Wizard Cup Rule changes - Favour or hinder?

[Rizzo]

Wasn't sure which board to put this on but I'll frame the question so it relates to the R&W:

What do we think of the rule changes for the Wizard Cup and will they favour or hinder the Swans?

Go to http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=wiz...gall&spg=rule1 for a graphic display

Expanded Centre Square - More time for the ruckman and followers to clear the ball before the rest of the midfield can tie it up. Neither here nor there but may relate to the next rule change.

Goal outside 50 is 9 points - Willo is the only guy who does this consistently, otherwise we seem to score from outside of 50 most often on a fast break from the centre, so it will depend on how well the lads adjust to the new rules.

Immediate kick into play after a behind - Our kick outs have been shocking in the last two seasons so a chance to clear before a zone is set up may help. On the flip side, the boys will have to stick to their man in defence and fitness will be key.

A rushed behind is 3 points - Any stats on our rushed?

Kicking backwards outside attacking 50 zone is 'play on' - No kicking backwards outside of the attacking 50 should be a team rul in my opinion ;-)

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

The rule that I find most interesting is that every kick that goes backwards outside your attacking 50 m line is going to be play-on.

This should help stop some of the boring chip-passing around you get by teams winning during the last quarters of tight matches. Whether such a radical rule should be thought about for the fair-dinkum footy season is highly highly debatable. Especially when it is basically creating an "offside" situation that the umps will have to make an immediate call on.

I applaud the AFL for attempting to stop the plethora of rushed behinds. But rather than giving 3 points to the attacking side, I'd simply enforce the "deliberate" rule for rushed behinds as well. When defenders start giving away free kicks at the end of their goal square, they'll sure stop rushing through the points!

The one I'm rather bemused by is the 9 points for a goal outside 50. I am curious to the AFL's motives here. Are they saying that a long goal is an attractive goal? Or are they simply trying to change the mentality of today's players from making a 'percentage kick' (a term I don't like!) and have a ping from far out. Collingwood with Rocca should be a shoe-in with this rule in enforcement.

Should be really see these matches as serious tests for 2003? Remember, we beat the Pies by 100 points last year, and I got all excited.

And the orange umpies, Hupp Holland Hupp! (Kasskopp Schweine!)

See you Saturday night (minus big flags *POUTS*)

JF

[desredandwhite]

Can't disagree with you at all JF!!

Especially re: the rushed behinds rule. If they start policing it exactly as if it was the boundary line, then at least defenders will stop BLATANTLY conceding behinds - they will have to "fumble" it over the line like anywhere else on the ground

They're going to have a hell of a time dealing with the 50m goal rule too.

[Ajn]

Will be a disadvantage with our best distance kicker, Davis, injured. I'm sure Collingwood are smiling with Rocca and friends!

[Dpw]

Why do we need to stuff around with our game it is great as it is. Every time we make a change to the game it takes away from the meaning of it's records as the bench marks become different, however it is only wizard cup so it can't hurt i guess.

just my view Iam sure people will disagree.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by desredandwhite
Especially re: the rushed behinds rule. If they start policing it exactly as if it was the boundary line, then at least defenders will stop BLATANTLY conceding behinds - they will have to "fumble" it over the line like anywhere else on the ground

It can't be a freekick because of the absurdity in the way the deliberate out-of-bounds is ruled. Imagine each time if one of those free kicks resulted in a definite goal.

[bricon]

Paul Roos believes that the Wizard Cup rule changes are a load of @@@@@ that could actually have a detrimental effect on a team?s performance in the season proper. The Swans have spent no more than 10 minutes on the new rules during the pre-season.

The full SMH article is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/19/1045638364190.html"><b>here</b></a>.

[Skells]

I think that the 9 points for goals from outside 50 metres could help players like Williams and Maxfield to some extent but feel that there are other teams that will benefit more.

In regard to play on when kicking backwards I can see what the AFL are trying to acheive but feel it will damage the game more than improve it. I feel that there is not a lot wrong with the current rules (except the interpretation sometimes), why fix something that isn't broken?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by bricon
Paul Roos believes that the Wizard Cup rule changes are a load of @@@@@ that could actually have a detrimental effect on a team?s performance in the season proper. The Swans have spent no more than 10 minutes on the new rules during the pre-season.

I would have thought that the only new rule that makes a marked difference to the way the game is played is the ability to kick in imediately after a behind.

[Rizzo]

Roos makes a good point. The rule changes look easy on paper but it will change the way the guys play the game. I imagine the guys don't consciously think about the standard rules and act instinctly. I would be hard to switch mindsets.

[treespirit]

I'm with Roos. I'm glad they're not spending time on the new rules. Roll on Rd 1.

Let's see them enforce the current rules before throwing in new ones.

[Benevolent Ert]

The only player I've seen nail goals consistently from outside 50 is the much maligned Daniel McPherson. Maxfield does it occasionally, but Williams is more likely than not to kick a 50 metre behind.
I can't remember the last time we had a player in our squad who could really roost the ball. (Sooky boy Rocca aside)