I could not find another thread on this. Merge if I am wrong please. 

I was thinking today that the proposed 2019 rule change is the 6/6/6 configuration for all centre bounces next year. This could be very beneficial for us. Given our cluster of see ball, get ball, inside mids, giving them extra space to work in. It could be a god send. You don’t need outside receivers if you are running straight out of the centre looking for a target.

The proposed setup should/will allow for more time and space for clearance players to get ball, run and deliver and we have a number of clearance beasts in Oliver, Viney, Brayshaw, Jones etc. 

We can only hope for some even up given the changes to the ruck circle seriously curtailed Jeff White’s ruck dominance. 

6 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

I could not find another thread on this. Merge if I am wrong please. 

I was thinking today that the proposed 2019 rule change is the 6/6/6 configuration for all centre bounces next year. This could be very beneficial for us. Given our cluster of see ball, get ball, inside mids, giving them extra space to work in. It could be a god send. You don’t need outside receivers if you are running straight out of the centre looking for a target.

The proposed setup should/will allow for more time and space for clearance players to get ball, run and deliver and we have a number of clearance beasts in Oliver, Viney, Brayshaw, Jones etc. 

We can only hope for some even up given the changes to the ruck circle seriously curtailed Jeff White’s ruck dominance. 

sounds like a rule written in our own image... 6/6/6

I am actually looking forward to seeing what they come up with, something needs to change I have gone from watching as much footy as I can to barely watching any at all it’s just rubbish to watch now 

And can I add these thoughts, if we are worried about congestion, get rid of the third man up ruck rule so umpires throw up the ball ASAP everytime and extend that to boundary throw ins, no waiting for ruckman to line up and reduce rotations more so players get tired and can’t get to every contest. 

6/6/6 will do absolutely nothing to ease congestion around the ground. The AFL is run by absolute morons I swear.

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

6/6/6 will do absolutely nothing to ease congestion around the ground. The AFL is run by absolute morons I swear.

Yep agree, especially as it’s only for centre bounces. Wings can start just outside defensive arc and flood back as soon as the ball is bounced, plus the 6 x i50, which is 5m from the square anyway can charge in. Every other stoppage will be exactly the same. How stupid are these people?

Edited July 24, 20186 yr by MSFebey

The proposed rule changes are horrendous and will make the game more unwatchable if anything. Strategy will become less valued, less contested ball and more players at each end will lead to a low pressure game of aerial ping pong akin to soccer. It will become weak and boring.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think the game is in the best shape it's been for a long time. I watch more games than ever (except when Carlton is playing). I like the current style that is based on winning the hard ball and bringing intensity to every contest. The rule changes will have a negative impact on us, as we win contests by getting more players up around the ball. Removing that tactical advantage will hinder us and advantage softer teams who struggle to compete.

I don't understand why they can't leave the game alone. Every 2-3 years the game style changes as coaches come up with new game styles and tactics. We're nearly two years into this current Richmond high pressure game style, it will naturally change within 12 months and rule changes aren't necessary to spur along that natural progression.

I think the game is ugly but all they need to do is umpire it properly and they can’t even do that

holding the ball

ruck nomination 

protected zone

throw up and in quicker

Edited July 24, 20186 yr by MSFebey

less rotations drop to 40 at least even 20

ball up as quickly as possible and ffs

pay holding the ball and not allow players like Ablett an eternity to get rid of it

Wait - isn't our whole game plan centred on a high zone and extra numbers coming off half back and streaming toward the contest? Not sure how even zones are going to benefit that - although some on here may be happy Goodwin will be forced to concede a structure we've been developing over the past two years.

After last week, i hope they bring in a starting zone for opposition kick outs, 10/6/2 perhaps?  

Edited July 24, 20186 yr by johndemonic

You know what every international person who watches AFL loves…that it looks like it has no rules. That is this game's greatest strength, and the AFL is systematically destroying that perception and replacing it with a rulebook longer than your arm. If anything they need to reduce how many rules there are.

 

I think the umpires have a big say in how the current game looks, I just get frustrated watching games now and it’s why I turn off free kicks plucked out of thin air but then not paid the other way, no consistency what so ever the protected zone rule is the worst I have seen, I didn’t watch our game Saturday night for the simple fact I knew I wouldn’t be able to enjoy it with selwood and Dangerfield flopping around for free kicks and getting them, I refuse to watch any Geelong game while those 2 cheats are playing, the enjoyment I used to get watching football has now been replaced by frustration so I don’t see the point in watching 

Interchange drop to 40 will make the biggest difference. 

Coaches will find ways to make the other changes work to their favour and we will be back to where we started.

The only thing that will make a difference while maintaining the fundamentals of the sport is reducing the number of players on the ground. For some reason they have a bee in their bonnet about this even though it wouldn't effect the actual gameplay at all. 18 per side has been the case since the game was played by absolute amateurs now we have world class athletes playing who can run all day yet the ovals remain the same size. 12 or 14 per side would probably do the trick.

The other thing this would do is make zones obsolete as it is impossible to guard enough territory with that few players on the ground. It would force clubs to play a man on man style of football.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/07/24/lyon-declares-double-goal-square-idea-ridiculous/

 

 

The AFL are truly run by morons who don't actually listen to their fans, the ones who make the game!

They have brought in rule change after rule change when in reality none of them were required and I don't think anyone had an issue with the game when they started doing this. All they really need to do is change these ridiculous rules:

1) The ruck nomination rule - it's a farce and has caused supporters a lot of grief. Simple change would be to penalise any side that has two players go up for the ruck contest, resulting in no ridiculous free kicks and the ability to ball up much quicker.

2) 10m protected zone - what the hell was wrong with the previous rule used? Did I miss something where every fan was up in arms over players running within 10 metres of the player with the ball? Throw this rule out completely and go back to the way it was. Cheers.

3) Sliding in - please stop paying this when a player has his head over the ball and has a right to get down and pick it up. It is the opposing players duty to ensure their legs aren't in the way. This rule should be reserved for only the worst of sliding into a contest, mainly feet first with the potential to cause injury.

If they make these slight adjustments I really don't see much of an issue with the way footy is being played. If they continue to make changes and make the game harder and harder to understand/watch they will lose me and I'll reserve my watching of football t Demons games only and finals.

2 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

The AFL are truly run by morons who don't actually listen to their fans, the ones who make the game!

They have brought in rule change after rule change when in reality none of them were required and I don't think anyone had an issue with the game when they started doing this. All they really need to do is change these ridiculous rules:

1) The ruck nomination rule - it's a farce and has caused supporters a lot of grief. Simple change would be to penalise any side that has two players go up for the ruck contest, resulting in no ridiculous free kicks and the ability to ball up much quicker.

2) 10m protected zone - what the hell was wrong with the previous rule used? Did I miss something where every fan was up in arms over players running within 10 metres of the player with the ball? Throw this rule out completely and go back to the way it was. Cheers.

3) Sliding in - please stop paying this when a player has his head over the ball and has a right to get down and pick it up. It is the opposing players duty to ensure their legs aren't in the way. This rule should be reserved for only the worst of sliding into a contest, mainly feet first with the potential to cause injury.

If they make these slight adjustments I really don't see much of an issue with the way footy is being played. If they continue to make changes and make the game harder and harder to understand/watch they will lose me and I'll reserve my watching of football t Demons games only and finals.

It's a mess on Gils watch, scattergun.

1 hour ago, MSFebey said:

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/07/24/lyon-declares-double-goal-square-idea-ridiculous/

 

 

AFL considering bringing in rule changes in some games this year as a trial. ?

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-25/new-rules-likely-to-be-trialled-this-season

Oh great just more rule changes to confuse both the players and supporters.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-25/new-rules-likely-to-be-trialled-this-season

 

I thought the AFL said there would be no rule changes "in season"

They won't get rid of stupid rules but want to change them "in season" for premiership point.

Oh the irony. Hypocrites to suit their agenda.

Can someone explain why we would be refunded?  I must've missed something.

Thanks

4 minutes ago, BigFez said:

Can someone explain why we would be refunded?  I must've missed something.

Thanks

Our "non-tanking" fine or something along those lines perhaps?

5 minutes ago, MSFebey said:

Our "non-tanking" fine or something along those lines perhaps?

Ah yes that makes sense.

Although we should be awarded $500,000 in damages and emotional stress for Harmes' 50m penalty call on the weekend.

Just now, BigFez said:

Ah yes that makes sense.

Although we should be awarded $500,000 in damages and emotional stress for Harmes' 50m penalty call on the weekend.

Haha. I want to erase it from my memory. AFL should be fined for bringing every game into disrepute.