More Rules Changes in 2021

[titan_uranus 24,983]

On 11/20/2020 at 5:27 PM, daisycutter said:

tu, i think you re misrepresenting or not understanding this comment re fatiguing.

it will only increase fatigue IF the coaches keep playing the same 2-way constant running game which is part of the defence-first current game plans

the intent is they will modify their game plan resulting in a less defensive game with less 2-way running. if they do this the fatigue levels would be just the same as they are now (and were before interchange rotations)

it's not hard to understand

[ in my view 75 is still too high if they have 18 minute quarters }

I'm neither misrepresenting nor misunderstanding.

The AFL wants players to stop running so that there are fewer players at each contest. I get it. I'm just not convinced that it will work.

There remains the risk that reduced rotations will only serve to put a premium on runners, with coaches backing in fitter players over skilful ones, and the result being barely any different. There remains the risk that players who have been conditioned for years, if not decades, to run both ways, go full pelt, and leave nothing on the field, will continue to do so (no matter what their coaches say), and find themselves more fatigued than normal. 

None of it's a certainty, but it's a risk, and that's why I don't view Dangerfield's comments as a conspiracy theory/vendetta but rather just the voice of concern from the playing group.

[BDA 22,735]

It’s worth trying reduced rotations but I think making rule changes in the hope of returning to some bygone nirvana is futile. That time and place is no more. Coaches have changed. Players have changed. Sports science, strength and conditioning, data analysis are all light years ahead of where they were. If the changes create more space and attacking play then great but I reckon it’s far more likely that Titan is proven right.

I think you may as well try to uninvent the internet tbh.

[daisycutter 29,606]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm neither misrepresenting nor misunderstanding.

The AFL wants players to stop running so that there are fewer players at each contest. I get it. I'm just not convinced that it will work.

There remains the risk that reduced rotations will only serve to put a premium on runners, with coaches backing in fitter players over skilful ones, and the result being barely any different. There remains the risk that players who have been conditioned for years, if not decades, to run both ways, go full pelt, and leave nothing on the field, will continue to do so (no matter what their coaches say), and find themselves more fatigued than normal. 

None of it's a certainty, but it's a risk, and that's why I don't view Dangerfield's comments as a conspiracy theory/vendetta but rather just the voice of concern from the playing group.

well tu, only time will tell.....

but i don't think we will see much either way in 2021 with 18 min qtrs and 75 rotations

either way i don't see any extra risk to player's health. If anything thing the whole rotation overload caused bigger risks

there's no doubt we see fitter, faster more athletic types these days, but that is largely due to the shift from semi-professional football to full-time professional football 

Edited November 22, 2020 by daisycutter

[monoccular 17,417]

On 11/19/2020 at 6:00 PM, george_on_the_outer said:

Danger complaining about the reduction in rotations

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/11/18/patrick-dangerfield-not-particularly-a-fan-of-afl-rule-change/

....we know why....the older players will struggle to keep up....which team has the oldest players as a group?

How did players cope when there was only a 19 and 20th man?

 

19th and 20th man - we won our last spate of 6 flags with that set up ... so it must have been good

On 11/20/2020 at 2:57 AM, don't make me angry said:

The only way this rules works is in steed of for every kick in and throw in,  there should be a certain number of player in the forward 50 all the time. I think there should be 6 player in both 50's all of  the time, 3 forwards and 3 defenders.

Sort of a nice idea, but how absurd would it be seeing Kossie dashing up from the pocket, only to find the incoming ball stops 52 meters out from goal.  Instead of going hard for the ball, would he have to look across the ground to see when and if someone else enters the 50 on the other side of the ground, and stand like an [censored] waiting for his opponent to catch up with him??

7 hours ago, daisycutter said:

there is a good article in today's hun on the rule changes kevin sheedy would like to make.

he mentions a lot of rule changes he calls the ten commandments

i agree with most (certainly not some) of them, but all are primarily aimed to alter the current defensive imbalance

Summary: 

.  Return to 20 min quarters ?

.  Keep cutting rotations ?

.  No mark kicking backwards ?

.  Be ruthless on holding the ball ?

.  No coaches on rules panels !! ?

.  Banish throw-ins (only ball-ups 15-20m from boundary)) ?

.  Make it a 25m penalty (not 50) ?

.  Raise it to 20m for a mark ?

.  Kick-in changes (extensive) ?

.  Ditch the wingers !! ?

.  Reintroduce the flick pass !! ?

.  Protect the head more ?

 

? = essentially agree

? = disagree

? = unsure

 

 

daisy - tend to agree with most of these.

I would also consider regarding kick in from a behind, that the defending team not be awarded a mark until the ball has left the 50 meter arc.  It would keep the game moving and reduce negativity.

[daisycutter 29,606]

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

 

daisy - tend to agree with most of these.

I would also consider regarding kick in from a behind, that the defending team not be awarded a mark until the ball has left the 50 meter arc.  It would keep the game moving and reduce negativity.

iirc that is what he proposes.......will read again to check

[deanox 9,902]

I still think that relying on fatigue to stop congestion is a poor idea (for the reasons @titan_uranus mentioned), and that using positional restrictions goes against the grain of what makes AFL AFL.

I think the only way to stop it is to remove the benefit of congestion itself.

 

Pay holding the man quickly around contests to let the ball winner have a clear run. Remove ruck nominations, allow the third man up and throw the ball up immediately before teams can get numbers there and set up defensive stoppage positions. Pay holding the man immediately instead of theatrically. Penalise the 3rd player who tried to hold the ball in to create a ball up.

These things remove the incentive for congestion. They encourage coaches to leave players outside the contest to receive or mop up the loose ball.

 

Penalise sheparding in marking contests (where the initial defender doesn't try to win the ball and instead just holds body position, preventing the attacker from competing for the mark, and a third player marks or spoils).

This will make one on one marking a feature again.

[daisycutter 29,606]

4 hours ago, deanox said:

I still think that relying on fatigue to stop congestion is a poor idea (for the reasons @titan_uranus mentioned), and that using positional restrictions goes against the grain of what makes AFL AFL.

I think the only way to stop it is to remove the benefit of congestion itself.

dean, the objective is NOT to STOP congestion

it is just to REDUCE congestion, thus changing the BALANCE between defence and offence

 

[george_on_the_outer 7,589]

11 hours ago, monoccular said:

 

Sort of a nice idea, but how absurd would it be seeing Kossie dashing up from the pocket, only to find the incoming ball stops 52 meters out from goal.  Instead of going hard for the ball, would he have to look across the ground to see when and if someone else enters the 50 on the other side of the ground, and stand like an [censored] waiting for his opponent to catch up with him??

 

There would already be 6 players in the 50 area who can't leave if the ball is outside, he would be the 7th, so the situation would not arise.

It would be even easier if a line was drawn down the middle and each side had to have at least (pick a number) of players in either half.  Could be administered by the emergency boundary umpire.

[monoccular 17,417]

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

There would already be 6 players in the 50 area who can't leave if the ball is outside, he would be the 7th, so the situation would not arise.

It would be even easier if a line was drawn down the middle and each side had to have at least (pick a number) of players in either half.  Could be administered by the emergency boundary umpire.

My point is that it is a dynamic situation, and if the ball is coming your way you will go for it, without having to think "am I crossing an arbitrary line".  Totally out of the spirit of our game.

[one_demon 826]

14 hours ago, monoccular said:

...how absurd would it be seeing Kossie dashing up from the pocket, only to find the incoming ball stops 52 meters out from goal.  Instead of going hard for the ball, would he have to look across the ground to see when and if someone else enters the 50 on the other side of the ground, and stand like an [censored] waiting for his opponent to catch up with him??

Nope.  We don't wait for anybody to be in the zone.   If the required number of players aren't in the fifty, the team is docked rotations

[sue 9,099]

22 minutes ago, one_demon said:

Nope.  We don't wait for anybody to be in the zone.   If the required number of players aren't in the fifty, the team is docked rotations

So players will have to decide if it is worth acting and thus reducing the team's rotations or not.   Will coaches be holding up a big sign saying "don't act, we are short on rotations"?

[daisycutter 29,606]

14 hours ago, monoccular said:

daisy - tend to agree with most of these.

I would also consider regarding kick in from a behind, that the defending team not be awarded a mark until the ball has left the 50 meter arc.  It would keep the game moving and reduce negativity.

here is a snip from sheedy's article in hun re kickins.....not too much detail

Quote

9. KICK-IN CHANGES

I would put the pressure on the player kicking the ball back into play after a behind.

If the kicker wants to go outside the goalsquare before taking his kick, he should then be compelled to kick the ball to the 50m defensive line.

If he then goes short to a teammate, it would be deemed play-on by the umpire.

But if the kicker chooses to kick it from inside the goalsquare, he can pass it short to a teammate where it would be called a mark.

 

[one_demon 826]

2 hours ago, sue said:

So players will have to decide if it is worth acting and thus reducing the team's rotations or not.   Will coaches be holding up a big sign saying "don't act, we are short on rotations"?

Players will have to follow the rule otherwise they penalise their own team.

Coaches will not hold up any sign.  The coaches will have to instruct their players not to breach the rule and it's up to the players to execute that instruction just like any instruction from the coach.  This is how starting positions changes the coaches' mindset.  

Edited November 23, 2020 by one_demon

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,710]

With respect to Sheedy's - or anyone else's - proposals, we should try to minimise the different distances umpires have to determine or measure out. Whether it is a penalty (50m, or anything else), the distance a kick has to travel to be called a mark, etc, the fewer different measurements there are, the easier it will be for the umpires to govern the game. It's already tough to umpire. Keeping distances consistent as much as possible is one way to help the umpires. 

I accept they can't all be the same, but let's try to avoid having separate distance of 50m, 25m, 15m, 10m, 5m, etc as much as possible

[sue 9,099]

28 minutes ago, one_demon said:

Players will have to follow the rule otherwise they penalise their own team.

Coaches will not hold up any sign.  The coaches will have to instruct their players not to breach the rule and it's up to the players to execute that instruction just like any instruction from the coach.  This is how starting positions changes the coaches' mindset.  

Maybe I haven't followed this closely enough,  but are there not occasions when it is worth breaking the rule (only penalty loss of rotations) and vice versa?  If so, then individual players would have to decide whether to break rule or not.  And would they not want some advice from the coaches?

[deanox 9,902]

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

dean, the objective is NOT to STOP congestion

it is just to REDUCE congestion, thus changing the BALANCE between defence and offence

 

Ok, re-read my post interchanging the word "stop" for "reduce"! The intent is the same, I understand there is no way to actually stop congestion. 

 

The point is that coaches love congestion. They'll do everything they can to create it. Why? Because congestion means it is easier to defend, there is less chance of an opposition fast break, etc.

All the AFL thinking is about changing other things about the game that try to make it harder for coaches to create congestion (ie fatigue) or to create contrived situations where players can't truly compete (the man on the mark not being able to step sideways rule is designed to create heaps of free space for the player with the ball, making uncontested possession retention easier).

But regardless coaches will try to force congestion. They'll pick athletes not football players to run despite reduced rotations. They'll devise strategies to implement mini zones around the ball location, holding the ball in. They'll kick to the boundary to allow a reset stoppage instead of risking kicking to a potential turnover. If players are forced back or forward into zones, they'll abandon the wings or flanks to have an extra player at the ball. Or some other tactics that creates congestion and restricts easy opponent balĺ movement.

Fixed zones would be pretty effective at stopping or reducing congestion but it goes against the fabric of the game.

So the rule changes need to incentivise "no congestion", not try to stop, reduce or prevent it.

[one_demon 826]

29 minutes ago, sue said:

Maybe I haven't followed this closely enough,  but are there not occasions when it is worth breaking the rule (only penalty loss of rotations) and vice versa?  If so, then individual players would have to decide whether to break rule or not.  And would they not want some advice from the coaches?

You make a fair point.  Yes there may be occasions where it's favourable to breach the rule, but the coaches would each have to develop a strategy for how this would work.   It may be that the team cannot breach the rule unless instructed by the coach either during breaks or via the runner.

Coaches may decide that individual players can break the rule but only in limited situations. 

As a spectator,  I don't really care about these machanations, that's for the coaches to figure out.  As long as we can give the players more space for the majority of the game,  then that's a big win.

 

[daisycutter 29,606]

43 minutes ago, deanox said:

Ok, re-read my post interchanging the word "stop" for "reduce"! The intent is the same, I understand there is no way to actually stop congestion. 

 

The point is that coaches love congestion. They'll do everything they can to create it. Why? Because congestion means it is easier to defend, there is less chance of an opposition fast break, etc.

All the AFL thinking is about changing other things about the game that try to make it harder for coaches to create congestion (ie fatigue) or to create contrived situations where players can't truly compete (the man on the mark not being able to step sideways rule is designed to create heaps of free space for the player with the ball, making uncontested possession retention easier).

But regardless coaches will try to force congestion. They'll pick athletes not football players to run despite reduced rotations. They'll devise strategies to implement mini zones around the ball location, holding the ball in. They'll kick to the boundary to allow a reset stoppage instead of risking kicking to a potential turnover. If players are forced back or forward into zones, they'll abandon the wings or flanks to have an extra player at the ball. Or some other tactics that creates congestion and restricts easy opponent balĺ movement.

Fixed zones would be pretty effective at stopping or reducing congestion but it goes against the fabric of the game.

So the rule changes need to incentivise "no congestion", not try to stop, reduce or prevent it.

oh i agree coaches will try and dig in. maybe even look for more athletic types, but let's face  it most players in today's environment have to be fit and athletic anyway, certainly compared to the past and there is now a diminishing advantage in improving this aspect. sure they'll try all the tricks you allude to to maintain congestion but their options will become increasingly restrictive and i'm confident over time (and with more changes) they (at least some initially) will start to build the offensive side of their game or be left behind, won't happen overnight though.

agree with your thoughts on zones. I just can't accept it with all the different suggestions i've heard. Also i don't like the reduction of players a'la the old vfa but i'm trying to keep my mind open on that one. it would certainly reduce congestion.

i'm not against defence per se, it can be a great part of the game, it's just about having a good balance between defence and offence 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,710]

If there is general agreement that the coaches are the problem, maybe we should look at limiting the influence of coaches, rather than worrying so much about the actions of players. For example, why not ban runners altogether?

(I suspect the answer, by the way, is it wouldn't work because coaches would use the water carriers to carry messages.)   

[one_demon 826]

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If there is general agreement that the coaches are the problem, maybe we should look at limiting the influence of coaches

Yes.  If the coaches want congestion, then we have to put rules in place to force the players to spread.  Stop the coaches!

[deanox 9,902]

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

oh i agree coaches will try and dig in. maybe even look for more athletic types, but let's face  it most players in today's environment have to be fit and athletic anyway, certainly compared to the past and there is now a diminishing advantage in improving this aspect. sure they'll try all the tricks you allude to to maintain congestion but their options will become increasingly restrictive and i'm confident over time (and with more changes) they (at least some initially) will start to build the offensive side of their game or be left behind, won't happen overnight though.

agree with your thoughts on zones. I just can't accept it with all the different suggestions i've heard. Also i don't like the reduction of players a'la the old vfa but i'm trying to keep my mind open on that one. it would certainly reduce congestion.

i'm not against defence per se, it can be a great part of the game, it's just about having a good balance between defence and offence 

I enjoy good defence too. I'm a big rugby union fan, and great defence is amazing to watch. But in all sports we see scores trend down due to defence. It is easier to be solid and methodical in defence, back your system to prevent them scoring and hope they make a mistake that opens for you first. I can see AFL scores getting lower before they increase.

I'll use another example: lets incentivise high scores with bonus points. Personally, I don't think this will work. Coaches will say "Who cares? I want the safe 4 points first, and I'll try for the bonus, only if I am in a safe position to put them to the sword, or I am desperate for bonus points in the back end of the season and can risk the loss because I won't make finals anyway if I don't get the BP."

So incentivising attack isn't enough. And measures to try to reduce congestion aren't enough. We actually need to disincentivise congestion, make congestion a bad thing, not the preferred but unobtainable thing.

 

 

 

 

[daisycutter 29,606]

1 hour ago, deanox said:

I enjoy good defence too. I'm a big rugby union fan, and great defence is amazing to watch. But in all sports we see scores trend down due to defence. It is easier to be solid and methodical in defence, back your system to prevent them scoring and hope they make a mistake that opens for you first. I can see AFL scores getting lower before they increase.

I'll use another example: lets incentivise high scores with bonus points. Personally, I don't think this will work. Coaches will say "Who cares? I want the safe 4 points first, and I'll try for the bonus, only if I am in a safe position to put them to the sword, or I am desperate for bonus points in the back end of the season and can risk the loss because I won't make finals anyway if I don't get the BP."

So incentivising attack isn't enough. And measures to try to reduce congestion aren't enough . We actually need to disincentivise congestion, make congestion a bad thing, not the preferred but unobtainable thing.

 

understand where you are coming from

but i think you are being too pessimistic saying "incentivising attack isn't enough. And measures to try to reduce congestion aren't enough". I think they can work but not straight away and the current changes for 2021 aren't enough but they are a start and importantly an admission by the afl of the problem.

and remember it's not necessary to eliminate congestion , just minimise it enough to restore a better balance of defense vs offense. I hate the notion of turning players into defensive robots and inhibiting the natural football creative and attacking instincts of players

[skills32 229]

If they want to free the game up then;

Immediately the player takes  a mark he is unable to be touched ie

not held

not pushed to the ground or in the back

no other time wasting actions

this is cheating,

The player should be allowed to play on unimpeded and if impeded a 50 metre penalty  given                                                     

[skills32 229]

"It will, though, implement such measures in the newly formed VFL and East Coast second-tier competition, with a minimum of players from each team to be positioned inside each 50m arc - including one per team in each goalsquare – at all kick-ins and boundary throw-ins."

How stupid is this?

 

[Jjrogan 1,418]

From a kick in or when the ball is in a forward pocket, you can have 36 players in one half of the field. Reducing the number of rotations is fine, but from that point you'll still have congestion again.  Paying tiggy touch wood holding the ball decisions constantly is just going to peev everyone off. The rule is random enough as it is.

If you have 1 or 2 players from each team (3 is too many imo) mandatory inside the arc at dead balls it stretches the field and allows open space.  I dont see how this changes the fabric of the game.  You can still run where you want but if the ball goes over the boundary line or a kick in... Spread out again.  

The vfl trial will tell us anyhow i guess. (The goal-square requirement is a bit silly)

Edited November 24, 2020 by Jjrogan