AFL uses Hawthorn training session to trial new rules (zones, etc)

[Greggy Dee]

Would be great if West Coast could get a training run on Etihad sometime.

So would the tenant clubs. It is extremely rare for anyone to get a training run on Etihad.

 

[bird_man]

Is that starting positions just for the centre bounce or is that for any stoppages?

Both ideas were trialed I think

 

[Back One Out]

Chewy it’s just bantz mate.

Yeah, I know that. I don't care. I'm just posting. That's my bantz, mate.

One look at the Sydney and Geelong boards is enough to know that it isn't all in jest
The nuffies on those boards have been whinging about Hawthorn umpires for a while now.

They've been good for a giggle, but when it spills over to the main board, then I feel compelled to reply.

 

[HawkMongrel]

Who cares?

How else would they trial something?

Shut up, this is our moment to be the AFL’s corrupt love child.

Don’t ruin it with your unnecessary logic.

Prat.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

Shut up, this is our moment to be the AFL’s corrupt love child.

Don’t ruin it with your unnecessary logic.

Prat.

When do we get our flag?

 

[Tiger Toffee]

mauls, low scoring, umpires interpreting the rules, declining TV ratings, lack of high marks, players not playing with flare, auskick numbers declining. Should I go on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OMFG have you tried just watching football without worrying about any of that bullshit you mentioned.

Mauls: who gives a shit
Low scoring: often the better games, high scoring does not equal better because they are often thrashings.
Umpires interpreting rules: umm no shit sherlock
TV ratings: seriously who gives a shit
Lack of high marks: again who cares
No flare: maybe stop watching your team for a start
Auskick: well maybe if the PC brigade stop mollycoddling them the kids might want to play more ie: no tackling, no scoring until under 16's or whatever it is because they might get their little feelings hurt, no ladders, cant run there cant run here, FFS i wouldn't want to turn up that bullshit either.

 

[Power Raid]

Zones is an awful idea. I hope to God they don't go with it.

Here's my bad analogy.

AFL is a badly behaved dog but instead of training it better they decide to slap some wings and a beak on it and call it a duck. Putting in zones fundamentally changes the nature of the game so it's not the same game that has entertained millions for well over a century. If you destroy the original nature of the thing in an attempt to improve it then I don't see how that makes any sense.

agree

I just don't like watching netball

 

[wahawk]

Another example of a big Victorian club getting an advantage over other clubs due to the Melbourne fish bowl.

I actually thought you were joking

The other Melbourne clubs do not benefit in this incident.

In this case Hawthorn have unprecedented insight and influence over potential rule changes.
The Hawthorn coach gets to have a coffee meeting with the AFL CEO every week - a ridiculous situation that no interstate club would ever get the opportunity to do so.

What this shows is that Melbourne based clubs have much greater access to the AFL. Which is yet another unfair advantage.

But you are serious.

 

[dlanod]

When do we get our flag?

September. Surely you guys know that by now.

 

[DrEvil_]

Why ?

Because the 50 metre arc is an arc not a line. Imagine you are at where the 50 crosses the boundary, then a 'backward' kick in the sense of left to right, may net you closer to goal. It's just very hard to judge precisely whether a kick ends up closer to the midpoint of the goalposts or not. Certainly not something a human can decide on field with any degree of accuracy.

 

[dlanod]

Because the 50 metre arc is an arc not a line. Imagine you are at where the 50 crosses the boundary, then a 'backward' kick in the sense of left to right, may net you closer to goal. It's just very hard to judge precisely whether a kick ends up closer to the midpoint of the goalposts or not. Certainly not something a human can decide on field with any degree of accuracy.

Not when they have enough issues with basic meterage for marks and runs without bounces.

 

[mr bagcroft]

What for? Not my fault the other teams are no good

FFS
School holidays??

 

[mr bagcroft]

OMFG have you tried just watching football without worrying about any of that bullshit you mentioned.

Mauls: who gives a shit
Low scoring: often the better games, high scoring does not equal better because they are often thrashings.
Umpires interpreting rules: umm no shit sherlock
TV ratings: seriously who gives a shit
Lack of high marks: again who cares
No flare: maybe stop watching your team for a start
Auskick: well maybe if the PC brigade stop mollycoddling them the kids might want to play more ie: no tackling, no scoring until under 16's or whatever it is because they might get their little feelings hurt, no ladders, cant run there cant run here, FFS i wouldn't want to turn up that bullshit either.

Yep, must be school holidays.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

September. Surely you guys know that by now.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Because the 50 metre arc is an arc not a line. Imagine you are at where the 50 crosses the boundary, then a 'backward' kick in the sense of left to right, may net you closer to goal. It's just very hard to judge precisely whether a kick ends up closer to the midpoint of the goalposts or not. Certainly not something a human can decide on field with any degree of accuracy.

Ok - decent explanation of your theory but wouldn't it just be policed along an imaginary straight line going across the ground (like the soccer and rugby offside). If you kick backwards from where you are standing the nits play on.


I thought it was only for the backline anyway ?? (Stand to be corrected on this)

 

[Unique Name]

Who enjoyed AFLX?????

Because that's what footy looks like with near zero contested ball.

Also when people say kicks going backwards should be play on have you even thought about the consequences. When teams switch the ball it's to try and get the ball to the free side of the ground so they can move the ball quickly (Which is what we want). Do you think coaches are going to let their defenders switch across the face of goal if they don't get the protection when a mark is paid? I would say it would be more likely they tell their defender to take the safe option and kick long down the line to a contest.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

It wont be zones, it'll be starting positions. Once the ball is bounced they could run anywhere.

I actually think instead of changing the game it will bring it back to what it was like prior to the last 15-20 years. You go to a game in the 90's and we always had a FF starting in the square and another one or two in the 50. It wont be like Auskick where if the footy is just over your zone you wont be able to chase it past there.

I didn't like the idea when I first heard it but I'm starting to warm to it. It at least needs to be trialed IMO.

...and I reckon it's one of the least intrusive of the suggested rules to the basic premise of the game. It's only at starting positions for when a goal is scored and people don't release we already have 'zones' - the centre square is a zone !

 

[Lukey Miller]

Not even sure where to begin with this one:



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

More at the link including talking about reducing interchanges or getting rid of interchange entirely.

 

[Bob Neil]

<snip>

Also when people say kicks going backwards should be play on have you even thought about the consequences. When teams switch the ball it's to try and get the ball to the free side of the ground so they can move the ball quickly (Which is what we want). Do you think coaches are going to let their defenders switch across the face of goal if they don't get the protection when a mark is paid? I would say it would be more likely they tell their defender to take the safe option and kick long down the line to a contest.

Teams aren’t prevented from switching - if the player is free they’ll still take the option...it’s just that you won’t have the incessant 15m(ish) kick back and forth across the back line.

If that means they kick down the line to a contest and create more opportunities for a high mark or a one on one contest then mores the better!

 

[Lukey Miller]

The game is far too long, particularly with time-off for all stoppages, score reviews etc. Other field football codes have just two 45 minute halves, while AFL often have quarters that go for over 35 minutes. So, just reduce each quarter to 18 minutes plus time-on and reduce the interchanges to 40 per game. I feel that these changes would open the game up without the need for zones. Zones for stoppages would probably reduce congestion, but it is unknown how else it would change the game. The AFL clearly need to do something substantial to fix the game - umpiring won't cut it this time.

 

[hawkman]

Also when people say kicks going backwards should be play on have you even thought about the consequences. When teams switch the ball it's to try and get the ball to the free side of the ground so they can move the ball quickly (Which is what we want). Do you think coaches are going to let their defenders switch across the face of goal if they don't get the protection when a mark is paid? I would say it would be more likely they tell their defender to take the safe option and kick long down the line to a contest.

Which means the opposition know where the ball is going so they can flood that area.
Paying no mark for a backward kick is possibly the worst rule they could bring in

 

[chickentendies]

Personally, I love the game currently. I don't give two flying ****s if its high scoring or not. I have two concerns with the game currently:

1] Introduction of arbitary rules every season (hands up for a ruck contest etc)
2] The difficulty of governing/umpiring these rules.

Its extremely complex and I don't blame the umpires for ****ing it up. There's far too many rules that are too open for interpretation. I would prefer to see a simplification of the rules to enable more 'yes/no' type decisions.

 

[mxett]

Zones is an awful idea. I hope to God they don't go with it.

Here's my bad analogy.

AFL is a badly behaved dog but instead of training it better they decide to slap some wings and a beak on it and call it a duck. Putting in zones fundamentally changes the nature of the game so it's not the same game that has entertained millions for well over a century. If you destroy the original nature of the thing in an attempt to improve it then I don't see how that makes any sense.

If the zones are simply regions where players are asked to position themselves at every stoppage so they are free to go wherever during play that will basically return us closer to the positional play we saw for a century or so. How is that changing the game's fundamentals?

 

[Unique Name]

Which means the opposition know where the ball is going so they can flood that area.
Paying no mark for a backward kick is possibly the worst rule they could bring in

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[PowerForGood]

Play on from a kick backwards is a simple change that would keep the game moving and I could get behind that change. Subs, zones can go and get arsed.

Ummm no in my opinion.
Anything that gives MORE power to the team without the ball will just create more defensively minded tactics.
Look at any sport, and the harder it is to retain possession, the more defensive it becomes.
You can't stop the play in soccer or hockey without being tackled... defensive.
You can hold the ball for six plays in rugby and league with the opposition needing to cede ground... a bit more attacking.
You can hold the ball for a period of time before passing in basketball, netball, footy... more attacking again.

Somehow you have to make the game reward having the ball more. Somehow you have to make it more valuable to win a 50-50 ball by getting there first than getting there second to lay a tackle. Somehow you have to make the defensive team take risks to get the ball back so the attacking team can find holes in the defense. And all of this without changing the fundamentals of the game.
I have ideas on the above but I am no Alistair Clarkson. Gil can PM me.