EXCLUSIVE: Hawks, AFL in trial of on-field zones

[bornadog]

Last touch and last possession are not the same thing.

Ball goes out off hands? Throw it in. Ball is directly handballed or kicked out of bounds - opposition get the ball.

As for working hard to get the ball inside 50m only for it to be cleared out straight away...don't kick the thing out of bounds and that wont happen though right?

I still enjoy the boundary throw in, the rucking duels, the clearances, the strategies and setup around the ball, especially near the goals. When a team wins the stoppage and kicks a goal, can be quite exciting. I do recall a prelim decided this way.

I don't want to see the ball pinged from one end to the other non-stop, I love the stoppages, but I will admit I don't like 36 players in one half of the ground.

[mjp]

I love the stoppages as well...what I can't stand is that stoppages (once upon a time consisted of 4x mids + 3x positional players MAX - and half the time the 'old style centreman' would just 'play the square' and not even attend half of them!) have now become 15 on 15 scrums...

It isn't footy. It just isn't.

[Axe Man]

Seriously? Does the AFL really want AFLX styles games? This would be much worse than what we have now.

‘IT HAD AN AFLX TYPE OF FEEL’

Brisbane football boss David Noble has given his verdict on the AFL rules trial the Lions took part in yesterday, likening the changes to AFLX.

The trial included anchoring a full-back and full-forward in giant goalsquares in an attempt to ease congestion.
“It did actually allow the game to flow better. It had an AFLX type of feel about it, where the ball seemed to move relatively quickly,” Noble said.

“It was only two 10-minute periods, so there is a lot more data that needs to be gathered in a game sense.
“It certainly looked better, the distribution, it looked more balanced across the ground, the ball moved easier.
“The ball just seemed to flow a little bit easier.

“The essence was six-six-six at centre bounces, have to stay in your front 50 at all stoppages, three forwards have to be inside the forward 50, with one in goal square.

"Then we tinkered around with having four forwards in your forward 50, no forwards allowed in your defensive 50 stoppage structure.

“I think it allowed more space.”

AFL umpires adjudicated yesterday’s session while league football boss Steve Hocking and umpires boss Grant Williams were keen observers.

[Doc26]

Thinking 'self interest', a restricted zone' can only be a good thing for Teams with capable key position forwards currently on their list. What would Schache's value have been in the 2017 trade period if this rule had been enacted to come in for the 2018 season? TBoyd's prospective value also looks a whole lot more attractive, even Redpath's. I'm thinking we're set-up perfectly for this change of rule. Bring it on.

These were my thoughts exactly.

Although the Bulldog pessimist in me awaits what additional rule Hocking will conjure up to temper our potential advantage, like no more than 1 number 1 draft pick, over 6 foot 3, in the forward fifty at stoppages.

[bornadog]

Get ready for this https://www.foxsports.com.au/video/a...-future!686368

South Australia was given an anti-density rule break free kick in the under 18s competition on Friday. It could happen in the AFL next year if the league adopts a new rule forcing teams to keep a certain number of players in their forward and defensive 50.


It is a harsh penalty, it is a free shot at goal.

[Bulldog Joe]

The anti density provisions would be absolutely unnecessary, if the umpires ceased the ridiculous interpretation of prior opportunity.

The player taking the tackle does not deserve additional leeway if the ball is not pinned in the tackle.

If you take possession it is your responsibility to dispose of it correctly, or at least attempt to do so. We need to stop the situation where players simply hang on to the ball and get a ball up.

Pay the free to reward a legal tackle or penalise an incorrect one.

How hard is that?

[bornadog]

AFL in the danger zone, says Luke Beveridge

Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has warned against some major rule changes to football, particularly the proposed "starting positions" or zones, which would "ruin'' the game at junior level, encouraging kids to play other codes.

Weighing into the debate about the state of the game, the 2016 premiership coach said that only "cosmetic'' changes were necessary, such as throwing the ball up faster at stoppages and abolishing the nomination process for the one-man rule at ruck contests.

Beveridge said the introduction of starting positions – a major change that the AFL has trialled with three clubs and is under consideration – would mean kids were less involved during junior games, leading to some losing interest in playing.

Beveridge, who has coached in the amateurs and recently coached his son's team at junior level, cautioned against "adding layers'' to what he called "the pure game''.

While the higher scoring last weekend and more entertaining footy led observers to wonder whether coaches had taken a different tack, Beveridge attributed some of the more attacking, corridor-based play in the exciting Bulldogs v Geelong game last Friday night to the quicker ball-ups and throw-ins that sped up play.

But Beveridge's strongest view was that there was no need for starting positions at stoppages – one of the measures being considered by the AFL under the direction of new football boss Steve Hocking who has held trials in which three or four players must remain in the defensive/forward 50-metre arcs at ball-ups or throw-ins. Once the ball is thrown up, those players can move freely wherever they wish.

Beveridge said he was opposed to starting positions because of what he had observed at under-18 level and in the women's state league.

"The main reason is I've seen what happens at TAC level and I know what's happening in the VFL women's game. It will ruin the game at junior level and kids will go and play other codes,'' Beveridge told Fairfax Media.

"It becomes too sterile and kids will be out of the game for too long. They'll even be getting cold and they'll want to play a game where they're involved all the time.

"You've got to remember, kids can't kick that far. And neither can the girls.''

Asked whether rules could be quite different for the AFL, compared with lower levels, Beveridge replied: "You've got to be very careful on how different they are. I mean, you see the layers that we're starting to create. You've got a pure game that we should be proud of, our indigenous game.

The great thing, we've learned from the round-ball game, we've learned to reduce the numbers of the field size ... to increase kids' involvement, and that's a good thing. But that's okay because the rules don't really change and you keep the involvement level up. Futsal changed, you know, the game of soccer – it became even more contagious and we've learned from that. But probably a bit too late.

"But when it comes to the pure game, 18 v 18, it doesn't need to change. But there's no reason you can't play reduced numbers at lower levels, on a reduced field size. You've just got to keep the rules the same.

"We understand the participation aspect is absolutely critical and trying to keep kids involved in the game, while it's being played, is paramount, and if you start creating layers and rules around, you know, set zones and different areas, kids don't even understand that.

"We're creating something and the headaches that are just going to be too wild for everyone really.''

[jeemak]

Interesting that the media believe the coaches have taken a different tact and the game has scored more freely as a result. Once again, raving crackpot jeemak suggests incentivising the coaches to cure this malaise.

[bornadog]

Bevo was asked about his comments in the presso today:

What's wrong with the game? Bevo points fingerAdrian Johnson

CONTROVERSY and headaches.

In April, the AFL established a 12-person ‘Competition Committee’ including players, coaches, and club CEOs to oversee the game, player movement and the structure of the competition.

A consistent patch of low-scoring affairs, highly-congested encounters and scrutinised media attention then triggered AFL boss Steve Hocking to form a committee – including retired greats Malcolm Blight and Leigh Matthews - which entirely focuses on the ‘look of the game’.

But after last weekend produced several free-flowing shootouts attractive to the modern-day fan, including the Bulldogs’ thrilling two-point win over Geelong, Beveridge believes the game does not need tinkering.

“There’s not much wrong with the game at the moment,” Beveridge said on Friday morning.
“The biggest thing that’s wrong with the game are the people looking for things wrong with the game.”

The Bulldogs coach was an onlooker on the final day of the NAB AFL Under 18s Championships at Etihad Stadium on Wednesday, and believes any move closer to zoning, similar to those he observed at the Championships, will result in serious debate.

“(Positional rule changes are) going to cause some controversy,” Beveridge said.

“(On Wednesday) you could clearly hear the umpires yell out ‘density, density’ to the players and then you saw the two forwards and defenders run back inside the forward 50 arc, sometimes on time, sometimes not.

“I was surprised that the umpires were able to focus on it, they’ve got so much on their minds.
“It will create a whole new set of headaches if we go down that track.”

Never silent on the effect of potential changes to the game, the 2016 premiership coach said he was opposed to starting positions because of the consequential and adverse effect it would have on junior footballers.

“(Headaches) will reverberate through the pathways, probably from under 13s up to under 18 levels,” Beveridge said.

“The kids in under 9s and 10s, they have their zones and that’s OK to teach kids to play in their areas, but once they get into older age groups where they start to want to play with flow, with adventure and be involved all the time, well then it’s a bit of a different story.

“But even for junior coaches who want to do the best for the code and the pathways, it might be just too much to organise.

“We’ve got to consider all those things and what the flow-on effects might be.”

Beveridge backed away from comments he made to Fairfax Media overnight, suggesting starting positions would “ruin” the game at a junior level.

“I wouldn’t say (positional rule changes) would (ruin the game), but they’d definitely change it,” he said.

“The instincts in our game and the 360-degree nature has been such an attractive part of our game over a long period of time.

“That’s why kids play, they love the freedom. Shackling them to different areas of the ground and putting constraints on them, then they’re going to fight against that.

“We want to be really, really clear on what the future might hold if we make these changes and I can’t see how we can be clear.”

[Bulldog Joe]

The AFL are going to extreme lengths to look for a solution, to a problem they created.

If they just get rid of the ridiculous `PRIOR OPPORTUNITY` interpretation the congestion would be remarkably reduced IMMEDIATELY.

Why they can`t see that allowing a player to just hang on to the ball, when tackled, leads to stop plays that encourages every player on the ground to be in the same spot.

Just pay a free against the player if he doesn`t dispose of the ball. If he is genuinely pinned as soon as he takes possession it can be an immediate ball up.

Immediate!!!

Not wait 5, 10... secs to see if it comes out. A free kick or ball up within a maximum of 3 seconds.

[bornadog]

The AFL are going to extreme lengths to look for a solution, to a problem they created.

If they just get rid of the ridiculous `PRIOR OPPORTUNITY` interpretation the congestion would be remarkably reduced IMMEDIATELY.

Why they can`t see that allowing a player to just hang on to the ball, when tackled, leads to stop plays that encourages every player on the ground to be in the same spot.

Just pay a free against the player if he doesn`t dispose of the ball. If he is genuinely pinned as soon as he takes possession it can be an immediate ball up.

Immediate!!!

Not wait 5, 10... secs to see if it comes out. A free kick or ball up within a maximum of 3 seconds.

Also - some simple things

1. Bring back 3rd man up
2. No need to nominate a ruckman at stoppages, just ball up quickly
3. Boundary umpire, throw ball in straight away, don't wait for the rucks.

Then let's see how it settles before coming up with ways to change the game.

[bornadog]

Get ready to trial the new rules in the last few games where the final 8 isnot impacted.

Gill is floating the idea.

[bornadog]

New rules have minimal impact on VFL trial game

story here

What a waste time, 6.6.6 - no impact who would have thought