Play Nice AFL Womens - General Discussion

[Caputo]

SEVERAL new rules – and variations of existing ones – will be trialled in women's matches over the next few weeks, with an eye on bringing them into the 2019 NAB AFL Women's season.

The trial rules were given the tick of approval by the AFLW competition committee, which met on Tuesday at AFL House in Melbourne.

The trials will see:

- Kick-ins after behinds taken from an extended goal square.
- Boundary umpire throw-ins brought in by 10 metres.
- A legal kick reduced from 15 to 10 metres.
- The last-touch out-of-bounds rule to apply only between the 50-metre arcs. If the ball goes out while inside-50, a throw-in will occur.

The rules will be tested in a VFL Women's match between Essendon and Williamstown (currently last and second-last on the ladder) on Saturday, August 18, and in the NAB AFLW Under-18 exhibition match (featuring players from the All-Australian squad) on Friday, August 31.

The under-18 exhibition match is a curtain-raiser to the EJ Whitten Legends match at Adelaide Oval.

The AFL Commission will confirm before the AFLW pre-season starts in November if the rules are to be introduced for the 2019 season.

"We want to make the AFLW as competitive and vibrant as possible and potential rule shifts are part of that process," the AFL's head of women's football Nicole Livingstone said.

"The AFLW competition already has a history of rules adjustments, with the introduction of the size four football and 16-players-a-side in 2017, and the 'last touch' rule in 2018.

"Our aim is to help create a more free-flowing game and we see potential changes to the game as a way to bring the best out of our players and to make it an even better game."

 

[Micksy]

Just let them play footy!

 

[jatz14]

SEVERAL new rules – and variations of existing ones – will be trialled in women's matches over the next few weeks, with an eye on bringing them into the 2019 NAB AFL Women's season.

The trial rules were given the tick of approval by the AFLW competition committee, which met on Tuesday at AFL House in Melbourne.

The trials will see:

- Kick-ins after behinds taken from an extended goal square.
- Boundary umpire throw-ins brought in by 10 metres.
- A legal kick reduced from 15 to 10 metres.
- The last-touch out-of-bounds rule to apply only between the 50-metre arcs. If the ball goes out while inside-50, a throw-in will occur.

The rules will be tested in a VFL Women's match between Essendon and Williamstown (currently last and second-last on the ladder) on Saturday, August 18, and in the NAB AFLW Under-18 exhibition match (featuring players from the All-Australian squad) on Friday, August 31.

The under-18 exhibition match is a curtain-raiser to the EJ Whitten Legends match at Adelaide Oval.

The AFL Commission will confirm before the AFLW pre-season starts in November if the rules are to be introduced for the 2019 season.

"We want to make the AFLW as competitive and vibrant as possible and potential rule shifts are part of that process," the AFL's head of women's football Nicole Livingstone said.

"The AFLW competition already has a history of rules adjustments, with the introduction of the size four football and 16-players-a-side in 2017, and the 'last touch' rule in 2018.

"Our aim is to help create a more free-flowing game and we see potential changes to the game as a way to bring the best out of our players and to make it an even better game."

Probably on the milder side of possible changes. Not sure how the 10m rule helps. Moving boundary throw ins inside by 10m is sensible, I don't think the female and more junior boundary umps they use throw it as far as in the men's. Getting it further in makes it less likely to go straight back out.

Changing the last touch rule to apply between the arcs was being suggested from the start.

Not sure about a larger square, think it will just look weird. Should we call it a square anyway? Kicking it in from the rectangle doesn't have the same ring.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[hcd199]

Doesn't introducing the extended square run against removing last touch inside 50m? The concern with last touch applying across the ground was that teams could clear the ball from defence too easily, so scoring opportunities were reduced - but the larger goal square is there to help teams clear the ball from defence more easily, limiting teams' ability to manufacture goals by locking the ball into their forward line. Different circumstances, to be fair, but the rules still seem to work at cross-purposes.

Shorter kicks to be paid as marks is yet another pointless piece of tinkering that achieves nothing of merit; certainly it's hard to see how it works towards the "free-flowing football" they so zealously insist upon pursuing, and if their previous efforts in pursuing that are any guide, they'll solve precisely nothing but introduce plenty of new complications requiring further "rule shifts".

 

[FRUMPY]

The trial rules were given the tick of approval by the AFLW competition committee,

Glad they ticked it off, means no player will try and claim the aflw rules are sexist........oh wait

 

[Teen Wolf]

Not sure about a larger square, think it will just look weird. Should we call it a square anyway? Kicking it in from the rectangle doesn't have the same ring.

Well it's normally 9 by 6.4 metres so it's not a square in the first place, or is that what you're getting at? Either way, it does look weird. 18m-long version used in the VFL last week:

Doesn't introducing the extended square run against removing last touch inside 50m? The concern with last touch applying across the ground was that teams could clear the ball from defence too easily, so scoring opportunities were reduced - but the larger goal square is there to help teams clear the ball from defence more easily, limiting teams' ability to manufacture goals by locking the ball into their forward line. Different circumstances, to be fair, but the rules still seem to work at cross-purposes.

In theory it's a contradiction, but in practice it won't make a difference to anything. At most you get an extra nine metres on the kick-in (assuming you go directly up the centre), what a game changer.

Fwiw, I can recall more than a few instances this past season where the last touch rule resulted in a free-kick to the attacking team inside 50m, often leading to a goal. Without knowing all the numbers in 2018, my bet is the decreased goals from stoppages was made up for with this. Scoring was up about 7% on 2017, I'm sure of that much.

Again, it's another neither-here-nor-there rule change. I like Last Possession because it speeds the game up and teams can't rely on prolific clearance winners quite as much, but at the same time I don't like it because umpires suck at enforcing it correctly/consistently and often waste time discussing the decision thus slowing the game down!

 

[jatz14]

Doesn't introducing the extended square run against removing last touch inside 50m? The concern with last touch applying across the ground was that teams could clear the ball from defence too easily, so scoring opportunities were reduced - but the larger goal square is there to help teams clear the ball from defence more easily, limiting teams' ability to manufacture goals by locking the ball into their forward line. Different circumstances, to be fair, but the rules still seem to work at cross-purposes.

Shorter kicks to be paid as marks is yet another pointless piece of tinkering that achieves nothing of merit; certainly it's hard to see how it works towards the "free-flowing football" they so zealously insist upon pursuing, and if their previous efforts in pursuing that are any guide, they'll solve precisely nothing but introduce plenty of new complications requiring further "rule shifts".

I think the bigger square related to congestion rather than scoring. With kick ins not going beyond the 50m mark typically, players were more compressed on the kick in, resulting often in congestion. Larger square spreads the players.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[WolfgangV]

The issue there is AFLW is starting only a couple of weeks after the state leagues finish.
Currently, players are playing the state leagues season, play through to finals, have a month or 2 off, then into preseason for AFLW, into AFLW season, then its back to state leagues. If they need a break, they miss the start of the state leagues, returning to footy mid season.

If the season is a spring season, its straight from state league finals into AFLW. To have time for an AFLW preseason and work on structures, and to recover from niggles from the state leagues, they need to miss the finish of the state leagues (and finals).

Full length of the state leagues, plus finals plus AFLW is maybe a bit longer than AFL (havent done the math), the issue is fitting in the AFLW preseason, and enough time to get over injuries before AFLW. Clubs complain that with limited contact time, preseason isnt long enough to get everything done they need as it is. Logistically it works much better having AFLW first, then state leagues rather than vice versa.

Yes, lots of AFLW listed players on VFLW lists this year have played only a few games or none at all!

I also considered the split AFLW season idea as a way of being able to have each team play each other twice in the 2018 season, expanding from the "play each other once" model in 2017, if the desire was to keep the AFLW and AFL seasons separate. I know the split model creates problems with the state leagues, but my hope was that if you expanded the AFLW to a 14 round, three weeks of finals comp it would for most AFLW players totally replace the state league as their comp of choice. As it is now the AFLW is still a short season at seven games plus GF, and for people who love playing the game I'm sure most of them want to play more footy hence them still playing at state level. But get a proper length AFLW season of at least 14 + 3 and the state leagues could become the second tier feeder comp for the AFLW. Sure, if people wanted to play both they could, but the desire to play the game you love would hopefully be satisfied by the longer AFLW season.

 

[WolfgangV]

Public interest & media attention on the AFLW will be obliterated if it is ever played simultaneously with the JLT or AFL games.

The AFLW has been played simultaneously with the JLT both years. AFLW as curtain raisers, JLT as curtain raisers, and both separately.

 

[Bostonian]

A competition might struggle to build when it gets cut back in its expansion years, alienates its players, alienates its supporter base and makes the competition less appealing to play in for prospective players in junior footy by treating it with this kind of disrespect. If the AFL wanted to take it slow, they shouldn't be expanding the comp so quickly. Their messaging is all over the shop and they're losing goodwill like crazy. Any success the AFLW has had so far has come from the players and the clubs, and I think it's unfair to suggest the players are upset with the AFL because they want to get paid. They're the ones putting in the hard yards on this and the AFL is doing stuff-all to reciprocate.

The AFL have pumped millions into the concept.

What other group of people have been gifted such a massive leg up without contributing nothing more than any other local footballer would?

It's easy to paint the AFL in a bad light but they have given more than was first warranted to get the league up and running.

Players need to be patient and be grateful for what they have at present. A lot has happened in a very short time so it'll take a while to work out how best to run things.

 

[jatz14]

The AFL have pumped millions into the concept.

What other group of people have been gifted such a massive leg up without contributing nothing more than any other local footballer would?

It's easy to paint the AFL in a bad light but they have given more than was first warranted to get the league up and running.

Players need to be patient and be grateful for what they have at present. A lot has happened in a very short time so it'll take a while to work out how best to run things.

Local footballers cut back on their job, so they can put more time into training? Local footballers move interstate so they can get picked in a team? Local footballers put careers on hold so they can put in 3 months of training for 7 games of footy?

AFL has done a lot, but this is not done to give female footballers a free ride, its done from self interest. However, that they put in a lot, and I think the players are grateful for that, that does not mean that the possibility they will roll the competition backwards should be free from criticism.

 

[Bostonian]

Local footballers cut back on their job, so they can put more time into training? Local footballers move interstate so they can get picked in a team? Local footballers put careers on hold so they can put in 3 months of training for 7 games of footy?

AFL has done a lot, but this is not done to give female footballers a free ride, its done from self interest. However, that they put in a lot, and I think the players are grateful for that, that does not mean that the possibility they will roll the competition backwards should be free from criticism.

You obviously don't follow local football leagues if you don't think there aren't people out there making big sacrifices every week just to play footy. Many are missing work time due to their commitment to their team. Many are using their work skills in unpaid hours every week to go run the club.

What do you think the players who go play up in the NT league are giving up when they do that? Jobs? Family? Friends?

It's all part of playing football. These AFLW players are blessed with the money they are making, the facilities they get to use and the experiences they are having.

So to hear Daisy Pearce say what she said makes me feel if that's the attitude maybe they need to pull their head in and be grateful they have a mega funded league at all regardless of how it's set up for now.

 

[Bakers_Patrons]

You obviously don't follow local football leagues if you don't think there aren't people out there making big sacrifices every week just to play footy. Many are missing work time due to their commitment to their team. Many are using their work skills in unpaid hours every week to go run the club.

What do you think the players who go play up in the NT league are giving up when they do that? Jobs? Family? Friends?

It's all part of playing football. These AFLW players are blessed with the money they are making, the facilities they get to use and the experiences they are having.

So to hear Daisy Pearce say what she said makes me feel if that's the attitude maybe they need to pull their head in and be grateful they have a mega funded league at all regardless of how it's set up for now.

Completely agree. 14-18 year olds and their parents make huge sacrifices each November through March to even try out for representative TAC cup squads. The countless hours on the road and sacrifices they make, they would give anything to be afforded further investment in the junior program to have more TAC cup teams and make second tier state league players full time professionals. Maybe the AFL should pull the pin on funding the ungrateful AFLW players and direct to those areas of the game that have worked equally hard, would offer a better product and depth to the AFL competition and may also be more appreciative of the opportunity?

I also can’t understand why some of the AFLW players chose not to play in the VFLW surely it would only further the development of Women’s football and their own games?

Obviously Daisy is not playing but what other AFLW players are choosing not to play other competitions and why ?

I should add that I am all for the development of the women’s game but the whole saga feels like an attempt to be in the spotlight more, when the reality is a shorter season will keep the game fresh and the product won’t decay to viewers as it would over a longer season. Players can then go back to state leagues to develop further and when the depth of skills , demand and commercial aspects of the AFLW are further developed then look to expand the season.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The AFL have pumped millions into the concept.

What other group of people have been gifted such a massive leg up without contributing nothing more than any other local footballer would?

It's easy to paint the AFL in a bad light but they have given more than was first warranted to get the league up and running.

Players need to be patient and be grateful for what they have at present. A lot has happened in a very short time so it'll take a while to work out how best to run things.

Regardless of your position in regards as to whether women's football was "entitled" to the support that they have received from the AFL (I disagree with you but that is neither here nor there) the issue at hand is that the AFL is spruiking how committed it is to growing the women's game when in fact it would appear that they are actually hedging their bets. They're happy to throw the gates open to the public but when the broadcasters start to push back and there is a sniff that the money might dry up a bit they get on bended knee and shaft the main assets of their competition. Why would you simultaneously add new teams and pare back the number of rounds being played? Just completely defies all logic.

It's pretty hard to try and convince people that you want to give the women's game as much exposure as possible while shortening the length of the season at the same time.

I bet that the local footballers that you talk about who make all of these sacrifices wouldn't be too happy if their leagues decided to shorten their seasons by 25% (meaning 25% less match fees for quite a number of them).

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFLW has been played simultaneously with the JLT both years. AFLW as curtain raisers, JLT as curtain raisers, and both separately.

Yes and you should see the crowds and ratings drop after the first two weeks of AFLW when the JLT series starts.

 

[FRUMPY]

It's pretty hard to try and convince people that you want to give the women's game as much exposure as possible while shortening the length of the season at the same time.

I think that is exactly what they are doing. Playing the whole season without going up against any other sport or AFL, giving them the most media coverage for that 6-8 week period.

Both seasons the interest is at its highest in weeks 1-2-3 then it drops off significantly, to the point it barely raises a mention by the time its finishing. This way they'll hopefully keep interest at decent levels for most of the year, with usual drop off before a 2 weeks finals series that will increase interest again.

It then gives the AFLW players the chance to go back to VFLW (for example) and lift the standard of that competition and improve players abilities across the board.

The complaining from current female footballers is all about them and not the growth of the sport. The penny has probably dropped that the AFL's view is to the longer survival of the sport rather than pampering the players of today. Generating enough interest that it will get young girls interested in playing local football but at the same time not making a league that wont survive the next 10 years if they play too many games and no-one has any interest. Try and keep the interest/hunger for more womens football rather than people getting bored/tired of it

 

[Xtreme]

I bet that the local footballers that you talk about who make all of these sacrifices wouldn't be too happy if their leagues decided to shorten their seasons by 25% (meaning 25% less match fees for quite a number of them).

People should be playing for the love of the game rather than the amount of money you get for doing so. I also feel the same way in regards of the AFLM - to get so much money for kicking a ball around is mind boggling.

 

[Carn The Berries]

I think that is exactly what they are doing. Playing the whole season without going up against any other sport or AFL, giving them the most media coverage for that 6-8 week period.

Both seasons the interest is at its highest in weeks 1-2-3 then it drops off significantly, to the point it barely raises a mention by the time its finishing. This way they'll hopefully keep interest at decent levels for most of the year, with usual drop off before a 2 weeks finals series that will increase interest again.

It then gives the AFLW players the chance to go back to VFLW (for example) and lift the standard of that competition and improve players abilities across the board.

The complaining from current female footballers is all about them and not the growth of the sport. The penny has probably dropped that the AFL's view is to the longer survival of the sport rather than pampering the players of today. Generating enough interest that it will get young girls interested in playing local football but at the same time not making a league that wont survive the next 10 years if they play too many games and no-one has any interest. Try and keep the interest/hunger for more womens football rather than people getting bored/tired of it

That's fine and if that is the AFL's stance then come out and be honest that the AFLW is essentially a token competition over a short duration to try and bolster interest and (hopefully) participation. The main issue is all of the rhetoric is that this should be viewed as a legitimate elite competition, when in the reality it seems more like an AFL PR tool. It also gives the cynics more ammunition to try and shoot down the comp.

I think they have a right to complain. They're expected to do the same pre-season, make the same commitment as previous years, and then have less opportunity to actually apply all the skills and conditioning they have acquired.

 

[The_Wookie]

If you want to use that as the be all and end all that is fine. The issue is the AFL are out and about saying that they want to grow the women's game and develop a legitimate competition. The AFL draw

The issue for the league is that while AFLW exists and is operating, it is still in its initial operating capacity with some ways to go before it reaches final. At this stage getting it on TV - especially FTA coverage - is vital to growing the womens game as visibility is a key driver in young girls and women joining the sport. If they cant see it and coverage gets buried under the male winter sports - AFL, Rugby league in particular, not to mention the summer Big Bash and Tennis coverage - then theres almost no reason to have the national comp.

The other issue with the draw is shared staffing with the mens teams. A big advantage of the present set up is the womens season can be crewed by the same crew that does the mens season with little doubling up of the support staff. That changes as soon as you start crossing over the season or eating into their annual leave periods.

 

[Bostonian]

Regardless of your position in regards as to whether women's football was "entitled" to the support that they have received from the AFL (I disagree with you but that is neither here nor there) the issue at hand is that the AFL is spruiking how committed it is to growing the women's game when in fact it would appear that they are actually hedging their bets. They're happy to throw the gates open to the public but when the broadcasters start to push back and there is a sniff that the money might dry up a bit they get on bended knee and shaft the main assets of their competition. Why would you simultaneously add new teams and pare back the number of rounds being played? Just completely defies all logic.

It's pretty hard to try and convince people that you want to give the women's game as much exposure as possible while shortening the length of the season at the same time.

I bet that the local footballers that you talk about who make all of these sacrifices wouldn't be too happy if their leagues decided to shorten their seasons by 25% (meaning 25% less match fees for quite a number of them).

No point expanding the length of the comp yet until the standard of football warrants it. By the end of six game season a lot of players fitness and skill levels were to be honest terrible. Adding an extra two games on top of that will just mean the quality of product will be just as low or lower.

Don't put the cart before the horse.

 

[Carn The Berries]

No point expanding the length of the comp yet until the standard of football warrants it. By the end of six game season a lot of players fitness and skill levels were to be honest terrible. Adding an extra two games on top of that will just mean the quality of product will be just as low or lower.

Don't put the cart before the horse.

Same could be said for expanding the number of teams. The biggest issue is the inconsistency of the message coming out. Hey guys look we want to expand the comp to make it the same size (eventually) as the men's comp, but at the same time we're going to trim back the number of games they play.

Do it properly or don't do it at all, the League hierarchy just want the best of both worlds at present.

 

[Bostonian]

... the League hierarchy just want the best of both worlds at present.

So do the players.

 

[Carn The Berries]

So do the players.

I think they just want to be taken seriously and not be used as an AFL play thing.

 

[jatz14]

The issue for the league is that while AFLW exists and is operating, it is still in its initial operating capacity with some ways to go before it reaches final. At this stage getting it on TV - especially FTA coverage - is vital to growing the womens game as visibility is a key driver in young girls and women joining the sport. If they cant see it and coverage gets buried under the male winter sports - AFL, Rugby league in particular, not to mention the summer Big Bash and Tennis coverage - then theres almost no reason to have the national comp.

The other issue with the draw is shared staffing with the mens teams. A big advantage of the present set up is the womens season can be crewed by the same crew that does the mens season with little doubling up of the support staff. That changes as soon as you start crossing over the season or eating into their annual leave periods.

The exposure argument is much quoted but false imop. You get the same exposure broadcasting 6 rounds of a 9 round comp as you do broadcasting 6 rounds of a 6 round comp.

More in fact, as families are still taking their daughters to the games.

The harm done to the league by the perception that even the AFL do not take it seriously far outways the broadcast implications I think.

The Dogs backed international talent search had not long launched when it came out that the short season may be cut even shorter. What effect does that news have.

Cora Staunton had committed to returning, to what she thought was a growing league, does she now reconsider?

I don't think the shortened season is going to happen, but if it does, I think it will be disastrous. Of course we will never know for sure because we will not get the alternative universe view of what would have happened with a different decision.


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Bostonian]

I think they just want to be taken seriously and not be used as an AFL play thing.

When you have players getting paid decent money despite having played less than 20 games or only just taking up the sport I think it's a bit rich to be having a whinge already and demanding things.

It will all start sorting itself out when we get a better idea of what the standard of product can be long term v now.

As it is that's all still unknown and you don't want to kill the brand so early on by creating situations where the visuals of the game appear to go backwards.