Whole Game 666

[sue 9,099]

Why do we need more scoring?  Compared to most games, AFL is a goal-fest already.  666 just means more rules and delays.  Congestion is not much changed but interesting tactics are probably more constrained.

The congestion that occurs nowadays is largely because of the the fitness of players and the big bench.  That's where the solution is.   

Here's a basket ball analogy where there is absolutely too much scoring IMO.  Players have gotten taller so it's easier to score.  So  you raise the hoops if you want to keep the game the same. You don't introduce netball rules about who can stand where.  

[chookrat 4,247]

1 hour ago, one_demon said:

You don't want less congestion?

I want a contest and some of the best games are low scoring, congested affairs, e.g. both Sydney v WCE grand finals. The narrative that we want free flowing, high scoring matches is not for the fans but rather commercial interests such as advertising. 

[one_demon 826]

1 minute ago, chookrat said:

The narrative that we want free flowing, high scoring matches is not for the fans but rather commercial interests such as advertising. 

I'm not sure about that.  I don't think fans enjoy congestion that doesn't allow players to showcase their skills.  

[Smokey 4,389]

1 hour ago, one_demon said:

Well the game has been played for one hundred years with players spread throughout the ground.  Curently the game is being played with thirty six players in one quarter of the ground.  So which is the different sport?

So you want to protect the sanctity of the game by bringing in even more new rules? Really bizarre logic. You can’t just make up a new rule every time the game changes and you don’t like it, this is the exact same mindset that is killing footy as we know it. 

It’s all gotten confusing enough. Enough with the new rules, if anything the AFL should be focusing on reducing the amount of rules. I have zero problem with a low scoring game. In fact they can often be more interesting, I’m sure I’m not the only one who never had a problem with a lack of scoring. Even at its worst it’s still by far the highest scoring game of footy you can watch. AFL continuing to try to fix problems that weren’t even there at the behest of corporate executives trying to squeeze every dollar out of footy they can. More goals = more ads. 

Outta here with your ideas to further complicate a now highly complicated game. 

Edited April 14, 2019 by Smokey

[DV8 2,271]

4 minutes ago, Smokey said:

So you want to protect the sanctity of the game by bringing in even more new rules? Really bizarre logic. You can’t just make up a new rule every time the game changes and you don’t like it, this is the exact same mindset that is killing footy as we know it. 

The interchange bench was a new rule, which I think started as 2 players..  then expanded,  then expanded again, then reduced,  then expanded again. 

[one_demon 826]

17 minutes ago, Smokey said:

I have zero problem with a low scoring game. In fact they can often be more interesting.

I never said we need more scoring 

[Smokey 4,389]

26 minutes ago, one_demon said:

I never said we need more scoring 

Many players main skill set is scoring, so you implied just that. 

[deanox 9,905]

2 hours ago, one_demon said:

Well the game has been played for one hundred years with players spread throughout the ground.  Curently the game is being played with thirty six players in one quarter of the ground.  So which is the different sport?

You've never watched old games have you?

No one used to "showcase skills" they hacked it forward while punching each other and extracting themselves from the mud.

The game has never stayed the same. 

[one_demon 826]

4 minutes ago, deanox said:

You've never watched old games have you?

No one used to "showcase skills" they hacked it forward while punching each other and extracting themselves from the mud.

That's true to a certain extent, however today's players are so much more skillful and the grounds are so much better,   Give them space and the will showcase their skills.

Edited April 14, 2019 by one_demon

[deanox 9,905]

3 hours ago, deanox said:

...

If you want to fix congestion around the ball you need to do the following:

- Strongly enforce holding the ball / illegal disposal. Don't let players gather/drop, gather/drop.

- Stop allowing a third player (ie a team mate of the player with the ball) to wrap up a tackler and keep the ball locked in. This stops holding the ball decions being paid. (It is just holding the man, so pay a free kick to the tackler)

These tactics are coached deliberately and are designed to ensure stoppages are win or draw only (not lose) by creating a secondary stoppage if you cannot win clean possession and dispose outside to a team mate.

Just adding to this, the reason this will work is because coaches are instructing players to crowd the contest so that the above can occur. Players without the ball need to jam in close so that they canconstantly scrap for it (gather, takle, drop, repeat) without giving away a free kick until they manage to get a free possession. Players need to stay in close to support their team mates by jumping on them and a tackler quickly,  to avoid holding the ball being paid against them. 

If you ping those things above repeatedly players will naturally stand further away from the contest in space so that they provide more options to get the ball out.  They will also be forced to play man on man because you can't give your opponent space around the stoppage.

[DeeSpencer 25,558]

4 hours ago, deanox said:

 

If you want to fix congestion around the ball you need to do the following:

- Strongly enforce holding the ball / illegal disposal. Don't let players gather/drop, gather/drop.

- Stop allowing a third player (ie a team mate of the player with the ball) to wrap up a tackler and keep the ball locked in. This stops holding the ball decions being paid. (It is just holding the man, so pay a free kick to the tackler)

These tactics are coached deliberately and are designed to ensure stoppages are win or draw only (not lose) by creating a secondary stoppage if you cannot win clean possession and dispose outside to a team mate.

 

There's an easy way, which is also the most logical way to remove congestion. 

- Remove 2 players from the ground and make it 16 a side with 3 or 4 interchange. 

I'd love to see a serious trial involving a state league competition and AFL preseason. Giving the good players the ball more often (even just 5% more) and with more space to work with surely results in more open skilled play.

[monoccular 17,417]

5 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

They play a form of 666 in modified rules for Junior Football (kids up to Under 10s) which is fine for those learning the game and for encouraging participation for all players.

However, in senior football, I can’t see it working for a whole game. Players would have to wear clothing differentiating them according to position and the restrictions would make it unplayable and unwatchable.

Netball!

5 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

666 was intended to create space, increase goal scoring and therefore have more ads to make money from. Instead it has brought scoring down, with Round 1 being the lowest score round of football in nearly 40 years. 

666 is a blight on the game. This year has produced the worst quality football in my lifetime, with not a single memorable or high quality game so far.

Expanding 666 would essentially turn the game into soccer. They need to undo all the new rules they implemented this year. They [censored] up and it’s lead to [censored] football. Pathetic foresight by the AFL.

Hocking and Gill have no idea - zero.  Just wanting to “stamp their brand” and leave their mark.  

One rule I would consider to “make the game more attractive” and reduce congestion and negative tactics would be no major is paid for backward kicks in the back half, or more radically other than from inside forward 50. 

[Supermercado 2,797]

3 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

There's an easy way, which is also the most logical way to remove congestion. 

- Remove 2 players from the ground and make it 16 a side with 3 or 4 interchange. 

I'd love to see a serious trial involving a state league competition and AFL preseason. Giving the good players the ball more often (even just 5% more) and with more space to work with surely results in more open skilled play.

And watch bad teams get stomped in spectacular fashion like they used to in the VFA. Imagine if you took our 2012/13 teams and added even more open space on the ground - we'd have topped 186 and 190. The benefits when good teams play each other might be worth it, but there will be less than zero benefit for the people that watch their team lose by 25 goals each week.

As for full ground 6-6-6 that is just dead-set insanity and anyone who thinks it's a good idea should have to undergo a urine test before posting.

[DeeSpencer 25,558]

17 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

And watch bad teams get stomped in spectacular fashion like they used to in the VFA. Imagine if you took our 2012/13 teams and added even more open space on the ground - we'd have topped 186 and 190. The benefits when good teams play each other might be worth it, but there will be less than zero benefit for the people that watch their team lose by 25 goals each week.

As for full ground 6-6-6 that is just dead-set insanity and anyone who thinks it's a good idea should have to undergo a urine test before posting.

The transition period would surely be rough but the draft and free agency should keep competitive balance. Those older C+ guys who can do a job should spread around the comp.

Opening up the ground would be a factor (if it works) but most teams right now are fielding a pretty ordinary bottom 6. Young sides might not get away with playing so many kids but they don’t right now anyway. As soon as a team is really full of babies they lose by 10 goals.

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

There is too much meddling with rules as it is. The umpires struggle to adjudicate the rules consistently as they are now. With each introduction of new rules every year and the need for umpires to get their heads around them, the basics are neglected. This year these basics have included the holding the ball rule, pushing in the back, deliberate out of bounds, to name only a few. Instead of the standard of umpiring improving each year it appears to be sliding backwards, creating frustration and angst among supporters. The AFL should be concentrating on the bones of the rules, not the fancy dressing. I would like to see one year when no announcements of rule changes are made. That would make a nice change.

[mauriesy 7,269]

We'll know after a year (or two) what the effect of 6-6-6 is. That's when we'll be able to dissect the stats to see whether scoring has improved or deteriorated, and whether 6-6-6 had a hand in causing it.

I will also be interested to know what effect the constant need to speed up and open up the game has in the long run on player fitness and injuries. But it may take some time to get enough data regarding 6-6-6 on the issue.

If at the end of the year or next, there is no improvement in scoring and a deterioration in player injuries, 6-6-6 should go. All it would appear to do in that case is consume time after a goal. I guess it allows television advertisers to slip in two ads every goal rather than one. ?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,710]

21 hours ago, Demonland said:

It seems to me that scores are lower not higher under 666. Having said that I don't have any stats to back that up. If true is 666 a failure so far considering the goal was reducing congestion inorder to achieve more scoring. 

On the 3AW pre-game discussion yesterday, the panel interviewed the St Kilda coach who said that in his opinion the 6-6-6 rule has reduced scoring because teams no longer have the "overlap" player in the back half. As he explained it, by having a plus 1, teams were able to use that to create attack from defence because once they had the ball, they had the extra player which made it difficult for their opponents to prevent a quick transition from defence to attack.

I have no idea if he's right or not, but it does show that tinkering with rules can have perverse consequences which might not be obvious at first blush. It's why any rule changes that are intended to change the way the game is played should be fully tested before implementation.   

[Jaded No More 68,879]

22 hours ago, biggestred said:

The solution imho to "congestion" is completely reducing the interchange bench. 

18 players on the ground. Matched up.  Star mid needs a breather? Sit in the forward pocket. 2 rucks? Gotta be able to go forward and back.  Everyone would be too cooked to push up the ground the whole game. Would spread it all out. 

Tactics? Wow coach a has moved player b onto player c. I miss that.

10 interchanges a game. Max.

You would hate to get an injury early in the game. Jesus. 

[sue 9,099]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

...On the 3AW pre-game discussion yesterday, the panel interviewed the St Kilda coach who said that in his ... It's why any rule changes that are intended to change the way the game is played should be fully tested before implementation.   

Quite right.  The AFL has the resources to lean on the VFL etc to do a lot of trialing for it.  If 666 doesn't work (and I think its objectives are wrong so I hope it doesn't)  it will take a few season before the AFL admits it was a mistake and then they will introduce a replacement which is also not tested.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,710]

47 minutes ago, sue said:

Quite right.  The AFL has the resources to lean on the VFL etc to do a lot of trialing for it.  If 666 doesn't work (and I think its objectives are wrong so I hope it doesn't)  it will take a few season before the AFL admits it was a mistake and then they will introduce a replacement which is also not tested.

Has the AFL ever admitted to making a mistake? It's a genuine question. The closest I can come to it is recalling Gil saying they were too slow to respond to the racist issues Adam Goodes faced.

In this instance, though, I could see them admitting it was a mistake, but only if McLachlan and Hocking have both already left the building, something which I think is a real prospect if the AFL starts to go backwards in popularity.  

[Demonland 71,840]

 

[SFebes 4,884]

On 4/14/2019 at 2:50 PM, Demonland said:

It seems to me that scores are lower not higher under 666. Having said that I don't have any stats to back that up. If true is 666 a failure so far considering the goal was reducing congestion inorder to achieve more scoring. 

Apparently scoring is down 12% this year so far.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

42 minutes ago, SFebes said:

Apparently scoring is down 12% this year so far.

666 has not given a great advantage to sides that win the centre clearance. Rather it has hindered sides counter attacking from defence that lose the clearance. Many goals last season were scored this way. No spare man or overlap opportunities to rebound. Game gets bottled up between half back and the middle.

Edited April 15, 2019 by america de cali

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Since scoring is down, channel 7 won't be happy.

I can only assume that there'll be more rule changes to "fix" this around half way through the season.

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

1 hour ago, Bluey's Dad said:

Since scoring is down, channel 7 won't be happy.

I can only assume that there'll be more rule changes to "fix" this around half way through the season.

Of course!

And until the paying public (paying with tv views, or gate receipts) turn away from the game, nothing changes! The evidence is in - no matter how much the AFL tinker/change rules on the fly, people still watch it - so as there is no disenchantment, there is no real cost for the changes from the AFL's perspective. 

It's football, AND it is simply just entertainment for the masses to avoid thinking about the drudgery of their own existence