As the number 1 clearance team in the Comp with arguably the best ruck and midfield, these rules should deliver a very dominant season for us. 

Any team with ruck or midfield issues will be hurt, more than in the past. 

Edited February 19, 20196 yr by PaulRB

50m penalties

The player with the ball: 

• Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game.
• Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out.  

Impact on competition: once players get used to this rule i expect players to play on at almost every opportunity, except when the 50 gives them a shot at goals (and even then sometimes) Why not? Will be one more factor speeding up transition. 

Impact on dees: no specific impact - I wonder if players with genuine speed like Hunt will really try and exploit this change

Potential implementation and interpretation issues: i'm curious how the umpire will determine when a player has played on. yes the rule remains play on when running off the line but a player bolting will be almost ahead of the umpire and running to yet to be determined mark. Will it be play on once a player passes the umpire? If so that would require a rule change.

Will a player bolting forward confuse the umpire and make it hard for him to work out where the mark should be? I suspect there ill be some confusion with this rule.

The other issue is that it will make a 50 metre penalty potentially even more of penalty and therefore the impact of any poor 50s by umpires will be magnified. It was already often such a harsh penalty for small indiscretions - this will make that worse.

 

Kicking for goal after the siren

A player who has been awarded a mark or free kick once play has ended: 

• Will now be able to kick across their body using a snap or check-side kick 
• BUT must kick the ball directly in line with the man on the mark and the goal. 

Impact on competition: marginal i would have thought. Particularly given the second part of that rule which meaning they players still cant creep across like Franklin does with his arc. Players using the snap and checkside almost always take step off the line, effectively playing on but won't be able to d that so will have to adjust their set up (eg start their run up behind the boundary line

Impact on dees: nothing in particular

Potential implementation and interpretation issues: the only issues i can see are the same as the ones now - correctly adjudicating if a player has ran off his line and played on

Edited February 25, 20196 yr by binman

24 minutes ago, binman said:

50m penalties

The player with the ball: 

• Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game.
• Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out.  

Impact on competition: once players get used to this rule i expect players to play on at almost every opportunity, except when the 50 gives them a shot at goals (and even then sometimes) Why not? Will be one more factor speeding up transition. 

Impact on dees: no specific impact - I wonder if players with genuine speed like Hunt will really try and exploit this change

Potential implementation and interpretation issues: i'm curious how the umpire will determine when a player has played on. yes the rule remains play on when running off the line but a player bolting will be almost ahead of the umpire and running to yet to be determined mark. Will it be play on once a player passes the umpire? If so that would require a rule change.

Will a player bolting forward confuse the umpire and make it hard for him to work out where the mark should be? I suspect there ill be some confusion with this rule.

The other issue is that it will make a 50 metre penalty potentially even more of penalty and therefore the impact of any poor 50s by umpires will be magnified. It was already often such a harsh penalty for small indiscretions - this will make that worse.

 

Kicking for goal after the siren

A player who has been awarded a mark or free kick once play has ended: 

• Will now be able to kick across their body using a snap or check-side kick 
• BUT must kick the ball directly in line with the man on the mark and the goal. 

Impact on competition: marginal i would have thought. Particularly given the second part of that rule which meaning they players still cant creep across like Franklin does with his arc. Players using the snap and checkside almost always take step off the line, effectively playing on but won't be able to d that so will have to adjust their set up (eg start their run up behind the boundary line

Impact on dees: nothing in particular

Potential implementation and interpretation issues: the only issues i can see are the same as the ones now - correctly adjudicating if a player has ran off his line and played on

What I hope to see with the 50m rule is a crackdown on obvious delaying tactics by the opposition. Tactics such as holding on to the player with the ball for too long after a mark or free kick has been granted or not returning the ball promptly have been allowed to creep into the game far too much.  

On 2/23/2019 at 8:15 PM, Moonshadow said:

I disagree. The expectations of ruckman and the game as a whole has changed considerably IMO. The constant is their size and that they are called ruckmen 

I don't think ruckmen have been a constant size. John Nicholls, arguably one of the best ruckman of all time was shorter than Patrick Cripps.

2 hours ago, binman said:

50m penalties

The player with the ball: 

• Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game.
• Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out.  

 

The AFL should employ a decent lawyer to check their rules.  If the letter of that law is applied, any of the other 17 players on the infringing team could delay the game.

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't think ruckmen have been a constant size. John Nicholls, arguably one of the best ruckman of all time was shorter than Patrick Cripps.

Size in relationship to others on the ground is what I was referring to LDC. 

3 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Size in relationship to others on the ground is what I was referring to LDC. 

Of course. Upon re-reading your post, that's now obvious. My mistake.

7 hours ago, binman said:

50m penalties

The player with the ball: 

• Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game.
• Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out.  

Impact on competition: once players get used to this rule i expect players to play on at almost every opportunity, except when the 50 gives them a shot at goals (and even then sometimes) Why not? Will be one more factor speeding up transition. 

Impact on dees: no specific impact - I wonder if players with genuine speed like Hunt will really try and exploit this change

Potential implementation and interpretation issues: i'm curious how the umpire will determine when a player has played on. yes the rule remains play on when running off the line but a player bolting will be almost ahead of the umpire and running to yet to be determined mark. Will it be play on once a player passes the umpire? If so that would require a rule change.

Will a player bolting forward confuse the umpire and make it hard for him to work out where the mark should be? I suspect there ill be some confusion with this rule.

The other issue is that it will make a 50 metre penalty potentially even more of penalty and therefore the impact of any poor 50s by umpires will be magnified. It was already often such a harsh penalty for small indiscretions - this will make that worse.

 

Kicking for goal after the siren

A player who has been awarded a mark or free kick once play has ended: 

• Will now be able to kick across their body using a snap or check-side kick 
• BUT must kick the ball directly in line with the man on the mark and the goal. 

Impact on competition: marginal i would have thought. Particularly given the second part of that rule which meaning they players still cant creep across like Franklin does with his arc. Players using the snap and checkside almost always take step off the line, effectively playing on but won't be able to d that so will have to adjust their set up (eg start their run up behind the boundary line

Impact on dees: nothing in particular

Potential implementation and interpretation issues: the only issues i can see are the same as the ones now - correctly adjudicating if a player has ran off his line and played on

The 50 meter / play on option with a second or third 50 will cause enormous angst especially as umpires cannot even interpret the existing rules consistently.  

18 minutes ago, monoccular said:

The 50 meter / play on option with a second or third 50 will cause enormous angst especially as umpires cannot even interpret the existing rules consistently.  

i still don't know how they judge exactly when play-on commences in this scenario. at the point it is play-on then presumably any oppo player can move in (from any direction) to tackle. full of more grey areas it seems.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i still don't know how they judge exactly when play-on commences in this scenario. at the point it is play-on then presumably any oppo player can move in (from any direction) to tackle. full of more grey areas it seems.

Did anyone see this rule in any of the practice matches?   Were any 50s imposed?

It is a huge concern and unfortunately, as per usual, Gil, Shocking and co have not thought this through at all.  They have again confirmed that they are half wits (combined - a quarter each)!

Important games WILL be determined by this without doubt.

10 hours ago, monoccular said:

Did anyone see this rule in any of the practice matches?   Were any 50s imposed?

It is a huge concern and unfortunately, as per usual, Gil, Shocking and co have not thought this through at all.  They have again confirmed that they are half wits (combined - a quarter each)!

Important games WILL be determined by this without doubt.

There was at least one - to here I think - and as dc suggested it was confusing as to whether he played on or not as he was sprinting forward.

Presumably it wasn't as he didn't run off his line but then he did play on by kicking the ball well short of where the mark would have been (which the umpire never got to set).

As I suggested I can't see why player wouldn't run quickly forward and play on. But there will be scenarios where they run quickly but don't play on and the oppo player impedes them because they think they have or are about to. Possibly resulting in a second 50.

1 hour ago, binman said:

There was at least one - to here I think - and as dc suggested it was confusing as to whether he played on or not as he was sprinting forward.

Presumably it wasn't as he didn't run off his line but then he did play on by kicking the ball well short of where the mark would have been (which the umpire never got to set).

As I suggested I can't see why player wouldn't run quickly forward and play on. But there will be scenarios where they run quickly but don't play on and the oppo player impedes them because they think they have or are about to. Possibly resulting in a second 50.

i think the whole 50m things needs a complete review, after all it was only brought in to replace the 15m penalty because players (notably sheedy) were giving away professional fouls to slow down a team's momentum and get more players behind the ball. It is too harsh for some quite technical frees and with no alternate (appropriate) shorter penalties available.

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i think the whole 50m things needs a complete review, after all it was only brought in to replace the 15m penalty because players (notably sheedy) were giving away professional fouls to slow down a team's momentum and get more players behind the ball. It is too harsh for some quite technical frees and with no alternate (appropriate) shorter penalties available.

Totally agree.

A 50 metre penalty is often way too harsh a penalty for some infractions, for example running into the exclusion zone.

It is also random in its impact (which penalties should not be wherever possible - or at least the randomness should be minimised) in so far as some 50s give a player a shot at goal (and sometimes a certain shot at goal - eg the 50 is paid 40 metres out) whereas the same penalty paid in the backline is less of a penalty

A easy solution is having both 15 and 50 metre penalties as options, each with prescribed infractions (and perhaps some wiggle room for umpires to use their common sense).

Edited February 26, 20196 yr by binman

Just now, binman said:

Totally agree.

A 50 metre penalty is often way too harsh a penalty for some infractions, for example running into the exclusion zone.

It is also random in its impact (which penalties should not be wherever possible - or at least the randomness should be minimised) in so far as some 50s give a player a shot of goal (and sometimes a certain shot at goal - eg the 50 is paid 40 metres out) whereas the same penalty paid in the backline is less of a penalty

A easy solution is having both  15 and 50 metre penalties as options, each with prescribed infractions (and perhaps some wiggle room for umpires to use their common sense).

Agree. While I'd actually like to make it 25 and 50 metre penalties, given 15 metres is a measurement already used by umpires (distance for a kick to travel before a mark can be awarded, maximum distance running with the ball), it's probably better not to introduce an additional measure.

I can't find it in this thread so perhaps it is another but lucifer's hero (I think) posted she thought the new kick in rule might result in teams flooding their backline to defend against quick transition.

I disagreed, arguing flooding is too defensive and make it too hard to the team flooding to score themselves.

Interesting that in the herald sun  predictions thread David king suggested the rule change would actually result in lower scores (doesn't say why but I'm guessing) and mick mcgrane says it will result in teams greater defending through the midfield by which I think he might  mean flooding back bbn or at least setting a deep defensive wall.

Both views support that of Lucifer's hero. It will be fascinating to see how it plays out. Perhaps lower clubs will flood to prevent blow outside, much the way struggling NBA teams try slow down games and avoid fast break basketball.

Edited February 27, 20196 yr by binman

A little refresher.

 

On 2/19/2019 at 1:55 PM, PaulRB said:

As the number 1 clearance team in the Comp with arguably the best ruck and midfield, these rules should deliver a very dominant season for us. 

Any team with ruck or midfield issues will be hurt, more than in the past. 

after seeing the JLT I would be interested in views.

Seems to me that the rules have caused confusion in the short term and that game plans honed over many seasons are out the window.

The kick out rules seem to be a waste of time (the zone has just pushed back) but perhaps it is too early. The hands in the back relaxation could impact the likes of Ben Brown at North.

On reflection a full year at VFL level for these rules may have been better but the AFL knows best !!

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

 

On reflection a full year at VFL level for these rules may have been better but the AFL knows best !!

Now there's a sensible idea.  No wonder the AFL doesn't do it.

8 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

after seeing the JLT I would be interested in views.

Seems to me that the rules have caused confusion in the short term and that game plans honed over many seasons are out the window.

The kick out rules seem to be a waste of time (the zone has just pushed back) but perhaps it is too early. The hands in the back relaxation could impact the likes of Ben Brown at North.

On reflection a full year at VFL level for these rules may have been better but the AFL knows best !!

Agree re kick out rule.  But from what I have seen the 6-6-6 rule will help the best centre clearance teams a lot.  Of all the teams, Richmond should be concerned the most and need a new game plan.  

Just look at our JLT v Richmond for a snapshot.  Richmond still rely on defence intercepts to attack, but no longer have the benefit of +1 or +2 so they will get exposed at times.  In the JLT we were a shambles in our forward 50 trying players who didn’t know how to structure up defensively when we lost the ball, Richmond played their best back 6, and the result was Bacher et al clocked up countless easy possessions and Richmond scored easily when the ball slingshot down the other end.  Same against Brisbane.  Take that away and you take away Richmond’s scoring and score more yourself.

Right now J Smith and Hunt in the forward structure are a liability.  They could be great long term because they add speed and should improve our forward 50 defence, but right now neither knows exactly what to do when we lose the ball.  It just takes one forward to not do the defensive job and it makes all of them look average because we lose our biggest scoring source which is forward half turnovers.  I don’t expect us to lose versus Port but if we do it will be because of poor forward 50 defensive structure, and won’t be because of the new 6-6-6 but will be in spite of it.  Spargo and ANB have both copped a lot of flak in the JLT, but if they play they will do their job and if all of our forward 6 do the defensive job, they’ll suddenly look a million dollars again.

What I expect to happen early in the season is we’ll persevere with Hunt or Smith as forward options as the upside could be huge by seasons end, we’ll still dominate inside 50s, we’ll still struggle with our front 6 unable to lock the ball in, and MFCSS will blame Lewis, Omac, and Frost for our losses.  

Edited March 16, 20196 yr by Watson11

i think it's interesting that our players have said that they actually aren't huge on 666, primarily as it's a different way of playing for us, where we've been used to having one or two come off the back of the square

i guess it'll take some adjusting, but really it should help us

centre clearances are going to be vital

8 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i think it's interesting that our players have said that they actually aren't huge on 666, primarily as it's a different way of playing for us, where we've been used to having one or two come off the back of the square

i guess it'll take some adjusting, but really it should help us

centre clearances are going to be vital

I suspect that is the mids but the forwards will relish not having one or two extras in defence at the bounce of the ball. 

Maybe our mids will start liking it when their bombs into the forward line start going to our players rather than the opp extra.

Re the 666 rule. 

In the WCE vs Cats game a free was given at the centre bounce for a player breaching a starting position.  It then took about a minute or two for the free kick, while the umpires had all players reset back to their designated 666 starting positions. 

But by the end of the JLT the reset to the 666 after a centre bounce free kick wasn't an issue - not sure if the umpires didn't bother with the reset or players knew the rules and quickly went back to their 666 positions. 

The reset after a centre bounce free kick is, imv a good rule.  It stops a team deliberately giving away a free kick so their players can flood the forward line.  This will become a 'set play' and abused by some coaches. 

While the episode in the WCE vs Geelong looked chaotic I would like the 'reset' rule stay.  If it doesn't the player receiving the free kick will need to dispose of the ball at lightning speed before the forward line is flooded, especially in close games.

I haven't seen anything in the media in the last few weeks about it so wondered what is happening.  Anyone seen anything official on this? 

Edited March 16, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

so after watching a couple of pre season games, when it comes to 666, I think teams with the dominant midfield should be able score more easily when on a roll.

I mean if a team is dominating from centre bounces, wont coaches just send all their forwards deep inside the F50, then if the opposition defenders man them all up, it will leave a paddock for the mids to run into for an open shot at goal or to even hit up a fast lead.

on the other hand if the opposition decide to put some loose guys up on the 50 to pressure the midfielders and stop them running into scoring distance, the midfielders can then just kick long to the top of the square where they have the outnumber.

looks a win, win situation for the dominant midfield to me.

On 3/17/2019 at 8:40 AM, Lucifer's Hero said:

I suspect that is the mids but the forwards will relish not having one or two extras in defence at the bounce of the ball. 

Maybe our mids will start liking it when their bombs into the forward line start going to our players rather than the opp extra.

For once, I'm pleased with the AFL. By amending this rule they've tinkered with our gameplan and removed what I thought was our consistent weakness last year. Sure, having the extra on the back of the square might occasionally have helped us win the centre clearance, but how often did that result in a turnover because we were a forward short? The strategy we used should have been reserved for teams anticipating losing centre clearances, not winning them.

did we lose hogan at the wrong time?