I don’t think they should make any changes, but I don’t mind the wide goal square in the old photo above. Could allow players the freedom to run a little and change the angles.
Hocking is proving to be an absolute idiot.
Joe Dan zero goals in 2019
Not only that, but the replacement is less competent, too!
It will be more than one second, especially if they have to grab a ball from a bag - I can’t see how this proposed rule change will add anything to the game.
This is all purely experimental and experiential for them. Full of their own self importance, are they trying to find a way for the GC Suns to be premiers soon.
Hocking is a deadset retard, the guy cannot believe the stupidity that comes out of his gob. A 5 year old could poke holes in his farce of a rules analysis and changes.
If the AFL commission endorsed this joke then we can be assured they are a bunch useless window dressing shills for some back room powerbroker who are in love with their own ego rather than the game.
I really find it hard to believe that they would seriously consider doubling the size of the goal square. Nobody’s asked for it; there’s no existing problem that it could be aimed at fixing; it seems like a thought bubble that came to someone after a few beers, or maybe a few smokes. It’s just ridiculous.
6-6-6? Won’t do much I think.
Getting the runners off the ground is an excellent change and should have been made years ago.
“Clarifying” incorrect disposal, holding the ball, etc? Depends on what the “clarifications” actually are, but past experience with such changes suggests that these will probably result in more inexplicable free kicks to enrage everyone and not much else.
Hocking said that after a point is kicked there is a high likelihood of a goal being kicked - presumably because they can’t get it past the opposition zone- he clearly doesn’t like defenders
By extending the goal square it moves the zone defence to the middle of the ground- widest part - and avoid the congestion we have now.
I just think the idea of an 18x7m ‘square’ is ugly and gross
Would rather a 20m semi-circle. It would make the games transition towards netball more official.
So they are doing it becuase there is a high chance of a goal being kicked from the kick in. Um don’t they want more goals?
It’s difficult to talk about this from a dispassionate point of view, because nobody trusts the AFL (hence the thread title).
I actually don’t have a problem with the game as it is.
The scoring is fine.
100 points is generally the target. Fifteen goals and change. Generally.
Obviously there will be outliers of 80-70 or 150-60. But they are outliers.
That seems enough to me.
So what does the AFL want?
I want them to tell me.
What’s the goal here?
Is it that they want a greater percentage of goals to be kicked by the full-forward?
Do they want less ball-ups?
It doesn’t seem to me that there’s too many now.
I honestly don’t know what they’re trying to fix.
Do they have the view that the 90’s were the golden age of football and they want to somehow get back to that?
If so, then just friggin’ come out and say it.
They want it to be similar to Gaelic football.
Not sure if serious, but if so, why?
Because Gaelic Football is the international powerhouse that we can’t escape from today?
I’m 90% serious. They want a fast, free flowing, high scoring game coz it looks great, in their own tiny minds that is. Some football followers (like I) don’t mind seeing a low scoring hard fought game for its own merits.
Gaelic football is fast and free flowing, and having Aussie Rules resemble it is nothing about escaping its ferocious and tightening grasp.
The elephant in the room here, and the AFL appears to be missing this, is that decongesting the game will lead to higher scoring and likely more blow outs.
TV ratings aren’t necessarily being impacted by lower scoring game, but they certainly will be affected by more blow outs.
The thing with congestion is that it keeps margins tight and games alive for longer. Sides are so so much better defensively than they were 20 years ago. Consequently a period of dominance can yield a 4 or 5 goal lead which might not be enough to kill off an opponent. Indeed a period of dominance can yield no lead at all.
If you really take the shackles of the good teams there will be a lot more games decided by quarter time and the ratings will collapse.
I’ve seen a lot of old timers say they want more goals, who wants to watch a game where there is only 1 goal each in a quarter they cry. Obviously they have noticed the rising popularity of association football in this country. I don’t think scoring is the issue some say it is. I’d be interested to see some comparitive stats and average winning margins
Personally I’ll take tension, a desperate contest and more meaningful goals over extra goals any day.
The AFL should be careful what they wish for.
How high scoring?
I mean, I don’t want to appear alarmist, but teams have gotten pretty good at working out how to score with 16 men in the back half.
If you take flooding away now…and I have to assume that’s what they’re trying to do, rather than enforcing rules that are already on the books and that were enforced in the ‘golden years’, then are we going to see games of 150-130?
And if so, you know, okay?
But just tell us what the goal is here?
They don’t want to see the rolling scrums, the stoppage after stoppage. They want 120 mins of highlight reels only.
High scores will be the end product, of approximately 100 points per team. Even the commentators breathtakingly enthuse how great the high scoring games are, as if that’s the main objective.
This, imo, is what they want. Not many tackles, no bumps, no rough stuff… just high marks, waves of players streaming down the ground, goal after goal.
I agree with your first comment.
But they also don’t want to give free kicks either.
Go back to ‘too high’ and ‘in the back’ of yore and you’ll see a shedload less stoppages.
Players can literally lie on top of a player on the ground now without penalty.
It was not always this way.
Again, I just want the AFL to come clean on what they want.
And if it’s less ball ups while simultaneously less free kicks…then, you know, fine!
Just say it!