Zorko enjoys playing under potential new rule changes

[Carringbush2010]

Chipping around in the back half is an easy fix. All backwards kicks are play on and there is a shotclock forcing teams to score or it will be turned over.

Ok in that scenario those teams will just chip it around until the shot clock is up instead, that would mean most of match time would be wasted by teams chipping it around because they don't want to lose possession as a result they're outnumbered up field as a result of coaches snubbing the zone rule to have more numbers behind the ball.

Coaching panels have been doing this for more than a decade now. Enforcing zones by penalizing with a free will be reacted to by teams giving up a free to have more numbers in defence.

It won't work.

 

[Mr Magic]

The changes I want could easily see the return of a Lockett type or Daicos type. If no changes are made those players will never have made it.

Basically I am saying whatever rule changes come should be about increasing the entertainment of the product , not decreasing it. And me and you probably realize the Locket and Daicos types made aussie rules interesting back in the day and we would want players who have abundant skills but maybe not the fastest still able to play the game at the highest level.

If we make no changes at all then we are stuck with these cardio players who can run all day and that is about it.

I think there is a lot of speed players that do little else to to be honest

 

[Carringbush2010]

All they would do is pay the free and after it the players will have to go back to the zoned area anyway. If they arn't in it in a certaint time they give 50.

If that's the case, teams will leave their arc 50 players in the arc to avoid having to run to and from each stoppage and risk a 50 - that's the definition of zoning. May as well have an offside rule.

Could you imagine an offside rule and zoned positions in footy?

The fans won't go for it.

 

[eastfreo75]

The AFL have gone to a lot of trouble to throw a smoke screen around helping Hawthorn cheat.

 

[Smartest Brain]

Ok in that scenario those teams will just chip it around until the shot clock is up instead, that would mean most of match time would be wasted by teams chipping it around because they don't want to lose possession as a result they're outnumbered up field as a result of coaches snubbing the zone rule to have more numbers behind the ball.

Coaching panels have been doing this for more than a decade now. Enforcing zones by penalizing with a free will be reacted to by teams giving up a free to have more numbers in defence.

It won't work.

How will breaking the shot clock benefit the team? They lose the ball. It means if teams DO decide to waste time they have a limit on it, unlike now where they can go forever if their skills are good enough.

 

[Carringbush2010]

How will breaking the shot clock benefit the team? They lose the ball. It means if teams DO decide to waste time they have a limit on it, unlike now where they can go forever if their skills are good enough.

And if they do try and break the lines they're outnumbered upfield, teams won't want to give up possession. So how would this work?

There's only one to do so, by forcing zoning by the nature of the game to even up the numbers at any contest i:e arc players will stay in the arc players to avoid running to and from stoppages all day and avoid giving up frees and 50's by not getting back to their arc in time.

Do we really want to see zoning in footy? I don't

 

[Smartest Brain]

And if they do try and break the lines they're outnumbered upfield, teams won't want to give up possession. So how would this work?

There's only one to do so, by forcing zoning by the nature of the game to even up the numbers at any contest i:e arc players will stay in the arc players to avoid running to and from stoppages all day and avoid giving up frees and 50's by not getting back to their arc in time.

Do we really want to see zoning in footy? I don't

I want to see zones in footy because the game should have dedicated forwards and defenders. The mids and rucks can roam. I want to see the contest return.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I want to see zones in footy because the game should have dedicated forwards and defenders. The mids and rucks can roam. I want to see the contest return.

We already have contest and dedicated forwards and backs and like I've said ad nauseum you don't need zones to reduce congestion.

Zoning has never been part of the code and one of the reasons the game is so unique.

All you need to do is speed up the stoppages, how do we do that?

• At any stoppage ball it up or throw it in immediately, forget ruck noms. Teams should have the onus to have a ruck ready. Extra man up? Pay a free, if no team has extra players up or both have an extra of the same amount - play on.
• If no prior, what normally happens is the umps wait for a wrestling match to ensue. If there is no chance of disposal blow the whistle immediately and ball it up immediately
• If prior, what normally happens is that a player is tackled 360 and or incorrectly disposes. Don't wait for a 360 tackle, if there's prior and a player is caught and does not dispose immediately or illegally. Blow the whistle immediately and pay the free immediately

The bottom line is speed up the stoppages using the umpires and the current available rules. Zoning is a bit dramatic and isn't necessary.

 

[branedotorg]

kicking in from 25m? nice torp and you'll score at the scg

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

If that's the case, teams will leave their arc 50 players in the arc to avoid having to run to and from each stoppage and risk a 50 - that's the definition of zoning. May as well have an offside rule.

Could you imagine an offside rule and zoned positions in footy?

The fans won't go for it.

You realise that is exactly what they want. It could encourage forwards to stay at home because they could get a free if there is a stoppage it's up to the defenders what they do. Players can do what ever they want but if they arnt back in time than that's on them. Most players could run 60-70m in the ten or so seconds it takes to throw the ball up anyway.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You realise that is exactly what they want. It could encourage forwards to stay at home because they could get a free if there is a stoppage it's up to the defenders what they do. Players can do what ever they want but if they arnt back in time than that's on them. Most players could run 60-70m in the ten or so seconds it takes to throw the ball up anyway.

It may be what HQ want, but do the fans? Treading a very fine line, introducing zones is a very dramatic measure and is a little reactionary for mine and may drive the fans away.

Most players are of course able to run in the time to their zone, but how often? What if there is a stoppage and then another immediately, how often do we expect these players to run to and from stoppages all day? The answer is they won't leave their arcs for the most part and by extension creating permanent zones.

That's just not footy!

I'd be interested to see a poll of for and against.

 

[Smartest Brain]

We already have contest and dedicated forwards and backs and like I've said ad nauseum you don't need zones to reduce congestion.

Zoning has never been part of the code and one of the reasons the game is so unique.

All you need to do is speed up the stoppages, how do we do that?

• At any stoppage ball it up or throw it in immediately, forget ruck noms. Teams should have the onus to have a ruck ready. Extra man up? Pay a free, if no team has extra players up or both have an extra of the same amount - play on.
• If no prior, what normally happens is the umps wait for a wrestling match to ensue. If there is no chance of disposal blow the whistle immediately and ball it up immediately
• If prior, what normally happens is that a player is tackled 360 and or incorrectly disposes. Don't wait for a 360 tackle, if there's prior and a player is caught and does not dispose immediately or illegally. Blow the whistle immediately and pay the free immediately

The bottom line is speed up the stoppages using the umpires and the current available rules. Zoning is a bit dramatic and isn't necessary.

Yeah this what you suggested will do very little. For some reason you think it is some big game changer but it is not. Rethink it, this time with logic.

 

[Mr Magic]

It may be what HQ want, but do the fans? Treading a very fine line, introducing zones is a very dramatic measure and is a little reactionary for mine and may drive the fans away.

Most players are of course able to run in the time to their zone, but how often? What if there is a stoppage and then another immediately, how often do we expect these players to run to and from stoppages all day? The answer is they won't leave their arcs for the most part and by extension creating permanent zones.

That's just not footy!

I'd be interested to see a poll of for and against.

Arguably the Pies where helped with rotations and then Hawthorn by extending older players and getting them in via FA 3-peating while the expansion teams where accumulating. The older teams where caught out when rotations where cut.

This is after the manipulations via Cola and draft/trade manipulations over amateurs where exhausted when the draft came in after Hawthorn benefited from zoning.

If these new rules come in it 2019 will be about which strategy the best coach can come up with the new methods including manipulating the type of player mix they have to suit whatever new style they come up with to beat the new rule set-up.

Individual match ups likely will have little to do with 2019 premiership as the players will be under coach instruction anyway and movement patterns could be very foreign to opposition players. In fact the first six weeks will be all about opposition analysis. Moreover other methods could be kept secret until finals where new game styles get introduced so opposition coaches have little time to react so 2019 will become a coach strategy play if the new rules come in then! It may also mean, apart making the finals, the home and away becomes irrelevant in terms of a precursor to which is team likely to win the premiership with teams playing ducks and drakes beforehand.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

In theory I support the starting points at stoppages but we can’t be holding up the game to wait for players to get back to starting points.

Perfect opportunity for Channel 7 to sell 10 second time slots for adverts!

Afterall, they are the drivers behind all this "the game is broken rubbish"

But, you know, we want to imrove the flow of the game like introducing stupid rules like nominating ruckmen!

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah this what you suggested will do very little. For some reason you think it is some big game changer but it is not. Rethink it, this time with logic.

Disagree, if the game is moved on immediately in a stoppage the congestion will ease because there is less time for traffic to arrive there.

 

[Mr Magic]

Disagree, if the game is moved on immediately in a stoppage the congestion will ease because there is less time for traffic to arrive there.

The other thing is if it gets moved on quicker from congestion teams may counteract by having less around the stoppage and some further down the field in a defensive position or even offensive position if they are confident meaning even less congestion.

The biggest issue with congestion is umpires not being diligent with holding and dropping the ball as skill gets put aside for speed and frenetic play.

In fact teams actually rely on a lack of umpire decisions in the way they play the game by impeding consistently because they know umpires do not want to be labelled as giving out to many frees and having to big of an influence on the game. this became obvious where KPP contests until the players adjusted. But in the rolling maul players still believe umpires will back off giving free kicks and rely on that particularly at the end of the game.

The trouble comes when umpires seem to play favourites especially with high profile players and appear to get preconceived ideas around the stoppages and the link with midfielders and the brownlow does not help either!

 

[Topkent]

If the AFL want a fundamental change that won't change the fabric too much they should consider a limit on successive handballs. So say 3-5 handballs by your team and then you have to kick it. Coaches will leave players forward because you have to have an option to kick too.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The other thing is if it gets moved on quicker from congestion teams may counteract by having less around the stoppage and some further down the field in a defensive position or even offensive position if they are confident.

And that's exactly what both the fans and HQ want, and as you say zoning is not required to achieve it. Moving the game on immediately at stoppages whether it be a ball up, boundary throw in or free kick / mark will achieve that.

There was another poster on another forum who suggested that at a mark or free kick, at the moment opp players have too much leeway to slow the play down i:e standing over the player and not letting them up to take their kick / handball. Yet players are pinged for being 9 metres inside the exclusion and not 10. That is very inconsistent

When it's obvious that the penalized / outmarked player is deliberately preventing the paid player to take their possession (and it is obvious) a 50 should be awarded. That would help stamp out this practice and move the game on quicker.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Whether by zoning or speeding up stoppages, there's no doubt we'll see more high speed collisions. Purely as a result of less congestion.

Then what? Will HQ bring in new rules to counteract that? If so what will they be?

Or

Will the AFL grow a pair and make participants sign an indemnity ensuring no legal recourse will come as a result of playing the game? Time to grow up AFL, it's a contact sport and all the players know the risks they undertake.

Stop pandering to the minority and let the game take it's natural course.

 

[scoman]

Hahaha wtf? Does this bloke just kill a Brisbane bloke every year?

Yes unfortunately. I believe its in his contract.

 

[Power Raid]

I like the bigger goal square concept but the issue is, kicking a point is punished more than an attacking team kicking out on the full.

The positive though is the AFL identify there is an issue. The negative is we are looking at netball for the solution.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

There is nothing wrong with the game, changing rules wont make one difference in fact it will make it look stupid, we have 9 games a week and there are good games, there are bad games, there are fast games, there are slow games, what are peoples obsession with wanting games played at breakneck speed, that will only make players more tired than they currently get.

Kick in straight away after a behind and reduced interchanges were meant to somehow make the game faster, umm hello McFly reducing the interchange rotations makes players more tired and thus slower as the game progresses and playing straight on after a behind contributes to this. Wanting to fasten the game up and make it more open will tire players out quicker and oh i dont know cause congestion.

Instead of complaining about the game maybe people should just watch it and enjoy the 9 different versions we get every week instead of wanting all 9 games played the same way, it doesnt happen like that in any sport let alone on a massive field we play on.