AFL Rule Changes

[Tiger Spirit]

Feedback positive on changes: AFL
27 February, 2006
Paul Gough
Sportal for afl.com.au

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson believes the overall feedback to the league's rule changes for 2006 has been positive - following the weekend's first round NAB Cup action.

While Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse claimed the league's stricter interpretations involving interference in marking contests meant the game was in danger of becoming like netball, Anderson said statistics showed only a slight rise in free kicks on the weekend compared to the first round of last year's pre-season competition.

“It takes a while for players, coaches and fans to adjust to the new rules and interpretations – as it always does with any rule change - but the first round of the NAB Cup has been positive,” Anderson said.

Anderson said while it would take at least 8-10 weeks of football before the changes are bedded down - the players, umpires and coaches had adapted well over the first weekend.
While there were concerns the stricter interpretations being applied this year not only too interference in marking contests but also in other areas such as deliberate out of bounds, holding players up after marks or free kicks and a crackdown on tagging tactics might lead to a big increase in free kicks and 50 metre penalties - that was not the case on the weekend.

Anderson said the stats showed only a slight variation in both free kicks and 50-metre penalties paid over the first round of the NAB Cup compared to the same round in 2005.

In 2005 there were 317 free kicks (an average of 39.6 per game) paid across the eight games of the first round of the pre-season competition, compared to 325 free kicks at an average of 40.6 over the past weekend’s games - meaning an average of just one extra free kick per match.

The number of 50-metre penalties also rose only slightly across the first round with 23 paid across the eight matches (an average of 2.8 per match) this year compared to 20 at an average of 2.3 per match in 2005.

While the new kick-in rule in particular has caused concerns amongst players and coaches, it was hardly noticeable on the weekend with players only occasionally electing to bring the ball back into play before the goal umpire had finished waving the flags.

Anderson repeated the reasoning behind the rule changes for this year - which also include limiting the time players take to kick for goal to 30 seconds - was to cut down the number of stoppages in a game such as ball-ups and boundary throw-ins and thus ensure more actual playing time.

“The Laws of the Game committee and the AFL are committed to ensuring football remains a true spectacle for the fans and retains its title as the greatest game around,” Anderson said.

The changes, which were approved by the AFL Commission, were made following recommendations from the Laws of the Game committee - which came about after detailed studies showed the lack of actual playing time in AFL matches was decreasing due to the increased number of stoppages.

The Laws of the Game committee - which recommended the changes - included representatives of the players, coaches and umpires and was made up of Nathan Buckley, Kevin Bartlett, Brendon Gale, Stan Alves, Michael Sexton, Rowan Sawers, John Halbert, Ed Biggs and was chaired by Anderson.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=248139

[Tiger Spirit]

I could just get over it, but I can’t help myself.

It’s the blind leading the blind.  To solve any issue you need to go to source of the problem.  The rules didn’t create the issue in the first place, so why mess with them?

“The Laws of the Game committee and the AFL are committed to ensuring football remains a true spectacle for the fans and retains its title as the greatest game around,” Anderson said.

The changes, which were approved by the AFL Commission, were made following recommendations from the Laws of the Game committee - which came about after detailed studies showed the lack of actual playing time in AFL matches was decreasing due to the increased number of stoppages.

As good as their intentions might be, they are on course to ensure that exactly the opposite occurs.
 
What happens if these rule changes don’t work?  They’ll just make up some new ones to combat them, and so on and so on?  That’s just crazy stuff.  They either let the game evolve and work itself out or they get real and go to the heart of the problem.

How come coaches don’t have any responsibility towards ensuring our game does maintain its status?  They just get to coach their own way, being a law unto themselves and, at the end of it all are able to wash their hands clean of any impact or influence they have had on the game and its appeal?

This is our game.  But a small minority (i.e. coaches) are able to grind it into the ground, without the need to take responsibility for the part they play, while all around try to patch up the cracks and chinks they create.

If all coaches were of the same mindset and, together, created a vision for the competition/game and how good it could actually be, how awesome could this game really be?  Especially when players of today have better training facilities and so many other advantages available to them that those of the past didn’t.

On that basis alone, we have every right to expect that the game should now be played at its exhilarating best.

But it’s not.

Someone, somewhere should be accountable for that, but they’re not.  So who loses out?  Not them, otherwise they could quickly change their thinking and therefore the game and how it is played.

As a result of this unaccountability, players aren’t able to make full use of the natural talent and ability they have and supporters sit through grinding game after grinding game.  Or whatever clinical style coaches choose to adopt.

Coaches are there to help people get the best out of themselves.  How, though, do some expect that their values, as AFL coaches, and the perceived lack of responsibility they have towards the appeal of the game, make that remotely possible – now or ever?

We all want to win, that’s understandable.  But how you get there is what matters; it does to me anyway.  And because of how things have evolved in recent seasons, I just think that some coaches miss the whole point of coaching and maybe need to take a big picture view of the impact they have on players, supporters and the game as a whole.

The end.

[mightytiges]

How come coaches don’t have any responsibility towards ensuring our game does maintain its status?  They just get to coach their own way, being a law unto themselves and, at the end of it all are able to wash their hands clean of any impact or influence they have had on the game and its appeal?

This is our game.  But a small minority (i.e. coaches) are able to grind it into the ground, without the need to take responsibility for the part they play, while all around try to patch up the cracks and chinks they create.

For coaches there's the element of self-preservation. Winning is everything to them as that's what keeps them in their job so to them the end would justify the means if it delivers success. Just look at Sydney. They would not have won the flag with their list playing an open attacking brand of footy. That as you say TS doesn't help the game right now as the means (grinding and too much uncontested footy) is a blight on our game. You've just got to hope the more attacking sides - Eagles, Saints, Doggies and us - start winning flags and hope the others will follow suit when their dreary tactics are no longer a recipe for success.

I don't have a problem with the new rules as such. Hawthorn were very good in using the new kick-in rule. Much better than us. I just reckon all the rules even the old ones are interpreted way too zealously and worst of all inconsistently now (the deliberate out of bounds is a joke). They have become so hysterical over preventing stoppages (ball-ups) with frees that we see more stoppages  as the game stops with each ticky-touchwood free or grinds slowly away  with each silly criss-cross overpossession. Aussie rules is meant to be a continuous game. Let the game go and flow for gawd sakes .   

As for AA's comments. The number of frees should mean nothing. If there's an obvious and only an obvious free kick warranted then an ump should pay it whether an infringement happens once or a hundred times during a game. End of story. Adrian Anderson is once again living in fairyland if he reckons our game on Saturday was a positive display of umpiring and of the new rules. What utter BS!  . Half the time the 4 umps were so confused they didn't know the rules new properly or what they were doing.

[Tiger Spirit]

For coaches there's the element of self-preservation. Winning is everything to them as that's what keeps them in their job so to them the end would justify the means if it delivers success.

That’s the real issue here, not the rules and until they wake up to that fact then the game will continue to suffer, purely because of the short-sightedness of the AFL and its decision makers.

What they’re saying is that it’s ok for coaches to all but run the game into the ground, they have a job to do and too bad about the consequences.  Meanwhile someone else gets to do deal with the fallout of their methods.

Demetriou shoulda stood his ground last year, instead he caved in.   Maybe he went about it the wrong way, but he was on the mark with what he was saying. 

All we get is dictatorship and knee jerk reactions from the AFL.  As soon as there’s a bit of resistance or criticism they go on the defensive, instead of facing facts, getting to the heart of where problems lie and dealing with them in a responsible manner.

Just look at Sydney. They would not have won the flag with their list playing an open attacking brand of footy.

Do we actually know that?

Regardless, if they can achieve that level of success with a supposed inferior playing list then you’d reckon just about any team should be able to win the premiership.  If that’s right then this competition needs to take stock now or it will truly become a competition that rewards mediocrity at all levels (without wanting to sound like I’m taking anything away from anyone).

Look at it this way, what can it do to the competition when ultimately success can be achieved through mediocrity in people, because it’s based on limiting and negating the opposition, rather than showing the natural talent and ability players have.

Top level sport is meant to draw out the best in people, instead our game is down the track where coaches try to hide and hinder the talent of the opposition and turn their own players into robots for their own gain, and bad luck if the game loses out, because they’ve got what they want?

The way I see it, the biggest losers in all this are the players and spectators, and therefore the game as a whole.

Maybe on my own here, but I genuinely think the AFL and its coaches are barking up the wrong tree with the solutions to any of this.  They will create more confusion and grey areas than they know how to handle.

As for AA's comments. … Adrian Anderson is once again living in fairyland if he reckons our game on Saturday was a positive display of umpiring and of the new rules. What utter BS! . Half the time the 4 umps were so confused they didn't know the rules new properly or what they were doing.

How much notice can you take when the AFL says they think their rule changes, which were their idea, are good?  What else are they going to say?  ‘We really don’t know what we’re doing and someone else can deal with the mess when we’re gone’?

[Tiger Spirit]

Sheedy goes offside to stop flooding
01 March 2006   Herald Sun
Mark Stevens

ESSENDON coach Kevin Sheedy has called for the full-time introduction of four umpires to police a radical rule change to stop flooding.

Fearful the new kick-in rule will promote flooding and turn the game into basketball, Sheedy is ready to begrudgingly back a version of the off-side rule.

Sheedy yesterday flagged the possibility of teams building a wall across half-back this season to stop teams getting quick breaks from kick-ins.

"My only concern is if the 18 players go back to the 50m (line), then you'll chip, chip, chip all the way down the ground like you do in basketball," Sheedy said.

"I'm pretty sure that's what Roosy (Paul Roos) and (Terry) Wallace would like to see."

Sheedy said a new rule to keep players spread more evenly across the field was inevitable.

"The only way I think you can stop flooding is to bring in another rule unfortunately," Sheedy said.

"It might be the right rule and that is you shouldn't be allowed to have any more than X amount of players inside the forward 50 when there is a ball-up or stoppage between the two 50m arcs."

Sheedy said the extra umpire would carefully monitor numbers of players in each 50. There would be a minimum requirement to ensure players don't flood back in waves.

"If you have four umpires out there, you're going to need that umpire," Sheedy said.

He said he would have tested the rule in the NAB Cup before others.

Sheedy said some of the rules on trial were great ideas, but has made it clear flooding should have been a stronger focus.

Given players now had the option of kicking in before the flags are waved, Sheedy said there was an obvious solution: "If you can't catch your player I know where I would be hiding. You would cut them off at the pass at the 50m line back down the road."

That means teams allowing easy early possessions from a kick-in and charging back to form a wall of defence.

"If it happens, it happens," Sheedy said when asked how he would feel watching added flooding. "It doesn't matter. We just work to the rules. They (AFL) make the rules."

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson reiterated the new rules would be reviewed at the end of the season.

Anderson said fans wanted more free-flowing football.

"The initial signs are that the changes introduced will keep the ball in play longer," Anderson said.

"What our fans survey showed last year was a lot of dissatisfaction with the chip to an uncontested player in the back pocket. That's something that's evolved more and more."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,18309621%255E20322,00.html

[mightytiges]

Just look at Sydney. They would not have won the flag with their list playing an open attacking brand of footy.

Do we actually know that?

Regardless, if they can achieve that level of success with a supposed inferior playing list then you’d reckon just about any team should be able to win the premiership.  If that’s right then this competition needs to take stock now or it will truly become a competition that rewards mediocrity at all levels (without wanting to sound like I’m taking anything away from anyone).

Look at it this way, what can it do to the competition when ultimately success can be achieved through mediocrity in people, because it’s based on limiting and negating the opposition, rather than showing the natural talent and ability players have.

As much as I support the draft and salary cap, such a system evens up the teams so in a sense that is helping to create mediocrity as all sides including the top 4 ones have some significant deficiency be it lack of quality key forwards (Eagles and Cats), quality key defenders (St Kilda, Melbourne) or a even but mostly average 22 (Swans, Roos) with perhaps a couple of star players. Tactics to cover up over your own  team weaknesses are now part and parcel of the game as much as ability and strategy to win the game.

With all due to respect to the Swannies, Mark Bolton, Lewis Roberts-Thomson and Leo Barry to a lesser extent aren't classic key defenders. More third-man backmen. 1-on-1 with the top forwards they would come off second best. However the Swans choking gameplan means the ball isn't coming into the opposition's forward many times lace out and into space into which the forward can lead. Paul Roos has an even list that can run all day with only three real big men (Hall and a couple of ruckmen - it was Ball and Doyle last year). IMHO with the spine they have they would be found out in an open positional style of footy.

As for Sheeds' idea, I understand his point but I would hate to see constraints come into footy preventing players from moving to certain parts of the ground. What has made footy a great game is the lack of rules that are found in other footy codes sports - no offside or backward/forward passes etc....     

[Tiger Spirit]

As much as I support the draft and salary cap, such a system evens up the teams so in a sense that is helping to create mediocrity as all sides including the top 4 ones have some significant deficiency be it lack of quality key forwards (Eagles and Cats), quality key defenders (St Kilda, Melbourne) or a even but mostly average 22 (Swans, Roos) with perhaps a couple of star players. Tactics to cover up over your own team weaknesses are now part and parcel of the game as much as ability and strategy to win the game.

I’m in favour of the draft and salary cap as well, otherwise we end up like soccer overseas.  But the way things are going, if the AFL doesn’t have a look at some of these issues, somewhere down the track, we’ll be lucky to have the diehards interested in this game, let alone theatre goers.

Maybe I’m like the patron saint for lost causes, but the more contrived this competition becomes, the more appeal it loses.  The reason players want so much to play in and win a GF is because it’s hard to achieve and so only a few get that opportunity.  But if it’s something that becomes easy for any team to achieve, suddenly it loses much of its mystique, for players and supporters alike.

I know that’s far removed from where we are now, but this worst case scenario is a possibility, unless things change somewhere along the line, to ensure that this remains an elite competition.

The League seems to want to even up the competition and give all Clubs a chance at winning a flag.  Short of handing success to some clubs on a platter, I don’t see how it is possible to create an even competition and at the same time maintain an elite competition.  That would seem an impossibility, unless I just don’t understand things properly.

With all due to respect to the Swannies, Mark Bolton, Lewis Roberts-Thomson and Leo Barry to a lesser extent aren't classic key defenders. More third-man backmen. 1-on-1 with the top forwards they would come off second best. However the Swans choking gameplan means the ball isn't coming into the opposition's forward many times lace out and into space into which the forward can lead. Paul Roos has an even list that can run all day with only three real big men (Hall and a couple of ruckmen - it was Ball and Doyle last year). IMHO with the spine they have they would be found out in an open positional style of footy.

Fair argument MT.  I see what you mean.  If you win a GF this way then I suppose you don’t care what the game looks like.  A win at all costs attitude is one thing, but I just don’t understand what satisfaction there is, for anyone, in having players carry out a game plan where the game scarcely resembles the game they’re supposedly playing.

As for Sheeds' idea, I understand his point but I would hate to see constraints come into footy preventing players from moving to certain parts of the ground. What has made footy a great game is the lack of rules that are found in other footy codes sports - no offside or backward/forward passes etc....

For the game to get to a stage where an off-side rule needs to be introduced, the game would have to be run by a bunch of nimrods.

I cannot believe that Kevin Sheedy, of all people, would even contemplate that sort of thing.  Maybe he just wanted to get his name in the paper again.

[one-eyed]

Here's Tim Lane's view on the rule changes.....

---------------------------------------

Enforcing laws might work, I presume
By Tim Lane
The Age
March 4, 2006

AFL rule makers should have the courage to stand by their decisions and stay firm for the good of the game.

AT a recent function, one of Australia's leading cricket umpires said of AFL football: "There's nothing wrong with the rules. The umpires just need to enforce them."

This was an instant to feel a little as Henry Morton Stanley had done upon finding David Livingstone in Africa in 1871. Stanley wrote: "I would have run to him only I was a coward in the presence of such a mob _ would have embraced him only he being an Englishman, I did not know how he would receive me.

"So I did what cowardice and false pride suggested was the best thing - walked del iberately to him, took off my hat, and said: `Dr Livingstone, I presume?"'

There are moments in life when one resists one's natural inclinations. In this case I stro ked my chin thoughtfully and said: "Hmm, interesting observation."

After all, the public sight of a grown man with his arms around a well-known umpire, gratefully weeping things like: "Yes, yes, yes!" could easily be misunderstood. So dignity was maintained, but it felt good to know one wasn't alone.

The AFL has finally acknow ledged that there could be a problem with its game. It has undertaken a statistical analysis of how football has changed over 40 years, and the figures provide a dramatic statement of what we already knew.

They tell us that the game is now much faster, that the umpires are bouncing the ball more often, and awarding fewer free kicks. Anyone with a pie in her hand and two eyes in her head could have told you that, it's the extent to which it has happened that raises eyebrows.

A series of grand finals has been researched. In 1997, there were 172 per cent more field bounces than Frank Schwab executed in 1961. Schwab, how ever, paid 196 per cent more free kicks than were awarded 36 years later. Just to prove it wasn't a one-off, in 1971 Peter Sheales paid 256 per cent more free kicks than were paid in 1997.

That 1997 number is identical to the free-kick count in last year's grand final. That was the game, Mick Malt house said this week, that "was umpired as well as I've seen any umpiring done". Mick probably would have given the umpires 75 per cent, deducting a mark for each free that was actually awarded.

Mick went on to lament that players are now going to be penalised when they hold opponents by the jumper whether they fool them or not. He lamented the passing of the days when you were allowed to do this. He mustn't have watched any games officiated by Schwab or Sheales. Mick is concerned our game is becom ing like netball. Sheales could tell him the 1971 grand final was a lot of things and netball wasn't one of them.

Another figure turned up by the AFL's statistical research is that the pace of the game increased by 86 per cent in those 36 years. While it's not made clear how that figure is calculated, it's an interesting statistic.

A look at track and field records shows that over the same period the men's 100metres world record came down by about 4 per cent and in the 10,000metres the reduction was about 7 per cent. In other words, men are not running so much faster or longer as to explain anything like an 86 per cent increase in the speed of Australian football.

It can have happened only because it has been allowed to by those who administer the laws.

Those laws once preserved a particular type of game that inhibited the speed at which players could approach a con test. It has been altered, and the result is something that is now acknowledged as being so potentially unappealing, and physically demanding, that action needs to be taken.

The solution lies in a frank appraisal of the relationship between the numbers of free kicks and ball-ups. It lies in genuine consideration of where the limits of contact should be set. It lies in ignoring what coaches, who want vindication of their methods, might say.

It also lies in those responsible having the courage to ignore the commentators who complain about "soft" free kicks but not so much about "hard" ones. Of course we do. When a free kick is given, play stops and there's time for discussion and replays.

When no free kick is given, play continues. Therein lies part of the problem.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/03/03/1141191854523.html

[Tiger Spirit]

There seem to be many culprits out there responsible for the ugly nature of our game.  Unfortunately, none of them seem to want to take any responsibility for their part.

The AFL temporarily blamed the coaches, but then changed their minds, the coaches blame the rules, the rule makers blame the interpretation of the rules, and the umpires seem confused, just like me. Unless someone cares enough about the game, and puts their hand up then nothing will change very quickly, even though there seem to be many solutions out there.

I was listening to 3AW this afternoon and Tony Shaw gave the impression that if some rules were changed then the game could easily be fixed.  Well, if it’s that simple then why isn’t it happening?  And which rule is responsible for causing the ugly game that has emerged in recent years?  If it’s that obvious and simple, why don’t we just get rid of it?  What are we waiting for?

I dips me lid to Steve Waugh.  When he was Australian captain, he cared enough about cricket to listen to the criticism of the game and, amongst other things, was mindful of the part that supporters play in the game.  He wanted to restore the game's credibility and appeal and sent his team out with the intention to entertain the crowd.  Not only that, as a team, they had confidence in one another and backed their own ability against the opposition, which made them hard to beat during his time as captain.

Steve Waugh didn't look for someone to blame, he just set about doing something about the criticisms levelled at the game of cricket.  I just wish that someone in the AFL cared as much about Aussie Rules, at least long enough to put pride aside and restore the appeal of our game.

[mightytiges]

Tony Shaw is a wooden spoon coach who taught Spud everything he knew  .

TS, I heard a caller ring up 3aw today blaming the coaches for the state of the game. it wasn't you was it?  .

I watched some of the Cats-Roos  game tonight when Mooney marked about 35 metres out on a 45 degree angle. Instead of having the shot as you'd expect a forward to do, he short passed backwards to a teammate who handballed to another Geelong player who handballed back to Mooney in basically the same spot he was originally then back to another Geelong teammate outside 50 who bombed long to the square where a North ruckman marked. This crap from a side some media experts reckon is a flag chance.

No change or tweaking of the rules can fix a mentality where the main aim of the game of sticking an oval shaped piece of leather between two big vertical sticks is no longer the priority of the players or coaches. That's why I was so ticked off last week about Joel not going for the nine-pointer. One fact of the game has and will never change - you win by kicking the highest score. Seems some coaches and players have forgotten that and are insteand outsmarting themselves with fancy strategies that spoil the great aspects and novelities of that make Aussie rules the best game on Earth.   

[Fishfinger]

I see rules changing is a reaction to the game changing due to strategies introduced by the coaches, such as the 'play-on' style from Barassi at Carlton which was a major change, the 'lie on the ground and fake injury' from Parkin at Carlton to stop a team's run by getting a stretcher on the ground and now the 'hold possession no matter what' which I give credit (blame) to Mark Williams at Port Adelaide who used a lot of crappy basketball and lacrosse set ups to great effect which had to be copied or countered.

I feel sorry for the rules committee who always cop the flack. Having said that, I think the new 'kick in' rule is unnecessary and only outdone by the ridiculous 'play on if the ball bounces back into play off the goal post' rule.

Thankfully there'll always be the Richos who have a mind of their own and struggle to stop natural instinct being overridden by the coach's team strategies.

[Moi]

Oh dear, i've been blissfully thinking these changes were only for the NAB Cup.  They're not are they?  Which changes are going into the main season?  I gather the kick in rule, shot on goal - any others?

[Fishfinger]

Play-on if it bounces in off the goal post is NAB only Moi (thankfully). The worry is it has now survived for 3 pre-season comps.
Instant kick in from a point carries on in the main season. 

[Moi]

Thanks Fish.  They're trying to turn it into Gaelic footy - keep it moving all the time 
The game has been fine for over a 100 years - some rule changes have been good, but it's getting to the ridiculous level now. 

[Tiger Spirit]

TS, I heard a caller ring up 3aw today blaming the coaches for the state of the game. it wasn't you was it? .

Funny you say that MT.  I thought maybe it was you, because he had a lot of your theories/argument down pat.   Although I thought he coulda went for the jugular and argued the point a bit stronger.

Even though I agree with the sentiments Tony Shaw had about the game, like you, I don’t see how tweaking a rule here or there can effectively change or fix anything.

Reason 1. When you hear a former coach, like Robert Walls, say that he refused to use flooding, even when his team (Brisbane) copped the biggest hiding in the history of the game then surely that is an indication that the way the game looks is a mindset by the coaches.  They direct and instruct the players.  The rules are just guidelines and things they work to and around.

Reason 2. Up until TW came to Richmond, our team flooded to the point of turning our own supporters off the game.  All of a sudden we’re a lot more attacking.  Does that say we’re playing to very different rules or that the coach thinks differently?

Reason 3. We’ve changed the rules and it has changed absolutely nothing.

I watched some of the Cats-Roos game tonight when Mooney marked about 35 metres out on a 45 degree angle. Instead of having the shot as you'd expect a forward to do, he short passed backwards to a teammate who handballed to another Geelong player who handballed back to Mooney in basically the same spot he was originally then back to another Geelong teammate outside 50 who bombed long to the square where a North ruckman marked. This crap from a side some media experts reckon is a flag chance.

No change or tweaking of the rules can fix a mentality where the main aim of the game of sticking an oval shaped piece of leather between two big vertical sticks is no longer the priority of the players or coaches. That's why I was so ticked off last week about Joel not going for the nine-pointer. One fact of the game has and will never change - you win by kicking the highest score. Seems some coaches and players have forgotten that and are insteand outsmarting themselves with fancy strategies that spoil the great aspects and novelities of that make Aussie rules the best game on Earth.

This is what the came has been reduced to.  No longer do players do what is instinctive, natural and obvious.  They go for the most bleeding, tear your hair out, ridiculous option imaginable.  Surely, that in itself, is a sign that the game is being over coached and needs to take a step back.