HOW DANGEROUS?? | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact admin@puntroadend.com // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

HOW DANGEROUS??

Tony Braxton-Hicks

It's Tiger Time!
Aug 10, 2004
9,581
1,607
The Playboy Mansion
Just as I said from the outset.
Indeed. The simplest solution is surely to just play it on Sunday. But no, AFL has to crowd out a Saturday that was never theirs.

Imagine, instead, if the Grand Final was played on the Sunday after Derby Day. What a great long weekend that would be, with Monday as a celebration day and Cup Day to follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
2,895
2,746
The home of Dusty
Really? They survived about 100 years before that rule came in.
Problem is you now have (well did anyway) a whole heap of coaches who have plenty of time and technology to analyse everything.

So firstly you had Hawthorn who had solid citizen ruckman that were outpointed around the ground by most opponents. To nullify that advantage players like Lewis and Hodge went third man up constantly and killed the contest.

It was escalating to the point where a ruckman would fast become a position that would be wiped out because the ruck contest was nothing more than two tall blokes being used as a marking bag for midfielders to get the hit out on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
18,776
3,112
Problem is you now have (well did anyway) a whole heap of coaches who have plenty of time and technology to analyse everything.

So firstly you had Hawthorn who had solid citizen ruckman that were outpointed around the ground by most opponents. To nullify that advantage players like Lewis and Hodge went third man up constantly and killed the contest.

It was escalating to the point where a ruckman would fast become a position that would be wiped out because the ruck contest was nothing more than two tall blokes being used as a marking bag for midfielders to get the hit out on.
And who does Hodge hit it to? Hawthorn are now down a mid round the stoppage so if he can get it to a team mate, good luck to him.

As further counter evidence I offer premiership ruck, S Grigg.

There is no rule or formula that protects a position or type of player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
2,804
2,219
Melbourne
A lot of the rule changes Big Richo mentions are reasonable.

The angle from the goal square one always got me back in the day anyway, could never understand why it was the case.

The out of bounds is an interesting one. In the 1930s you had a lot of big marking forwards taking speccies, think Pratt and his ilk, partly because they had a last touch rule on the out of bounds and teams would go down the middle more. I don't like the last touch idea, we see it in the middle of the ground in Women's AFL and it doesn't work. Technically there was deliberate out of bounds after about 1968 but it was so strict you would see it paid maybe twice a year (I think I saw it paid in the 1973 Prelim). The deliberate out of bounds is quite good. Also remember, out on the full has only been a free since about 1968 (watch the 1967 GF!). Leave the out of bounds rules as is, just more consistency on the rulings would fix the issues.

The ruck is a difficult one, I really hate the nominating business but it is there to address a real issue. Having watched the 1973 PF last night it was noticeable how there were a lot less ball ups or at least a lot less scrums back then, maybe this is part of the problem. Actually watch the throw ins at an old game too, it was immediate, sort of solved the ruck nomination problem, rucks were often running down the ground and the ball was already thrown in.

I did like the old unreliable, all over the place, bounces. Added some colour to the game! I can see why they changed it though. Keep the bounce after a goal and at the start of the quarter though, it is part of the game, maybe just let it rip and not recall any crap bounces.

6-6-6 is a crap rule. Didn't do what it was supposed to do. I reckon it takes away from one of the unique aspects of Australian Rules Football - it is a 360 degree game and there are no set positions and especially no offside. Get rid of it.

The kick to yourself business was always a bit of a farce, play on from the kick in doesn't worry me. In fact, this is an example of where the AFL compromised. Remember they were talking about an 18m goal square, that would just be silly. The play on from kick in was a much better way to sort any issue.

But look at the current proposals:
Last touch out of bounds: see above.
18m goal square: see above
Starting positions at all stoppages: with the number of stoppages these days? Fogetaboutit, also, see above re the 6-6-6 rule.
Reduced tackling: WTF?
Challenge for goal reviews: um, no. Just leave it up to the umpires and don't stuff up the reviews.
Shorter quarters: they already shortened them once, enough! Also, remember when they shortened the quarters some years ago, they changed the rules about time-on to be stricter, so the quarters weren't really shortened because stopping the clock happens more often with the stricter interpretation of when the ball is in play.

As I said earlier, leave it alone.Most of the rule changes have reflected reality or changes in the game. The current proposals are attempts to change the game, not responses to certain aspects of the evolution of the game.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
2,895
2,746
The home of Dusty
And who does Hodge hit it to? Hawthorn are now down a mid round the stoppage so if he can get it to a team mate, good luck to him.

As further counter evidence I offer premiership ruck, S Grigg.

There is no rule or formula that protects a position or type of player.
It's pretty common for teams to be outnumbered at stoppages though so structurally that's not a stretch. If they know someone like Natanui is going to give clean ball to their mids 15 times then it's huge. Clearance stats aren't a great indicator in themselves but clean clearance and scores from clearance are huge.

I think the no third man up rule actually made it work with Grigg in ruck. We knew it was a predictable contest so we could set up to counter their structure and make sure the clearance was under pressure to allow us to create turnovers.

If we had the option to go third man up then we would have a totally different game and who knows what would have happened.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
2,895
2,746
The home of Dusty
6-6-6 is a crap rule. Didn't do what it was supposed to do. I reckon it takes away from one of the unique aspects of Australian Rules Football - it is a 360 degree game and there are no set positions and especially no offside. Get rid of it.
The one part of it that I do like is in a close game a team that happens to be in front in the closing stages can't go defensive at a centre bounce and play in a way they haven't once in the rest of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

BrisTiger24

Chimp's Love of the Tiger
Oct 16, 2003
12,548
1,364
Brisbane
Also appears that the push is on now for a night grand final.
The AFL using this virus as a mask to implement the changes that they want going forward is infuriating.
This is about the only thing I can cope with. Good opportunity to trial a night GF particularly with the timing around cox plate etc.

Everything else they can GAGF. Leave the game alone
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Tigers of Old

Proud of our Club.
Jul 26, 2004
65,978
4,363
www.redbubble.com
Contact below the knees. Important rule for safety, often misunderstood. Tick.

How many players are really injured this way? I don't like this as it penalises the player who attacks the ball and puts themselves at risk.

Vehemently agree with you here Ant.
The 'slide' rule is the worst rule in footy.
Someone is more likely to get their neck broken the way players are now asked to approach the contest than have a knee or ankle affected.
Completely anti football this rule.

The 6-6-6 rule & bigger goal squares led to the lowest scores in 50 years. Massive fail.
But hey let's persevere..

Have not even considered reducing the interchange back to 90s levels or be extremely reticent to approach it. Seems an obvious change.

Most other things don't worry me that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
2,804
2,219
Melbourne
I think the no third man up rule actually made it work with Grigg in ruck. We knew it was a predictable contest so we could set up to counter their structure and make sure the clearance was under pressure to allow us to create turnovers.
That's an interesting one. We often don't win centre clearances, but we make sure that when the opposition do, it is a crap clearance under heaps of pressure and hence a rubbish entry into their forward line. The most obvious example of this is a counter-example: In the 2018 PF we lost the clearances, but, far more critically, Collingwood were getting clean clear opportunity and quality delivery into their forward line - you allow that and you are stuffed.

But on the game evolving front, which actually relates to rules and hence the topic at hand, Richmond have worked out that losing centre clearances is viable with the right game plan, players and strategy. Rules should not change to counter this, there is nothing wrong with the game evolving, rules should only change if there is a problem caused by the game's evolution, or a rule has become silly (such as no play on at the kick in).

Change for the sake of it is what really pisses me off.

DS
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
18,776
3,112
It's pretty common for teams to be outnumbered at stoppages though so structurally that's not a stretch. If they know someone like Natanui is going to give clean ball to their mids 15 times then it's huge. Clearance stats aren't a great indicator in themselves but clean clearance and scores from clearance are huge.

I think the no third man up rule actually made it work with Grigg in ruck. We knew it was a predictable contest so we could set up to counter their structure and make sure the clearance was under pressure to allow us to create turnovers.

If we had the option to go third man up then we would have a totally different game and who knows what would have happened.
Outnumbered? Still a man down than they would have been if a third man goes up. If they already had an advantage works out better for them, serves the other side right for not getting bodies to the stoppage. What's the problem you are trying solve?

Grigg scenario. Absolutely. Smart coaches make rules and players and scenarios work to their advantage. But it still meant a big player missed out when Grigg went into the ruck, so the intention of the rule (if that's what it was) was already moot.

Yeah we'll never know, but I'd still back our 2017 side to win the ball or tackle the man. And we shouldn't judge rules as being good because they advantage us.
 

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
1,295
661
As TBR said, I liked the Substitute rule. Thought it added an element of interest over the mind numbing rotations.

Don't really like the ruck nominations but the explanations of why we have it make sense. We don't want to lose the art of ruckwork or see the demise of the big lugs. Too bad that it looks like an under 11's rule.

Still on the nominations, they could fix the rule a bit. Pretty sure I've seen instances where a team was too slow to nominate someone, so the ump wouldn't allow anyone from that team to contest. What's that about? I understand that once a bloke says he's up then you shouldn't be able to change it, but this seems over regulation.

And what about the success of the bigger goalsquare or 6-6-6 rules? Disgraceful that these seem to have been thought bubbles rather than the result of some detailed analysis and a trial period (in VFL, SANFL & WAFL etc). It'd be interesting to see a journalist ask a few questions about it, but the media sycophants are to p!ss weak.

Stop changing the rules and just get the decisions more consistent.

The AFL have been very slow to adapt technologies that will help with the goal line issues (and maybe boundary deliberations). Cricket is probably the leader with multiple camera angles, ball tracker, stump cam, stump mics etc. Yes it's a different game but cricket has had this stuff for years (and continues to innovate). The AFL were dragged kicking and screaming to end up buying a Commodore 64, operated by a Luddite.

Yes these technologies are expensive, but now we have some idea why they have dragged their feet, they're broke from spending their money on morons in suits.
 

Number8

Tiger Rookie
Oct 12, 2010
339
382
Melbourne
The current proposals are attempts to change the game, not responses to certain aspects of the evolution of the game.
Spot on. There's a lot of goodwill around responding to the game's evolution with rules and interpretations that improve the watchability of the game but tinkering with its unique characteristics is hard to swallow.

Great changes include:

• Deliberate out of bounds
• Minimum 15-metre kick for a mark to be awarded
• Goal reviews initiated by the umpires

Unnecessary changes include:

• A night grand final -- falls into the "everyone else is doing it, so why don't we?" category
• Removing the umpire's bounce -- why don't we change the ball to a round one while we're at it?
• Allowing play-on from a behind without a kick to the foot -- can't have any of those little idiosyncrasies ruining the game, can we?
• 6-6-6 -- over-engineered nonsense that should be scrapped given it fails to achieve its stated aim

The ruck nomination is well intentioned but super clumsy. I'd like to see an alternative trialled. Two rucks are nominated before the game. They wear an armband or some other marker to designate their role. Only these rucks are able to contest hit-outs. If there is an injury to a ruck, the armband can be handed off. Then just bounce the bloody ball, ump!
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
36,727
4,271
I don't mind the ruck nomination. It was awkward in the first year but the teams and players are getting better at it. The alternative to nominating is to push all players, except the ruckmen, 10 to 15m away for where the ball will be tossed up. Only to 2 competing ruckmen in the immediate area. But then we'll have encroachment infringements, other players trying to push their opposition into the exclusion zone etc.

The beauty of the 6-6-6 is that we'd heard all year how the AFL had this elite team of analysts who were using the latest science and AI to predict the result of the 6-6-6. These people were the best in their business. Super smart, super switched on. Filled Buckley with so much confidence that he backed their decisions 100%. What a *smile* fail that was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TigerFurious

Smooth
Dec 17, 2002
2,275
165
I’d argue that the issues with the game that the AFL seem he’ll bent on fixing; congestion and low scoring are largley a result of their own rule changes since 2008.

It started when they changed the rush behind rule after the hawks exploited it so well in the 2008 GF. They took away an outlet for defenders under pressure thinking it will increase scoring. Instead we got the forward press because coaches quickly realized defenders could be relentlessly pressured into turnovers and it just increased congestion. This also leads to increased work loads on players who are now required to flood their own forward line as well as their backline. To combat this, coaches start rotating players through the interchange like never before.

Next the afl bring in the sub rule to address ballooning interchange rotations and the perceived congestion resulting from it. What happens? All clubs uniformly adopt the same sub strategy - A running type player, brought on sometime in the third quarter with mostly minimal effect. Second rucks disappear, clubs that lose a player to injury in the first half are significantly more likely to lose the game due to lack of rotations and hence adopt negative tactics offset loss of player. Congestion continues to increase and scoring continues to decrease.

Never one to admit they were wrong, the afl dump the sub rule and introduce a rotations cap to reduce congestion and increase scoring. Again, it does not work because it turns out tired players tend to gravitate towards the ball, creating more congestion which leads to stoppages which gives them a rest. Second rucks largely don’t return because clubs have realized that an average running player is of more use to the team than an average second ruck. The third tall forward is largely dead at this stage too, replaced by another small medium type to add to the congestion. Second tall forwards are now on shaky ground as well and clubs if they haven’t already are actively recruiting players for the small forward role whose primary purpose has changed from kicking goals to creating pressure.

Pressured by their tv overlords, the afl again try changing the rules to reduce congestion and increase scoring with 6-6-6 and kickouts. Again, it has the opposite effect mainly because it was poorly thought through, not tested properly but fundamentally doesn’t address the root causes of congestion and low scoring.

Congestion and stoppages give players a break in an physically demanding game. It also allows sides to reset structures and players to reposition, everything coaches love and hence will try to create more of. Low scoring is a result of the defense first philosophy of modern sport. A good defense will nearly always beat a good offense and afl is no different. Much easier to teach players defensive techniques than offensive ones.

tl;dr every time the afl try to fix scoring and congestion they make it worse because they don’t understand why it’s occurring
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

graystar1

Tiger Legend
Apr 28, 2004
5,673
234
A lot of the rule changes Big Richo mentions are reasonable.

The angle from the goal square one always got me back in the day anyway, could never understand why it was the case.

The out of bounds is an interesting one. In the 1930s you had a lot of big marking forwards taking speccies, think Pratt and his ilk, partly because they had a last touch rule on the out of bounds and teams would go down the middle more. I don't like the last touch idea, we see it in the middle of the ground in Women's AFL and it doesn't work. Technically there was deliberate out of bounds after about 1968 but it was so strict you would see it paid maybe twice a year (I think I saw it paid in the 1973 Prelim). The deliberate out of bounds is quite good. Also remember, out on the full has only been a free since about 1968 (watch the 1967 GF!). Leave the out of bounds rules as is, just more consistency on the rulings would fix the issues.

The ruck is a difficult one, I really hate the nominating business but it is there to address a real issue. Having watched the 1973 PF last night it was noticeable how there were a lot less ball ups or at least a lot less scrums back then, maybe this is part of the problem. Actually watch the throw ins at an old game too, it was immediate, sort of solved the ruck nomination problem, rucks were often running down the ground and the ball was already thrown in.

I did like the old unreliable, all over the place, bounces. Added some colour to the game! I can see why they changed it though. Keep the bounce after a goal and at the start of the quarter though, it is part of the game, maybe just let it rip and not recall any crap bounces.

6-6-6 is a crap rule. Didn't do what it was supposed to do. I reckon it takes away from one of the unique aspects of Australian Rules Football - it is a 360 degree game and there are no set positions and especially no offside. Get rid of it.

The kick to yourself business was always a bit of a farce, play on from the kick in doesn't worry me. In fact, this is an example of where the AFL compromised. Remember they were talking about an 18m goal square, that would just be silly. The play on from kick in was a much better way to sort any issue.

But look at the current proposals:
Last touch out of bounds: see above.
18m goal square: see above
Starting positions at all stoppages: with the number of stoppages these days? Fogetaboutit, also, see above re the 6-6-6 rule.
Reduced tackling: WTF?
Challenge for goal reviews: um, no. Just leave it up to the umpires and don't stuff up the reviews.
Shorter quarters: they already shortened them once, enough! Also, remember when they shortened the quarters some years ago, they changed the rules about time-on to be stricter, so the quarters weren't really shortened because stopping the clock happens more often with the stricter interpretation of when the ball is in play.

As I said earlier, leave it alone.Most of the rule changes have reflected reality or changes in the game. The current proposals are attempts to change the game, not responses to certain aspects of the evolution of the game.

DS
Good post David. Agree with everything you wrote. That is why I started the thread, to get other PREnders views.

Unless we get rid of Hocking we are always going to get these constant rule changes that eventually will end AFL as we used to know it.

Then watch the crowds stay away and the game will be stuffed.

Over the top maybe, but I do fear for our game being turned into some form of bastard form of footy that we love.

Just leave it alone...why would anyone want to reduce tackling?? That is soccer not AFl.

Jack Dyer would be turning in grave hearing that.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
2,895
2,746
The home of Dusty
What's the problem you are trying solve?
The issue is that a pure ruckman like Natanui or Gawn can't perform their skills because they have an 85kg midfielder on their back at every ball-up. Personally, I think a pure hitout to a midfielder who bursts away is a great part of the game, and I'd like to see it protected.
 

TigerPort

Tiger Superstar
Jun 29, 2006
1,436
556
NSW
The issue is that a pure ruckman like Natanui or Gawn can't perform their skills because they have an 85kg midfielder on their back at every ball-up. Personally, I think a pure hitout to a midfielder who bursts away is a great part of the game, and I'd like to see it protected.
And the best example is 2007 v Collingwood opening bounce Foley burst from the center and Polak goals. Then next bounce Foley burst from the center and Polak goals.
 

YinnarTiger

Tiger Legend
May 2, 2007
6,938
200
71
Gippsland
I don't think the HS article had anything new in it. Blobbo isn't mentioned, it just re-hashed a few ideas that were thrown around in 2017-18, some of which have already been partially instituted and the rest been put on the back-burner. Back in the day, Whateley, Hocking and Blobbo wanted higher scoring games and ways to stifle the threat of Richmond's ascendancy. The article was just a space filler during this covid vacuum of footy news.
 

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
7,099
1,755
The issue is that a pure ruckman like Natanui or Gawn can't perform their skills because they have an 85kg midfielder on their back at every ball-up. Personally, I think a pure hitout to a midfielder who bursts away is a great part of the game, and I'd like to see it protected.
As would I and that's why the last kick out of bounds is a disaster. Even if they allow ruck contests in each F50 and only use last touch in the main field, then ruck contests will still significantly decline. We have what about 60-80 / game at the moment, we only have an average of low 20's in terms of goals so there must be 40-50 odd ruck contests from ball ins / contests around the ground which will be severely reduced impacting the entire point of having ruckmen. Of all the rules, this is the one that I would like to come in least. I guess it reduces the need for the umpires to make a call on who meant to take the ball out and those that were accidental but I still don't like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users