Has the 6-6-6 Rule Backfired?

[Lucifers Hero 36,983]

I saw this article on the 6-6-6 Rule where Don Pyke:  "...believes the six-six-six rule, introduced at the beginning of 2019 with the intention of creating flow and boosting scoring, has had the opposite effect..."  He highlighted that there have not been many 100+ pt scores this year. 

So I put together a little Table showing the # of 100+ ptscores over recent years in rnds 1-8

Its no wonder games are harder to watch.

This year there has been only one game where both teams scored 100+ pts, coincidentally when we played Ess.

Given this (and other rules) came in because the AFL and ch7 thought 'not enough' goals were being scored and wanted to open up the game, the Table would not make them happy.  iirc the AFL wanted to outsmart coaches by taking away some of their defensive tactics at centre bounces and kick-ins.

Interestingly, Pyke also said:  "...Adelaide simply had to adapt to the new trend and cast aside their reputation...for attack before defence".  In 2018 we were proudly a fwd half team that relied on the weight of i50 entries to kick winning scores so we were about attack, attack at all costs.  Perhaps it is not only our lack of two-way running that caused Goodwin to change and go back to the earlier Paul Roos strategy of 'defence first'.  

Lower scores are unexpected outcomes of the new rules and as Pyke says:  "... I don’t know what the AFL is going to do about it.” 

I would say the rule changes have backfired!  Over to you, Gil!

 

[Moonshadow 16,114]

Certainly backfired for us. Can't get numbers behind the ball. Struggle to set up defensively 

And here we were over summer thinking it would help us because we had Max!

[Gunna’s 1,777]

Agree on your stats presented and have actually stated it in prior posts with very few +100pt games. 

Although on the other side of the coin. We wouldn’t have been able to score twice in 49 seconds if for not the 6-6-6 rule. 

Is it the rule or the coaches not allowing free flowing football?

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,274]

Same as most rule changes over past (10?) or more years

Coaches and players adapt and find new tactics, unsurprisingly there are unintended/unforeseen consequences, inevitably compounded by poor interpretation by umpireS of increasingly confusing rules

I've said it before, if only they left the game alone and improved the umpiring of the original game the fans (including viewers/broadcasters) would be much happier and us folks on Demonland would get approximately 43% of our posting time back to use more effectively

[Demon Dynasty 15,210]

25 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Certainly backfired for us. Can't get numbers behind the ball. Struggle to set up defensively 

And here we were over summer thinking it would help us because we had Max!

I wouldn't read to much into our ability to adjust or cope with 666 and the rest of the rule changes 'this season' Moon given the rediculous level of injuries etc so far.

Let's see how we go once we get most of our best players up and firing eh.

666 has definitely had the reverse effect that the AFL were hoping for though that's for sure.  Scrap all the other rubbish with kick ins etc and just have 666 with significant reductions in interchange.

They changed the game for the worse by taking it from a few interchange to allow for injuries to unlimited just to 'supposedly' keep the game as fast moving as possible.  It had the reverse effect by allowing coaches/fitness gurus to change the style of player to power runners in short bursts able to close down on ground balls and lock it in creating stoppage after stoppage and mad levels of congestion.  Add to this the umpires slacking off with the prior opp rule resulting in less free kicks vs the past and the AFL created a rolling scrum / rod for its (our) back.

Keep it simple.  Retain 666, reduce interchange significantly to reduce the effect of the burst power runners' ability to get to the contest/tackle, scrap the other new rules, then see how it plays out.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Rusty Nails

[John Demonic 4,782]

My favourite grand finals were the ones where 50-60 points were scored each. I want to see a good contest, not just a good shootout. Couldn't care less about the low scoring.

Edited May 13, 2019 by John Demonic

[Key Deefender 143]

Ironically without 6-6-6, we would not have won Saturday’s game. A goal behind with 49 seconds left on the clock, previously Gold Coast could have just stacked their backline and made it virtually impossible for us to score twice in that time. 

While the jury is still out on a number of fronts, it at least gives a team a chance in this last gasp situation. 

Edited May 13, 2019 by Key Deefender

[titan_uranus 22,220]

5 minutes ago, John Demonic said:

My favourite grand finals were the ones where 50-60 points were scored each. I want to see a good contest, not just a good shootout. Couldn't care less about the low scoring.

Agree.

The OP says games are "harder to watch" because there are fewer instances of a team scoring 100 points.

The Melbourne v Essendon game had lots of goals but no skill, turnovers galore, and no defence from either side. I don't accept that made the game enjoyable. 

The scoring debate is taking over from the real debate, which should be about what we are actually watching. Goals do not make the game enjoyable in all circumstances.

[Demonland 64,416]

I think it has backfired in terms of lower scoring. It has also hurt our game and we haven't adjusted. Having said that we would not have won the game this week if we were in the same position a goal down and 54 seconds to go. 

[Moonshadow 16,114]

Slight side track, but I like the idea of team prior opportunity. If a player is under pressure and dishes off a handball to a teammate he shouldn't get the benifit of 'no prior.

Also, rules such as the 5m protected zone and obstruction of the 50m penalty are ridiculous and harsh and draw unnecessary negative attention to the umpires.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Moonshadow

[Lucifers Hero 36,983]

1 hour ago, John Demonic said:

My favourite grand finals were the ones where 50-60 points were scored each. I want to see a good contest, not just a good shootout. Couldn't care less about the low scoring.

For every game that is close or low scoring and a good contest there are many more such games that aren't a good contest.  eg our game vs GCS: one point on the siren win but both teams played rubbish.  Or our win vs Hawks; played by two middle of the road teams.  Low scoring, close but awful to watch.

A close game does not mean a good game any more than a high scoring game means a good game. 

I didn't check the stats but I would guess the i50 count this year is well down across the board, so games are being played between the 50m arcs or with lots of shallow i50's so it is like watching ping-pong.  The contests stifle player skills.

Personally, I would rather watch a skillful game with few contests eg the excitement of a player running, bouncing the ball toward toward goal is the best part of our game ala Hannan in the Geelong final last year.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Lucifer's Hero

[Cheap Seats 3,300]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I saw this article on the 6-6-6 Rule where Don Pyke:  "...believes the six-six-six rule, introduced at the beginning of 2019 with the intention of creating flow and boosting scoring, has had the opposite effect..."  He highlighted that there have not been many 100+ pt scores this year. 

So I put together a little Table showing the # of 100+ ptscores over recent years in rnds 1-8

Its no wonder games are harder to watch.

This year there has been only one game where both teams scored 100+ pts, coincidentally when we played Ess.

Given this (and other rules) came in because the AFL and ch7 thought 'not enough' goals were being scored and wanted to open up the game, the Table would not make them happy.  iirc the AFL wanted to outsmart coaches by taking away some of their defensive tactics at centre bounces and kick-ins.

Interestingly, Pyke also said:  "...Adelaide simply had to adapt to the new trend and cast aside their reputation...for attack before defence".  In 2018 we were proudly a fwd half team that relied on the weight of i50 entries to kick winning scores so we were about attack, attack at all costs.  Perhaps it is not only our lack of two-way running that caused Goodwin to change and go back to the earlier Paul Roos strategy of 'defence first'.  

Lower scores are unexpected outcomes of the new rules and as Pyke says:  "... I don’t know what the AFL is going to do about it.” 

I would say the rule changes have backfired!  Over to you, Gil!

 

Agree

Opening the game up has exposed teams for lack of speed.

We tried early in the season to go head to head for speed and ball movement and failed miserably.

Now teams have clued on to how to play expect it to be more defensive.

Teams will adapt and I think scoring will increase, good teams will find a way to score.  But have the rules worked or improved the game overall??? I say no.... what was the point of changing it at all

Im looking forward to the AFL changing the rules again and fing it up even more. Another massive fail

Edited May 13, 2019 by Unleash Hell

[John Demonic 4,782]

36 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Slight side track, but I like the idea of team prior opportunity. If a player is under pressure and dishes off a handball to a teammate he shouldn't get the benifit of 'no prior.

You must want a few more top 5 picks Moony! Our game style would be utterly negated with team prior!

Would like to see how this looks though, has it been trialed before?

 

Edited May 13, 2019 by John Demonic

[deebug 1,754]

For us YES ? 

 

[What 18,810]

Protected species at the AFL tribunal,  'Marvel' stadium and superhero guernseys,  the disastrous 666 rule....

 

Great job Gillon McLachlan and co.  Keep running the game into the ground!

[ProperDee 1,698]

For me, it seems to have merely taken some of a coaches tactical options right away and replaced those with an awful, game changing he-who-must-be-obeyed type law. I fail to see how it has improved the game and from my perspective, has made the game less interesting. 

This seems to be a classic case of changing something because those that have the power to do so, can. It hasn’t improved the game one iota.

[Demon Dude 425]

Dil and Shocking must be worried about what they've done. footys never been so boring imo.

also while we are talking about it, I've come around to the way of thinking that they should just do away with prior opportunity altogether. if you don't want possession for fear of getting caught holding the ball, just tap it on until you do want to take possession. like they used to do before they brought in the prior rule. at the very least they should bring in team prior opportunity like Moonshadow says.

it might help clear some of these scrums that end up repeat stoppages and would be more exciting to watch, keeping the ball in constant motion. ruckman will bring back the big smash to clear the ball out of the ruck as well. a feature of the game that has all but disappeared these days.

[Tony Tea 2,784]

In the OED there is a picture of the AFL logo next to "unintended consequences".

[DV8 2,271]

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I saw this article on the 6-6-6 Rule where Don Pyke:  "...believes the six-six-six rule, introduced at the beginning of 2019 with the intention of creating flow and boosting scoring, has had the opposite effect..."  He highlighted that there have not been many 100+ pt scores this year. 

So I put together a little Table showing the # of 100+ ptscores over recent years in rnds 1-8

Its no wonder games are harder to watch.

This year there has been only one game where both teams scored 100+ pts, coincidentally when we played Ess.

Given this (and other rules) came in because the AFL and ch7 thought 'not enough' goals were being scored and wanted to open up the game, the Table would not make them happy.  iirc the AFL wanted to outsmart coaches by taking away some of their defensive tactics at centre bounces and kick-ins.

Interestingly, Pyke also said:  "...Adelaide simply had to adapt to the new trend and cast aside their reputation...for attack before defence".  In 2018 we were proudly a fwd half team that relied on the weight of i50 entries to kick winning scores so we were about attack, attack at all costs.  Perhaps it is not only our lack of two-way running that caused Goodwin to change and go back to the earlier Paul Roos strategy of 'defence first'.  

Lower scores are unexpected outcomes of the new rules and as Pyke says:  "... I don’t know what the AFL is going to do about it.” 

I would say the rule changes have backfired!  Over to you, Gil!

 

I like the 6-6-6... there is more space and wingers can run occasionally.

I don't care about high scores...  i want to see ball transition and spontaneous footy.    Not some sort of chess game.

[DeeSpencer 23,060]

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.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,570]

35 minutes ago, 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.

Or try bringing the interchange numbers back to what they were in the 80s/90s.

[hardtack 10,126]

5 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Certainly backfired for us. Can't get numbers behind the ball. Struggle to set up defensively 

And here we were over summer thinking it would help us because we had Max!

Actually, we wouldn’t have won on Saturday without the 666 rule.

[DV8 2,271]

1 hour ago, 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.

16 on the field,  'DS' ???

 Meaning we go into the games, with a team of 20 players.?   WHY ?

 

Surely its better to have only 2,  or 3...  on the bench, rather than reducing the players to 16 on-field.?

[brendan 3,380]

6-6-6 is rubbish, footy in general this year is rubbish to the point I have stopped watching it, I liked that we could be innovative at a centre bounce having players coming off the back of the square last year, the rule changes are crap, the umpiring is diabolical the AFL Has stuffed the game completely, what more can I say the game is completely [censored] 

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,106]

You know it’s a scoring crisis when barely any losing side scores 80 plus points this year.