With less goals there is less time for runners to deliver messages.  Teams have to rely more on on-field leaders, something we are lacking.  So we have suffered for this, especially in the first month this year.

And, quite contrary to expectations fewer goals with fewer center bounces is reducing the importance of tap ruckmen and the flow on effect is to reduce the impact of a dominant inside midfield like ours.  Perhaps, it is no coincidence that WCE stopped using 2 ruckman about a month ago.  Interestingly, most teams geared up and recruited an extra ruckman on the back of the new rules and how WCE won its way to a premiership.  Now, they may not be needed! 

Clearly, their have been unforeseen impacts of 6-6-6 and some clubs were better positioned with their existing defence oriented game plan (Geelong) or woke up to what was happening very quickly (Adelaide).  Interestingly, Clarkson started the game vs GWS with the old tactic of flooding the GWS fwd line for the 1st quarter.  'Defence first' to the extreme.  It worked - broke GWS's spirit and run!  In the last qtr he went back to controlling the play with kick/mark to kick/mark and they had a trillion uncontested possessions.

The 'penny dropped' for Goodwin after the Richmond game and our game plan changed toward 'defence first' and we won the next two games even with a significantly depleted team.  Like many other teams we have been playing 'catch-up' and our players are finding it hard to re-learn 'defence first' after 3-4 years of a ballistic style of attack.   Our poor defence in the earlier games wasn't only because they didn't 'run both ways'.

By mid year most teams will have sorted it out and it will good to watch how strategies pan out.  So Geelong and Adelaide may not be as dominant later in the year but they certainly have the early advantage when it comes to making the finals/top 4.

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

And what is the obsession within the AFL of turning the sport in to an American sport?

Night grand final

Mid seasons drafts

Unrestricted Free agency

Rule changes - obsession with scoring over it just being a good game.

lets give the players less time to take a set shot/speed the game up/ and then complain about lack of scoring - whos genius idea was that?

Shizen umpiring

What the actual f does the MRO do

I am not silly enough to not realise Free Agency and the mid season draft are good for players and creating better competition while filling a void, but the AFL seems to be determined to corpratise and Americanise the entire competition and make us much money as possible at the expense of the game and it's traditions

Now this may have been the same throughout history but the AFL are doing a great job of lining their own pockets

Soon we will likely see shorter games or seasons to make it more ëxciting' or more stupid rule changes.

Go get stuffed AFL

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by Unleash Hell

  On 13/05/2019 at 21:26, Lucifer's Hero said:

With less goals there is less time for runners to deliver messages.  Teams have to rely more on on-field leaders, something we are lacking.  So we have suffered for this, especially in the first month this year.

And, quite contrary to expectations fewer goals with fewer center bounces is reducing the importance of tap ruckmen and the flow on effect is to reduce the impact of a dominant inside midfield like ours.  Perhaps, it is no coincidence that WCE stopped using 2 ruckman about a month ago.  Interestingly, most teams geared up and recruited an extra ruckman on the back of how WCE won its way to a premiership.  Now, they may not be needed! 

Clearly, their have been unforeseen impacts of 6-6-6 and some clubs were better positioned with their existing defence oriented game plan (Geelong) or woke up to what was happening very quickly (Adelaide).  Interestingly, Clarkson started the game vs GWS with the old tactic of flooding the GWS fwd line for the 1st quarter.  'Defence first' to the extreme.  It worked - broke GWS's spirit and run!  In the last qtr he went back to controlling the play with kick/mark to kick/mark and they had a trillion uncontested possessions.

The 'penny dropped' for Goodwin after the Richmond game and our game plan changed toward 'defence first' and we won the next two games even with a significantly depleted team.  Like many other teams we have been playing 'catch-up' and our players are finding it hard to re-learn 'defence first' after 3-4 years of a ballistic style of attack.   Our poor defence in the earlier games wasn't only because they didn't 'run both ways'.

By mid year most teams will have sorted it out and it will good to watch how strategies pan out.  So Geelong and Adelaide may not be as dominant later in the year but they certainly have the early advantage when it comes to making the finals/top 4.

Pretty good analysis

Ill be the jerk and pull you up on that one, I think it was the game before. The Richmond game was the first game we went full defense first, but apart from that I think you are spot on.

They game will develop - but the question has to be what was the point of it all? Why make the changes in the first place.....

Is it also the kick out changes allowing clearance by defending team more easily? The extra 10-15 meters on the kickouts and the forward teams defending further towards the wing

This hurts us in particular with the low quality of our inside 50s and missing some basic shots on goal...

I suspect the 6-6-6 rule has had no impact other than making the playing field look good at the bounce of the ball after a goal or at the beginning of each quarter.

The real concern I have is the way the rule was introduced without a proper trial. A couple of half-hearted try-outs when neither coach is trying to win a game (or willing to show his hand) clearly isn't going to prove anything. The AFL should have used a full season of State League (ie, VFL or equivalent) footy to trial it before it was introduced. That should be the same for any proposed rule change other than an emergency rule change which might be needed for the purpose of enhancing player safety.

  On 13/05/2019 at 23:11, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I suspect the 6-6-6 rule has had no impact other than making the playing field look good at the bounce of the ball after a goal or at the beginning of each quarter.

The real concern I have is the way the rule was introduced without a proper trial. A couple of half-hearted try-outs when neither coach is trying to win a game (or willing to show his hand) clearly isn't going to prove anything. The AFL should have used a full season of State League (ie, VFL or equivalent) footy to trial it before it was introduced. That should be the same for any proposed rule change other than an emergency rule change which might be needed for the purpose of enhancing player safety.

100% agree.  It is staggering that such a major change was implemented without a proper trial.  Amateur hour.  Do what the AFL does (repeatedly) in any other sphere and your career would suffer.

I'm surprised the extended kick out rule hasn't added to the number of coast to coast goals but it seems that the zone has just been moved out and we are not seeing much change.

As LDC mentions all these rules should have been trialed at length in other competitions.

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by Diamond_Jim

  On 13/05/2019 at 23:37, Diamond_Jim said:

I'm surprised the extended kick out rule hasn't added to the number of coast to coast goals but it seems that the zone has just been moved out and we are not seeing much change.

As LDC mentions all these rules should have been trialed at length in other competitions.

I heard a stat on the radio about a fortnight ago the new kick in rule has helped the defending team more. Scores from the defending team outweigh scores from the kicking team from a kick out. Can’t remember the exact figures, would be good if we could see these stats somewhere. 

  On 13/05/2019 at 23:37, Diamond_Jim said:

I'm surprised the extended kick out rule hasn't added to the number of coast to coast goals but it seems that the zone has just been moved out and we are not seeing much change.

As LDC mentions all these rules should have been trialed at length in other competitions.

Agree. But the more I think about it, the more I think our expectations are based on flawed logic. While the quick play on from full back with the designated kicker running 15m before kicking looks fast, a ball actually moves more quickly when it's kicked. Ergo, if the ball is kicked out immediately from within the goal square, it increases the chances of it getting to the other end more quickly than if it is run out of the goal square first.

 

re the new kicking out rule: I've been surprised about how infrequently players kicking out have gone straight up the middle with a well thought out structure and player movement, both to maintain possession and to set up defensively if there is a turnover.  Presumably coaches must be able to counter it easier than I'd have thought.

  On 13/05/2019 at 23:42, Dee Zephyr said:

I heard a stat on the radio about a fortnight ago the new kick in rule has helped the defending team more. Scores from the defending team outweigh scores from the kicking team from a kick out. Can’t remember the exact figures, would be good if we could see these stats somewhere. 

I saw something similar.  Don't have the stats.  The explanation was something like:   A long, high kick from the backline to the middle gives defending players extra time to read the flight of the ball, run to the drop and set up defensively.  They get a stoppage, boundary throw in or a spoil and if their players are front and square they just turn and get it back into their fwd line.  If the kick-in team has moved into attacking positions it is easier for the defending team to score.

Another unexpected consequence of the new rule.

I read somewhere, and can't remember where I saw it that lower scores are in part to do with the new 666 rule, but also that teams accuracy is significantly lower i.e more points are being scored than goals. Not sure how easy it would be to pull stats down to correlate that.

I'm generally in favour of the new rules, the only one that I one attached 50m penalties where another one can be issued for being 'close'.  Penalty is too harsh, needs working or throwing out.

  On 13/05/2019 at 22:23, Unleash Hell said:

Pretty good analysis

Ill be the jerk and pull you up on that one, I think it was the game before. The Richmond game was the first game we went full defense first, but apart from that I think you are spot on.

They game will develop - but the question has to be what was the point of it all? Why make the changes in the first place.....

I thought it was a mostly a stop gap 'get numbers behind the center square' style defence (effectively a flood) UH.  I guess that's a full defence!

Goody must have realised we were toast with his early set up/structure after the StKilda horribilis coaching debacle.

He (and the players/FD) did not have enough time, with the very short 4 day break between the Saints and the Tigers, to implement any significant change up so he went with a variation of a flood/defensive half zone set up to minimise a looming blow out (had he persisted with more of the same).

The 10 day break between the Tigers and the Hawks being the circuit breaker, providing Goody & Co the luxury of a few extra days to change up the style/structure and for the FD to implement it effectively with the players.

It is no coincidence Goody sent the players off for a 4 day break as he more than likely would have wanted them, not only to refresh, but to reset their minds for a slightly new approach on their return.

The present structure/style we are seeing, and effectively a new start to the season from a player mindset (both on and off the field...with the pre game huddle one obvious sign of this), effectively began from Rnd 7 against the Hawks.

Edited May 14, 20195 yr by Rusty Nails

Massive changes over a pre-season are quite unfair in a lot of ways.  Also, you have pre-season games to trial stuff.

 

I think Brisbane were allowed to play trial games with it last year if I remember correctly.  Also Hocking's connections to Geelong would have given them a lead-in or wink in relation to what changes were coming in I reckon.

Now that Hocking and Gill are half way across the river and struggling, they won't turn back, even if they have reduced scoring and made the game more difficult to umpire.  Get ready for more rules to come in.

  On 13/05/2019 at 13:05, DeeSpencer said:

I'm not sure the 6-6-6 is responsible for anything that happens after 15 seconds from a centre bounce.

It's made the centre bounce more valuable which in turn means teams have to defend it cleverly and not risk too much.

Otherwise any other chances come from some of the other rules and the evolution of the game.

I think a big impact on scoring has been the comp being very even with a lot of teams being competitive. Just look at us - for most of last year we steam rolled bad teams and struggle to score against the good sides. It doesn't take much for those bad sides to get a bit more experience and structure in and therefore restrict our scoring. 

My prediction is no small rule changes will impact scoring. We can either live with it and wait until a team discovers some attacking secrets/skills or go for a drastic rule change. The most obvious one to me is 16 on the field.

I heard that one of Gold Coasts tactics were to ensure there are repeat stoppages at the center bounce, with Witts looking to tap the ball down to a contest as opposed to away to a team mate. Not sure if the stats back this up by I've noticed the ball takes a lot longer to get out of the middle now, so have coaches tried too hard to negate 6-6-6 that it's tying up the game? 

far far too early to be definitive

coachess are still experimenting and there is a move to play safe by playing ultra defensive, hence low scores

could take a couple of years to settle down and even then certain teams will go down separate paths based on their particular strengths and coaches' preferences

666 - Centre bounce clearances become more important, and players have to be more alert during the transition from the 'forced' start positions to the 'true' play positions, and can get exposed with a little bit of confusion. My guess is, especially combined with runner restrictions, this is most of all a problem for young teams, both in body (crunched at the stoppage) and mind (out-positioned in play). Well, that is to say, young teams and imperfectly drilled teams. And especially players who are both skinny and dumb!

Extended kick-in; the trouble with encouraging people to play on, is that once you start running off in whatever direction you pick, you've signalled where the ball is goign to go. So an extra couple of meters of run is basically worthless because who cares about being two meters further from your goal-line when what matters is where the ball is going and what the contest will be like there?

100m penalty rule; roll dice to see who and when this affects. Just idiotic. Stoopid stoopid stoopid. 'Solution' to a non-problem, that creates a much bigger problem.

And just for the sake of feeding the conversation - here's an interesting article that actually uses example clips of what happened in pre-season.

ABC March 21 Rule Changes article

My perspective is that the 6 6 6 rule has little to no impact other than the rare game, such as ours on the weekend, that are close at the end and teams get a small window of time to get a clearance into a forward line where the opposition has not flooded back. 

It may have contributed a tiny bit to some teams', like the dees, scoring chances if they used players off the back of the square as an attacking weapon, but that's hard to quantity (and in any case we stopped that largely by the end of last year).

I thought the kick out might have an positive impact but as we have seen (and i think Lucifer's Hero might have predicted?) teams are just setting up the wall higher. All team seem to be giving the short kick to the pocket, which just slows everything down. Coaches are too risk averse to direct players to go down the center as a turnover means a score is likely. 

The real reason scoring has dried up is so many teams are maintaining possession and eating up the clock crossing back and forward across their half back line until they get some space to move it forward or instead take the slower option of slowly tic tacking it down the ground with dinky little 20 metre lead up kicks.  

The 'goal keeper'  is also back in vouge and when both teams play the extra back you get games like the Freo v Crows game that are played in between the two 50 metre arcs.

The one thing everyone agrees on is the problem (which the AFL has defined as low scoring), which is that coaches will always find a way to design defensive systems that make it hard for the opposition to score. Much easier to do than design attacking systems that regularly generate high enough scores to guarantee a positive win loss ratio (though of course they also have to work on attack).

Given we know what the problem it makes sense to design the solution to target the problem - the coaches. But instead over the last decade the AFL have introduced on field rule changes to try and address the problem. And the evidence is clear - rules changes do not fix the problem of low scores and defence first game.

So what's the solution? Simple: create an incentive for higher scoring in the home and away season. An extra premiership point for any team that scores 100 points in a game (for both the winner and loser). Coaches would move heaven and earth to get that point as success is making finals. And a premiership point is gold. 

You would get higher scoring games and far less games where one or both teams put their cue in the rack early and chip it around once the result is clear.

There are a number of arguments against this idea. And one is that some teams would have an advantage as they play on drier grounds. Marvel stadium can close it roof and teams who randomly copped more wet games would be disadvantaged. But that all that would even out and in any case that argument presupposes the current draw is fair, which is patently not the case. 

Most of all providing an incentive to score would not change footy. Sure we have had four premiership points for a long time but final systems have changed multiple times and on field it would not change the game in the way something artificial like fixed zones would. The rule changes the AFL have introduced do change footy.

Let the coaches coach. Let them innovate to their hearts content. It is one the best aspects of the game. Make them part of the solution, not the problem

Edited May 14, 20195 yr by binman

Binman - that is well argued.  But it assumes that it is desirable to have more scoring.  I for one think this is a bad objective.  I don't like soccer because the scoring is too low. I don't like basketball because it is too high.  AFL scoring is fine as it was (unless you are channel 7 and want more adds, but bugger them. They seem to be covering the screen with more ads anyway).

In theory Binman percentage already provides the incentive but I see where you are coming from.

Many sports now have the bonus point concept. I would be happy to see it trialed at other levels but as you point out there are some issues. For example would you give  bonus point to the losing team if they also score over the required minimum.

It's certainly worth some further thought.

-

Edited May 14, 20195 yr by John Demonic
misread comment

  On 14/05/2019 at 07:36, sue said:

Binman - that is well argued.  But it assumes that it is desirable to have more scoring.  I for one think this is a bad objective.  I don't like soccer because the scoring is too low. I don't like basketball because it is too high.  AFL scoring is fine as it was (unless you are channel 7 and want more adds, but bugger them. They seem to be covering the screen with more ads anyway).

Very good point sue. My idea is based on the premise we need higher scoring but like you i'm not convinced scoring is an issue. I am firmly in the camp of leaving things alone and letting the game game evolve organically.

A beauty of the sport is the incredible tactical opportunities the combination of the size of the playing field and the number of players provide. I love how it seems to change and morph into something different and enjoy the high pressure, contest first game that it currently is.

Tactical and strategic innovation happens less frequently in basketball and soccer because they have fewer players and less space. 

But it would seem you and i are in the minority sue. Most seem to want a high scoring, free flowing game. Like that god awful Essendon v Dees game earlier this year.

  On 14/05/2019 at 08:09, Diamond_Jim said:

I For example would you give  bonus point to the losing team if they also score over the required minimum.

 

Yes, absolutely. It would provide an incentive for team to keep attacking even if they were too far behind to win. And by attacking that would open up scoring chances for the opposition. ;leading to a higher scoring game.

i punt on the line a bit and i can't tell you how many game basically stop once a team get say 25 points up with 10 minutes to go, with both teams going at half sped and just chipping the ball around.

  On 13/05/2019 at 22:19, Unleash Hell said:

And what is the obsession within the AFL of turning the sport in to an American sport?

Night grand final

Mid seasons drafts

Unrestricted Free agency

Rule changes - obsession with scoring over it just being a good game.

lets give the players less time to take a set shot/speed the game up/ and then complain about lack of scoring - whos genius idea was that?

Shizen umpiring

What the actual f does the MRO do

I am not silly enough to not realise Free Agency and the mid season draft are good for players and creating better competition while filling a void, but the AFL seems to be determined to corpratise and Americanise the entire competition and make us much money as possible at the expense of the game and it's traditions

Now this may have been the same throughout history but the AFL are doing a great job of lining their own pockets

Soon we will likely see shorter games or seasons to make it more ëxciting' or more stupid rule changes.

Go get stuffed AFL

Pretty sure it's the players who pushed for free agency.
They want to line their pockets as much as those in AFL house.
"Oh , but our carreer only last 10yrs."

You can still work after you're 30 boys.

 

  On 14/05/2019 at 01:41, TGR said:

Massive changes over a pre-season are quite unfair in a lot of ways.  Also, you have pre-season games to trial stuff.

 

I think Brisbane were allowed to play trial games with it last year if I remember correctly.  Also Hocking's connections to Geelong would have given them a lead-in or wink in relation to what changes were coming in I reckon.

Now that Hocking and Gill are half way across the river and struggling, they won't turn back, even if they have reduced scoring and made the game more difficult to umpire.  Get ready for more rules to come in.

Clarkson had the Dawks doing trials for the AFL as well.
https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/hawks-trial-afl-rule-changes-at-etihad/8e15078f-7be8-4a50-b692-9d75c1b6f69c

I also remember some uproar about Clarkson meeting Gill for coffees after a couple games Clarkson wasn't happy with.

Edited May 14, 20195 yr by Fork 'em

  On 13/05/2019 at 23:14, sue said:

100% agree.  It is staggering that such a major change was implemented without a proper trial.  Amateur hour.  Do what the AFL does (repeatedly) in any other sphere and your career would suffer.

That’s right, the AFL is where those people end up

in fact it is a refuge for all non evidence based stuff