the NFL changed how the defense could manhandle receivers, to open up the game IIRC. Probably led to the west coast offense of the 80s.

My biggest issue with AFL changing rules is that they don't seem to do much trialing. You'd think they'd use some prototype rule in a competitive local league just to see reactions and issues.