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

[Bulldog4life]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-12/exclusive-hawks-afl-in-trial-of-onfield-zones

WITH the look and feel of the game now the hot-button topic in the game, the AFL has enlisted its most successful coach to help chart a course for the future.

Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson used the bye week to stage a training session on Saturday morning and it was moved to Etihad Stadium after a request from the AFL to "try a few things".

The match practice sessions included some new wrinkles and was watched by several key AFL officials.

At various stages of the scratch match, there had to be either three or four players from each team parked inside the 50-metre arc following each centre bounce and also for a time, at every stoppage.

The use of zones, either at every stoppage or after goals, is seen as one way to reduce the increased congestion around the ball and to make the game more free-flowing.

Other suggestions include fewer interchange rotations, eliminating the interchange altogether and replacing them with substitutes, and reducing the number of players on the ground to 16 per side.


AFL umpires officiated at Saturday morning's session and was filmed by the League for further analysis. Among those in attendance were AFL general manager of football operations Steve Hocking, head of coaching David Rath, umpires boss Grant Williams, game analyst Brett Munro and football operations manager Pat Clifton.

AFL officials are keen to stage more trials with clubs over the next few weeks, continuing a practice that started late last year when North Melbourne was enlisted to help trial the rules for AFLX.

Rath joined the League at the start of the year as head of coaching after 13 years as a senior assistant at Hawthorn, where he worked under Alastair Clarkson as he led the Hawks to four premierships.

Rath is working closely with Hocking, looking at different ways the game might be played, with changes set to be implemented as early as next season. Any changes would need to come through the new Competition Committee and signed off by the AFL Commission.

Hocking has indicated that any changes for next season would be announced in early October, before the start of the trade and free agency periods.

It is believed the Hawks were always planning a major training session ahead of their round 13 clash with Adelaide and once the AFL learned of this, they contacted the Hawks to see whether they could trial some ideas.

Having the session behind closed doors at Etihad Stadium allowed the club and the AFL to conduct the trials away from the public, which would have been impossible at the club's Waverley Park base.

[bornadog]

Hocking and Gill need to be sacked right now. This is just farcical that we even have thoughts of any rule changes, let alone extreme rule changes that will change the game forever.

[westdog54]

Hocking and Gill need to be sacked right now. This is just farcical that we even have thoughts of any rule changes, let alone extreme rule changes that will change the game forever.

I'm not a fan of zones, but, playing devils advocate, were similar things said when the centre diamond was first tried?

[bornadog]

I'm not a fan of zones, but, playing devils advocate, were similar things said when the centre diamond was first tried?

The centre bounce only happens after a goal. Imagine trying to check the players constantly to stay in Zones.

[bulldogtragic]

The centre bounce only happens after a goal. Imagine trying to check the players constantly to stay in Zones.

Imagine all the free kicks and complexity for umpires. We might need a 10 umpire system.

[mjp]

The way they do it at TAC Cup level/National champs level is as follows:

- Every stoppage (including kick-ins) BOTH teams must have:
1/. 2x players inside the 50m arc at both ends.
2/. 3x players inside forward half at both ends.

So 'forward of the ball' there will always be at least 5x players.

Once the ball is thrown up, kicked in etc, they can do whatever they want. If there is another ball up, well, they just need to be 'active' in getting back to their starting point.

It opens things up a lot because you simply cannot have an inside 50m stoppage where there are 36 players around the ball...it spreads everyone out. They aren't 'ZONES' - they ARE designated starting positions for (effectively) 5x forwards and 5x backs on each side. If you like positional play, you will like it.

I honestly don't know what all the angst is about. Backwards kick = play on...sounds like a good idea to me. Last touch I don't like but 'last possession' (ball goes oob from a kick or handball) I'm fine with.

Back to what everyone is calling a 'zone', it just ISN'T a zone. It is nothing like the lines on a court in a netball game. It is EASY to understand. It gives KPP's (and everyone else) a genuine chance at a 1v1 in transition...and it works.

[Greystache]

I'm not a fan of zones, but, playing devils advocate, were similar things said when the centre diamond was first tried?

My grandfather refused to watch football after they introduced the centre square. He was adamant they were turning the game into bloody netball. If you're not tough enough to deal with players around the ball you shouldn't be playing

My great grandfather stopped watching football after they introduced boundary throw ins. He was adamant they were turning the game into bloody netball. If you need someone to throw the ball in for you to get play going you shouldn't be playing.

My uncle stopped watching football when they introduced interchange. He was adamant they were turning the game into bloody netball. If you're not tough enough to play the whole game then you shouldn't be playing.

I'm sure one day my son will complain removing the free kick for taking out the legs will be the AFL turning the game into bloody netball.

One thing you can be certain of in life is people hate things changing from when they were young.

[bornadog]

The way they do it at TAC Cup level/National champs level is as follows:

- Every stoppage (including kick-ins) BOTH teams must have:
1/. 2x players inside the 50m arc at both ends.
2/. 3x players inside forward half at both ends.

So 'forward of the ball' there will always be at least 5x players.

Once the ball is thrown up, kicked in etc, they can do whatever they want. If there is another ball up, well, they just need to be 'active' in getting back to their starting point.

It opens things up a lot because you simply cannot have an inside 50m stoppage where there are 36 players around the ball...it spreads everyone out. They aren't 'ZONES' - they ARE designated starting positions for (effectively) 5x forwards and 5x backs on each side. If you like positional play, you will like it.

I honestly don't know what all the angst is about. Backwards kick = play on...sounds like a good idea to me. Last touch I don't like but 'last possession' (ball goes oob from a kick or handball) I'm fine with.

Back to what everyone is calling a 'zone', it just ISN'T a zone. It is nothing like the lines on a court in a netball game. It is EASY to understand. It gives KPP's (and everyone else) a genuine chance at a 1v1 in transition...and it works.

I can't see how congestion will be reduced by implementing starting positions.

Here is Buckle's view:


The idea of implementing a new rule to start players in different areas of the field is designed to prevent a large number of players from following the ball, but Buckley doesn’t think the theory will have the desired effect.

“It would probably help get the ball to the pointy ends of the field quicker, which you would think would result in scoring better,” he said.


“But the fact is the best AFL clubs at the moment are scoring from about 55 percent of their inside 50 entries.


“Once you get the ball inside your forward line, that’s where the better teams just hold it in there until they score.


“Nothing that you do from a positioning perspective would shift that.”


Buckley believes the overuse of hand ball is a key factor in congesting the game.


“If you can use a trigger or a mechanism that will force coaches to ask their players to kick out of congestion more, that will be the thing that will fix congestion more than any of the starting positions,” he said.

On kicking the ball backwards and it is play on, will only result in more stoppages as the attacking team holds the ball in.

[westdog54]

My grandfather refused to watch football after they introduced the centre square. He was adamant they were turning the game into bloody netball. If you're not tough enough to deal with players around the ball you shouldn't be playing

My great grandfather stopped watching football after they introduced boundary throw ins. He was adamant they were turning the game into bloody netball. If you need someone to throw the ball in for you to get play going you shouldn't be playing.

My uncle stopped watching football when they introduced interchange. He was adamant they were turning the game into bloody netball. If you're not tough enough to play the whole game then you shouldn't be playing.

I'm sure one day my son will complain removing the free kick for taking out the legs will be the AFL turning the game into bloody netball.

One thing you can be certain of in life is people hate things changing from when they were young.

I got far too much amusement out of reading this post. Its spot on.


The way they do it at TAC Cup level/National champs level is as follows:

- Every stoppage (including kick-ins) BOTH teams must have:
1/. 2x players inside the 50m arc at both ends.
2/. 3x players inside forward half at both ends.

So 'forward of the ball' there will always be at least 5x players.

Once the ball is thrown up, kicked in etc, they can do whatever they want. If there is another ball up, well, they just need to be 'active' in getting back to their starting point.

It opens things up a lot because you simply cannot have an inside 50m stoppage where there are 36 players around the ball...it spreads everyone out. They aren't 'ZONES' - they ARE designated starting positions for (effectively) 5x forwards and 5x backs on each side. If you like positional play, you will like it.

I honestly don't know what all the angst is about. Backwards kick = play on...sounds like a good idea to me. Last touch I don't like but 'last possession' (ball goes oob from a kick or handball) I'm fine with.

Back to what everyone is calling a 'zone', it just ISN'T a zone. It is nothing like the lines on a court in a netball game. It is EASY to understand. It gives KPP's (and everyone else) a genuine chance at a 1v1 in transition...and it works.

See, this actually makes sense to me, and I can see it working. With assistance from the boundary umpires, it would be fairly easy to enforce.

[bornadog]

See, this actually makes sense to me, and I can see it working. With assistance from the boundary umpires, it would be fairly easy to enforce.

Why do we need to do it?

[westdog54]

Why do we need to do it?

The 5th paragraph of MJPs post ought to answer your question succinctly.

Can you see any drawbacks to doing it?

[mjp]

Clubs are able to lock the ball inside their forward 50 because they can implement a 18-man rolling zone to keep it there...if you restrict their starting positions, well - they can't do that...they can 'only' implement a 13-man zone. Say what you will, but having 10x less players (5 from each team) crowding up the forward half WILL make it easier to exit the ball...because there are 10 less players to navigate past.

Buckley's comment "nothing you do from a positioning perspective will change that" doesn't make sense. If less players are there to "lock it in" forward half, then it WILL be easier to:

a/. For the attacking team to score because there will be less players (and therefore more space) inside f50.
b/. The defensive team to exit because there will be less players (and therefore more space) congesting the exit points.

As soon as a repeat stoppage occurred (which includes a point being kicked), players would be compelled to reset which open things up.

Ask Buckley to draw on a white board the way he sets up to defend at a stoppage 30m out from Collingwood's scoring goal. Then grab an eraser and rub out 5 of those crosses and see what it looks like...suggesting it 'wont make a difference' is actually laughable.

[jeemak]

I don't mind the starting positions concept. It actually has the least impact on how the game needs to be interpreted by the umpires and doesn't really require players to change the way they play - just where they start play from. Having not watched anything of the junior competitions in which it has been implemented, I'll defer to MJP's assessment that it works.

To me it's never been apparent why people want to call play on when a mark is taken after a backwards kick. Like in soccer, the backwards kick is used to draw the defenders forward and open up space while retaining possession of the ball. Why would I want to see my team kick if forwards if all it means is they're more likely to turn it over? It's fundamentally dumb.

Reducing the number of interchanges hasn't actually improved congestion, and it won't improve it if it is reduced again. Players burn less energy locking the ball into certain areas of the ground or parking the bus in defence, if they're given less opportunity to rest they will be coached to accommodate that.

I suggested this in another thread, incentivise coaches to open the game up and score more freely with the opportunity to be rewarded with bonus premiership points. It won't happen, but while coaches who will always prioritise defencive play have no reason not to, they will find a way to stifle scoring.

[westdog54]

Clubs are able to lock the ball inside their forward 50 because they can implement a 18-man rolling zone to keep it there...if you restrict their starting positions, well - they can't do that...they can 'only' implement a 13-man zone. Say what you will, but having 10x less players (5 from each team) crowding up the forward half WILL make it easier to exit the ball...because there are 10 less players to navigate past.

Buckley's comment "nothing you do from a positioning perspective will change that" doesn't make sense. If less players are there to "lock it in" forward half, then it WILL be easier to:

a/. For the attacking team to score because there will be less players (and therefore more space) inside f50.
b/. The defensive team to exit because there will be less players (and therefore more space) congesting the exit points.

As soon as a repeat stoppage occurred (which includes a point being kicked), players would be compelled to reset which open things up.

Ask Buckley to draw on a white board the way he sets up to defend at a stoppage 30m out from Collingwood's scoring goal. Then grab an eraser and rub out 5 of those crosses and see what it looks like...suggesting it 'wont make a difference' is actually laughable.

That explains it far better than I ever could have hoped to.

[mjp]

Why do we need to do it?

We probably don't.

But you can either have the current 'state of play' with everyone complaining about congestion and accept that as the 'new normal' or you can legislate around it. I am happy enough with the game and don't get too upset about the numbers around the ball...some people don't like it. Apparently the majority dont like it? Anyway, if we don't like something and want change, then a 'RULE' is going to have to be put in place because without a 'RULE', nothing will ever be done.

My only point - only point - is that when people talk in fearful terms about 'zones' they just don't know how the thing that is called the 3-2 system works. It defines starting points for 5x players on the ground at STOPPAGES and KICK-INS...that's IT. There are no 'lines' that you can't cross over in order to make a lead/contest the footy...it simply doesn't work that way.

[Happy Days]

I'm ambivalent towards zoning - I kind of lean towards the idea that it's an overcorrection that we don't really need and is only being brought up because the AFL is relatively devoid of scandal, and the coach of the most influence in the AFL is being confronted with the reality of his team not being all that good for the first time in a decade. Plus I generally prefer the game to develop organically - coaches' responses to congestion in the past 10 years (Geelong's over-handballing, Hawthorn's prioritisation of foot skill, our use of third-man up to clear stoppages) has lead to some of the most watchable football ever, without a rule change to precede any of it.

But I also know as addressed by others that the change is probably a lot of traditionalist hand-wringing, and the game will still be the best game in the world.

My real concern is how exactly did Clarkson get so much influence to the point that he can be a consulting figure on what would be a fundamental change to the way the game is played? Between this and his coffee date with Gil to discuss why the umpires hate Hawthorn so much all of a sudden, he is being shown to have way too much pull for an obviously biased stakeholder.

[Doc26]

Clubs are able to lock the ball inside their forward 50 because they can implement a 18-man rolling zone to keep it there...if you restrict their starting positions, well - they can't do that...they can 'only' implement a 13-man zone. Say what you will, but having 10x less players (5 from each team) crowding up the forward half WILL make it easier to exit the ball...because there are 10 less players to navigate past.

Buckley's comment "nothing you do from a positioning perspective will change that" doesn't make sense. If less players are there to "lock it in" forward half, then it WILL be easier to:

a/. For the attacking team to score because there will be less players (and therefore more space) inside f50.
b/. The defensive team to exit because there will be less players (and therefore more space) congesting the exit points.

As soon as a repeat stoppage occurred (which includes a point being kicked), players would be compelled to reset which open things up.

Ask Buckley to draw on a white board the way he sets up to defend at a stoppage 30m out from Collingwood's scoring goal. Then grab an eraser and rub out 5 of those crosses and see what it looks like...suggesting it 'wont make a difference' is actually laughable.

How much of a time impost have you seen with players having to reset their positions after each stoppage / kick in ? Is it a negligible effect ?

[bornadog]

My only point - only point - is that when people talk in fearful terms about 'zones' they just don't know how the thing that is called the 3-2 system works. It defines starting points for 5x players on the ground at STOPPAGES and KICK-INS...that's IT. There are no 'lines' that you can't cross over in order to make a lead/contest the footy...it simply doesn't work that way.

So, if all 36 players are in one of the 50m arcs and there is a stoppage, does that mean 5 players have to sprint back up the ground to their spots, or do you think they won't bother pressing forward?

What has happened to the game is we have over complicated it with a lot of don't do this don't do that, which has lead to confusion by supporters on a lot of rules and made the umpiring almost impossible. My mate who was an umpire said, when he was umpiring, if there were two consecutive ball ups, just pick out a free for the defending side and clear the pack.

The prior opportunity has certainly contributed to the rolling mauls with players prepared to handball to someone within 2 feet of them knowing they won't be pinged due to no prior and just creating the stoppage. The 3rd man up was clearing the ball to some extent, and the rule for nominating the ruckman has also contributed to a stoppage longer than it should be.

I was watching a game on the weekend (on TV), and the boundary umpire didn't just throw the ball in, they waited for the ruckman to nominate and be ready, so what happens, players sprint up to form a pack.

As Bevo said today, some cosmetic changes can be made, but I for one am not ready to start making wholesale changes to our game.

[westdog54]

I'm ambivalent towards zoning - I kind of lean towards the idea that it's an overcorrection that we don't really need and is only being brought up because the AFL is relatively devoid of scandal, and the coach of the most influence in the AFL is being confronted with the reality of his team not being all that good for the first time in a decade. Plus I generally prefer the game to develop organically - coaches' responses to congestion in the past 10 years (Geelong's over-handballing, Hawthorn's prioritisation of foot skill, our use of third-man up to clear stoppages) has lead to some of the most watchable football ever, without a rule change to precede any of it.

But I also know as addressed by others that the change is probably a lot of traditionalist hand-wringing, and the game will still be the best game in the world.

My real concern is how exactly did Clarkson get so much influence to the point that he can be a consulting figure on what would be a fundamental change to the way the game is played? Between this and his coffee date with Gil to discuss why the umpires hate Hawthorn so much all of a sudden, he is being shown to have way too much pull for an obviously biased stakeholder.

TBH I'm not sure if Clarko is being 'Consulted' as such here, more that his team was being used as a guinea pig.

[westdog54]

How much of a time impost have you seen with players having to reset their positions after each stoppage / kick in ? Is it a negligible effect ?


So, if all 36 players are in one of the 50m arcs and there is a stoppage, does that mean 5 players have to sprint back up the ground to their spots, or do you think they won't bother pressing forward?

You've effectively asked the same question here so I'll reply to both of you:

I would think that you'd find that teams would re-structure to avoid breaching the rule, and that the onus is on the players on the field to be in position


The prior opportunity has certainly contributed to the rolling mauls with players prepared to handball to someone within 2 feet of them knowing they won't be pinged due to no prior and just creating the stoppage. The 3rd man up was clearing the ball to some extent, and the rule for nominating the ruckman has also contributed to a stoppage longer than it should be.

Prior opportunity is a problem but I think dropping it entirely would be a bad call to make.

I've thought long and hard about prior opportunity and whilst I wouldn't can it completely, I would:




Amend it so that receiving a pass from a teammate would be considered having prior opportunity to dispose of the ball
Any attempt to break a tackle, whether the player has had prior opportunity or not, should be holding the ball even if the ball is pinned to the player.




I was watching a game on the weekend (on TV), and the boundary umpire didn't just throw the ball in, they waited for the ruckman to nominate and be ready, so what happens, players sprint up to form a pack.

[/QUOTE]

Put quite simply, that shouldn't be happening.

I'll finish by saying that the discussion on this thread has started really well. Lets keep the standard up.

[Happy Days]

TBH I'm not sure if Clarko is being 'Consulted' as such here, more that his team was being used as a guinea pig.

Leaving the consultation point to the side - how does it represent equity that one team gets to be the guinea pig in a trial that the AFL is considering adopting? Seems like a bit of an unfair advantage to give one club an extra 6-8 months of exposure.

[westdog54]

Leaving the consultation point to the side - how does it represent equity that one team gets to be the guinea pig in a trial that the AFL is considering adopting? Seems like a bit of an unfair advantage to give one club an extra 6-8 months of exposure.

That's a fair enough question to be asking, but you'd have to think there would be an uproar, from fans and clubs alike, if this was brought in without a more extensive trial.

It appears they've tried to do this on the quiet, and rightly so IMO, but the media have caught hold of it.

[Axe Man]

The state of AFL football has been a hot topic in the last week, but Beveridge today argued for caution rather than dramatic change.

“It's a difficult one to debate dramatic change because our game is so pure and obviously there's some talking points around congestion and scoring at the moment.

“There's some quite cosmetic changes we can make, like balling the ball up a bit quicker, which means you don't nominate ruckman, it's the team's obligation to make sure they've only got one up if we want to maintain the one-up rule.

“There's things currently in the game through the broadcast and the umpires not moving the game on quick enough that encourage and entice congestion. There will always be times when there's a lot of numbers in certain areas but I think we make the cosmetic changes and see how it affects us, let's not be too dramatic.”

I agree with Bevo's take. Let's try a couple of less dramatic measures before we start completely changing the game by introducing zones.

Get rid of nominating the ruckman and allow anybody to contest the ball-up/throw in. I don't care if 3, 4 or 10 people go up, just get it moving. Field umpires to throw the ball up straight away and the same for boundary umpires at throw-ins.

[Ozza]

Clubs are able to lock the ball inside their forward 50 because they can implement a 18-man rolling zone to keep it there...if you restrict their starting positions, well - they can't do that...they can 'only' implement a 13-man zone. Say what you will, but having 10x less players (5 from each team) crowding up the forward half WILL make it easier to exit the ball...because there are 10 less players to navigate past.

Buckley's comment "nothing you do from a positioning perspective will change that" doesn't make sense. If less players are there to "lock it in" forward half, then it WILL be easier to:

a/. For the attacking team to score because there will be less players (and therefore more space) inside f50.
b/. The defensive team to exit because there will be less players (and therefore more space) congesting the exit points.

As soon as a repeat stoppage occurred (which includes a point being kicked), players would be compelled to reset which open things up.

Ask Buckley to draw on a white board the way he sets up to defend at a stoppage 30m out from Collingwood's scoring goal. Then grab an eraser and rub out 5 of those crosses and see what it looks like...suggesting it 'wont make a difference' is actually laughable.

My read on this, is that his comments may be self-serving. Buckley is currently coaching the team with the most pure running power in the league right now (possibly only matched by a fully fit GWS list), and their ability to have all 18 players working up and back works pretty well for him - so he probably doesn't want to see changes that might threaten what he's been implementing for the last few years!

[mjp]

So, if all 36 players are in one of the 50m arcs and there is a stoppage, does that mean 5 players have to sprint back up the ground to their spots, or do you think they won't bother pressing forward?


It means 5 players from each team need to show an INTENT to reset - so yes, they will have to run back. They don't have to BE back - they have to be attempting to reset. Pretty tenuous I know but it is different.

That said, I think you will find they simply don't press up as high because they will have 'deeper' starting points so they wont be able to 'empty out' as quickly or easily as they do today.



What has happened to the game is we have over complicated it with a lot of don't do this don't do that, which has lead to confusion by supporters on a lot of rules and made the umpiring almost impossible. My mate who was an umpire said, when he was umpiring, if there were two consecutive ball ups, just pick out a free for the defending side and clear the pack.


Supporters - even fanatical ones - have no idea about the rules. Everyone bangs on about 'prior opportunity' and how eliminating it would somehow markedly improve things...but I don't think anyone actually knows what it means. The reality is, this rule is just umpired extremely poorly today and when it isn't, everyone sooks that the player 'had no chance' and 'you have to protect the guy going for the ball'. Prior opportunity is really well explained HERE: http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-holding-the-ball

When you watch that, it all makes sense...but the game is not umpired that way.

Umpires are OK in general but their unwillingness to simply pay the simple free-kicks that appear in front of them in order to - well, who knows what? is amazing. If they simply paid high contact, in the back/hands in the back and holding the ball EVERY TIME prior opportunity had been exceeded (and this means any time a player takes on a tackle - including a fend, dropping their head into the contact or a side-step that counts as prior opportunity) then things would improve markedly. But if we want a return to the good old days and one-v-one contests between forwards and backs, then we need to do something a bit more radical than try and 'fix umpiring'.

If you watch any of the so called classic matches on FOX which these days seem to only feature games from 2000-2017 (yes - how a classic game is < 12 months old I have no idea either) you will see some games from 15-years ago featuring a more traditional 'lead out, take a mark, kick a goal' type forward play from the likes of Barry Hall and Chris Tarrant. But the space around the top of the 50m arc is significantly greater than it is these days (with the exception of our game versus West Coast earlier this year or the first q last week of Swans vs Saints - and that was just terrible effort by the defensive teams involved) and it is because the players simply push a lot harder to get back and defend (aka clog up the leading lanes). AND, you will very rarely see situations where teams hold the ball up through the midfield because they have gotten 'OUT' but have ZERO team-mates ahead of them to kick to. That happens every single game now - teams start kicking backwards not to change the angle of attack and work around a disciplined defensive zone but simply because they need to slow the ball down to actually enable someone to push down the ground so they can kick it to them...

[Ozza]

I like the idea of these starting positions. Not 100% sure that 5 (2 + 3) is the correct number for AFL - maybe 4 or 3 makes the change less dramatic - but I certainly think the idea has merit. Dangerfield was on radio just a moment ago and said that himself and a number of other players (Sloane, Burgoyne were mentioned amongst others) watched the vision of the hawks training yesterday and he said it looked good and was well received by the players. He said at times it reminded him circa 2005 where Judd would burst away from a stoppage and it looked like nobody was around him once he cleared the stoppage area.

[bornadog]

Thanks for your insights MJP, really appreciate your analysis of the game.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to go back to the so called good old days, that will never happen not matter what rules are changed. Coaches, are more astute now, players are bigger, stronger faster and are able to run all day and tackling is just incredible.

I guess at the end of the day, I don't trust the AFL with their knee jerk reactions and the zero thoughts of what the consequences are of a rule change. I prefer Bevo's thoughts ie take it slowly, nothing radical and see where we go.


Umpires are OK in general but their unwillingness to simply pay the simple free-kicks that appear in front of them in order to - well, who knows what? is amazing. If they simply paid high contact, in the back/hands in the back and holding the ball EVERY TIME prior opportunity had been exceeded (and this means any time a player takes on a tackle - including a fend, dropping their head into the contact or a side-step that counts as prior opportunity) then things would improve markedly.

I totally agree with your view on umpiring, but I think their job is so hard with all the rule interpretations and direction given by the AFL. I have said this for a number of years, just umpire the basics as you have mentioned, including incorrect disposal.

[mjp]

I guess at the end of the day, I don't trust the AFL with their knee jerk reactions and the zero thoughts of what the consequences are of a rule change. I prefer Bevo's thoughts ie take it slowly, nothing radical and see where we go.



The problem is, one person's conservative is another person's fascist!

What defines radical?

To me, there have been significant trials of 3-different rules:

1/. 16/side (AFLW). Zero impact.
2/. Last touch (AFLW). Zero impact.
3/. 3-2 'zone'. TAC Cup and National Champs since 2014. Impact.

Is a trial of that length of time enough to justify a trial in the pre-season next year?

[bornadog]

The problem is, one person's conservative is another person's fascist!

What defines radical?

To me, there have been significant trials of 3-different rules:

1/. 16/side (AFLW). Zero impact.
2/. Last touch (AFLW). Zero impact.
3/. 3-2 'zone'. TAC Cup and National Champs since 2014. Impact.

Is a trial of that length of time enough to justify a trial in the pre-season next year?

Not sure if trialling in women's football and under 18 competitions is enough to say it works in senior elite football.

[Ozza]

The problem is, one person's conservative is another person's fascist!

What defines radical?

To me, there have been significant trials of 3-different rules:

1/. 16/side (AFLW). Zero impact.
2/. Last touch (AFLW). Zero impact.
3/. 3-2 'zone'. TAC Cup and National Champs since 2014. Impact.

Is a trial of that length of time enough to justify a trial in the pre-season next year?

Agree with this. Congestion in the women’s game is worse than AFL - and yes, I understand there is an enormous gulf in skill level and fitness - but both the 16 a side and the last touch do nothing to enhance the game.

[Topdog]

Umpires are told what to do. Genuinely don't blame them for the rubbish decisions and change of focus from week to week. The ones that do umpire to the letter of the law are quickly thrown away if they don't listen to instructions for the week.

Actually if you notice there have really been no new umpires for the past few years, in VIC at least. All the main umpires are pushing 40 now.

[bornadog]

Agree with this. Congestion in the women’s game is worse than AFL - and yes, I understand there is an enormous gulf in skill level and fitness - but both the 16 a side and the last touch do nothing to enhance the game.

The 16 would reduce the number of players by 4 which will have some impact. Although I am against change, 16 was in the Old VFA days, so it is part of traditional football. :o

[Greystache]

The problem is, one person's conservative is another person's fascist!

What defines radical?

To me, there have been significant trials of 3-different rules:

1/. 16/side (AFLW). Zero impact.
2/. Last touch (AFLW). Zero impact.
3/. 3-2 'zone'. TAC Cup and National Champs since 2014. Impact.

Is a trial of that length of time enough to justify a trial in the pre-season next year?

It would also help align the conditions potential draftees play under versus what they'll face at AFL level. There's so much guess work involved currently in projecting how a forward or defender will go when there's more players and less space to work in- particularly key forwards

[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.

[boydogs]

I'm not sure the TAC Cup rule would translate well at AFL level. They don't tag either as a gentleman's agreement, but AFL coaches will do anything to get an advantage. You have to legislate changes carefully as opposed to the coaches following the spirit of the game, showing intent to return to your starting position is pretty vague

[jeemak]

I'm not sure the TAC Cup rule would translate well at AFL level. They don't tag either as a gentleman's agreement, but AFL coaches will do anything to get an advantage. You have to legislate changes carefully as opposed to the coaches following the spirit of the game, showing intent to return to your starting position is pretty vague

Once again, I sound like a crackpot on this, but nothing will change until you actually provide an incentive for coaches to play offensively.

Penalise players, set up zones, do what you want. Until you incentivise and reward coaches for opening the game up and encouraging scoring, they will find a way to subvert every single rule change or game change implemented to limit scoring. Just like they have done over the last fifty years.

It boggles the mind that more people haven't realised this yet.

[Topdog]

Once again, I sound like a crackpot on this, but nothing will change until you actually provide an incentive for coaches to play offensively.

Penalise players, set up zones, do what you want. Until you incentivise and reward coaches for opening the game up and encouraging scoring, they will find a way to subvert every single rule change or game change implemented to limit scoring. Just like they have done over the last fifty years.

It boggles the mind that more people haven't realised this yet.

Yeah I'd be up for extra points for scoring 100 or something similar.

[FrediKanoute]

I think the "zone" concept is actually a good idea. I also think it see a re-emergence of tall players as being important rather than 16 mid and a couple of mobile tall blokes.

Part of the reason Boyd and Schache and the other once in a generation talls have struggled to dominate is to do with congestion and the lack of space. Terry Wallace's "Flood" has morphed into the zone defence concept and 36 guys around the pill. How frustrating is it when we set up with no one in front of the ball carrier? This will force that and teams whcih have good one on one players in their front half will benefit.

[Go_Dogs]

Bring back the third man up rule.

Bring in a last disposal OOB rule (we basically have it now anyway).

[bornadog]

Bring in a last disposal OOB rule (we basically have it now anyway).

Please no

[mjp]

Please no

I like the last disposal rule. I want the ball to be moving and limiting BTI's to when the ball is out 'off hands' would be more than enough for me.

Is it because you don't want it to change or because you just love watching BTI's?

[jeemak]

I like the last disposal rule. I want the ball to be moving and limiting BTI's to when the ball is out 'off hands' would be more than enough for me.

Is it because you don't want it to change or because you just love watching BTI's?

I like watching how teams set up at stoppages, and how the really good midfielders extract the footy and use handball skills to set up a burst of play. It's a wonderful part of our game, lost largely due to the mass of players congregated around stoppages.

I don't like umpires waiting for rucks to nominate and players to congregate in the excessive time it takes a throw in to occur.

If the 3:2 rule was implemented and the boundary throw ins didn't take forever to eventuate, might a happy medium be realised?

[Dancin' Douggy]

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.

[bornadog]

I like the last disposal rule. I want the ball to be moving and limiting BTI's to when the ball is out 'off hands' would be more than enough for me.

Is it because you don't want it to change or because you just love watching BTI's?


I like watching how teams set up at stoppages, and how the really good midfielders extract the footy and use handball skills to set up a burst of play. It's a wonderful part of our game, lost largely due to the mass of players congregated around stoppages.

I don't like umpires waiting for rucks to nominate and players to congregate in the excessive time it takes a throw in to occur.


Jeemak has answered one of the reasons why I don't like last touch rule, the other reason is I watched a bit of Women's footy the past two years and the last touch rule was so annoying. For example, when the ball is in the 50 metre arc and right near the point post and the ball goes out. The defending team then just clears the ball out of the 50mtre arc, after the attacking team worked hard to get the ball down there. Watch a game with last touch and you will see what I mean - it is very frustrating.

[mjp]

Watch a game with last touch and you will see what I mean - it is very frustrating.

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?

[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’ (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/afl-daily-get-all-the-latest-and-breaking-footy-news-for-wednesday-june-20-2018/news-story/36ff0f81d4d24dc2428d7ca723c14ceb)

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/afl/afl/is-this-footys-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 (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-in-the-danger-zone-says-luke-beveridge-20180705-p4zppj.html)

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 gamestory here (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-08-11/new-rules-have-minimal-impact-on-vfl-trial-game)

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