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

[Bulldog4life]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-1...-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.