Impact of rule changes

[Moonshadow 17,676]

On 1/28/2019 at 5:58 PM, Dee Dee said:

The grass at most(if not all) grounds is cut in 10 metre (light/dark) widths to help umpires gauge distances. Check it out next time you’re at the G, you’ll notice 5 widths from goal line to apex of 50 metre arc.

Of course that doesn’t mean the blind so and so’s don’t get it wrong from time to time?.

Is it that noticeable standing on the ground? Certainly clear on tv and in the stands. When I've gone on for kick to kick after a game I haven't noticed it.

[sue 9,107]

Re the new kick-in rule:  Is there a rule against a player from the team kicking-in blocking the man on the mark from effecting the run of the player kicking in?  (I assume he is subject to the same restrictions that apply elsewhere on the oval, but the effect at kick-ins may be very large.)

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 minute ago, sue said:

Re the new kick-in rule:  Is there a rule against a player from the team kicking-in blocking the man on the mark from effecting the run of the player kicking in?  (I assume he is subject to the same restrictions that apply elsewhere on the oval, but the effect at kick-ins may be very large.)

once the kickeriner moves outside the goal square it is play on for all concerned. whilst in the square the nominal man-on the mark can't be interfered with,

as i understand it the mark is set at 5 + 10 (now) metres in front of the square. but what about the sides of the square? is it 15m there too? they should use more diagrams to explain

[640MD 3,378]

Facinating topic,   and no angst,   love it.   Some of you obviously put more thought into your football than I do.  

 

But I love reading the different ideas     Go Dees !!  

[Wrecker45 3,378]

4 hours ago, sue said:

Re the new kick-in rule:  Is there a rule against a player from the team kicking-in blocking the man on the mark from effecting the run of the player kicking in?  (I assume he is subject to the same restrictions that apply elsewhere on the oval, but the effect at kick-ins may be very large.)

From what I understand the umpires had a trial with the new rules last weekend and it left more questions than answers.

[binman 43,014]

6 hours ago, sue said:

Re the new kick-in rule:  Is there a rule against a player from the team kicking-in blocking the man on the mark from effecting the run of the player kicking in?  (I assume he is subject to the same restrictions that apply elsewhere on the oval, but the effect at kick-ins may be very large.)

Really interesting question. Players regularly stand close to the player on the mark to block that side. As I understand it there is no rule against doing so. As you point out doing that from 9 metros away would have more of an impact because the player kicking out would get much more space to run into.

[DeezNuts 624]

The more I think about it, the more it appears that the combination of a dominant ruck punching forward and long to an uncontested and lightening fast lead receiver from the fwd line will benefit us.

As others have said, maybe this might be a new light for Garlett, to contribute to our i50’s, to our (also fast) TMAC on the lead as a set play?

Maxy might need a glove if he’s going to be punching long and forward regularly!

 

[sue 9,107]

11 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

From what I understand the umpires had a trial with the new rules last weekend and it left more questions than answers.

Not surprising.  We can rely on the AFL to have interpretation of the week throughout the season.

[DeeSpencer 25,716]

On 1/28/2019 at 11:47 AM, binman said:

Kick-ins

• At kick-ins, a player will no longer need to kick to himself to play on from the goal square.
• Following a behind, the man on the mark will be brought out to 10m from the top of the goal square, rather than the existing five metres.  

Impact on competition:

• Kick in player not kicking to himself will mean marginally quicker kick in, making it more difficult to cover the outlet kick
• The 10 metre rule will really open up the field - a player who can kick 60 metres will get it to the centre almost
• Together these two rules are very likely to help teams move the ball forward more quickly
• The 10 metre rule is the that i think will create the most innovation from coaches and may end up having the greatest impact in terms of changing how the game is played - for example: the longest kicks might, rather than the most accurate, might take kick ins, we might see more torps (like the one Frost unloaded against the Hawks) and maybe a play will b to kick to space (and over presses) on the wings and let quick players  'race' to get it
• Also coaches will need to come up with new defensive mechanism to maintain presses and stop quick transitions - and i have no doubt they will

Impact on dees:

• As FarNorthernD points out the recruitment of May will benefit us with the new kick in rule he is long and accurate kick that should provide opportunities for very quick transition
• But players like Frost and hunt, who are both quick and can kick long torps might get a crack at kick outs
• Also Hunt with his speed might be a player who could run into space for long bombs kicked into space down a wing

Potential implementation and interpretation issues:

• In terms of interpretation, without a line on the ground based on umpires inability to gauge 15 metre kicks i suspect they will regularly get the 10 metre wrong - they 'll probably let them run 20! - maybe they will need to put a dot 10 meters out
• That said both rules easy to interpret and i don't really see any possible implementation issues - however as noted above i think these rules will have abig impact and no doubt a number of unintended consequences

This is the biggest one I think. 

Forwards will have to be trained not to take rushed shots on goal. If you get the ball forward somewhat quickly then snap a behind you're going to get ripped apart on the counter. Similarly no bombed entries to the goal line, any long kicks in have to land outside the goal square so you've at least got a margin to work with.

Kick out zones will have to be pulled back at least 5-10m.

If Hunt gets back in form he could be a weapon. 11m goal square + 20m run (you usually get 5 extra) plus 60m kick. That's getting the ball close to the 50m arc on some grounds if he goes right down the middle.

Similarly the rest of the defenders now have a chance to either go long or to hit up holes a spread out zone. We might send Gawn deep for a bomb as a decoy but have Salem hit up a short accurate kick up the middle 40m from goal who can then attack both sides of the ground.

Fritsch, KK and Vanders on the wings now become vital defensive and attacking players I think. If the ball goes up and down quickly then position play becomes important and the wingers will be the guys getting the bombed kick out to their direction. I'm glad we've got 188cm+ wingmen with strength overhead. Same with big mids. The only concern is we might need some even bigger ones to deal with the 195cm mids a few teams have!

[binman 43,014]

Umpire contact

Players will be prohibited from setting up behind the umpire at centre bounces. 

Impact on competition: the only impact i can see is that some teams might run 'set plays' that involve setting up behind an umpire, or perhaps use the umpire to help break a tag. So minimal to no impact i would have thought

Impact on dees: see above

Potential implementation and interpretation issues:  who calls the free? obviously the officiating umpire can't, so would have to be one of the others. In which case they are a fair way away. What constitutes behind the umpire ie how far away can they be to not be deemed setting up behind the umpire? I assume there is a set distance, but how will a non officiating umpire measure it?

I'm predicting this rule will at some point result in a completely baffling free kick that changes the course of a game. I look forward also to the first time it is paid. I predict the commentators will give it an inordinate amount of air time. 

Edited February 11, 2019 by binman

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,798]

I noticed the effect of the "no goal square when kicking in from a behind" rule in the AFLW game. Many times the player kicking in was 20 metres from goal before kicking which really opened up the game. I think this might be a very successful rule change. (Of course, all it is really doing is getting rid of the need for players to kick the ball to themselves first.)  

[monoccular 17,432]

On 2/5/2019 at 9:41 PM, Wrecker45 said:

From what I understand the umpires had a trial with the new rules last weekend and it left more questions than answers.

Surely not. A highly professional body like the AFL would never introduce a half arsed idea. ???

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,798]

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

Surely not. A highly professional body like the AFL would never introduce a half arsed idea. ???

Of course not. They go with full arsed ideas only.

[Demonland 72,217]

 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

4 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Revised headline:  Average 1 on 1 defender says defending 1 on 1 is hard

I expect Melbourne and Collingwood with dominant ruckman and song midfields will lead the league in scores from centre clearances but other than that this rule will make little difference. Teams will too easily rotate to get spare defender back after 15 seconds

With the last minute of a game being the notable exception.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,798]

One of the best rules ever to be introduced was announced earlier this week with no fanfare. I can't even find the story on the AFL's website. But the AFL has announced a zero tolerance approach to punching. A free kick will be paid against the puncher every time. Hopefully the rule will be clear that it also includes elbows (which obviously will immediately replace fists by miscreants intent on niggling). It's a good change for many reasons. It stops taggers from impeding ball players the way they have been doing; it should reduce the "need" for retaliation and most importantly, it sends a message that violence in any form is unacceptable.

If anyone can find a link to the official announcement it would be useful to include it in this thread.

[DV8 2,271]

On 2/14/2019 at 11:17 AM, ArtificialWisdom said:

Revised headline:  Average 1 on 1 defender says defending 1 on 1 is hard

I expect Melbourne and Collingwood with dominant ruckman and song midfields will lead the league in scores from centre clearances but other than that this rule will make little difference. Teams will too easily rotate to get spare defender back after 15 seconds

With the last minute of a game being the notable exception.

I hope we are not returning to having a Choir-Boy Midfield,  'AW' .

[Demonland 72,217]

Gawn says 6-6-6 is good for the game.

 

[rjay 24,935]

On 2/11/2019 at 2:43 PM, binman said:

Umpire contact

Players will be prohibited from setting up behind the umpire at centre bounces. 

Impact on competition: the only impact i can see is that some teams might run 'set plays' that involve setting up behind an umpire, or perhaps use the umpire to help break a tag. So minimal to no impact i would have thought

Impact on dees: see above

Potential implementation and interpretation issues:  who calls the free? obviously the officiating umpire can't, so would have to be one of the others. In which case they are a fair way away. What constitutes behind the umpire ie how far away can they be to not be deemed setting up behind the umpire? I assume there is a set distance, but how will a non officiating umpire measure it?

I'm predicting this rule will at some point result in a completely baffling free kick that changes the course of a game. I look forward also to the first time it is paid. I predict the commentators will give it an inordinate amount of air time. 

Back in the good old days we used to use the umpire as a shield to break a tag.

When the ump bounces the ball and moves back there is a space between him and the ball, the plan was for the ruck to tap to a mid moving through that space.

All those who used to complain about Jamar tapping short, well this was a similar tactic they were trying to pull off.

Notice I said trying, not necessarily working and of course the opposition would be trying something similar.

[Demonland 72,217]

 

[Demonland 72,217]

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,798]

On 2/15/2019 at 12:09 PM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

One of the best rules ever to be introduced was announced earlier this week with no fanfare. I can't even find the story on the AFL's website. But the AFL has announced a zero tolerance approach to punching. A free kick will be paid against the puncher every time. Hopefully the rule will be clear that it also includes elbows (which obviously will immediately replace fists by miscreants intent on niggling). It's a good change for many reasons. It stops taggers from impeding ball players the way they have been doing; it should reduce the "need" for retaliation and most importantly, it sends a message that violence in any form is unacceptable.

If anyone can find a link to the official announcement it would be useful to include it in this thread.

Here's some media coverage of the AFL's Umpires' Coach discussing the punching ban

I expect the AFL will eventually realise that it doesn't go far enough and will also include elbows as well as closed fists.

 

[Demonland 72,217]

 

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

Hmmm. I like this whiner less and less each day.  

I'm in the camp of 'leave the effin game alone', but his words are just stupid. I really hope he was taken out of context.

[censored] teams will get smashed - um yeah. That is what happens to [censored] teams. Always has, always will.

But it will make it easier to make a comeback - um yeah. Not even sure what to say after point A.

Just go away. Get sacked. [censored] off. You are that annoying kid at school that was always dobbing the rest of us in for having a smoke or copping a feel behind the shelter sheds.

[Demonland 72,217]