It's official, Hocking and the AFL are dumb-arsed, half-baked clowns who are trying to stuff the game

[123cups]

He actually stated that he’s trying to take defensive pressure out of the game; our hallmark!!!
It’s called the anti-Richmond rule change.
Fatigue players so they can’t apply sustained defensive pressure. Open the game up to a chip and mark Geelong game plan.
More Dusty moments? What an imbecile

As others have said, the funny thing is the longer quarters and extra fatigue will increase mistakes.

These yearly anti-Richmond rule changes only seem to make us harder to beat.

If a pandemic couldn’t stop us, Hocking’s rule changes certainly won’t.

 

[Tigaman]

This is for 2021 so what will this goose Shocking come up with for 2022 ?. Besides that who is complaining ?. Why complain when this season was an absolute gem as they got it done despite COVID-19. The finals session a cracker too. The one metre on the mark rule so how is a umpire going adjudicate that. SHocking has added into that rule a " level of tolerance " which indicates when the umpy pings some one for that he cannot be challenged for that as he only has the "level of tolerance" not the player.

 

[DavidSSS]

The explanation for the mark being 15 metres away for the kick in after a point is that they want the player kicking in to play on more often. It is called a kick in for a reason, 10 metres was plenty. In any case, this was introduced at the start of 2020 so hasn't been tried in a normal season. Leave it alone.

Not being able to move more than a metre sideways on the mark is just mind numbingly stupid. So the player with the free kick or mark can move sideways but the player on the mark can't? Silly. But I presume the other player 2mm behind the player on the mark can go wherever they want. Plus, which of these players is on the mark, how do they work that out (do they have to nominate like the ruck ). How about when a free is paid or a mark taken and the closest player runs off while another player goes on the mark, are they moving sideways to get to the mark, is that a 50m penalty? This is a nightmare to adjudicate. The umpires are already very very very inconsistent in calling play on, one minute they call play on when a player moves 1mm off the line, the next minute a player goes for a wander and it isn't called. Leave it alone.

Less rotations, meh, don't think it will make much difference. If they were serious about this they would have 3 on the bench.

The absolute worst rule of them all is the trial a minimum number of players in each 50m arc at throw ins and kick ins. This is to be trialled in the replacement for the VFL. Australian Rules Football has always had no offside, no set positions. This is why it is unique and uniquely exciting. This is what makes Australian Rules Football the 360 degree game it uniquely is. This mooted change is simply bulls**t. It changes the whole nature of the game. What, are we going to wait for players who have to move around when the ball goes out of bounds or a behind is scored? Why? Do they think they can fit an ad break in the time this will waste? Plus, what will this cause? It will mean those exciting pieces of play where one team causes a turnover and streams down the ground to score will be blocked. Just how the f*** will this increase scoring? It will do the opposite while disrupting the flow of the game. Leave it alone.

At least they have dropped the arrant stupidity of reducing the length of the quarters. Thank your deity of choice for small mercies.

DS

 

[bob]

That rule suits us.
20 minutes qtrs, less Interchange
God help the opposition after half time against us.
We are the fittest and have a team full of endurance beasts.
Our percentage next year might hit the 200's...

I'm not sure they have finalised the length of quarters back to 20 mins. Zippadeee. Reckon they will land somewhere in the middle. Maybe 18 min quarters.

I think less rotations may suit us too compared to a seriously old and slow team like Geelong - although some of our quality endurance players (Lambert, Houli, Edwards) are getting older too.

High endurance wingers who can rotate in the midfield may be more important than ever. Together with versatile midfield players who can play in more than one position - centre, HF and HB - will also be more important I think.

Whether it suits us or not, its just the fact of more, unnecessary changes by the AFL and Hocking that should have everyone up in arms.

 

[blx]

Wow.

Don't mind the changes to the interchange but its these little tweaks that worry me.

Is this petty Witches Hat rule another indicator that the AFL are changing the game to enable them to meet their ad quota.

We already have the insanely stupid 'protected area' rule that equates to a freebie goal - or if not a substantial opportunity for one.

Will there be an equally petty law next year?

The gradual introduction of change is now a well used corporate and political strategy.

It is no surprise that encumbering the game with more 'discretionable' opportunities goes hand in hand with the mandate of accommodating the Network.

The most horrifying spectre is that this deliberate ruse always works, even to the point where the AFL will candidly admit their reasoning and by then, everyone will be fine with it.

Any guesses on next years new 50m penalty are welcome.

 

[Sintiger]

There is no game in the world that constantly has the rules changed like Aussie rules.

Just stop

 

[go polo]

if clubs recruit players with better skills and have a game plan that goes forward and quick rather slow possession football. If holding the ball and incorrect disposal is paid more would move the ball, and more importantly if sets shots improve scoring would increase.

 

[mjb]

Collingwood will need a new defensive tactic as they can’t substitute Cox for the man on the mark when the opposition is having a shot for goal anymore.

 

[TT33]

This just gets dumber & dumberer

 

[caesar]

HA HA, thanks jb.

The changes are generally just dumb, but the man on the mark rule has got me furious. Stuffing with the fabric of the game, for what?

Hocking: 'how about we turn the man on the mark into a witches hat?' then they can get around them and kick over them easier", other AFL overpaid hack: "great idea Steve-o, you're onto something I reckon".

you cannot make this *smile* up.

Were going to post exactly the same thing before I read your post Snake, Richmond are kings at guarding the corridor and manning the mark being in an opposition face, it is actually a drill trained at Richmond. Why does the AFL want to take the pressure out of the game, that what's the games all about.
As for the zoning trial that will never get up.
Why haven't they changed the ruck nomination rule, just throw the bloody thing up straight away to get game moving.
Interchange reduction fine by me.

 

[Brodders17]

maybe just dont have anyone on the mark, but a defender 1mt behind it.

Whats to stop players standing 0.5m-1m behind the mark and stand off the line of the mark? I'm guessing nothing, so what does this rule change achieve?

You may well have just found the first loophole.

Just to be clear, I found the 1st loophole.

 

[Brodders17]

I think it is about stopping the players moving sideways to cut off the angles into the corridor and force the kicker to head down the line.

Players are generally instructed to take the mark inside as much as they can.

I don't mind that so much or the kick in mark but hate the reduced rotations. The only logical outcome of that is more injured players.

Maybe coaches will just to stop expecting their players to run half marathons every week.- though that may just lead to more players sitting behind the ball.

 

[eZyT]

Agree with the thread title jb

And hate gratuitous rule changes

The arrogance of the notion of 'we' creating more time and space, like they are Stephen Hawking.

But objectively and pragmatically,

These rules will make us even further ahead of the comp.

They are chaos rules, mandated directional change and more tired players.

Bring it on.

 

[artball]

Agree with the thread title jb

And hate gratuitous rule changes

The arrogance of the notion of 'we' creating more time and space, like they are Stephen Hawking.

But objectively and pragmatically,

These rules will make us even further ahead of the comp.

They are chaos rules, mandated directional change and more tired players.

Bring it on.

yep, some of the language in it ! Hocking referring to himself as "custodian" kills me ...

 

[Baloo]

Just to be clear, I found the 1st loophole.

You may have blurted it out here first, but some of us had identified that loophole a lot earlier but were keeping it quiet so Buckley wouldn't find out.

 

[wigglyworm]

The man on mark rule will be the first the coaches take advantage from.
Players won't man the mark forcing the umpire to call play on and then its back to the mess it has always been.
There's no rule for not manning the mark.

Agree - Player asks where the mark is. They mark the line. They stand a further 50 cm back from the mark and then they can do what ever they want? Its that screwy really

 

[BT Tiger]

Is there isn't a definition as to where the "mark" ends? If a player is standing 1 metre back from the exact spot, are they still manning the mark? What about 1.5 metres? 2 metres? 5 metres?

It doesn't sound this rule change has been thought through.

I have no problem with the reduced rotations, but I definitely have a problem with forcing players back to their position at the start of every stoppage.

 

[Willo]

I wonder why Shocking hasnt thought about doubling the goal width

 

[Harry]

Just reward a 50m with every free kick and mark. That should increase the number of goals and number of ads.

 

[Quickdraw]

I wonder why Shocking hasnt thought about doubling the goal width

Careful, willo. They may be listening.