New Rules

[Spirit of Jack]

Just got to say again what a complete cluster sHocking and his AFL cronies are with knee jerk rule changes and interpretations.

The much praised (by AFL media sycophants) man on the mark rule has done nothing...nothing to bring more scoring to the game. This rule was brought in only to stop Richmond by an ex-Geelong cronie - well suck it sHocking. He is a complete joke that has over complicated the game for umpires, players and fans. Seriously, what an idiot - he should be in politics he so useless.

Whilst sHocking is still in his privileged job that has no basis on performance - can he actually fix something which is a problem?

No one - including the umpires - have any idea what holding the ball is anymore. Blatant ones are not paid. Highly dubious ones are paid. It's a joke. Fix that you absolute moron.

I'm saying this all after the best H&A win I can remember - its not sour grapes - its calling out blatant incompetence.

 

[artball]

yep all roads lead back to Shocking. he must ? be looking at it ?
someone needs to compile a video collage of incidents and flood the inboxes of the rule makers and Umps
surprised the clubs don't do it

 

[tigerman]

Just got to say again what a complete cluster sHocking and his AFL cronies are with knee jerk rule changes and interpretations.

The much praised (by AFL media sycophants) man on the mark rule has done nothing...nothing to bring more scoring to the game. This rule was brought in only to stop Richmond by an ex-Geelong cronie - well suck it sHocking. He is a complete joke that has over complicated the game for umpires, players and fans. Seriously, what an idiot - he should be in politics he so useless.

Whilst sHocking is still in his privileged job that has no basis on performance - can he actually fix something which is a problem?

No one - including the umpires - have any idea what holding the ball is anymore. Blatant ones are not paid. Highly dubious ones are paid. It's a joke. Fix that you absolute moron.

I'm saying this all after the best H&A win I can remember - its not sour grapes - its calling out blatant incompetence.

Yes, but, but, but Healy says the rule changes are the best thing since sliced bread. Didn't he go the early crow after round one, ridiculing all the rule change deniers. He went early like a young bloke getting his leg over for the first time.

 

[DavidSSS]

I was replying to a post from the Dan Rioli thread but actually think it deserves to be in this thread, and anyway, this thread needs to be resurrected, so here goes:

It would be a mistake to assume all rule changes are directed solely at Richmond, even though in the PRE echo chamber that would seem to be the consensus.

FWIW I think the rule changes have done little to improve the game as a spectacle and have mostly made it worse.

The quote from SHocking which I can't find any more, it was to the effect that Richmond were moving sideways on the mark to stop the sideways/45 degree kick and that Cotchin was the best at it, does show that the way Richmond play the game was a factor in the rule change. Likely reflects some of SHocking's thinking, but I also think that he would have had others in mind too. So, partially anti-Richmond I would say.

The facts about the rule changes is that they reflect some distorted view of how the game should look. To some extent they are clutching at straws and living in lala land, the morons at AFL House think they can somehow turn the clock back with some idiotic rule changes which they hope will take the game back to the "golden era" of their choosing, maybe late 1990s or early 2000s. Of course, they have picked and chosen the golden era in question. Why not go back to the early 1980s when scores were highest, or maybe the 1930s with all the spectacular marking (from recollection they had some sort of last touch out of bounds rule back then). No coincidence the supposed "golden era" would be around when SHocking was playing.

The clutching at straws can be seen when we look at where the issue apparently is: they claim the game is ugly because it is a rolling maul with too many packs and too many stoppages. Now, I can't find stoppages per game stats but one interesting stat is the number of tackles per game, I can go back a bit further but here are the stats back to 1999:



If you go back to the late 80s, which is as far as tackle numbers go on AFL Tables, it is pretty similar at about 50 tackles a game.

The reality is that the game has become more contested in terms of tackles. Making players do a scarecrow impersonation on the mark ain't going to change this, neither is any of the other hair brained rubbish being served up by SHocking and co. Tackles might be down this year but still double what they were at the turn of the century and I suspect this is at least partly to do with some teams looking at ways to avoid being tackled. Look at the way both Melbourne and Footscray are constantly trying to get the ball out to a receiving player in enough space to avoid being tackled. The game evolves, the tactics evolve - the tackle count is high, how do you combat a team that tackles well? You avoid tackles.

The large number of tackles is also contributing to the mess that is the holding the man/holding the ball adjudication, which they demonstrably have no idea how to address - they don't change the rules often but they do change the interpretations pretty much each game - it is a mess at the moment and everyone knows it.

Maybe if they hadn't decided that the holding the man rule should not be enforced we wouldn't be here, because that gives the tackler a few more seconds to tackle since they are now allowed to grab and push before the player has possession of the ball. Add to this the prior opportunity rule which is necessary because the tackler has the advantage over the player trying to get the ball, and you add to the mess. I agree with the prior opportunity rule but it is at least in part a response to not enforcing holding the man properly.

What is needed is some way to clarify the rules - I would favour the old interpretation of holding the man, you grab at the player who is trying to gain possession you give up a free kick. Plus you pay all of the holding in the square at centre bounces. This would help. If a player does not have opportunity to gain possession of the ball before they are tackled then they must be given opportunity to dispose of the ball legally, prior opportunity would be less of an issue if the player gaining possession of the ball can do so before being tackled.

DS

 

[Harry]

Watched 2 games so far this week melbvbulldogs and catsvpies and both been bruise free uncontested circle work. Much prefer a rolling maul contested game over a chip mark chip mark game.

 

[AngryAnt]

..

 

[jb03]

Like many new rules the man on the mark "stand" rule is barely being enforced now.

 

[JimJessTorp]

Its like the myth that Hayden Kennedy had never explained why he quit. When I pointed

Hey @AngryAnt , I think you mistyped and eliminated part of what you were going to say. Wanna fix that up for us?

 

[MD Jazz]

Like many new rules the man on the mark "stand" rule is barely being enforced now.

Yeh, they forget to say it and allow players to move. Appears the umps don’t like it. Watch a crackdown soon, most likely when we play west coast in Perth.

 

[DavidSSS]

TBR, I know you like to have a go at me but linking to a paywalled article, missing the main points of my post and ignoring that I qualified what I said about SHocking is pretty low rent.

If you want to do that, it is your choice, I'll leave that to you.

The fundamental problems with the rule changes include not addressing the main issues, which I reckon include allowing way too much holding, and the fact that they put in a rule change and then muck around with the interpretations to the extent that it is impossible to keep track of what they are paying today. The stand rule is all over the place in terms of how it is adjudicated.

The game is a mess and it is the constant rule changes and the stupid goal of not paying every free kick they see which is contributing a lot to this. They have set up a situation where we either have a rolling maul or chip it around. Neither are an attractive game style.

If they want to remove the rolling maul then we need to allow players to get their hands on the ball without being tackled and pushed as they are still trying to get possession. All I am asking is for the rules to actually be enforced. The amount of holding and pushing of players as they go for the ball is ridiculous and goes back years, that is where they allowed the game to turn into a mess.

DS

 

[tigertim]

Like many new rules the man on the mark "stand" rule is barely being enforced now.

It seems to be undermined by very early "play on " calls from the umps.

 

[AngryAnt]

Hey @AngryAnt , I think you mistyped and eliminated part of what you were going to say. Wanna fix that up for us?

It was going to be a trivial and pedantic point anyway Ghost, the world is better off without it

 

[TigerMasochist]

Watched 2 games so far this week melbvbulldogs and catsvpies and both been bruise free uncontested circle work. Much prefer a rolling maul contested game over a chip mark chip mark game.

Bloody hell, you're keen. Watched about five minutes of each n that was easily enough.

 

[tigerlove]

It seems to be undermined by very early "play on " calls from the umps.

Some of these calls have been ridiculous and getting worse by the week. I was an advocate of tightening up on this before they decided to as players were creeping but as usual, umps have over-umpired it and at times it seems just make it up.

What I would really like to see is whatever rules are decided on at the start of the year and its interpretation remain the same throughout the year. This chosen rule focus of the week idea is unfair to everyone including umpires and just creates total confusion. Obviously someone hired at AFL is trying to justify their job.

 

[btoz_01]

IMHO all the rule changes have given an advantage mainly to one team and that team are the Pussies

 

[AngryAnt]

I don't like to have a go at you at all David, I don't take a difference in opinion about umpiring decisions at all personally, nor any other words on a computer screen for that matter.

I was just taking the chance to correct some fake news which has slowly morphed into fact and been said often on this forum, which is that Hocking ever mentioned Richmond in anything to do with the new man on the mark rule.

Rumours become "truth" way too often in this kind of area on PRE. Echo chamber.

 

[DavidSSS]

I think this goes in the rule changes thread rather than the SHocking thread, but I think it is time to look at the rule changes around mid season and see just what we have going on. Note - all the graphs below exclude 2020, it just isn't worth comparing given the game was shorter and all the other factors.

We all know what the changes were, but how have they impacted the game?

First, let's just get past the scoring issue. The AFL would like to see higher scores, I reckon they would like to see each team scoring somewhere around 90-100 per game on average. Well, it is a fail on that aspect:



Score is higher than 2019, but you have to go back to 1968 to get average scores around 82 again. So, sorry AFL, no prize. Note: rolling 5 year average is trailing so for 2021 it counts 3 years and for 2019 it counts 4 years.

There has been talk of less contested possessions and there is data on this but it is inconclusive. Contested possessions as a percentage of total possessions has reduced, but by very little, it is just under 40% and it has been this way for a while with fluctuations. Total possessions are still up at very high levels:



It is similar when we look at marks per game and at how many are contested and uncontested:



Again, the proportion of marks which are contested has not changed much. Interesting period there in the mid 2000s where the number of marks increased and proportion of contested fell, they are increasing again so the question is whether the AFL want to see more uncontested marks.

Tackles are down, but, again, from a very high level:




The more I look at this, apart from the scores, the more I think that the powers that be want to return us to the mid 2000s. Having trouble remembering exactly what that was like but it looks a lot more like a game which is played as more of a kick, pass, mark game than a contested football game. The possessions stats only go back to 1999 and the stats before then only count disposals - but as a comparison:

Year	Disposals per Game
1970	581.27
1980	613.29
1990	623.71
2000	624.42
2010	739.10
2015	727.30
2016	750.89
2017	764.38
2018	747.45
2019	741.44
2021 to Rd 13	690.92

The game has become a lot faster since the 1960s and 1970s and possessions are way higher, reflects the strategies to hold on to the ball rather than kicking to a contest you want to win which we used to see when I was a kid. But they are dropping slightly which is interesting, 2017 was the record for highest disposals per game.

I know they seem to want to have less stoppages, AFL Tables doesn't seem to have stoppage data but as a proxy hit outs per game (this sort of works as a proxy assuming the same proportion of stoppages lead to a hit out) have returned to early 2000s numbers after rising to 2015.

Another issue with stats is that beyond about the late 1990s the stats are far less detailed, so no contested versus uncontested marks and the like in stats more than about 30 years ago.

So, the reality here is that the rule changes have not had a great impact, apart from frustrating fans. If they wanted to make the game less of a rolling maul then they have comprehensively failed.

I still think the biggest rule change which would have an impact would be to protect the player pursuing the ball more and that means paying holding the man and push in the back far more rigorously.

DS

 

[Harry]

when did they introduce the "man taking the kick in from a behind can run 30 meters without bouncing the ball" rule?

must have missed the announcement

 

[AngryAnt]

I think this goes in the rule changes thread rather than the SHocking thread, but I think it is time to look at the rule changes around mid season and see just what we have going on. Note - all the graphs below exclude 2020, it just isn't worth comparing given the game was shorter and all the other factors.

We all know what the changes were, but how have they impacted the game?

First, let's just get past the scoring issue. The AFL would like to see higher scores, I reckon they would like to see each team scoring somewhere around 90-100 per game on average. Well, it is a fail on that aspect:

View attachment 12593

Score is higher than 2019, but you have to go back to 1968 to get average scores around 82 again. So, sorry AFL, no prize. Note: rolling 5 year average is trailing so for 2021 it counts 3 years and for 2019 it counts 4 years.

There has been talk of less contested possessions and there is data on this but it is inconclusive. Contested possessions as a percentage of total possessions has reduced, but by very little, it is just under 40% and it has been this way for a while with fluctuations. Total possessions are still up at very high levels:

View attachment 12594

It is similar when we look at marks per game and at how many are contested and uncontested:

View attachment 12595

Again, the proportion of marks which are contested has not changed much. Interesting period there in the mid 2000s where the number of marks increased and proportion of contested fell, they are increasing again so the question is whether the AFL want to see more uncontested marks.

Tackles are down, but, again, from a very high level:

View attachment 12596


The more I look at this, apart from the scores, the more I think that the powers that be want to return us to the mid 2000s. Having trouble remembering exactly what that was like but it looks a lot more like a game which is played as more of a kick, pass, mark game than a contested football game. The possessions stats only go back to 1999 and the stats before then only count disposals - but as a comparison:

Year	Disposals per Game
1970	581.27
1980	613.29
1990	623.71
2000	624.42
2010	739.10
2015	727.30
2016	750.89
2017	764.38
2018	747.45
2019	741.44
2021 to Rd 13	690.92

The game has become a lot faster since the 1960s and 1970s and possessions are way higher, reflects the strategies to hold on to the ball rather than kicking to a contest you want to win which we used to see when I was a kid. But they are dropping slightly which is interesting, 2017 was the record for highest disposals per game.

I know they seem to want to have less stoppages, AFL Tables doesn't seem to have stoppage data but as a proxy hit outs per game (this sort of works as a proxy assuming the same proportion of stoppages lead to a hit out) have returned to early 2000s numbers after rising to 2015.

Another issue with stats is that beyond about the late 1990s the stats are far less detailed, so no contested versus uncontested marks and the like in stats more than about 30 years ago.

So, the reality here is that the rule changes have not had a great impact, apart from frustrating fans. If they wanted to make the game less of a rolling maul then they have comprehensively failed.

I still think the biggest rule change which would have an impact would be to protect the player pursuing the ball more and that means paying holding the man and push in the back far more rigorously.

DS

Outstanding work DS.

The danger with the rule changes stuff is that the media and commentators loved that so much earlier this season I'm sure most of them still believe it's working.

 

[DavidSSS]

Outstanding work DS.

The danger with the rule changes stuff is that the media and commentators loved that so much earlier this season I'm sure most of them still believe it's working.

Oh yes, I'm sure they do. Mind you it is hard to predict how they will react to the fact that there really has been little change as a result of the rule changes. Will they just shut up about their cheer-leading of the rule changes early in the season, or will they start saying the changes had little effect and we need more? Either way they are, as usual, assuming their audience has no memory beyond 48 hours - which is more a reflection of the intellectual minions in the footy media than the average footy fan who tends to have a long memory (especially for old hurts).

DS