AFL - Terrible Ideas, Too Many Ideas, No Idea…

[Reboot]

Satan approves six-six-six

Zones can go to hell.

Cerberus approves.

Sit tight be confident.

[Speedy_Gonzales]

That 6-6-6 rule actually isn’t the worst if only on centre bounces.

The issue being brought up was how something similar would be applied to any stoppages that occurred around the ground / time to reset etc

As people seem to indicate though if trying to protect a lead it will be a mad sprint for the fwd line players to defence but better that than 36 players behind the half way line at the bounce.

[BillyBewick]

As does Iron Maiden.

Six, Six, Six The Number of the Beast.

[aboods]

That 6-6-6 rule actually isn’t the worst if only on centre bounces.

The issue being brought up was how something similar would be applied to any stoppages that occurred around the ground / time to reset etc

As people seem to indicate though if trying to protect a lead it will be a mad sprint for the fwd line players to defence but better that than 36 players behind the half way line at the bounce.

The 6-6-6 also will make it harder for teams to setup with a spare in defence. That helps mitigate one of our weaknesses.
18m goal square would help us with another weakness as well.

Regardless of helping our weaknesses, if they only made those changes, plus they reduce the interchange, i’d be happy with those changes. Better than trying to have zones at all stoppages.

I worry that the morons are still talking about mid season trades.
I’d accept a mid season draft of it was limited to state league players and 1 player per club.
Mid season trades is crazy

[Speedy_Gonzales]

I hate the mid season trade idea

Affects lower league teams who’ve signed marquee or structurally important players.

And not really a fan of clubs looking to trade based on the dynamics of their list management failing across the course of the year. It is an art of sorts.

[aboods]

I hate the mid season trade idea

Affects lower league teams who’ve signed marquee or structurally important players.

And not really a fan of clubs looking to trade based on the dynamics of their list management failing across the course of the year. It is an art of sorts.

I didn’t need much convincing. Scrap the whole thing!

[CaesarCod]

Whats the big deal if 6-6-6 is just at centre bounces?

[simmo41]

The 6-6-6 also will make it harder for teams to setup with a spare in defence. That helps mitigate one of our weaknesses.

Yeah nah

those two “wingers” could be stationed anywhere, including on the back of the centre square

…or including 30cm in front of the D50 arc

[RedandBlackPartisan]

The umpires will soon be ■■■■■■■ off the “designated sprinting players from inside 50 to the contest” if they have to keep recalling lousy bounces.

[bloodychoir]

As does Iron Maiden.

Six, Six, Six The Number of the Beast.

“I am not a back six number, I am a FREE MAN!!”

[simmo41]

The rule change the AFL is likely to recommend on Wednesday

By Jake Niall, The Age 24 July 2018

The AFL is likely to recommend the introduction of the proposed “six-six-six” format at centre bounces for the 2019 season when the league’s Competition Committee gathers for a crucial meeting on Wednesday.

Under the proposal – the biggest change to centre bounces since the introduction of the centre square – each team would be forced to have six players inside of the 50 metre arcs at both ends. The centre square set-ups would remain at four players per side, with two per team – wingers, effectively – outside the square and between the arcs.

Under the likely recommendation, which has been developed by the AFL’s game analysis group and trialled by clubs, those two “wingers” could be stationed anywhere, including on the back of the centre square, giving the coaches some flexibility for tactical placements.

If adopted – and it would have to be approved by the Competition Committee and then ratified by the AFL Commission later this year – this “six-six-six” set up for centre bounces would constitute a muted form of “starting positions”, compared with the more radical concept of having a smaller number of players (between two and four) forced to stay in the arcs at all stoppages.

“Six-six-six” is considered more palatable to the players and coaches, judged by the feedback that has surrounded the bold changes initiated by the AFL’s forthright new football boss Steve Hocking, who told The Age on Monday that some recommendations on rule changes would be made at Wednesday’s meeting.

If the “six-six-six” format is introduced, it would make it harder for coaches to put massive numbers behind the ball late in games to protect leads. But the objective would be more to create greater space and remove congestion. Players obviously would quickly run out of the arcs once the ball was bounced, as they do under the current rule that allows players to be stationed anywhere outside of the centre square.

AFL legend Leigh Matthews has been among those in favour of starting positions for centre bounces.

Starting positions at all stoppages has been trialled by clubs and will be discussed at Wednesday’s meeting, but has been met with strong opposition in some quarters, with senior coaches such as Nathan Buckley and Luke Beveridge warning of the unintended consequences of such a change. It appears unlikely that starting positions at all stoppages will be recommended at the Wednesday meeting at this stage.

The AFL’s game analysis group also has found it difficult to work out how precisely to police starting positions – which some describe by the more polarising term “zones”. It is unclear what happens, for instance, when a player from each team transgresses, since you arguably can’t pay a free kick to both teams in that scenario.

The reduction of interchange rotations from the present 90 and the expansion of the goal square to an 18 metre square are set to be discussed at the Wednesday meeting, which will also address player movement – in particular the mid-season drafts and trading – and the re-shaping of the AFL fixture.

The Wednesday meeting will be crucial in shaping the rules for 2019 and beyond. The Hocking-led Competition Committee includes coaches Brad Scott and Chris Fagan, players Patrick Dangerfield and Steven May, club presidents Eddie McGuire, Peggy O’Neal and Colin Carter, plus chief executives and football managers.

[Riolio]

[theDJR]

When the umps remember to enforce it, the zoning in the VFLW is somewhat comical. Forwards sprinting to and from the 50m arc depending on whether a stoppage occurs, or not. No “resting” of players in the forward line!

As noted above, this limited proposal is kinda pointless, given that 1) it is only at centre bounces and 2) it is very rare to see a team start a bounce with more than eight defenders. It’s just something to further distract umps from their core job and to antagonise crowds.

[redbull]

It’s just something to further help the umps with their core job to antagonise crowds.

Fixed

[alex.f.94]

im not sure what that will fix?- teams already basically set up like this, with maybe 4 or 5 players in the 50 at the centre bounces.

seems like window dressing to me

[sorfed]

The 50 metre arc at the SCG is about one full stride from the centre square, if all the players, forwards and backs and wingman hit the line as the ball is bounced there could be 36 players within 10 metres when the ball hits the ground.

[Bullwinkle]

CONTACT. WING DEFENCE.

[theDJR]

No, the SCG is a more standard length now — 3m from legit 50 arc to the centre square. With Subiaco gone, Kardinia Park is one of the few oddities left nowadays.

[tinhillterror]

For those that are saying ‘big deal’ it’s the thin end of the wedge.

It’s bollocks that current players coaches and officials are involved.

It’s just buck passing to have this group endorsing any big changes.

Just about done with it as a sport, it’s really just entertainment now.

[redbull]

The fact there is a committee and people employed to investigate what is “wrong” with football is what is wrong with football.