HOW DANGEROUS??

[DavidSSS]

A lot of the rule changes Big Richo mentions are reasonable.

The angle from the goal square one always got me back in the day anyway, could never understand why it was the case.

The out of bounds is an interesting one. In the 1930s you had a lot of big marking forwards taking speccies, think Pratt and his ilk, partly because they had a last touch rule on the out of bounds and teams would go down the middle more. I don't like the last touch idea, we see it in the middle of the ground in Women's AFL and it doesn't work. Technically there was deliberate out of bounds after about 1968 but it was so strict you would see it paid maybe twice a year (I think I saw it paid in the 1973 Prelim). The deliberate out of bounds is quite good. Also remember, out on the full has only been a free since about 1968 (watch the 1967 GF!). Leave the out of bounds rules as is, just more consistency on the rulings would fix the issues.

The ruck is a difficult one, I really hate the nominating business but it is there to address a real issue. Having watched the 1973 PF last night it was noticeable how there were a lot less ball ups or at least a lot less scrums back then, maybe this is part of the problem. Actually watch the throw ins at an old game too, it was immediate, sort of solved the ruck nomination problem, rucks were often running down the ground and the ball was already thrown in.

I did like the old unreliable, all over the place, bounces. Added some colour to the game! I can see why they changed it though. Keep the bounce after a goal and at the start of the quarter though, it is part of the game, maybe just let it rip and not recall any crap bounces.

6-6-6 is a crap rule. Didn't do what it was supposed to do. I reckon it takes away from one of the unique aspects of Australian Rules Football - it is a 360 degree game and there are no set positions and especially no offside. Get rid of it.

The kick to yourself business was always a bit of a farce, play on from the kick in doesn't worry me. In fact, this is an example of where the AFL compromised. Remember they were talking about an 18m goal square, that would just be silly. The play on from kick in was a much better way to sort any issue.

But look at the current proposals:
Last touch out of bounds: see above.
18m goal square: see above
Starting positions at all stoppages: with the number of stoppages these days? Fogetaboutit, also, see above re the 6-6-6 rule.
Reduced tackling: WTF?
Challenge for goal reviews: um, no. Just leave it up to the umpires and don't stuff up the reviews.
Shorter quarters: they already shortened them once, enough! Also, remember when they shortened the quarters some years ago, they changed the rules about time-on to be stricter, so the quarters weren't really shortened because stopping the clock happens more often with the stricter interpretation of when the ball is in play.

As I said earlier, leave it alone.Most of the rule changes have reflected reality or changes in the game. The current proposals are attempts to change the game, not responses to certain aspects of the evolution of the game.

DS

 

[BrisTiger24]

Also appears that the push is on now for a night grand final.
The AFL using this virus as a mask to implement the changes that they want going forward is infuriating.

This is about the only thing I can cope with. Good opportunity to trial a night GF particularly with the timing around cox plate etc.

Everything else they can GAGF. Leave the game alone

 

[Tigers of Old]

Contact below the knees. Important rule for safety, often misunderstood. Tick.

How many players are really injured this way? I don't like this as it penalises the player who attacks the ball and puts themselves at risk.

Vehemently agree with you here Ant.
The 'slide' rule is the worst rule in footy.
Someone is more likely to get their neck broken the way players are now asked to approach the contest than have a knee or ankle affected.
Completely anti football this rule.

The 6-6-6 rule & bigger goal squares led to the lowest scores in 50 years. Massive fail.
But hey let's persevere..

Have not even considered reducing the interchange back to 90s levels or be extremely reticent to approach it. Seems an obvious change.

Most other things don't worry me that much.

 

[DavidSSS]

I think the no third man up rule actually made it work with Grigg in ruck. We knew it was a predictable contest so we could set up to counter their structure and make sure the clearance was under pressure to allow us to create turnovers.

That's an interesting one. We often don't win centre clearances, but we make sure that when the opposition do, it is a crap clearance under heaps of pressure and hence a rubbish entry into their forward line. The most obvious example of this is a counter-example: In the 2018 PF we lost the clearances, but, far more critically, Collingwood were getting clean clear opportunity and quality delivery into their forward line - you allow that and you are stuffed.

But on the game evolving front, which actually relates to rules and hence the topic at hand, Richmond have worked out that losing centre clearances is viable with the right game plan, players and strategy. Rules should not change to counter this, there is nothing wrong with the game evolving, rules should only change if there is a problem caused by the game's evolution, or a rule has become silly (such as no play on at the kick in).

Change for the sake of it is what really pisses me off.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

It's pretty common for teams to be outnumbered at stoppages though so structurally that's not a stretch. If they know someone like Natanui is going to give clean ball to their mids 15 times then it's huge. Clearance stats aren't a great indicator in themselves but clean clearance and scores from clearance are huge.

I think the no third man up rule actually made it work with Grigg in ruck. We knew it was a predictable contest so we could set up to counter their structure and make sure the clearance was under pressure to allow us to create turnovers.

If we had the option to go third man up then we would have a totally different game and who knows what would have happened.

Outnumbered? Still a man down than they would have been if a third man goes up. If they already had an advantage works out better for them, serves the other side right for not getting bodies to the stoppage. What's the problem you are trying solve?

Grigg scenario. Absolutely. Smart coaches make rules and players and scenarios work to their advantage. But it still meant a big player missed out when Grigg went into the ruck, so the intention of the rule (if that's what it was) was already moot.

Yeah we'll never know, but I'd still back our 2017 side to win the ball or tackle the man. And we shouldn't judge rules as being good because they advantage us.

 

[Quickdraw]

As TBR said, I liked the Substitute rule. Thought it added an element of interest over the mind numbing rotations.

Don't really like the ruck nominations but the explanations of why we have it make sense. We don't want to lose the art of ruckwork or see the demise of the big lugs. Too bad that it looks like an under 11's rule.

Still on the nominations, they could fix the rule a bit. Pretty sure I've seen instances where a team was too slow to nominate someone, so the ump wouldn't allow anyone from that team to contest. What's that about? I understand that once a bloke says he's up then you shouldn't be able to change it, but this seems over regulation.

And what about the success of the bigger goalsquare or 6-6-6 rules? Disgraceful that these seem to have been thought bubbles rather than the result of some detailed analysis and a trial period (in VFL, SANFL & WAFL etc). It'd be interesting to see a journalist ask a few questions about it, but the media sycophants are to p!ss weak.

Stop changing the rules and just get the decisions more consistent.

The AFL have been very slow to adapt technologies that will help with the goal line issues (and maybe boundary deliberations). Cricket is probably the leader with multiple camera angles, ball tracker, stump cam, stump mics etc. Yes it's a different game but cricket has had this stuff for years (and continues to innovate). The AFL were dragged kicking and screaming to end up buying a Commodore 64, operated by a Luddite.

Yes these technologies are expensive, but now we have some idea why they have dragged their feet, they're broke from spending their money on morons in suits.

 

[Number8]

The current proposals are attempts to change the game, not responses to certain aspects of the evolution of the game.

Spot on. There's a lot of goodwill around responding to the game's evolution with rules and interpretations that improve the watchability of the game but tinkering with its unique characteristics is hard to swallow.

Great changes include:

• Deliberate out of bounds
• Minimum 15-metre kick for a mark to be awarded
• Goal reviews initiated by the umpires

Unnecessary changes include:

• A night grand final -- falls into the "everyone else is doing it, so why don't we?" category
• Removing the umpire's bounce -- why don't we change the ball to a round one while we're at it?
• Allowing play-on from a behind without a kick to the foot -- can't have any of those little idiosyncrasies ruining the game, can we?
• 6-6-6 -- over-engineered nonsense that should be scrapped given it fails to achieve its stated aim

The ruck nomination is well intentioned but super clumsy. I'd like to see an alternative trialled. Two rucks are nominated before the game. They wear an armband or some other marker to designate their role. Only these rucks are able to contest hit-outs. If there is an injury to a ruck, the armband can be handed off. Then just bounce the bloody ball, ump!

 

[Baloo]

I don't mind the ruck nomination. It was awkward in the first year but the teams and players are getting better at it. The alternative to nominating is to push all players, except the ruckmen, 10 to 15m away for where the ball will be tossed up. Only to 2 competing ruckmen in the immediate area. But then we'll have encroachment infringements, other players trying to push their opposition into the exclusion zone etc.

The beauty of the 6-6-6 is that we'd heard all year how the AFL had this elite team of analysts who were using the latest science and AI to predict the result of the 6-6-6. These people were the best in their business. Super smart, super switched on. Filled Buckley with so much confidence that he backed their decisions 100%. What a *smile* fail that was.

 

[TigerFurious]

I’d argue that the issues with the game that the AFL seem he’ll bent on fixing; congestion and low scoring are largley a result of their own rule changes since 2008.

It started when they changed the rush behind rule after the hawks exploited it so well in the 2008 GF. They took away an outlet for defenders under pressure thinking it will increase scoring. Instead we got the forward press because coaches quickly realized defenders could be relentlessly pressured into turnovers and it just increased congestion. This also leads to increased work loads on players who are now required to flood their own forward line as well as their backline. To combat this, coaches start rotating players through the interchange like never before.

Next the afl bring in the sub rule to address ballooning interchange rotations and the perceived congestion resulting from it. What happens? All clubs uniformly adopt the same sub strategy - A running type player, brought on sometime in the third quarter with mostly minimal effect. Second rucks disappear, clubs that lose a player to injury in the first half are significantly more likely to lose the game due to lack of rotations and hence adopt negative tactics offset loss of player. Congestion continues to increase and scoring continues to decrease.

Never one to admit they were wrong, the afl dump the sub rule and introduce a rotations cap to reduce congestion and increase scoring. Again, it does not work because it turns out tired players tend to gravitate towards the ball, creating more congestion which leads to stoppages which gives them a rest. Second rucks largely don’t return because clubs have realized that an average running player is of more use to the team than an average second ruck. The third tall forward is largely dead at this stage too, replaced by another small medium type to add to the congestion. Second tall forwards are now on shaky ground as well and clubs if they haven’t already are actively recruiting players for the small forward role whose primary purpose has changed from kicking goals to creating pressure.

Pressured by their tv overlords, the afl again try changing the rules to reduce congestion and increase scoring with 6-6-6 and kickouts. Again, it has the opposite effect mainly because it was poorly thought through, not tested properly but fundamentally doesn’t address the root causes of congestion and low scoring.

Congestion and stoppages give players a break in an physically demanding game. It also allows sides to reset structures and players to reposition, everything coaches love and hence will try to create more of. Low scoring is a result of the defense first philosophy of modern sport. A good defense will nearly always beat a good offense and afl is no different. Much easier to teach players defensive techniques than offensive ones.

tl;dr every time the afl try to fix scoring and congestion they make it worse because they don’t understand why it’s occurring

 

[graystar1]

A lot of the rule changes Big Richo mentions are reasonable.

The angle from the goal square one always got me back in the day anyway, could never understand why it was the case.

The out of bounds is an interesting one. In the 1930s you had a lot of big marking forwards taking speccies, think Pratt and his ilk, partly because they had a last touch rule on the out of bounds and teams would go down the middle more. I don't like the last touch idea, we see it in the middle of the ground in Women's AFL and it doesn't work. Technically there was deliberate out of bounds after about 1968 but it was so strict you would see it paid maybe twice a year (I think I saw it paid in the 1973 Prelim). The deliberate out of bounds is quite good. Also remember, out on the full has only been a free since about 1968 (watch the 1967 GF!). Leave the out of bounds rules as is, just more consistency on the rulings would fix the issues.

The ruck is a difficult one, I really hate the nominating business but it is there to address a real issue. Having watched the 1973 PF last night it was noticeable how there were a lot less ball ups or at least a lot less scrums back then, maybe this is part of the problem. Actually watch the throw ins at an old game too, it was immediate, sort of solved the ruck nomination problem, rucks were often running down the ground and the ball was already thrown in.

I did like the old unreliable, all over the place, bounces. Added some colour to the game! I can see why they changed it though. Keep the bounce after a goal and at the start of the quarter though, it is part of the game, maybe just let it rip and not recall any crap bounces.

6-6-6 is a crap rule. Didn't do what it was supposed to do. I reckon it takes away from one of the unique aspects of Australian Rules Football - it is a 360 degree game and there are no set positions and especially no offside. Get rid of it.

The kick to yourself business was always a bit of a farce, play on from the kick in doesn't worry me. In fact, this is an example of where the AFL compromised. Remember they were talking about an 18m goal square, that would just be silly. The play on from kick in was a much better way to sort any issue.

But look at the current proposals:
Last touch out of bounds: see above.
18m goal square: see above
Starting positions at all stoppages: with the number of stoppages these days? Fogetaboutit, also, see above re the 6-6-6 rule.
Reduced tackling: WTF?
Challenge for goal reviews: um, no. Just leave it up to the umpires and don't stuff up the reviews.
Shorter quarters: they already shortened them once, enough! Also, remember when they shortened the quarters some years ago, they changed the rules about time-on to be stricter, so the quarters weren't really shortened because stopping the clock happens more often with the stricter interpretation of when the ball is in play.

As I said earlier, leave it alone.Most of the rule changes have reflected reality or changes in the game. The current proposals are attempts to change the game, not responses to certain aspects of the evolution of the game.

DS

Good post David. Agree with everything you wrote. That is why I started the thread, to get other PREnders views.

Unless we get rid of Hocking we are always going to get these constant rule changes that eventually will end AFL as we used to know it.

Then watch the crowds stay away and the game will be stuffed.

Over the top maybe, but I do fear for our game being turned into some form of bastard form of footy that we love.

Just leave it alone...why would anyone want to reduce tackling?? That is soccer not AFl.

Jack Dyer would be turning in grave hearing that.

 

[TigerPort]

The issue is that a pure ruckman like Natanui or Gawn can't perform their skills because they have an 85kg midfielder on their back at every ball-up. Personally, I think a pure hitout to a midfielder who bursts away is a great part of the game, and I'd like to see it protected.

And the best example is 2007 v Collingwood opening bounce Foley burst from the center and Polak goals. Then next bounce Foley burst from the center and Polak goals.

 

[YinnarTiger]

I don't think the HS article had anything new in it. Blobbo isn't mentioned, it just re-hashed a few ideas that were thrown around in 2017-18, some of which have already been partially instituted and the rest been put on the back-burner. Back in the day, Whateley, Hocking and Blobbo wanted higher scoring games and ways to stifle the threat of Richmond's ascendancy. The article was just a space filler during this covid vacuum of footy news.

 

[mrposhman]

The issue is that a pure ruckman like Natanui or Gawn can't perform their skills because they have an 85kg midfielder on their back at every ball-up. Personally, I think a pure hitout to a midfielder who bursts away is a great part of the game, and I'd like to see it protected.

As would I and that's why the last kick out of bounds is a disaster. Even if they allow ruck contests in each F50 and only use last touch in the main field, then ruck contests will still significantly decline. We have what about 60-80 / game at the moment, we only have an average of low 20's in terms of goals so there must be 40-50 odd ruck contests from ball ins / contests around the ground which will be severely reduced impacting the entire point of having ruckmen. Of all the rules, this is the one that I would like to come in least. I guess it reduces the need for the umpires to make a call on who meant to take the ball out and those that were accidental but I still don't like it.

 

[AngryAnt]

The issue is that a pure ruckman like Natanui or Gawn can't perform their skills because they have an 85kg midfielder on their back at every ball-up. Personally, I think a pure hitout to a midfielder who bursts away is a great part of the game, and I'd like to see it protected.

Yeah, get your point of view Bigs. Centre bounces, no issue. Only rucks should compete. But for throw ins/ball ups its absurd we say "only you two blokes can compete, and you've got to let me know in advance who will compete. and if you don't, you can't compete".

The beauty of our game is that anyone can do anything - go anywhere, kick a goal, spoil, a rover can take a speccy, Daniel Rioli can go in the ruck if he wants. (team rules aside).

The nomination rule is contrived and frankly bizarre. You want pure ruck contests but you are quite happy for the farce of a team not nominating and you get no contest at all. If you really want to insist only one player from each team contests the ruck, ok do that. No nominations. If a team allows two to contest through accident or design, free kick. Make it simple.

The support on here for deliberate OOB makes me laugh - "rule is good but needs to adjudicated more consistently". Hello, that will never happen because it requires umpires to be mind readers (they aren't) or guess, they are pretty good at doing that - the act not the result anyway.

Anyway enough grumping from me

 

[tigerdell]

antman agree that the nomination rule is awkward, though Baloo is right that its mostly working.
the proposal to go back to no-nominations "a free for all" doesnt address the problem of unfair/restricted access.
It was particularly bad as coached by c scott.

There are 2 unfair scenarios - the first is the hodge/gibson as 3rd man up. In this case the primary ruckman engages the opposition to keep him from contesting. This is essentially holding/sheparding with no intent to contest.

The second is using a decoy ruckman who either blocks the opp or draws a free kick.
Again there is no intent to contest
It results in a lot of free kicks when the opp ruck engages the decoy ruck, doing what would be acceptable if it was a normal ruck contest.
It is near impossible for umpires to know who is rucking and who is blocking.


In sport we want the competitors to meet on level terms, not to have players blocked from competing.
The nomination rule is childish but something is needed

 

[tigerdell]

No nominations. If a team allows two to contest through accident or design, free kick. Make it simple.

Officiating this is not simple.
Blicavs stands next to Soldo, so Soldo pushes into him. Stanley jumps up and gets the tap...

Is it 2 up? Blicavs never jumped or went for the ball. He doesnt contest so its not 2 up.
But Soldo unfairly grappled with a non-ruck so a free to cats.

Next contest Blicavs and Stanley swap.
Free to cats again

 

[tigerdell]

Don't really like the ruck nominations but the explanations of why we have it make sense. We don't want to lose the art of ruckwork or see the demise of the big lugs. Too bad that it looks like an under 11's rule.

Still on the nominations, they could fix the rule a bit. Pretty sure I've seen instances where a team was too slow to nominate someone, so the ump wouldn't allow anyone from that team to contest. What's that about? I understand that once a bloke says he's up then you shouldn't be able to change it, but this seems over regulation.

Totally agree Quickie

 

[AngryAnt]

Officiating this is not simple.
Blicavs stands next to Soldo, so Soldo pushes into him. Stanley jumps up and gets the tap...

Is it 2 up? Blicavs never jumped or went for the ball. He doesnt contest so its not 2 up.
But Soldo unfairly grappled with a non-ruck so a free to cats.

Next contest Blicavs and Stanley swap.
Free to cats again

Simple again, one from each side in the area, if another player contests, free kick. Still no need to nominate.

Overly complex solution to a simple problem.

 

[tigerdell]

As would I and that's why the last kick out of bounds is a disaster. Even if they allow ruck contests in each F50 and only use last touch in the main field, then ruck contests will still significantly decline. We have what about 60-80 / game at the moment, we only have an average of low 20's in terms of goals so there must be 40-50 odd ruck contests from ball ins / contests around the ground which will be severely reduced impacting the entire point of having ruckmen. Of all the rules, this is the one that I would like to come in least. I guess it reduces the need for the umpires to make a call on who meant to take the ball out and those that were accidental but I still don't like it.

a last touch rule will overpenalise in so many instances....
a loose ball that is bouncing around, a marking contest, tackling and forcing them over the line.
It works in other sports but will completely change the dynamic and method of play.

It will be a farce. How many times will players wait and watch the ball bounce over the line

 

[tigerdell]

As would I and that's why the last kick out of bounds is a disaster. Even if they allow ruck contests in each F50 and only use last touch in the main field, then ruck contests will still significantly decline. We have what about 60-80 / game at the moment, we only have an average of low 20's in terms of goals so there must be 40-50 odd ruck contests from ball ins / contests around the ground which will be severely reduced impacting the entire point of having ruckmen. Of all the rules, this is the one that I would like to come in least. I guess it reduces the need for the umpires to make a call on who meant to take the ball out and those that were accidental but I still don't like it.

a last touch rule will overpenalise in so many instances....
a loose ball that is bouncing around, a marking contest, tackling and forcing them over the line.
It works in other sports but will completely change the dynamic and method of play.

It will be a farce. How many times will players wait and watch the ball bounce over the line?