https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-stats-that-show-why-the-afl-should-undo-hocking-s-rule-changes-20240515-p5jdti.html

Couldn't agree more personally.

2 minutes ago, sue said:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-stats-that-show-why-the-afl-should-undo-hocking-s-rule-changes-20240515-p5jdti.html

Couldn't agree more personally.

Can you copy and paste in here? 

hmmm, knee jerk decisions not being effective................who wouldve thunk that?

The stand rule definitely makes the ball move better

And we have Dangerfield wanting 16 minute quarters and someone else (Pies no doubt) wanting the clock to continue running at stoppages. They already have a flag from causing 100 stoppages in the last 10 minutes of games knowing the umps won't ping them for HTB.

12 minutes ago, greenwaves said:

The stand rule definitely makes the ball move better

It worked well at the start and I believe the Dees adapted the best to this rule when it was first introduced.

I found the change to allow the player to be on 'mark' outside 5 metres has clogged it up again. The player now can move around to take space for short kicks and it reduces players running past to get handball receives and forward-over-the-mark handballs that generates speed on movement. I don't really care personally but just an observation as this goes against what AFL wants - less congestion.

4 minutes ago, Lexinator said:

I found the change to allow the player to be on 'mark' outside 5 metres has clogged it up again. The player now can move around to take space for short kicks and it reduces players running past to get handball receives and forward-over-the-mark handballs that generates speed on movement. I don't really care personally but just an observation as this goes against what AFL wants - less congestion.

This is the problem, and they’ve also either done away with or stopped enforcing the protected area so if you’re on the wing there’s usually a man on the mark plus another one on the 45° angle guarding inside so you’ve got to kick long. Defeats the purpose. 

Knowing the AFL nothing ever goes back to the way it was, they’ll just layer more interpretations on top to try and tweak things. 

While we’re asking the AFL to consider their ad hoc changes can they take a look at players leading with the head, flopping, ducking and diving to get free kicks rather than protecting themselves? 

If the goal was to reduce congestion and/or speed up play (which I think are the same thing anyway), I can think of many other ways this can be achieved. Here are some suggestions which have been mentioned on Demonland many times before:

• get rid of the ruck nomination obligation
• don't wait for the ruckmen to arrive at a boundary throw-in before tossing the ball back into play
• severely reduce interchange numbers to tire players out more 
• enforce 50m penalties when players hold on to their opponents unnecessarily after a mark or free kick is paid.

This one should have been fixed years ago....

All this rule has changed is the eagerness of players stepping out of the goal square during kick-ins, to secure cheap, junk possessions and distort the game’s statistical records.

2 hours ago, Lexinator said:

It worked well at the start and I believe the Dees adapted the best to this rule when it was first introduced.

I found the change to allow the player to be on 'mark' outside 5 metres has clogged it up again. The player now can move around to take space for short kicks and it reduces players running past to get handball receives and forward-over-the-mark handballs that generates speed on movement. I don't really care personally but just an observation as this goes against what AFL wants - less congestion.

The 5 metre rule is totally confusing to me.  I never know where the 5m is (nor do the players and umps who relaible can't estiate distances) Sometimes it is not clear if the ump is saying 'you are beyond 5m' or 'get beyond 5m'.  Is it clear? If so, tell me which or both?

3 hours ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Can you copy and paste in here? 

Can't for copyright reasons of course. But mods, can I use an AI engine which produced this summary. Note all I did was ask it to summarise the articel at that URL.

(compared to what facebook etc do stealing news copyright, this is nothing):

The article from The Age discusses the impact of the AFL's rule changes introduced by former AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan, also known as "Hocking's Rule Changes", and argues that the league should reconsider or undo these changes.

Here's a summary:The article cites statistics and data to support the claim that the rule changes have had a negative impact on the game. Specifically:

1. Increased congestion:
 

The article notes that the rule changes have led to an increase in congestion in the middle of the ground, resulting in fewer clearances and more stoppages.

 

2. Decreased scoring: The data shows that the average score per game has decreased since the introduction of the rule changes, with teams scoring an average of 10.5 points less per game.

 

3. Increased injuries: The article suggests that the increased congestion and physicality of the game have led to an increase in injuries, particularly to the knees and shoulders.

 

4. Decreased pace: The statistics indicate that the game has become slower since the rule changes, with teams taking longer to transition from defense to offense.

 

5. Decreased fan engagement: The article suggests that the rule changes have led to decreased fan engagement, with attendances and TV ratings declining.The article argues that the rule changes were intended to improve the game by increasing scoring and reducing congestion, but the opposite has occurred. It suggests that the league should reconsider or undo the rule changes to improve the game and increase fan engagement.The article concludes by stating that the AFL should listen to the concerns of coaches, players, and fans and consider making changes to the game to improve its overall quality and entertainment value.

Edited May 16, 2024May 16 by sue

4 hours ago, greenwaves said:

The stand rule definitely makes the ball move better

... but it is totally counterintuitive, and when the kicker isn't pulled into the correct line immediately, it should be play on.  The umpires too often fail to call play on when it clearly is.  They either seem to forget to, or maybe don't even think of it.

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If the goal was to reduce congestion and/or speed up play (which I think are the same thing anyway), I can think of many other ways this can be achieved. Here are some suggestions which have been mentioned on Demonland many times before:

• get rid of the ruck nomination obligation
• don't wait for the ruckmen to arrive at a boundary throw-in before tossing the ball back into play
• severely reduce interchange numbers to tire players out more 
• enforce 50m penalties when players hold on to their opponents unnecessarily after a mark or free kick is paid.

LDvC - further to the boundary throw ins that all too often result in more packs and ball ups, if the boundary umpire were to throw it in from 5 or 10 meters inside the boundary line the ball should be cleared one way or the other much more quickly. (Was this trialed in preseason some time ago?)

Edited May 16, 2024May 16 by monoccular

4 hours ago, greenwaves said:

The stand rule definitely makes the ball move better

Yet its the dumbest rule ever created. How a player can just play on by moving around the man on the mark is astounding.

i'm convinced the '6-6-6 rule' was brought in to curtail the likes of goodwin who played two off the back of the square, double diamond wing set-ups, and all sorts of differentiated tactics to do different things with structure

the 'stand rule' was a direct response to bevo's tactic of having players move off the mark before the umpire called play on

i think there was another coach who had a player 'shepherd' the man on the mark to allow his teammate to play on as well?

plus of course there was the 'ruck nomination' rule, which was to stop jordan lewis being third man up under clarko

the worst one i think is the playing on from the goalsquare rule - players routinely run 30m out of the square; it's absurd

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

the worst one i think is the playing on from the goalsquare rule - players routinely run 30m out of the square; it's absurd

Infuriating. Why do umps selectively apply rules.

Rule of the week was an in joke for years

 

2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

 

i think there was another coach who had a player 'shepherd' the man on the mark to allow his teammate to play on as well?

 

Collingwood tactic.

7 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Collingwood tactic.

And Hawthorn.

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If the goal was to reduce congestion and/or speed up play (which I think are the same thing anyway), I can think of many other ways this can be achieved. Here are some suggestions which have been mentioned on Demonland many times before:

• get rid of the ruck nomination obligation
• don't wait for the ruckmen to arrive at a boundary throw-in before tossing the ball back into play
• severely reduce interchange numbers to tire players out more 
• enforce 50m penalties when players hold on to their opponents unnecessarily after a mark or free kick is paid.

I will add one more ruckman not allowed to make contact at boundary throw ins until the ball is in the air sick of watching ruckman grapple, scrag around the neck.

Is the holding the ball ‘rule’. Still in the rule book? The largesse allowed seems to favour some teams over others. Especially those with monograms, very dark colours or over the Pentridge wall strip.

Interpretations include a gamut of possibilities. From 360* + rotations to a near 720* double swings. Free release of the ball without correct disposal if dislodged in the tackle, to the no prior opportunity guillotine you’re gone.

Good tackles are not frequently rewarded, the default choice is the inevitable ball up. Although it seems  free kicks are given freely for the best Hollywood performances from those caught in possession.

Another bane of contention is the lack of consistent objective umpiring. The premium league in the land, has professional players with part-time paid ‘amateurs’ doing the adjudicating.

A professional college of umpires is well overdue. Drop the $$$ spent on inferior Cyclops technology and re-establish the credibility of goal umpires too. 

Edited May 16, 2024May 16 by Tarax Club

Not strictly on topic, but the score review again tonight showed what tight asses run the AFL - one look through an opaque goal post "not over the line" when other views probably show it was over.  It doesn't worry me one bit that GC$ got an extra 5 points over Geelong, but it could be really important in a close game.  I have no doubt that Gil and Dill's bonuses could easily cover the cost of proper technology.

I don't mind 6-6-6. Saying that it prevents coaching moves is total bs. It's there for a second.

20 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

And we have Dangerfield wanting 16 minute quarters and someone else (Pies no doubt) wanting the clock to continue running at stoppages. They already have a flag from causing 100 stoppages in the last 10 minutes of games knowing the umps won't ping them for HTB.

That posits a problem we see each week, very succinctly. For the glamour teams, 'holding the ball' certainly never applies.

11 hours ago, Tarax Club said:

Is the holding the ball ‘rule’. Still in the rule book? The largesse allowed seems to favour some teams over others. Especially those with monograms, very dark colours or over the Pentridge wall strip.

Acute observation.

10 hours ago, monoccular said:

it could be really important in a close game

Hence, it is criminally neglectful to so do ...

9 hours ago, layzie said:

I don't mind 6-6-6. Saying that it prevents coaching moves is total bs. It's there for a second.

the biggest complaint from coaches is that it turns the game into 18 vs 17 on field

a statue on field is a waste of a player

hence why so many - which, again, bevo started, i think? - push back the 5m from the mark so that they're not really 'on the mark' but instead guarding space