The grand final has completely validated 6-6-6

Remove this Banner Ad

blitzer

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 27, 2006
7,183
8,162
House
AFL Club
Essendon
Wrong.

Scores from center bounces/clearances I believe immediately went up when the rule was introduced.
Average scores have trended down the entire time we've had 6-6-6. Its failed to achieve its stated purpose.
Obviously you could adjust 2020 for length of game time but even ignoring that season 2019 and 2021 are the lowest scoring seasons in the last decade (and i believe I read since about the 1960s).
Note: Stats based on Home and Away results because that's what i had available.

6-6-6 was inadequately tested and trialled before its implementation and they didn't properly factor in how much scoring was generated as a result of the +1 in defense leading to successful scoring chains. Yeah sure you might get some extra scores from centre clearances but its outweighed by the negative side effects.

So yeah this is why its complete rubbish to take one game, even a Grand Final and say how brilliant 6-6-6 is.

AFL Avg Game Scores.JPG
 

Log in to remove this ad.

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
9,877
13,627
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Average scores have trended down the entire time we've had 6-6-6. Its failed to achieve its stated purpose.
Obviously you could adjust 2020 for length of game time but even ignoring that season 2019 and 2021 are the lowest scoring seasons in the last decade (and i believe I read since about the 1960s).
Note: Stats based on Home and Away results because that's what i had available.

6-6-6 was inadequately tested and trialled before its implementation and they didn't properly factor in how much scoring was generated as a result of the +1 in defense leading to successful scoring chains. Yeah sure you might get some extra scores from centre clearances but its outweighed by the negative side effects.

So yeah this is why its complete rubbish to take one game, even a Grand Final and say how brilliant 6-6-6 is.

View attachment 1246445

What does the data say about scores in 2019-2021 without 6-6-6?

We don't know. It could have been a lot, lot, lower.

So we can't conclude that 6-6-6 has had no effect on scoring.
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
9,877
13,627
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
It was a devastating few minutes of footy that probably would have been halted without 6-6-6.

I like that it can give you hope that you could pull that off at some stage during the game.

On the other hand, if your defence is outmanned / injured / struggling badly it is mighty scary.
 

blitzer

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 27, 2006
7,183
8,162
House
AFL Club
Essendon
What does the data say about scores in 2019-2021 without 6-6-6?

We don't know. It could have been a lot, lot, lower.

So we can't conclude that 6-6-6 has had no effect on scoring.
So basically your counter argument is that 6-6-6 may have partially countered the continued decline of scoring (a decline which is not based on any rule changes but has been a long term trend). The thing is the scoring is still significantly lower so at best its the wet lettuce leaf of fixes and at worst its part of the problem.

I can get people saying 6-6-6 leads to a more attractivve gamestyle if they feel that way but an argument to say its been successful increasing scoring (the AFL's stated aim) is not supported by any evidence that i've seen.
 

footyfan1978

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 27, 2014
29,429
31,904
spacetime
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
there are no other teams worthy
If teams are quick and confident the 6-6-6 can definitely be exploited.
and was, beautifully.
Half forward and back flankers would often start outside 50 metre arc and so on edge of centre square, so midfielders or ruck running from centre clearance had less open space than they do now. Just strange it taken so long for any team to exploit it as well as Demons have. But you got to have weaponry for it and Dees have it in spades due to the double whammy of ruck duo of Gawn and Jackson and elite mids to go with it.
 

Always Ballin

6 foot 3, 315 pounds ★CERTIFIED LEGEND STATUS★
Jan 11, 2015
4,347
6,693
Main Forum Poster
AFL Club
West Coast
So basically your counter argument is that 6-6-6 may have partially countered the continued decline of scoring (a decline which is not based on any rule changes but has been a long term trend). The thing is the scoring is still significantly lower so at best its the wet lettuce leaf of fixes and at worst its part of the problem.

I can get people saying 6-6-6 leads to a more attractivve gamestyle if they feel that way but an argument to say its been successful increasing scoring (the AFL's stated aim) is not supported by any evidence that i've seen.
6-6-6 should be judged based on scores from center bounces. When the rule was introduced, it had an immediate impact.


POINTS FROM CENTRE BOUNCES

YEARTEAM SCORE PER GAME
201912.9 points
20189.4
201710.2
201611.1
201510.3
201410.2
201311.3
201211.7
201111.6
20109.4
200910.4
200812.2
200712
200611.5

"Last year, on average, both teams can expect to score roughly nine points from centre bounces," Scott said.

"We lost the centre bounces horribly, and that's bad enough. But then they scored 43 points from those centre bounces and we scored only 14 points.

"There are a lot of things that go into a game of footy, but that matters more than it's ever mattered in football history, I suspect. It's a huge component of the game."

North's 14 points on Sunday from centre bounces were actually above the season average of 12.9, but it was a problem because of what was happening the other way.

The scoring out of the middle is akin to what was occurring in the 2008 and 2007 seasons.

Ramming the change home further is that 16.1 per cent of overall points are coming from centre bounces.

This is up from 11.4 per cent last year, with the 2016 season's 12.6 per cent again the closest in recent times to what's happening in 2019, but still well behind.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,314
5,200
AFL Club
Collingwood
So basically your counter argument is that 6-6-6 may have partially countered the continued decline of scoring (a decline which is not based on any rule changes but has been a long term trend). The thing is the scoring is still significantly lower so at best its the wet lettuce leaf of fixes and at worst its part of the problem.

I can get people saying 6-6-6 leads to a more attractivve gamestyle if they feel that way but an argument to say its been successful increasing scoring (the AFL's stated aim) is not supported by any evidence that i've seen.
This is wrong on multiple fronts

Here is the actual official announcement of the end of 2018 rule changes




The rule changes and interpretations protect and respect the traditions of Australian Football while progressing our game,” Mr. Hocking said.

“We all want more of what makes our game great – free flowing passages of play, one-on-one contests, and players having space to play on instinct.

“These changes are about giving players the best chance to play the best game, and giving the fans more of what they love,” Mr. Hocking said.
How on earth can you claim it was the "stated aim" to increase scoring when that aim wasn't stated at all?

Increased scoring would be expected as a marginal benefit of opening the game up at the centre-bounce. There is no possible way that they would have conceived it having a massive impact on scoring.

The 6-6-6 was logically not going to massively increase scoring. All it can do is increase the chance of a score at the declining instances when centre bounces occur. A 10% increase chance of a goal due to 6-6-6 would be expected to add just 1 goal to teams' average scores. And 10% would be a massive number - Always Ballin 's table suggests for 2019 it was half of that

So the increase chance of scoring and for that matter the increased probability of overcoming a deficit late in a game (as players can't be put behind the ball at the restart) are the steakknifes of this rule change.

The whole point was to inject space into the game at the restart which it has clearly done.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,314
5,200
AFL Club
Collingwood
Hate it, what next - off side?

This is Australian Rules Football, a 360 degree game with very few restrictions on player movement. 6-6-6 is an abomination and should go along with the statue on the mark and the absurd way players stand 15 metres away on the mark when a kick out is taken after a behind.

In any case, as someone above mentioned - the AFL wanted this rule so they could have increased scores. Scores have decreased, so it failed on their own criteria.

If I wanted to watch basketball . . . I'd watch basketball.

DS

You must have been beside yourself with anger back in 1973 when the centre square was introduced
 

Always Ballin

6 foot 3, 315 pounds ★CERTIFIED LEGEND STATUS★
Jan 11, 2015
4,347
6,693
Main Forum Poster
AFL Club
West Coast
This is wrong on multiple fronts

Here is the actual official announcement of the end of 2018 rule changes




How on earth can you claim it was the "stated aim" to increase scoring when that aim wasn't state at all?

Increased scoring would be expected as a marginal benefit of opening the game up at the centre-bounce. There is no possible way that they would have conceived it having a massive impact on scoring.

The 6-6-6 was logically not going to massively increase scoring. All it can do is increase the chance of a score at the declining instances when centre bounces occur. A 10% increase chance of a goal due to 6-6-6 would ie expected to add just 1 goal to teams' average scores. And 10% would be a massive number - Always Ballin 's table suggests for 2019 it was half of that

So the increase chance of scoring and for that matter the increased probability of overcoming a deficit late in a game (as players can't be put behind the ball at the restart) are the stakeknifes of this rule change.

The whole point was to inject space into the game at the restart which it has clearly done.
Great post. It's nice to see someone on this forum who uses critical thinking when it comes to analysis. Far too many reductive arguments in this thread.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,314
5,200
AFL Club
Collingwood
Great post. It's nice to see someone on this forum who uses critical thinking when it comes to analysis. Far too many reductive arguments in this thread.

Thanks. From experience, expecting genuine critical thinking on bigfooty is an exercise in masochism. Worse, you have to put up with people with terrible critical thinking capacities lecturing on critical thinking!
 

blitzer

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 27, 2006
7,183
8,162
House
AFL Club
Essendon
This is wrong on multiple fronts

Here is the actual official announcement of the end of 2018 rule changes




How on earth can you claim it was the "stated aim" to increase scoring when that aim wasn't stated at all?

Increased scoring would be expected as a marginal benefit of opening the game up at the centre-bounce. There is no possible way that they would have conceived it having a massive impact on scoring.

The 6-6-6 was logically not going to massively increase scoring. All it can do is increase the chance of a score at the declining instances when centre bounces occur. A 10% increase chance of a goal due to 6-6-6 would be expected to add just 1 goal to teams' average scores. And 10% would be a massive number - Always Ballin 's table suggests for 2019 it was half of that

So the increase chance of scoring and for that matter the increased probability of overcoming a deficit late in a game (as players can't be put behind the ball at the restart) are the steakknifes of this rule change.

The whole point was to inject space into the game at the restart which it has clearly done.

Article from afl.com.au explaining the new rules and the expected impacts - i'll quote the most relevant part. Seems to me the AFL thought that higher scoring might be on the cards afterall.

Why all these changes in the first place?
Congestion has become a dirty word in football. It has been used to describe the steady increase in player numbers around contests in recent years, something that's been most noticeable around stoppages and when one team repeatedly locks the ball inside its forward half.

Scoring has also steadily dried up. In 2000, the average score of a team was 103 points per game, but that figure fell to a 50-year low of 83.5 points last year.

Team defensive structures and some teams' preparedness to station extra players inside their defensive 50m arcs has meant forwards are enjoying fewer and fewer opportunities to win the ball in one-on-one contests.

The League hopes its package of changes will address these issues.
 

DavidSSS

Rookie
Feb 26, 2020
37
74
AFL Club
Richmond
You must have been beside yourself with anger back in 1973 when the centre square was introduced
Quite happy actually, we won the flag after letting your lot go in the Preliminary Final for a while and then putting the foot down.

Oh, and it would have been a centre diamond back then.

I don't oppose all rule changes. I recently watched the 1967 Grand Final (great game, do yourself a favour, close all day) and I think I counted around 18 players at one centre bounce. Don't mind the centre square (the diamond was logical but didn't work as players could run in too fast from mid way along each line). Also, they changed rules far less back then and this rule was at least tried in a Carlton game a couple of years earlier (both sides agreed to abide by it, against Fitzroy I think).

I still don't want to watch basketball and what we see now is teams folding right back to defend closer to the opposition goal because of various rule changes. 6-6-6 may cut congestion for about 10 seconds but it also stops teams attacking from the back of the square.

As for the AFL not saying they want higher scores, well, they wouldn't would they? You have to read between the lines a bit. We all know that the TV stations want more goals (more ads) and that is clearly what the AFL want. That AFL is about as transparent as a brick wall painted black, citing their excuses for fiddling with the game and changing the rules every 5 seconds means nothing.

Scores are down. Not sure why scores from centre clearances is relevant to the state of the game, why are scores from centre clearances somehow better than points scored any other way?

DS
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,970
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Hate it, what next - off side?

This is Australian Rules Football, a 360 degree game with very few restrictions on player movement. 6-6-6 is an abomination and should go along with the statue on the mark and the absurd way players stand 15 metres away on the mark when a kick out is taken after a behind.

In any case, as someone above mentioned - the AFL wanted this rule so they could have increased scores. Scores have decreased, so it failed on their own criteria.

If I wanted to watch basketball . . . I'd watch basketball.

DS
You do realise the 6 6 6 rule was an unwritten rule for 130 years of the game ?

Players playing out of position is a very recent thing brought in by coaches to flood defence and kill off scoring ?

Would scores have fallen further without the 6 6 6 rule ? They have bern slowly falling for years and years.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,314
5,200
AFL Club
Collingwood

Article from afl.com.au explaining the new rules and the expected impacts - i'll quote the most relevant part. Seems to me the AFL thought that higher scoring might be on the cards afterall.

Why all these changes in the first place?
Congestion has become a dirty word in football. It has been used to describe the steady increase in player numbers around contests in recent years, something that's been most noticeable around stoppages and when one team repeatedly locks the ball inside its forward half.

Scoring has also steadily dried up. In 2000, the average score of a team was 103 points per game, but that figure fell to a 50-year low of 83.5 points last year.

Team defensive structures and some teams' preparedness to station extra players inside their defensive 50m arcs has meant forwards are enjoying fewer and fewer opportunities to win the ball in one-on-one contests.

The League hopes its package of changes will address these issues.

Soooo, the best you can find to support your "the AFL's stated claim for 6-6-6 was to increase scoring" is

1) an "explainer" written by a journalist
2) where increased scoring was the second of three objectives
3) where the entire "package of changes" was claimed would address these issues?

How about

1) an explicit objective from an AFL executive commissioner
2) where increased scoring was the objective
3) of the 6-6-6 rule in particular?

Anything? Because that is the assertion you have made repeatedly through the thread
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,314
5,200
AFL Club
Collingwood
Quite happy actually, we won the flag after letting your lot go in the Preliminary Final for a while and then putting the foot down.

Oh, and it would have been a centre diamond back then.

I don't oppose all rule changes. I recently watched the 1967 Grand Final (great game, do yourself a favour, close all day) and I think I counted around 18 players at one centre bounce. Don't mind the centre square (the diamond was logical but didn't work as players could run in too fast from mid way along each line). Also, they changed rules far less back then and this rule was at least tried in a Carlton game a couple of years earlier (both sides agreed to abide by it, against Fitzroy I think).

I still don't want to watch basketball and what we see now is teams folding right back to defend closer to the opposition goal because of various rule changes. 6-6-6 may cut congestion for about 10 seconds but it also stops teams attacking from the back of the square.

As for the AFL not saying they want higher scores, well, they wouldn't would they? You have to read between the lines a bit. We all know that the TV stations want more goals (more ads) and that is clearly what the AFL want. That AFL is about as transparent as a brick wall painted black, citing their excuses for fiddling with the game and changing the rules every 5 seconds means nothing.

Scores are down. Not sure why scores from centre clearances is relevant to the state of the game, why are scores from centre clearances somehow better than points scored any other way?

DS
Hmmmm, I think you are more than a little confused
 

HTT

B2B
Sep 13, 2015
18,503
48,171
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
You do realise the 6 6 6 rule was an unwritten rule for 130 years of the game ?

Players playing out of position is a very recent thing brought in by coaches to flood defence and kill off scoring ?

Would scores have fallen further without the 6 6 6 rule ? They have bern slowly falling for years and years.
Offside was an unwritten rule too, until one day a bright spark realised they could put ‘goalsneaks’ out the back and kick it to them. Should we implement that too?
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,970
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Offside was an unwritten rule too, until one day a bright spark realised they could put ‘goalsneaks’ out the back and kick it to them. Should we implement that too?
When was offside an unwritten rule in Aussie Rules?
 

Back One Out

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 2, 2015
16,350
28,333
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Would have been much better if it was a closer game.. the 6-6-6 actually killed the game and it was 45 mins of junk time. Nice for Dees of course but pretty boring for everyone else.
Channel 7 executives were doing cartwheels: Lots of goals... Lots of ad breaks.... Lots of money...

The game was probably over as a contest before 3/4 time thanks to the 6-6-6 rule and Melbourne's 3rd qtr centre square dominance. The Bulldogs were unable stop their centre clearance momentum, or put extra men behind the ball.

I really enjoyed watching it because I was barracking for Melbourne to end their 56 year premiership drought. For me & many others watching, it was a thrilling period of the game where the Dees broke the game apart.

However, would people have been as thrilled with the GF if it had been Hawthorn or Richmond winning their 3rd successive flag and crushing the opposition by 80 points with repeated centre square clearances? The same people would probably be whinging about the 6-6-6 rule.

Low scoring games can be a slog... Open, high scoring games can be entertaining to watch. But the lower scoring games produce many more nail-biting close contests where the result is still in doubt with a minute or two left to play.

So that's the trade off... More entertaining play vs more entertaining finishes.

You only need to look at the past Grand Finals which people rate as the best... It's always the really close ones. Even if the footy itself was scrappy and congested and neither team kicked more than 12 goals. The average footy fan thinks a shitty, locked-down, defensive close game is far better than a fast-flowing one-sided game. e.g. the Sydney v WCE Grand Finals 2005/06... the Geelong v St Kilda 2009 GF.... the Sydney v Hawthorn 2012 GF... these were scrappy dour contests with thrilling close finishes. Not many passages of great play. Lots and lots of fierce tackling and congestion... They were great contests, but was it great footy? Hmmmm. Maybe not.

People bag the Hawthorn v Freo 2013 GF, but the standard of footy was really no different to those other close Grand Finals from that era. The main difference was the sense of inevitably about a Hawthorn win: the Hawks established a lead of 4 or 5 goals in the 1st half - Freo pegged 'em back in the 3rd quarter and made it a contest, but then the Hawks burst away again and led by 5 goals early in the last quarter. Most people thought it was a shiit game... Not a "classic" Grand Final like those others basically because it wasn't an exciting game with a close finish.

-----------------------------


I really don't care about close scores, to be honest. I just like watching good footy. I'm not one of these entitled brats who demands a close Grand Final. If it's an exciting game with a heart-stopping final 2 minutes - that's awesome - I get excited like everyone else. But I don't need to see that. I'm happy to see the best team win and for the best players like Petracca and Bontempelli to strut their stuff on the biggest stage.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad