• PRE should be functioning as per usual. Please email admin@puntroadend.com to report anything odd that is occuring over the next few days as we settle a few database issues.

How Malcom Blight plans to “fix” the AFL

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
18,606
509
my pet hate, the rule says 15m but they always err on the short kicks i.e. they will pay marks for 8/10/12m kicks, if they paid marks from an 15 m kick as is the rule this would negate half of the little chip kicks esp out of defence
I hate it too but its not that simple this year. I've seen 9m kicks paid the mark and 22 metre kicks called play on not 15. its all over the joint. My view is the state of umpiring reflects the state of AFL governance.

Agree consistent competent application of the rule should be the norm. Ditto holding the ball, throw, block etc etc.:confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Blightwatch - last 50 years:

Round 17 - 76.9 (2nd/50)
Round 16 - 81.2 (9th/50)
Round 15 - 74.3 (3rd/50)
Round 14 - 77.5 (5th/50)
Round 13 - 86.6 (18th/50)
Round 12 - 78.2 (6th/50)
Round 11 - 82.3 (4th/50)
Round 10 - 75.2 (2nd/50)
Round 9 - 82.4 (4th/50)
Round 8 - 79.7 (3rd/50)
Round 7 - 77.4 (1st/50)
Round 6 - 80.8 (2nd/50)
Round 5 - 84.8 (6th/50)
Round 4 - 75.3 (1st/50)
Round 3 - 88.4 (6th/50)
Round 2 - 81.2 (1st/50)
Round 1 - 78.7 (1st/50)

Round 1-17 - 80.0 (1st/50)

Lowest Round 17 score was 1984's paltry 48.1, with all six games played in steady rain on Saturday afternoon. Richmond kicked the sweep in a big win over the Swans at the MCG in front of 13K hardy souls (including me!). David Rhys-Jones got three weeks for retaliating to a whack from Michael Pickering, who went unpunished.

Worth noting also that the Round 17 average was above 100 in 20 of the 50 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Mac

Tiger Superstar
Sep 16, 2003
2,433
143
This is a graph of average scores and average accuracy from 1897 to 2018.

For interest, the last few years scoring was
2010 90
2011 92
2012 92
2013 92
2014 86
2015 86
2016 88
2017 89
2018 82

Our year wasn't too bad.

To me, the spikes indicate a period or even an isolated year where there was one dominant team (maybe two).
The more even the comp, it seems the more moderate the scoring.
Funny that a lot of 'experts' cite the recent hawk's success as one of the great teams that was an example of 'good football' by a team that was aesthetically pleasing to watch, yet their 14/15 wins were troughs in the scoring, spiked back up by our 2017.
We've been involved in a few spikes 69, and 82 in particular were pretty big. 82 still stands miles above anything else.
80s and early 90s was the era the league struggled with crowds and clubs going down the gurgler.
The AFL took steps to make the comp more even and competitive so all teams being even would naturally bring scoring down in general.

While 2018 was a trough, bringing in a raft of rules based just on scoring was short sighted in my opinion. Accuracy was down in that year too.
Richmond and Adelaide had shown in 17 that a new way of playing (which was in fact an old way of playing on quickly and risk taking) could increase scoring again, but ironically the umpires darlings in Collingwood and West Coast brought that way down again as they milked free kicks then went chip chip chip. If the AFL was to do anything about rules to promote scoring, surely it would be better to look at things like holding the ball interpretations and quicker around the ground ball ups, without having to introduce silly things like netball zones and changing kick in areas.

8765

 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Blightwatch - last 50 years:

Round 18 - 82.8 (5th/50)
Round 17 - 76.9 (2nd/50)
Round 16 - 81.2 (9th/50)
Round 15 - 74.3 (3rd/50)
Round 14 - 77.5 (5th/50)
Round 13 - 86.6 (18th/50)
Round 12 - 78.2 (6th/50)
Round 11 - 82.3 (4th/50)
Round 10 - 75.2 (2nd/50)
Round 9 - 82.4 (4th/50)
Round 8 - 79.7 (3rd/50)
Round 7 - 77.4 (1st/50)
Round 6 - 80.8 (2nd/50)
Round 5 - 84.8 (6th/50)
Round 4 - 75.3 (1st/50)
Round 3 - 88.4 (6th/50)
Round 2 - 81.2 (1st/50)
Round 1 - 78.7 (1st/50)

Round 1-18 - 80.2 (1st/50)

Low was 1994's 78.1. High was 1979, when every team bar Collingwood scored over 100, and Richmond and South reached 190.

Total score past four rounds:

448 Richmond
385 Brisbane
367 West Coast
349 North Melbourne
347 Carlton
339 Adelaide
335 Essendon
334 GWS
323 Melbourne
316 St.Kilda
307 Hawthorn
300 Western Bulldogs
296 Geelong
272 Sydney
254 Port Adelaide
253 Collingwood
240 Gold Coast
211 Fremantle

average 78.8

Richmond leading the way with their unattractive footy... must be time to change the rules again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
861
130
freo lowest scoring as usual.
Pies and Cats illustrates they are out of form, or in high load to prepare for finals.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
AFL hails 'successful' rule changes
Gilbert Gardiner
Herald Sun
July 24, 2019


The AFL has listened to fans and declared a ceasefire on potential on-field rule changes.

Buoyed by the “state of the game”, AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking said it is time to allow the raft of changes already implemented to bed down before consideration is given to further adjustments.

Hocking hailed most recent changes, which includes the 6-6-6 starting positions and allowing defenders to play on quickly after a behind is scored, as successful.

“We made a lot of change this year and all of our metrics show the game is better for it,” Hocking said.

“If you have a look at how many games are decided late there’s been many games this year whereby in the dying seconds of a game the game is being decided.

“There is 76 per cent of game time spent within a two-goal margin right across the '19 season.

“All of those things lead to a really exciting competition … most of the work we’re doing as a committee is based around off-field.”

The AFL competition committee spent more than four hours behind closed doors at league headquarters discussing a range of topics, including the score review, a potential mid-season trade period, the use of runners, how to best “declutter” pre-season and injury prevention.

More to come …

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/afl-daily-live-rolling-footy-news-from-around-australia-for-wednesday-july-24-2019/live-coverage/8e6f977d640104f5174e86628949450a
 

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
18,430
632
OMFG. Talk about leading the corporate circle jerkers. Hocking must be seriously happy with himself it only took them four hours behind closed doors for everyone to get off.
76% of game time within a two goal margin is because most teams are incapable of scoring, they're too busy tackling one another to death. Of course many games are decided in the last few minutes, they've spent so much time clubbing the crap out of one another, the first side that has a player who wobbles, or loses a stray pointy ball bounce gets scored against .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mac

Tiger Superstar
Sep 16, 2003
2,433
143
“We made a lot of change this year and all of our metrics show the game is better for it,” Hocking said.

If their metrics show all this, how about publishing them, rather than quoting an isolated stat that only presumably backs up the hastily added criterion of close scores?
Publish what the metric aims were before the rule changes (because all I heard at the time was 'we need more scoring') and then publish all results that back up this success.
I'd like to see verification of these metrics pre-dating the outcomes too. I bet they'll be backdated to include things like 'close scores'.


“If you have a look at how many games are decided late there’s been many games this year whereby in the dying seconds of a game the game is being decided.

Ok. Cool story. Is this any different to previous years? By how much? Is it significant, or too small an increase to justify the yehaaring?


“There is 76 per cent of game time spent within a two-goal margin right across the '19 season.

Yay!! A stat!! But again, cool story. How does this compare to previous years? Is this significant, or have you just quoted a stat that has no other meaning than 'this is what is happening in the here and now'? What is this being measured against? What IS the metric for this. Do you actually understand what you're saying when you use the word 'metric'?



“All of those things lead to a really exciting competition ..."

What's this ALL of those things? You only really mentioned one thing....close games! What other metrics (and comparison measures) are you going to provide?


As TM alludes to, it's all well and good to say the changes are successful, but you've only spoken about one measure.... close scores..... which wasn't mentioned as an aim before hand ..... and is in DIRECT CONTRAST to the REAL measure you publicly spruiked as your goal - MORE SCORING! The success of close games is ALWAYS going to mean lower scores. BUT higher scoring was ALWAYS the aim. Do they now finally understand what I've been harping on about for ages? They want shootout goal fests every game, which just aint' gonna happen very often in a even comp in a game that relies heavily on defensive strategy to win .

So then SHocking - what of the main metric aim of higher scoring? How's that working out for ya? And if you do get those high scores, let me know how the close score metric is faring then. #Blightwatch


"...most of the work we’re doing as a committee is based around off-field.”

Eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
18,606
509
yeah still making it up as he goes along. He thinks the glasses and the suit and a few words like 'metrics' will do it. He wouldn't know a metric if he fell over one.
 

jb03

Tiger Legend
Jan 28, 2004
26,738
536
Melbourne
"metrics". How is that even defined, it can mean whatever you want it to mean if you don't tell anyway.
 

Al Bundy

Premiers 2017 ! Go Tiges in 2019 !
Aug 27, 2003
6,542
136
RFC
I think SHocking is being surround by those now missing behavioral officers that didnt exist and told by the AFL what to read out. :)
 

TT33

GO TIGES!!!
Feb 17, 2004
3,754
207
Melbourne
The rule changes have been very successful if you like watching boring footy.
If you like good footy they've been a total failure.
 

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
18,430
632
Wrestle, wrestle, shuffle, shuffle. rummage,rummage. Oh ****! There's two minutes to go, CHAAAAARRRRGGGGE. Think that sums up most games since they frigged around with the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
18,430
632
3AW: Would you ever go on the commission Neil?

Neil Balm: I don't think I'm ever be going to be going that bad.
Says it all doesn't it. Close to fifty years involved in all aspects of footy n obviously not much respect for the flogs in suits at H.Q.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Blightwatch - last 50 years:

Round 19 - 84.4 (13th/50)
Round 18 - 82.8 (5th/50)
Round 17 - 76.9 (2nd/50)
Round 16 - 81.2 (9th/50)
Round 15 - 74.3 (3rd/50)
Round 14 - 77.5 (5th/50)
Round 13 - 86.6 (18th/50)
Round 12 - 78.2 (6th/50)
Round 11 - 82.3 (4th/50)
Round 10 - 75.2 (2nd/50)
Round 9 - 82.4 (4th/50)
Round 8 - 79.7 (3rd/50)
Round 7 - 77.4 (1st/50)
Round 6 - 80.8 (2nd/50)
Round 5 - 84.8 (6th/50)
Round 4 - 75.3 (1st/50)
Round 3 - 88.4 (6th/50)
Round 2 - 81.2 (1st/50)
Round 1 - 78.7 (1st/50)

Round 1-19 - 80.4 (1st/50)

The low of 75.5 occurred in 1994, when Brereton broke Tony Free's jaw on a drizzly MCG.