More Rules Changes in 2021

[Demonland 72,190]

" .... league is weighing up whether to drop the interchange cap by 15 per-game, down to 75 rotations. Sources with knowledge of conversations at AFL HQ say there is a chance it could be cut by a further 15, down to 60, for the 2022 season in an effort to ease congestion."

"The league’s football operations department – led by Steve Hocking – is also considering bringing the man on the mark back by an extra five metres at kick-ins."

[Clintosaurus 7,846]

Will only work properly if 20 minute quarters are restored. Not the Geelong friendly 16 minute ones from this year.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

Both fairly logical changes, I would have thought.

[Wells 11 5,401]

Im not sure this helps us though does it?  We're still a team that does well in the clinches but gets beaten on the outside. If the game opens up more it could hurt us. Thoughts anyone? 

[Little Goffy 14,545]

3 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Im not sure this helps us though does it?  We're still a team that does well in the clinches but gets beaten on the outside. If the game opens up more it could hurt us. Thoughts anyone? 

It might work in our favour a bit because we have the game's fittest ruck, as well as fit key position players at both end of the ground who can stay on the park for almost the whole game (Bonus: Ben Brown was on the field for something like 98% of the time in 2019)

We also have more midfield depth than most so we can rotate without losing too much quality.

Perhaps most valuable - tired opponents means less flooding back, fewer intercepts and more chances for our forwards to use time and space to make something useful of our wonky entries.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,177]

It amazes me that they consider making rules changes for the upcoming season after trade period. Surely reducing rotations would put a greater price on endurance beasts or players with greater positional flexibility.

The AFL need to better understand what they are trying to fix before they start doing things to fix. If they want a more attractive game with less duration then they should focus on understanding the root cause of improving the flow of the game rather than improving scoring. If you want to Improve the flow Hulu need to address the root cause which Is continual heavy stoppages and the chip game.

To start addressing these remove the most offensive rule in the game of having to call out a ruckman. Ball it up when the ump is ready and expect one from each team to contest. Reduce the rotations to 15 per quarter and go back to 2 on the bench with 2 emergencies only for concussion tests and non returning injuries. This will create more positional play and keep the better players on the ground for longer. It also additionally supports the smaller list sizes. Thirdly increase the length of a kick to a true 20 or 25m and umpire it effectively.The game will open up, the play will flow and the scoring will follow. Less stoppages and short marks less time off and shorter quarters with more actual play. 

[deanox 9,917]

We have poor foot skills and exceed at contested ground ball.

Anything that increases player fatigue will reduce skill execution, decreasing the gap between us and the opposition. More skill errors means more ground ball and stoppages, which suits us.

 

It will mean we need to restructure our zone defence, and it might be harder for midfield to get back and help defence, but could make players who are good at leaving their man to be a third man in defence like Lever (and OMac) have a big role to play 

[rjay 24,928]

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

" .... league is weighing up whether to drop the interchange cap by 15 per-game, down to 75 rotations. Sources with knowledge of conversations at AFL HQ say there is a chance it could be cut by a further 15, down to 60, for the 2022 season in an effort to ease congestion."

"The league’s football operations department – led by Steve Hocking – is also considering bringing the man on the mark back by an extra five metres at kick-ins."

I really don't understand why they don't just bite the bullet on this one and make significant changes to the interchange cap.

I guess they're getting there bit by bit...nearly like drawing teeth.

[Diamond_Jim 12,588]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

I really don't understand why they don't just bite the bullet on this one and make significant changes to the interchange cap.

I guess they're getting there bit by bit...nearly like drawing teeth.

Given the cost of VFL/ seconds comp that is the obvious place to try some more drastic changes. Team of 20 with say 40 interchange.

Six games per year to be played with 16 on the field.

[The Lobster Effect 891]

12 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Given the cost of VFL/ seconds comp that is the obvious place to try some more drastic changes. Team of 20 with say 40 interchange.

Six games per year to be played with 16 on the field.

If the AFL decide in the future to reduce players on the field which positions could they realistically get rid of? 

[Biffen 12,943]

It’s a special task and they’ve given it to a very special person .

Is that really a job?

FMD.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

I wouldn’t know where to look but am interested to know if injuries (in particular, of the soft tissue variety) have increased since the interchange reductions came in. 

Edited November 15, 2020 by Ethan Tremblay

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

Reduce quarter length to decrease fatigue, decrease interchange cap to increase fatigue. Geniuses. 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

1 hour ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

It amazes me that they consider making rules changes for the upcoming season after trade period. Surely reducing rotations would put a greater price on endurance beasts or players with greater positional flexibility.

 

That's practically prudent compared to having a trade period before telling the club's what the list sizes and salary cap are going to be.

[daisycutter 29,616]

2 hours ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

Both fairly logical changes, I would have thought.

why would the extra 5m at kickin be fairly logical?

it's such a fringe level change, why would you bother

more fiddling at the edges

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

Does the extra 5m now mean the player taking the kick in can run all the way to the 50m line without bouncing the ball before taking their kick? 

Edited November 15, 2020 by Ethan Tremblay

[daisycutter 29,616]

4 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Does the extra 5m now mean the player taking the kick in can run all the way to the 50m line without bouncing the ball before taking their kick? 

after last years kickin changes designed to create more distance and avoid locking the ball in...i didn't note any real difference

average kickin penetration was much the same, didn't see many playons and bounces and 80% of kickins were still to the boundary line region. kickins were still defensive and "safe"

more examples of clueless meddling based more on wishful thinking than any great exercise of intelligence

[Diamond_Jim 12,588]

1 hour ago, The Lobster Effect said:

If the AFL decide in the future to reduce players on the field which positions could they realistically get rid of? 

given that most positions are irrelevant in general play the question relates to post goal centre bounce.

You would remove the wing as removing say the half forwards would only cause confusion as they are at opposite ends of the ground for the respective teams.You could also consider the centre and one wingman if you wanted to minimize congestion at a centre bounce.Two onballers might be too much.

VFA had no wingmen for many years

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

39 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

why would the extra 5m at kickin be fairly logical?

it's such a fringe level change, why would you bother

more fiddling at the edges

I think that extra 5 metres is significant. It should go some way to stopping repeat entries by breaking the zone. 

I can't see any kick-in happening from inside 25m with that rule, although teams might look to make sure their fastest blokes are manning the mark to effect this.

That means a solid kick puts you 75 out from goal. An average long kick from say, Steven May should have you somewhere in the vicinity of centre wing.

Also, the game is good. Tinkering at the edges is all it needs to keep coaches on their toes and stop them from manipulating the rules too much.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Cheesy D. Pun

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

3 minutes ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

 

Delete please mods. Had a senior moment.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Cheesy D. Pun

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,177]

Knowing our luck they will change the rules so when having a set shot from goal you must start your run up no more than 15 metres before the mark and you have 30 seconds to kick not to start your entry. 

[daisycutter 29,616]

14 minutes ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

I think that extra 5 metres is significant. It should go some way to stopping repeat entries by breaking the zone. 

I can't see any kick-in happening from inside 25m with that rule, although teams might look to make sure their fastest blokes are manning the mark to effect this.

That means a solid kick puts you 75 out from goal. An average long kick from say, Steven May should have you somewhere in the vicinity of centre wing.

Also, the game is good. Tinkering at the edges is all it needs to keep coaches on their toes and stop them from manipulating the rules too much.

i was talking of useless tinkering not fixing up minor loopholes etc

5m will make little to nothing change (plus could waste more time whilst umpire tries to enforce the mark)

[tiers 2,838]

If the AFL through Shocking truly wanted to reduce interchanges and reduce congestion, they should restore one of the features of the game the old kick in rules to provide extra time for the players to "catch their breath" so asto allow them more time on the field without the need for regular interchanges.

The current "pick up a ball from a bag" and start running for often more than 15 metres so as to kick to to the boundary line is not an attractive or appealing feature of our great game.

As for the interchange rules, maintain four interchanges but one player, a different one each quarter, must be rostered off  so that only three are available for interchange. Or reduce to three with one rostered off per quarter.

The number of rotations should be restricted to the equivalent of one per player per quarter ie. 18 per quarter and 72 per game. No player can be rotated more than once in a quarter. If the opportunity is not used then it is forfeited. Together with the other changes above this should provide an easily manageable and attractive enhancement to our great game.

Bring it on.

 

 

[TRIGON 4,783]

3 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

We also have more midfield depth than most so we can rotate without losing too much quality.

Suits us (and the Doggies will love it too) if they scrap the shorter quarters of 2020.

3 hours ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

It amazes me that they consider making rules changes for the upcoming season after trade period. Surely reducing rotations would put a greater price on endurance beasts or players with greater positional flexibility.

Agreed @big_red_fire_engine.

 

[Deemania since 56 6,637]

4 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Perhaps most valuable - tired opponents means less flooding back, fewer intercepts and more chances for our forwards to use time and space to make something useful of our wonky entries.

This is something (tired opponents' floods) that has assisted us to beat sides in the last half, more often than expected. We do find spaces late, and use these to our advantage when the kicking boots are worn.