Buckleys thoughts on rule changes/reintepretations

[LostDoggy]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...18-glqyk6.html

Some interesting thoughts in here. I can see a lot of merit in scrapping the no prior opportunity rule (as a minimum, I reckon no prior opportunity should never apply when the ball is passed to you by a team mate).

[jeemak]

Get ready for forwards in a bad position handballing to defenders with a forward next to them ready to tackle to gain a positional advantage.

Sure, stop the slinging and the lifting in tackles, but don't take the hurt factor of a hard tackle out of the game. We don't want touch footy.

Here's an idea, stop messing with the rules and let players and coaches figure things out.

[Twodogs]

Get ready for forwards in a bad position handballing to defenders with a forward next to them ready to tackle to gain a positional advantage.

Sure, stop the slinging and the lifting in tackles, but don't take the hurt factor of a hard tackle out of the game. We don't want touch footy.

Here's an idea, stop messing with the rules and let players and coaches figure things out.

That seems to be the one (technically two) things the AFL are terrified of.

[LostDoggy]

I know it's popular to knock all change and say everything should stay as it is, but I think AFL is a dynamic sport in part because we do review how coaching trends/playing styles impact on the game and query whether the game is at it's optimum. In my opinion, change is not in itself a bad thing and shouldn't be resisted just because.

If so, it would still be ok for a defender to kick the ball into the grandstand whenever under pressure.

I don't know if I'd go as far as Buckley, but personally I like the idea that if a player receives the ball from a team mate, the notion of priority opportunity shouldn't exist. If you get a handpass from a teammate, get tackled immediately and don't get rid of it, I reckon your team should lose the ball.

[boydogs]

If so, it would still be ok for a defender to kick the ball into the grandstand whenever under pressure

You'd go home at 3/4 time if you were down by 3 goals as the opposition would punch the ball out of bounds from the ruck contest for 20 minutes

[jeemak]

I know it's popular to knock all change and say everything should stay as it is, but I think AFL is a dynamic sport in part because we do review how coaching trends/playing styles impact on the game and query whether the game is at it's optimum. In my opinion, change is not in itself a bad thing and shouldn't be resisted just because.

If so, it would still be ok for a defender to kick the ball into the grandstand whenever under pressure.

I don't know if I'd go as far as Buckley, but personally I like the idea that if a player receives the ball from a team mate, the notion of priority opportunity shouldn't exist. If you get a handpass from a teammate, get tackled immediately and don't get rid of it, I reckon your team should lose the ball.

Not all change is bad, but, with the AFL's track record over the last few years do we think the tinkering has benefited the game?

The best one of recent times is making the head sacrosanct and penalising any contact made to the head, irrespective of how it was caused, realising that makes players with the ball run head first into opponents, or sliding into players legs to get the ball, and then banning sliding to make it better!

Remember when they changed the 10m minimum to 15m minimum to reduce the influence of zoning and decrease congestion? All that did was make the zone stand 5m further from the kicker. Now they want to make the minimum kick 25m.......to stop congestion.........and they think that'll mean the game will open up rather than the congestion just moving a further 10m back again.

If there's a worthwhile change, like the one that stopped the negative tactic of rushing a behind (2008 Grand Final), or allowing the kicker to kick immediately when a ball has been collected after a behind rather than wait for the flags (or the change you mention) then I'm all for it.

[boydogs]

If there's a worthwhile change, like the one that stopped the negative tactic of rushing a behind (2008 Grand Final)

You can still rush by spoiling by ball through from a marking contest or taking it across when you're under pressure

They should have dealt with it by making behinds 2 points instead

[jeemak]

You can still rush by spoiling by ball through from a marking contest or taking it across when you're under pressure

They should have dealt with it by making behinds 2 points instead

But that's the risk and subsequent penalty the team trying to get to goal takes by going long to the square. Sure, they can get a goal but they can also just end up with a point.

They could go shorter, say, only put it to 25m out but the penalty there is the other team is that bit closer to their own goal and further away from yours (albeit marginally in each case).

It makes the six points more of a premium outcome.

I'm happy enough with the way that rule is adjudicated now. If teams want to go deep they risk losing the footy and getting only a small reward. It's one of the nuances of the game that gets lost in the quest for high scores.

[boydogs]

If teams want to go deep they risk losing the footy and getting only a small reward

That's the whole problem with the rushed behinds. It's such a penalty now to score a behind with the way sides can go coast to coast you would rather the ball went out of bounds, even on the full, so they're tucked into a pocket

[jeemak]

That's the whole problem with the rushed behinds. It's such a penalty now to score a behind with the way sides can go coast to coast you would rather the ball went out of bounds, even on the full, so they're tucked into a pocket

The only thing you'd rather over that though, is a goal, so you take the risk. If you don't set up for a kick in properly then it's tough luck. If defending teams put so many players back to force the ball dead, or over the line what chance do they have of ensuring they have numbers up the ground to receive the fast ball out?

I do appreciate what you're saying and I've thought about awarding three points for a rushed behind from time to time, and the conclusion I've always come to is it would just result in more congestion. Instead of rushing the ball, you'd have teams just killing the ball in their defensive 50's all the time or giving away free kicks for holding the ball. Imagine how infuriating the no prior opportunity taken into consideration rule would be under those circumstances.

One thing that pisses me off more than plain mistakes from my team, is when the rules make them kick it to the opposition or be constrained by having the only option being to hand over the ball and risk another goal being kicked. It's a manufactured outcome that suggests the balance is fairly and squarely tipped towards offence.

Perhaps it's just me.

[boydogs]

It's a manufactured outcome that suggests the balance is fairly and squarely tipped towards offence.

The current system is like having an archery target where the bullseye is 10, but the next ring around that is 5, followed by 8 down to 0. Sure, you're going to aim for the 10, but it doesn't make sense that missing by a fair bit gives you a better result than only just missing, even hitting the post

The AFL decided just to prevent the defense from knocking it through for 5 (but only under some circumstances) instead of correcting the score from 5 to 9

[jeemak]

Once again, appreciate where you're coming from but I think a fundamental of the game is the premium of a goal.

Which team is going to just kick the footy out on the full in case they only score a point when it's all said and done? Having the disparity between nothing, only scoring one with a soft chance the ball will be run out and a goal is probably the best thing about our scoring system. It makes teams go for broke to get the six points.

Plus, I still think teams set up to defend kick ins better than they do to defend kicks in from out on the full making them more likely to score from that scenario. But, I'm not a stats guy so happy to stand corrected.

Perhaps scoring with a basketball system of 3,2,1 type intervals would work if our field was smaller and scoring was more frequent due to quick transition from end to end, but it isn't.

[bornadog]

I know it's popular to knock all change and say everything should stay as it is, but I think AFL is a dynamic sport in part because we do review how coaching trends/playing styles impact on the game and query whether the game is at it's optimum. In my opinion, change is not in itself a bad thing and shouldn't be resisted just because.

If so, it would still be ok for a defender to kick the ball into the grandstand whenever under pressure.

I don't know if I'd go as far as Buckley, but personally I like the idea that if a player receives the ball from a team mate, the notion of priority opportunity shouldn't exist. If you get a handpass from a teammate, get tackled immediately and don't get rid of it, I reckon your team should lose the ball.

I am one of the people that hates the AFL tampering with the rules. Every time the AFL changes the rules, coaches and players find a way around it and the game changes. ( for the worst)

I don't mind rule changes like stopping players being rammed into the ground head first. What I detest is the AFL changing rules because they don't like the way the game is being played and they want rule changes to make the game look like the so called good old days.

No rule changes will make the game the same as it was in the 80's (thank god).

[boydogs]

Which team is going to just kick the footy out on the full in case they only score a point when it's all said and done?

They don't, but we see things like kicking the ball to 20m out instead of 5m out in case it gets punched through, centreing the ball or going sideways when faced with a shot from a tough angle, and defenses being happy to concede a behind to take possession and start attacking rather than having to work it out in general play, which releases the pressure and detracts from the contest

It's like if basketball started calling it a turnover if a shot hit the ring but didn't go in, but missing everything or hitting the backboard was play on. Aside from making no sense, we would see side effects like less 3 point shots as there's every chance they will be turnovers instead of 50/50 rebounds if they miss.

In the AFL, we see less shots from the boundary or outside 50 because if it's "only" a behind, they only score 1 point and the opposition gets the ball with space and time to setup an attack. If it were 2 or 3 points, they would be more willing to have a go rather than kick to a contest in the hopes of winning the ball closer to goal for a more high percentage shot

[F'scary]

Novel word combinations: Buckley, thoughts.