Do you actually watch games? You think from watching it's had no impact?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
New Rules
- Thread starter yandb
- Start date
is it more of a case
rules change , for multiple agendas
the competition responds with changed tactics
the net result for kpi's they are measuring (scores , possessions , marks , closeness of games ) is very little
as an AFL stalwart I can watch a scrappy game in the wet and still appreciate the contest
but there are the more casual viewers that will watch the AFL and if it isnt entertaining , hit the remote - NRL , rugby union
horse racing , basketball ... online gaming ....
Bart Cummings got up the racing authorities about how the Spring Carnival was all about these once a year race goers
the trouble is they are a source of revenue
and its the same reality for our game
I dont like the look of the kick out from full back and the guys are going as much as 40 mtrs before kicking if the opposition keep falling back
and the stand rule where the player with the ball can go well off his line then well over the mark and on plenty of occassions the ump says nothing and the man on the mark has to stand , again nothing skillful about that
thats under 8's rules , no front on pressure
I dont know how the casual follower sees those plays , but I cant imagine them being rivetted to the screen by those bit of the play
but we do know the champions of the game have always WOW'd all typers of supporters
think Chris Judd, Gary Ablett , Dusty even Nic Nat when he is on
Max King looks like an emerging star
we want to see skills tested
kick over that zone
break that tackle
getting out of traffic with chains of super slick handballs
take that screamer
take that contested mark with 3 defenders hanging off you ...
the surge game of ours in 2017/18 excited non Richmond supporters
the kick in rule , stand rule and 6 6 6 are designed for quick ball movement without particular skill and no contest
it will make the game more like netball and basket ball and with the point of difference diminished the game is even more at the whim of the casual supporter
It has increased the Basketball, World Games style of play though! You used to see one, maybe two, switches per forward salvo, now you can see almost four to five. Just made the game boring
I wish the AFL would just say -
we need more scoring so the networks can sell more advertising, so we can get a bumper TV rights deal. If we don't, our salaries and that of all in the industry will drop, we won't have the money to keep pouring into GC, or to prop up the struggling clubs. People will leave us in droves, and the game we have raped within an inch of its life, will be overrun by codes from other countries and the comp will fall over.
Just be honest. Strip back rules, rather than add, make officiating the game less guessing and more adjudicating and the rest should take care of itself.
Admittedly, that's a cynical and simplistic veiw, but you get the picture.
It would be nice to have better data.
But it is also the case that you can't take one stat in isolation. The same number of uncontested marks while the total number of possessions is down - that gives you a different proportion.
Plus, if the new rules have had no impact then why are scores down?
Lastly, if the new stand rule has had no impact, why don't we just repeal it?
I do think the game has changed, just think that we need better stats to work out the change. I also think it is very variable, just thinking about a couple of the games we have played this year - in the game versus North Melbourne there were 214 uncontested marks, the game against Port was very different and there were 153 uncontested marks and the game against Melbourne there were only 114 uncontested marks. Sydney had 117 uncontested marks against us, Port 86, Geelong 116 (R8) and 89 (R19) - it's all over the place and hard to find a pattern.
But, the game definitely looks different, and not for the better. The player standing on the mark just looks ridiculous, can I say "Not a good look for the game"?
DS
But it is also the case that you can't take one stat in isolation. The same number of uncontested marks while the total number of possessions is down - that gives you a different proportion.
Plus, if the new rules have had no impact then why are scores down?
Lastly, if the new stand rule has had no impact, why don't we just repeal it?
I do think the game has changed, just think that we need better stats to work out the change. I also think it is very variable, just thinking about a couple of the games we have played this year - in the game versus North Melbourne there were 214 uncontested marks, the game against Port was very different and there were 153 uncontested marks and the game against Melbourne there were only 114 uncontested marks. Sydney had 117 uncontested marks against us, Port 86, Geelong 116 (R8) and 89 (R19) - it's all over the place and hard to find a pattern.
But, the game definitely looks different, and not for the better. The player standing on the mark just looks ridiculous, can I say "Not a good look for the game"?
DS
It has changed the look of the game so much it is not funny.
Your support of rules like this has me thinking more and more that your first name is Steve and your last name is Hocking.
I don't think it's had that much impact either, except for viewers who hate it, including me. It's terrible. Looks appalling. For that reason alone it has to go.
Well, I must say, I stand corrected 
Why believe a 3 time premiership coach in Hardwick, along with a hell of a lot of other people, who say the game looks different (by the way: not for the better). Why believe when the AFL says that they want to open up the game a create more space and less pressure, that the rule changes they bring in would actually be trying to do exactly what they intended?
No, I think I'll believe postings on a forum. Now that is out of the way I can go to facebook for the news and climate change facts.
As for the commentary on Richmond, straw man. I have said a number of times that the rules would not tend to benefit us, with a reasonable probability that they would be to our disadvantage given the style of game we have played over the last few years (listen to SHocking, he says he wants less pressure, as a pressure team we would be disadvantaged by that). But I have also pointed out that 2021 gives us little useful evidence to see how much it would impact Richmond because we have had too many injuries and our form has been bad, so we can't really say what the scale of the impact is on Richmond - I suspect it is less than the scale of performance drop off in 2021.
This is not about Richmond, it is about f***ing up the game we love.
DS
Why believe a 3 time premiership coach in Hardwick, along with a hell of a lot of other people, who say the game looks different (by the way: not for the better). Why believe when the AFL says that they want to open up the game a create more space and less pressure, that the rule changes they bring in would actually be trying to do exactly what they intended?
No, I think I'll believe postings on a forum. Now that is out of the way I can go to facebook for the news and climate change facts.
As for the commentary on Richmond, straw man. I have said a number of times that the rules would not tend to benefit us, with a reasonable probability that they would be to our disadvantage given the style of game we have played over the last few years (listen to SHocking, he says he wants less pressure, as a pressure team we would be disadvantaged by that). But I have also pointed out that 2021 gives us little useful evidence to see how much it would impact Richmond because we have had too many injuries and our form has been bad, so we can't really say what the scale of the impact is on Richmond - I suspect it is less than the scale of performance drop off in 2021.
This is not about Richmond, it is about f***ing up the game we love.
DS
Ok. let's have a little look at the stand rule and what the AFL said they wanted to get from this.
In a practice match before the 2021 season the newabomination rule was tried out for the first time and there was an promotion piece article on the AFL website here. What did SHocking say about the new rule? Here we go:
You might like to think there will be more goals, but you failed, dismally, here are the number of goals kicked for the last 5 years excluding 2020:
Oh well, failed again.
In an article mid year the AFL were touting the success of their new rules (well, actually not so much touting success as claiming they had not failed - the title of the article is revealing: "Standing the test of time: the new rule that DIDN'T break footy"). What do they claim in this little propaganda piece?
Yeah, let's bring key forwards back into the game, surely that would mean that the leading goal kicker would be scoring more? Maybe??
I've gone right back to 1897 for this one as 58 goals for the leading goal kicker is low, lower than any leading goal kicker back to 1965, in only 26 of the 124 seasons of VFL/AFL (excluding 2020) has the leading goal kicker had less goals than the 2021 Coleman Medal winner, and 22 of those instances were prior to 1920.
Way to go SHocking, I can see you have certainly brought the key forwards back in the game there.
They can't even meet their own criteria, and they have made the game resemble basketball.
Fail.
DS
In a practice match before the 2021 season the new
You might like to think there will be more goals, but you failed, dismally, here are the number of goals kicked for the last 5 years excluding 2020:
| Year | Goals |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 4,575 |
| 2019 | 4,795 |
| 2018 | 4,969 |
| 2017 | 5,355 |
| 2016 | 5,336 |
Oh well, failed again.
In an article mid year the AFL were touting the success of their new rules (well, actually not so much touting success as claiming they had not failed - the title of the article is revealing: "Standing the test of time: the new rule that DIDN'T break footy"). What do they claim in this little propaganda piece?
Yeah, let's bring key forwards back into the game, surely that would mean that the leading goal kicker would be scoring more? Maybe??
I've gone right back to 1897 for this one as 58 goals for the leading goal kicker is low, lower than any leading goal kicker back to 1965, in only 26 of the 124 seasons of VFL/AFL (excluding 2020) has the leading goal kicker had less goals than the 2021 Coleman Medal winner, and 22 of those instances were prior to 1920.
Way to go SHocking, I can see you have certainly brought the key forwards back in the game there.
They can't even meet their own criteria, and they have made the game resemble basketball.
Fail.
DS
We only have limited stats, but we have what we have.
Of course, if you look at each stat in isolation then I suppose you see nothing.
The possessions have reduced, but the number of uncontested marks has not reduced. Uncontested possessions are down, but uncontested marks are not down. Does that indicate the game is the same as it was?
Except for the period 2005 to 2010 the proportion of total marks which are uncontested is pretty much the same, so, what, the game in 2019 was the same as the game in 2000? Are you serious?
Disposal stats go further back, to 1965. In 1967, the last time the average score was under 80 where it is now, the average disposals per game (no possession stats back then) was 516, today the average disposals per game is 698. The 2021 disposals are down on 2019 by 43 disposals a game, which is significant, yet still the uncontested marks have not dropped.
I don't see the stats telling us nothing, what they tell us is limited, but what I do see is that the rule changes are not achieving what the AFL was seeking.
I don't think the stats tell the whole story and I know what I see when I watch a game, there is less pressure, there are more short passes, but it has not led to what the AFL want which is more scoring. We can all see the fast ball movement, the way teams are going at 45degrees, yet we do not see more scoring, we see less, does that not tell us something is different?
TBR, are you seriously telling us all that the various rule changes, such as the stand rule, 6-6-6 and the way players kicking out from a behind get so much more space - that this has not changed the game?
I think they have opened up the game between the arcs, but the congestion remains nearer goal. We see uncontested ball movement from half back to half forward (because there is no stopping it with the space the player kicking in has and the statue on the mark), and then there are problems. That clip of Geelong passing the ball about was a classic, if exaggerated, example of this - the ball is passed around for ages, but the last kick, the kick to a player within scoring range, a player in the forward 50, is to a contest and in congestion.
DS
Of course, if you look at each stat in isolation then I suppose you see nothing.
The possessions have reduced, but the number of uncontested marks has not reduced. Uncontested possessions are down, but uncontested marks are not down. Does that indicate the game is the same as it was?
Except for the period 2005 to 2010 the proportion of total marks which are uncontested is pretty much the same, so, what, the game in 2019 was the same as the game in 2000? Are you serious?
Disposal stats go further back, to 1965. In 1967, the last time the average score was under 80 where it is now, the average disposals per game (no possession stats back then) was 516, today the average disposals per game is 698. The 2021 disposals are down on 2019 by 43 disposals a game, which is significant, yet still the uncontested marks have not dropped.
I don't see the stats telling us nothing, what they tell us is limited, but what I do see is that the rule changes are not achieving what the AFL was seeking.
I don't think the stats tell the whole story and I know what I see when I watch a game, there is less pressure, there are more short passes, but it has not led to what the AFL want which is more scoring. We can all see the fast ball movement, the way teams are going at 45degrees, yet we do not see more scoring, we see less, does that not tell us something is different?
TBR, are you seriously telling us all that the various rule changes, such as the stand rule, 6-6-6 and the way players kicking out from a behind get so much more space - that this has not changed the game?
I think they have opened up the game between the arcs, but the congestion remains nearer goal. We see uncontested ball movement from half back to half forward (because there is no stopping it with the space the player kicking in has and the statue on the mark), and then there are problems. That clip of Geelong passing the ball about was a classic, if exaggerated, example of this - the ball is passed around for ages, but the last kick, the kick to a player within scoring range, a player in the forward 50, is to a contest and in congestion.
DS
I think it was Mark Robinson, after the 2020 Grand Final who thanked Richmond because we proved that fast chaotic football beats Geelong's slow methodical chip game.
The theory was that the message to other teams was to adapt to the fast game or get the same result. The 2020 GF was the classic test of chaos versus slow control. Other teams had tried this method on us from 2017. It was David King before the Prelim who suggested GWS's ball control ccould take our pressure off us. It tunned otu it couldn't.
The next strategy, first used by the Pis in round 2 2020 was to flood our forward line, basically accepting that our chaotic forward movement couldn't be stopped, so the idea was to pack our forward line and wait for us to enter. They got away with a boring draw. Half our opponents used this method, leading to Dimma's comments on Horse's game plan against us, but what it meant was that the opposition was conceding the forward entry, and our forward pressure held it there. This meant that this strategy basicvally meant the ball lived in our forward line, and though it meqant we wouldn;'t score heavily, you were basically conceding the game.
So back to Mark Robinson's comments, the competition was going to have t oadapt, and becoem more attacking if they were going to topple us, which could ony lbe good for the competition. As he put it, we'd 'Saved Football'!
Then along comes Steve Hocking with his new rule, a total game changer of a rule.
And insetad of seeing a revival of fast flowing football, coupled with high pressure - basically the best of both worlds, we now have a putrid tepid mix version of basketball by foot on a court that's way too big.
Teams fold their defence back waiting to be split down the middle, then they get control and chip it back the other way. THe game gets played between the arcs. The only reason you'd have less possessions than 2020 when teams are 'possessing the ball', is that the movement is so much slower. Chip, mark, chip mark. Where a team would break and go with heat on their tail, you now have a game where a team can break with no pressure and meet a wall in their forward line, or they will chip, and stop, chip and stop. Often they go hard with little pressure until they look up and see the opposition parked in their forward arc, so then they stop the fast movement for the chip backwards game.
How often do you see goals kicked from the goal square this year? Not often because of the wall that's waiting, hence the likely reason the conversion rate has dropped, becaus more shots are being taken from further out.
Yes Steve Hocking, right when the game was saved, along came you.............. you *smile* idiot!
You saved the game alright, you saved it from Richmond which was the whole point all along! Now we have Chris Scott, the clueless trying to prove to the world what a great coach he is by winnig his second flag, when in reality the rules were changed likely just for him ,because he was out of ideas against a team he just could'nt beat!
To make things worse, in typing this, i just missed the entry point on a beautiful trade on Netflix which just made a 3 point move without me. F you HOCKING!
The theory was that the message to other teams was to adapt to the fast game or get the same result. The 2020 GF was the classic test of chaos versus slow control. Other teams had tried this method on us from 2017. It was David King before the Prelim who suggested GWS's ball control ccould take our pressure off us. It tunned otu it couldn't.
The next strategy, first used by the Pis in round 2 2020 was to flood our forward line, basically accepting that our chaotic forward movement couldn't be stopped, so the idea was to pack our forward line and wait for us to enter. They got away with a boring draw. Half our opponents used this method, leading to Dimma's comments on Horse's game plan against us, but what it meant was that the opposition was conceding the forward entry, and our forward pressure held it there. This meant that this strategy basicvally meant the ball lived in our forward line, and though it meqant we wouldn;'t score heavily, you were basically conceding the game.
So back to Mark Robinson's comments, the competition was going to have t oadapt, and becoem more attacking if they were going to topple us, which could ony lbe good for the competition. As he put it, we'd 'Saved Football'!
Then along comes Steve Hocking with his new rule, a total game changer of a rule.
And insetad of seeing a revival of fast flowing football, coupled with high pressure - basically the best of both worlds, we now have a putrid tepid mix version of basketball by foot on a court that's way too big.
Teams fold their defence back waiting to be split down the middle, then they get control and chip it back the other way. THe game gets played between the arcs. The only reason you'd have less possessions than 2020 when teams are 'possessing the ball', is that the movement is so much slower. Chip, mark, chip mark. Where a team would break and go with heat on their tail, you now have a game where a team can break with no pressure and meet a wall in their forward line, or they will chip, and stop, chip and stop. Often they go hard with little pressure until they look up and see the opposition parked in their forward arc, so then they stop the fast movement for the chip backwards game.
How often do you see goals kicked from the goal square this year? Not often because of the wall that's waiting, hence the likely reason the conversion rate has dropped, becaus more shots are being taken from further out.
Yes Steve Hocking, right when the game was saved, along came you.............. you *smile* idiot!
You saved the game alright, you saved it from Richmond which was the whole point all along! Now we have Chris Scott, the clueless trying to prove to the world what a great coach he is by winnig his second flag, when in reality the rules were changed likely just for him ,because he was out of ideas against a team he just could'nt beat!
To make things worse, in typing this, i just missed the entry point on a beautiful trade on Netflix which just made a 3 point move without me. F you HOCKING!
Just thinking about this and recalling the few games I have seen this year, my observation is that the game has opened up between the arcs. What this means is that, because the man on the mark can't prevent the 45degree sideways kick to a player in space, and because kick ins from a behind now go further up the ground so defence starts on the wing and further back, the congestion has effectively moved.
Before these rule changes teams would try and defend the middle of the ground in the hope of rebounding back into their forward line. Of course, because we have an oval ground, the middle is harder to defend. Now the defence has to be shifted towards the opposition goal.
Moving congestion nearer the goal makes it worse because there is less space (oval playing area).
Unless a team can slingshot quickly, or get a quick centre clearance (6-6-6 rule makes this vital) the forward line is horribly congested. The slingshot off half back has to be very quick, which in some ways discourages the short chip game, but it is also very risky as you are exposed the other way.
Different teams have adapted differently, but Frickenel is right, what this has done is to nullify the fast counter-attack football Richmond played and has made the game less exciting.
DS
Before these rule changes teams would try and defend the middle of the ground in the hope of rebounding back into their forward line. Of course, because we have an oval ground, the middle is harder to defend. Now the defence has to be shifted towards the opposition goal.
Moving congestion nearer the goal makes it worse because there is less space (oval playing area).
Unless a team can slingshot quickly, or get a quick centre clearance (6-6-6 rule makes this vital) the forward line is horribly congested. The slingshot off half back has to be very quick, which in some ways discourages the short chip game, but it is also very risky as you are exposed the other way.
Different teams have adapted differently, but Frickenel is right, what this has done is to nullify the fast counter-attack football Richmond played and has made the game less exciting.
DS
It is idiotic because half the time it is enforced properly and the other half not. Umpires who are struggling with getting things right have to do another thing, and for no reason. - Scrap it.
The running out of the square after a kick in is another one the umpires can't get right. They are so focussed on keeping the man on the mark at the kick out at the right distance they totally ignore or can't see the bloke running 20-30-40 meters with the ball without bouncing. - Scrap it.
The deliberate out of bounds rule is adjudicated by numpties. "Insufficent intent", "if you choose to soccer", these are just two of the explanations from this year. A subjective rule that allows for and excuses massive umpire error. Some of these duffers must have never kicked a football and have no understanding of how the ball can bounce. A rule totally left to personal interpretation at any given second that can be completely overlooked 1 minute later. How many times do they pay the free against when the team is in their forward area? Seems to be only applied against the backline. - Needs serious work on benefit of the doubt and clear guidelines to remove the subjectivity.
The thing that seems apparent to me when watching footy now is this:
Key forwards are very easily blocked out of marking competitions because of the extra congestion with teams folding back.
The turnover game that we play seems to be happenig predominantly from the back half which would be a reason scores haven't improved. How often do you see a team get out the back now and run the ball deep into forward 50 and get banged through?
2 years ago when people suggested the only reason we beat Brisbane in the Qualifyling Final was because we kicked straighter were typical "stat browsing journalists"!
Had they actualyl wathed the game, they would have seen that Brisbane in particular were very poor at defending the way we attacked, and we were getting out the back and kicking goals from point blank range, not only in the final, but it was happenig in our H&A games with them as well.
Brisbane on the other hand were having pot shots from far and wide. They did miss some easy shots, as did we, but by enlarge, we were kicking at goal from probably an average of 20 to 25m closer.
The fact possessions haven't increased that much is likely because of the crawling chip stop nature of the game between the acrs now, then the hold up when you are faced with a wall waiting inside the forward 50 arc. THe inside 50 counts from the first week of finals wasn't too bad, but i bet if you looked at the season as a whole, these stats would stands out.
- less inside 50's
- Tall forward attending less marking contests (less 50's plus getting blocked)
- turn over game predominantly from the back half
Agree with the observations of others that we need to work on the clearance side of things, particularly centre clearance with the 6 - 6 - 6 rule. The odd thing was that last year we set a clearance differential record during the finals series. What was supposed to be a weakness was a massive strength. THe amount of injuries we had to mids probably affected cohesion somewhat. But all that said, this standing rule has to be one of the most inept putrid rules to blot our game. That along with the new interpretation of what constitutes a 'dangerous tackle, and the idea that two handed rugby throws are fine so long as one hand follows through a bit further'!
Key forwards are very easily blocked out of marking competitions because of the extra congestion with teams folding back.
The turnover game that we play seems to be happenig predominantly from the back half which would be a reason scores haven't improved. How often do you see a team get out the back now and run the ball deep into forward 50 and get banged through?
2 years ago when people suggested the only reason we beat Brisbane in the Qualifyling Final was because we kicked straighter were typical "stat browsing journalists"!
Had they actualyl wathed the game, they would have seen that Brisbane in particular were very poor at defending the way we attacked, and we were getting out the back and kicking goals from point blank range, not only in the final, but it was happenig in our H&A games with them as well.
Brisbane on the other hand were having pot shots from far and wide. They did miss some easy shots, as did we, but by enlarge, we were kicking at goal from probably an average of 20 to 25m closer.
The fact possessions haven't increased that much is likely because of the crawling chip stop nature of the game between the acrs now, then the hold up when you are faced with a wall waiting inside the forward 50 arc. THe inside 50 counts from the first week of finals wasn't too bad, but i bet if you looked at the season as a whole, these stats would stands out.
- less inside 50's
- Tall forward attending less marking contests (less 50's plus getting blocked)
- turn over game predominantly from the back half
Agree with the observations of others that we need to work on the clearance side of things, particularly centre clearance with the 6 - 6 - 6 rule. The odd thing was that last year we set a clearance differential record during the finals series. What was supposed to be a weakness was a massive strength. THe amount of injuries we had to mids probably affected cohesion somewhat. But all that said, this standing rule has to be one of the most inept putrid rules to blot our game. That along with the new interpretation of what constitutes a 'dangerous tackle, and the idea that two handed rugby throws are fine so long as one hand follows through a bit further'!
Last edited:
The interesting thing with the 2019 QF against Brisbane is that a very high proportion of their shots on goal were taken at nasty angles. Yeah, they didn't kick straight, but that was very much contributed to by Richmond forcing them very wide.
DS
DS
The AFL wants to reduce congestion, but doesn't allow the 3rd man up at ruck contests.
The AFL doesn't want to encourage teams to rush behinds, but then changes the rules to encourage them to do so.
The AFL wants to encourage one on one contests and high marking but brings in a rule to encourage teams to chip the ball around.
The AFL wants to keep the ball in motion but brings in a rule to encourage teams to chip the ball around.
No wonder the game is a bit of a mess.
The AFL doesn't want to encourage teams to rush behinds, but then changes the rules to encourage them to do so.
The AFL wants to encourage one on one contests and high marking but brings in a rule to encourage teams to chip the ball around.
The AFL wants to keep the ball in motion but brings in a rule to encourage teams to chip the ball around.
No wonder the game is a bit of a mess.
I don't have the footage, but Dimma in a briefing to a Coterie before the Hawks game showed comprehensively how the game had changed. The behind the goals footage is damning. His comments about unintended consequences of "pointless" rule changes were quite funny in retrospect. Whilst he focused on the Hawks he showed 4 other sides and how they foldback and gave clues as to the pocket play, the 45 degree kick, defensive positioning etc. I watched the Bulldogs game after the Thursday briefing and the stop and prop at the wing by both sides as there was no-one forward of the ball just highlighted his points.
So there is evidence, I have seen it, I don't have a copy of it, but it was shared. The explanation included detailed explanations of the changes in positions, deeper positioning, deeper foldback lanes etc. And included % of where the ball is turned over (deeper). I haven't reviewed the heat maps but the details and data provided by Dimma would indicate that heat maps should have changed.
The Stand Rule still gives me the irrits, it's embarrassing and hasn't resulted in higher scores, in fact the opposite has happened. All AFL fans who don't like it, should all get together on social media to force the AFL to get rid of it.
