Looks like another year where we have to listen to umpires call out Max’s name before every ball up. What a joke. 

I really feel for Carlton spending a fortune on Williams who plays 80% TOG off half back let alone decent midfield minutes under a 75 cap.

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by big_red_fire_engine

1 hour ago, one_demon said:

Nope, there's no waiting for players to go back into the zone.   If the six players are not in the zone the team is docked rotations. 

docked rotations....

what a weak penalty... the old wet lettuce leaf springs to mind

I can see that working well in a close last quarter

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

docked rotations....

what a weak penalty... the old wet lettuce leaf springs to mind

 

It's not a weak penalty if one team is fresher because they have more rotations. 

 

I’m glad the rotations are reducing. Hopefully down to 60 the year after. Should reduce the ability of teams to sprint constantly. Teams will lower speed may benefit. Players will hold their position more and the game should open up. 

Even if you reduced it down to forty rotations per game, that's still one rotation every two minutes.  How many rotations do they need!

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by one_demon

I don't like the zone locking of a player from each team into a goal square for stoppages (I know it's 2nd tier but it's usually an earmark for where they're going). 3 in each 50m arc isn't the worst idea though.

This "reduced lateral movement for player on mark" I'm not sure about, and the umpires should be instructed to be more vigilant about players moving off the mark from a free kick/mark.

At this stage the AFL rule makers are being as stubborn as Trump about the nomination rule for rucks; nobody likes it, nobody wants it, there is no evidence to suggest it helps, and almost every match we find a situation where there's confusion brought on because of it.

Another rule I wouldn't be against them look at is play on for kicks backward, or perhaps a similar basketball idea where once you pass the halfway line you can't go behind it. 

2 hours ago, one_demon said:

It's not a weak penalty if one team is fresher because they have more rotations. 

It'll be like the old 15 metre penalty which Hawthorn happily took to slow the game down.

Such an easy area to be gamed in a tight last quarter.

4 hours ago, one_demon said:

On-field umpires would NOT adjudicate the zones.  There would be an off-field umpire who docks rotations for every breach of the rule.

 

4 hours ago, one_demon said:

Nope, there's no waiting for players to go back into the zone.   If the six players are not in the zone the team is docked rotations. 

I obviously didn't read the detail..... docking rotations as a penalty!!  

How about in the dying moments of a close game - who cares about rotations at that stage?

15 minutes ago, monoccular said:

 

I obviously didn't read the detail..... docking rotations as a penalty!!  

How about in the dying moments of a close game - who cares about rotations at that stage?

True that is very open to exploitation in the dying couple of minutes, and what happens if a team is down to zero anyway? Docked rotations for the next match?

10 hours ago, Pates said:

True that is very open to exploitation in the dying couple of minutes, and what happens if a team is down to zero anyway? Docked rotations for the next match?

Yes, once you're down to zero you start losing rotations from your next match. 

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by one_demon

Well done AFL. Anything to cut down the congestion. Have stopped watching any AFL apart from Melbourne games as its become an ugly rugby scrum.

Will be interesting to see how we go with the changes to the rules as Goodwin didnt exactly cover himself in glory when the 666 rule came in.

Hope Yze can have a valuable input.

Time will tell.

I'm glad they're trialling some rules first. On first blush I suspect the obligation to have a prescribed number of players in the forward line at every kick in and throw in will have the reverse effect to what is intended as it will slow the game down while we wait for players to get into those positions. While that's going on, the team that needs to defend will use the time to block more space. 

Edited November 19, 20204 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia
typo

19 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm glad they're trialling some rules first. On first blush I suspect the obligation to have a prescribed number of players in the forward line at every kick in and throw in will have the reverse effect to what is intended as it will slow the game down while we wait for players to get into those positions. While that's going on, the team that needs to defend will use the time to block more space. 

Exactly what I thought 

another rule that will do nothing after 30 secs. Same as 666

Hocking is an executive joke

On 11/15/2020 at 2:53 AM, Rednblueriseing said:

If it Ain't broke? Just creating more problems and making the game harder for anyone new to understand, let alone the old timers 

Stupid Hocking. That's what the game is all about, it's a mans sport Hocking... skills and endurance is the name of the game

 

"The main reason (for the 75 interchange cap) is to try and open up congestion around the ground. There are a lot of high pressure game styles which have kicked in, the pressure factors have increased, and have been on the increase for five years now, so our belief is we need to put a little bit of fatigue back into the system, and to recalibrate that part of the game and hopefully have the result of opening up the game," Hocking said.

27 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

...the obligation to have a prescribed number of players in the forward line at every kick in and throw in will have the reverse effect to what is intended as it will slow the game down while we wait for players to get into those positions. 

Nope.  We don't wait for players to get into position.  If they're not in position the team is docked rotations.

3 hours ago, Ohio USA - David said:

Stupid Hocking. That's what the game is all about, it's a mans sport Hocking... skills and endurance is the name of the game

 

"The main reason (for the 75 interchange cap) is to try and open up congestion around the ground. There are a lot of high pressure game styles which have kicked in, the pressure factors have increased, and have been on the increase for five years now, so our belief is we need to put a little bit of fatigue back into the system, and to recalibrate that part of the game and hopefully have the result of opening up the game," Hocking 

By watching footy you'd see that fatigue contributes to poor disposal, how many times have you seen a player buggered having a set shot, and completely miss kick. They are creating more problems then there fixing 

14 minutes ago, Rednblueriseing said:

By watching footy you'd see that fatigue contributes to poor disposal, how many times have you seen a player buggered having a set shot, and completely miss kick. They are creating more problems then there fixing 

oh c'mon. the current game as it stands now has plenty of examples of fatigue kicking, chasing etc. and the reason is the ridiculous 2-way running the game plan places on all players whether it suits them or not. force the coaches to change the game plan by making it harder to play the 2-way constant running and there will be less fatigue .

It must be made too hard to play the current style in order to change the coaches' mindset. They won't do it voluntarily because they are obsessed with control and defense 

p.s. with greatly reduced rotations there will only be more player fatigue if the coaches persist with current defensive game plans which would become counter productive

Edited November 19, 20204 yr by daisycutter

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

It must be made too hard to play the current style in order to change the coaches' mindset. They won't do it voluntarily because they are obsessed with control and defense 

Correct.  Stop the coaches!  I think I might put it on a t-shirt.

Great opinion article

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/will-a-wall-really-make-afl-great-again-20201119-p56g1p.html

The Make AFL Great Again cap-wearers at league headquarters are quietly building a wall.

These MAGA devotees want to stop the horde of players from one end of the ground rushing down and setting up camp at the other end.

They want things back the way they used to be, when the game was great. The wall, or the AFL's version of it – zones – has to be the answer......

 

But will a wall make the AFL great again?

Maybe. But it's coaches who need to be the ones wearing the red caps, not the AFL. Coaches need to be brave enough to challenge the orthodoxy, where it is a heresy to call yourself anything other than a "defence-first" team.

The most successful teams each year are always top-four for defence, so rivals see defensiveness as a path to success. But invariably, the best teams are also top-four for attack. This point tends to get overlooked.

Coaches need to be encouraged to change their mindset. They need to be rewarded for attacking play – an extra point for scoring more than 100 points in a game perhaps? – not just punished if they rush their players on and off the ground.

They can make the game great again. And it won't be by building a wall.

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

But will a wall make the AFL great again?

Maybe. But it's coaches who need to be the ones wearing the red caps, not the AFL. Coaches need to be brave enough to challenge the orthodoxy, where it is a heresy to call yourself anything other than a "defence-first" team.

The most successful teams each year are always top-four for defence, so rivals see defensiveness as a path to success. But invariably, the best teams are also top-four for attack. This point tends to get overlooked.

Coaches need to be encouraged to change their mindset. They need to be rewarded for attacking play – an extra point for scoring more than 100 points in a game perhaps? – not just punished if they rush their players on and off the ground.

I don't think that's a great opinion. 

The best teams are always defensively sound first and score on the back of the defensive system.

Bonus points are drastically unfair and will favour teams who play in certain conditions - namely Docklands and multiple games against bad sides.

The best thing coaches can do is develop talent. A very talented side will be good to watch no matter the score or style of the game. 

The AFL are suffering for putting profit ahead of quality by introducing 2 new teams. Add in the mockery they've made of the draft and how free agency benefits the few over a better more expansive system that could help all teams get the players they need and you've got a lot of sides with really ordinary talent levels. Our side is a good example. We have maybe a dozen proven quality players. When that number was close to 20+ we played some brilliant attacking footy.

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Great opinion article

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/will-a-wall-really-make-afl-great-again-20201119-p56g1p.html

The Make AFL Great Again cap-wearers at league headquarters are quietly building a wall.

These MAGA devotees want to stop the horde of players from one end of the ground rushing down and setting up camp at the other end.

They want things back the way they used to be, when the game was great. The wall, or the AFL's version of it – zones – has to be the answer......

 

But will a wall make the AFL great again?

Maybe. But it's coaches who need to be the ones wearing the red caps, not the AFL. Coaches need to be brave enough to challenge the orthodoxy, where it is a heresy to call yourself anything other than a "defence-first" team.

The most successful teams each year are always top-four for defence, so rivals see defensiveness as a path to success. But invariably, the best teams are also top-four for attack. This point tends to get overlooked.

Coaches need to be encouraged to change their mindset. They need to be rewarded for attacking play – an extra point for scoring more than 100 points in a game perhaps? – not just punished if they rush their players on and off the ground.

They can make the game great again. And it won't be by building a wall.

i'd prefer to try vastly reduced rotations (back to the past) rather than bring in something that was never part of the game. but if it must be tried then after reduced rotations is tried first

big problem i have with zones is the same problem with the republican debate. nobody seems to be able to define clearly how it would work and be managed and whether the public would accept it on game day or go beserk. I have heard so many different ways zoning could/might work that it all seems just like a mishmash of rules and confusion.

one of the things i always liked about aussie rules was the individual skills, creativity and the attacking nature of the game. the coaches have ruined it (in the main) with control, possession and defense as non-negotiables and turned players into athletic robots too frightened to be creative and take the game on

19 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Great opinion article

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/will-a-wall-really-make-afl-great-again-20201119-p56g1p.html

The Make AFL Great Again cap-wearers at league headquarters are quietly building a wall.

These MAGA devotees want to stop the horde of players from one end of the ground rushing down and setting up camp at the other end.

They want things back the way they used to be, when the game was great. The wall, or the AFL's version of it – zones – has to be the answer......

 

But will a wall make the AFL great again?

Maybe. But it's coaches who need to be the ones wearing the red caps, not the AFL. Coaches need to be brave enough to challenge the orthodoxy, where it is a heresy to call yourself anything other than a "defence-first" team.

The most successful teams each year are always top-four for defence, so rivals see defensiveness as a path to success. But invariably, the best teams are also top-four for attack. This point tends to get overlooked.

Coaches need to be encouraged to change their mindset. They need to be rewarded for attacking play – an extra point for scoring more than 100 points in a game perhaps? – not just punished if they rush their players on and off the ground.

They can make the game great again. And it won't be by building a wall.

Jim, there is also another approach to combat the defensive, possession at all costs coach's game and that's to bring in lots of small rule changes e.g. just off the top of my head

.  minimum kick distance 25m

.  no marks awarded for backward kicking (except in fwd 50)

.  3 second limit holding the ball where prior opportunity exists

.  no tackling the tackler

.  no play on where tackled player just lets the ball drop to his feet

.  play more free kicks for incorrect tackling once player has been brought to the ground - 2nd 3rd tackler tackling round the neck in the back etc

.  penalise the too many dodgy handballs

.  no ruck nomination and allow third man up

i'm sure you could think of many others. many of these too are just interpretation changes or the way it was prior

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

...nobody seems to be able to define clearly how it would work and be managed

Well there must be three players from each team inside fifty at every stoppage.  If there's a breach, that team is docked rotations for that game.  If a team has reached zero rotations and there's a breach, then they will be docked rotations from the next game.

The rule is policed by an off-field umpire, therefore there's no extra rules for the on-field umpires to adjudicate, no extra whistles and no waiting for players to be in position.

Edited November 19, 20204 yr by one_demon