New Rule's

[jb03]

In JLT games they said the average Coast to Coast goals had halved from previous year. As you say too early to call but signs are there that scores will be lower this year.

Could be that it is now far easier to the ball to the wing but harder to go coast to coast.

 

[TigerForce]

To Gestapo Gill and Shocking. Bring back the runners and stop *smile* up this game.

 

[frickenel]

The kick out rule looks like it's counter productive .
The player on the Mark is basically standing in the same position as last year. If the kicker wa ts to take advantage of the extra space he has to go towards either of the boundary lines, where the ball often gets trapped.
Bugger all kick outs are now going up the guts which is probably why so far there are less coast to coast scores so far.

 

[Smoking Aces]

To Gestapo Gill and Shocking. Bring back the runners and stop *smile*ing up this game.

The no runners is a farce. How does this improve the game?

Only thing it does is have 4 players on the sidelines screaming to come back on.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

125 goals in six games (10.4 per team)

94 goals need to be kicked tomorrow to avoid the lowest return for an opening round (12.2) since waterlogged 1965.

 

[graystar1]

Thought the new rules were to improve scoring.

So far, as at today, only one team has kicked over the 100 points, and that was Brisbane.

We are next at 97, but the next highest were Port and Hawks both on 87.

So, how are the new rules increasing the scoring rate??

 

[nqtiger]

125 goals in six games (10.4 per team)

94 goals need to be kicked tomorrow to avoid the lowest return for an opening round (12.2) since waterlogged 1965.

Get ready for another rule change........16 on the field ala VFA

 

[Willo]

Get ready for another rule change........16 on the field ala VFA

Just double the width of the goal posts

 

[seven]

Waiting for the usual jackass journalists to come out and say the game is broken.

 

[gold1]

Get ready for another rule change........16 on the field ala VFA

IMO should have been introduced a long time ago.Used to watch the VFA on a Sunday and always thought it was more open and quicker.

 

[tigertim]

IMO should have been introduced a long time ago.Used to watch the VFA on a Sunday and always thought it was more open and quicker.

Same. I don’t think we need 36 players on the field.

 

[Tenacious]

Thought the new rules were to improve scoring.

So far, as at today, only one team has kicked over the 100 points, and that was Brisbane.

We are next at 97, but the next highest were Port and Hawks both on 87.

So, how are the new rules increasing the scoring rate??

Improved scoring wasn't the issue for me - I just hated seeing 20-30 players within a kick of the ball - and then when half the ground was left completely vacant.
To me the game was becoming too congested and frankly unenjoyable to watch.
I already love 6-6-6 just for forcing that even spread of players across the ground from goal square to goal square - albeit at centre bounces.
But it's a better look than having 7 defenders starting on 5 forwards in each half at centre bounces.
Obviously it doesn't guarantee to stop the congestion at other stages - but it's a good start.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Nobody asked for the changes, crowds were at a seven-year high. The AFL just got greedy.

When you've got your highest-scoring teams of 2018 kicking 58, 61, 65, 72 on firm grounds, you've stuffed it. Not forgetting that we scored nine goals in the last 102 minutes.

The likes of Whateley are now obligated to continue murmuring their discontent.

 

[Tigermad2005]

Got love only one team scoring over a 100 pts.

 

[TigerForce]

The no runners is a farce. How does this improve the game?

Only thing it does is have 4 players on the sidelines screaming to come back on.

Yep. What is the point waiting for a goal to be scored if the coach wants to send out an urgent message??

Bring them back on ground. If they cause an infringement, then it's a free to the opposition team. Simple.

 

[taztiger4]

I think the runners restriction is the best of the lot.

I can't think of many professional sports where players are coached on the ground during the game. Not having them looks a lot better and the ground being less cluttered can only be good for the game.

There's no doubt they are used to influence visual perception of space on the ground by some teams.

agree, the ground / game looks a hell of a lot cleaner

 

[Tenacious]

agree, the ground / game looks a hell of a lot cleaner

Spot on!

 

[Tiger44]

The one rule that needs looking at is from last years batch. The sliding in and taking the legs out has gone OTT. Smart players are seeing an opportunity to dive over a player on the ground and getting a free for it. Think Pendlebury tweeted during the Dogs v Swans game that the only player who should get a free is the player first to the ball who gets his legs taken out from him - makes sense to me.

T44

ps Of course the Dogs exploited and got the benefit of this ruling.

 

[TigerForce]

I think the runners restriction is the best of the lot.

I can't think of many professional sports where players are coached on the ground during the game. Not having them looks a lot better and the ground being less cluttered can only be good for the game.

There's no doubt they are used to influence visual perception of space on the ground by some teams.

I think teams are gonna use players coming on field as runners soon enough.

 

[ninjahaha]

Improved scoring wasn't the issue for me - I just hated seeing 20-30 players within a kick of the ball - and then when half the ground was left completely vacant.

I was a loud advocate for leave the game alone! However Friday night not watching clusters of 30-30 played clog the ball in one pocket made the game and the ground open up.

This makes the new rues a winner in my book so far anyway.

Time will tell!