Proposed Rule Changes......warranted or complete BS?

[stevoswan]

Many of us footy fans have bemoaned the league's constant tinkering with the rules of our game over recent years to solve perceived problems or problems which just aren't there. Now we are set to witness another set of rule changes based on what the AFL, or more accurately, AFL 'football operations manager' Steven Hocking claims is 'extensive research'......here's what three journo's thinks of the extent of this 'research'.

AFL rule changes: how the AFL got its numbers wrong in an attempt to justify proposed new laws - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) ......It's an eye opener.

What's your take on all this.....the 'state of the game', the proposed rule changes, the actual need for change and the league's attitude to the 'laws of the game'. Are they too 'proactive'? Or does more need to be done? Or should the AFL just let the game evolve naturally and stop trying to influence and shape the game's 'look'?

It frustrates me that they see and worry about things that maybe the fans don't even care about, that a certain coach can have coffee with the league CEO to talk 'rules', that the league thinks three 'trial' games between the four weakest VFL teams is deemed enough 'research' to make fairly major changes to aspects of the main game, that the league even has a 'rules committee'! It mere existence gives rise to temptation to make changes for changes sake.....to make changes based on kneejerk reactions or after a twitter 'outrage storm'.

Do you indeed think the game is in a bad state.....that it needs changing at all? If so, is the league going about it the right way?

I'll tell you now, without going into a rant about the 'state of the league's leadership', that it's frustrating the crap out of me! How do you feel about it and what changes, if any, do you think the game itself needs to become better.......

[swannymum]

I just want consistent umpiring, no changes to the rules. That hitting players below the knees was incorrectly applied last night (Gary Rohan rule).

Stop the tinkering. Though having said that, there should be a rule against the karate kick!!

[Doctor]

Teams regularly concede free kicks to allow their team mates time to flood back and clutter up all the space. How about you can't go past the mark once a free kick is awarded until the player winning the free kick plays on? It's just off the top of my head so feel free to tell me why it's a terrible idea!

[Markwebbos]

Interesting article!

I think football is uglier and more congested than it’s ever been. I have found some games this year hard to watch e.g. Swans v North at the SCG.

There also seems to be a tendency towards a generic player type in most positions. And a demise of the key forward.

So I think it’s good that change is being considered. However what that article doesn’t mention is that Hockings motivation is a commercial one. Broadcasters have complained less goals means less advertising breaks and that’s what’s ultimately driving this.

I’d like to see less a lot less rotations. Don’t mind starting positions at centre bounces, but don’t think it will have much of an impact. The other changes like extending goal square etc no.

[stevoswan]

Interesting article!
I think it’s good that change is being considered. However what that article doesn’t mention is that Hockings motivation is a commercial one. Broadcasters have complained less goals means less advertising breaks and that’s what’s ultimately driving this.

I think this is a very relevant point and indicates changes are being made to satisfy vested interests and not the fans or the players. Which makes it questionable in the least!

[rb4x]

Hate this meddling with rules. Might watch netball if I want to see starting positions. As for the extensive trialling, it is obvious that Steve Hocking never studied statistics. Those trials were completely worthless as far as proving anything as there was far too little data. Would be more honest if he said it came up over a coffee with Gill and Clarko and they thought it a good idea. More goals, more commercial breaks so to fit the game into the TV time frames they will need to shorten the actual playing time so less actual football. Do agree with keeping runners and water carriers off the field as much as possible and would agree to dramatically less rotations. Nothing uglier in the game than seeing a player kick a goal and then run off to the bench.

[Markwebbos]

It’s a question of who Hocking is speaking to when he says it’s been fully tested, fans or broadcasters? I suspect it’s the latter

[Matty10]

I don’t want rule changes. Most that come in frustrate me.

The game will evolve, like it always has. Rule changes won’t prevent that either - and they will just end up chasing their tails.

Players aren’t going to get any less fit, which really is the cause of congestion.

I would actually like to see more standardisation of the grounds, but not in terms of size. They should aim to create softer grounds. Less concussions, more high marks, more tired legs (potentially less congestion).

Everyone who complains about the game seem to want it to return to some idealised version of the past (that never really existed across all teams, in all weeks).

If anything needs to change it is highly skilled players being prioritised over athletes during recruitment. More investment in the grass roots wouldn’t hurt either. It seems like there has been a reduction in the basic skills of kicking and handballing over the last 30 years - and that doesn’t help make the game any better to watch.

[mcs]

I don’t want rule changes. Most that come in frustrate me.

The game will evolve, like it always has. Rule changes won’t prevent that either - and they will just end up chasing their tails.

Players aren’t going to get any less fit, which really is the cause of congestion.

I would actually like to see more standardisation of the grounds, but not in terms of size. They should aim to create softer grounds. Less concussions, more high marks, more tired legs (potentially less congestion).

Everyone who complains about the game seem to want it to return to some idealised version of the past (that never really existed across all teams, in all weeks).

If anything needs to change it is highly skilled players being prioritised over athletes during recruitment. More investment in the grass roots wouldn’t hurt either. It seems like there has been a reduction in the basic skills of kicking and handballing over the last 30 years - and that doesn’t help make the game any better to watch.

Those running the game need to see themselves less as 'improvers' of the game and more as 'custodians' of the game if we are truly going to make progress. Stop fiddling for the sake of fiddling. Do however, ensure the rules are properly and consistently enforced - that is where the most frustration comes from for most fans. But we all know its really TV behind the trying to rid congestion and increase scoring narrative being used.

If they were serious about reducing congestion, they'd reduce the number of players on the field, or substantially reduce the number of interchanges allowed.

[liz]

What's your take on all this.....the 'state of the game', the proposed rule changes, the actual need for change and the league's attitude to the 'laws of the game'. Are they too 'proactive'? Or does more need to be done? Or should the AFL just let the game evolve naturally and stop trying to influence and shape the game's 'look'?

There are various very different questions wrapped up in this debate. Broadly:

1) Is there a problem with the game?
2) Is there any combination of rule changes that can "improve" the game, both in the short term and the longer term (given that coaches will evolve their tactics as rules are changed so the short term effect may be very different to the medium or long term effect)?
3) Might the particular rules changes the AFL is contemplating "improve" the game (short and longer term)?
4) Does the AFL have any evidence that the particular rules changes they are contemplating will change the game (putting aside whether that change is an improvement or not)?

The ABC article only addresses the 4th of these questions, and with a pretty compelling "no" as the answer. Anyone who has done even a basic stats course would already have come to the same answer.

[KSAS]

I am very fearful of the AFL bringing in these proposed changes because imo they are too drastic. It will change the aesthetics of the game on which it was built upon. I can think of many NEW problems these proposed changes will bring as a result.

What really gets me is the AFL approach to solving the congestion footy problem (which I think is real) is by making onfield changes instead of focusing on the most glaring off field one which has been the main catalyst :- Interchange. I was around when interchange was first introduced (1978), which its SOLE purpose was to allow injured players to recover & return to the ground, thus replacing the 19th & 20th man substitute system. There were no high rotations as players/coaches back then were not full time professionals as they are now in analysing the game to an microscopic inch & train players accordingly to implement new game strategies.

Since the inception of the interchange, the game has gone from being 18 v 18 to 22 v 22. Today's game tactics completely rely on high interchange rotations so players can run up & down the ground all day , thus causing congestion with everyone following the ball. It used to be a skill for a player to have stamina in outlasting his opponent.

IMO the congestion issue would be largely resolved & the game open right up, if the bench was reduced back to two players & the rotations capped to 8 (2 per qtr). It also wouldn't be an disadvantage to a team that loses a player early in the game due to injury, which occurs today with the high rotations.

[707]

Just start paying frees against players throwing and shovelling the ball. Frustrates the hell out of me watching the constant throwing in today's game, and don't get me started on the 2016 Bulldogs throwfest!