Rule Changes - Chicken & Egg Theory

[Spirit of Jack]

The rule changes being put up for discussion by the AFL are overly simplistic. ie Increasing minimum kick distance from 15 to 20m and no kicking backwards in the back half.

We have two problems with modern footy, 1) flooding and 2) the possession game. What causes what? The way the game has evolved the former has caused the latter, (but it could very easily be the other way around).

The rule changes address the latter, in this case the effect rather than the cause. So we stop the possession game and thereby encourage flooding because teams will now be forced to kick into a flood more often than they do today.

Therefore the rule changes proposed have the potential to make the game worse than it is today. Any rule changes must address both the major blights on modern footy, rather than tackling one in isolation - especially if that one is just a symptom of the other.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Possession footy began with the great Hawthorn sides of the 80s and was based on the sound logic that, if you've got the ball, the opposition haven't. Flooding became a tactic to counter the more skilful sides.

The proposed rules might prompt some teams not to flood so hard and to maintain at least some pressure on the ball carrier as the opposition moves the ball from the backline. Interesting to see if the proposals are passed and if so, what eventuates.

 

[Tigers of Old]

The rule changes being put up for discussion by the AFL are overly simplistic. ie Increasing minimum kick distance from 15 to 20m and no kicking backwards in the back half.

Surprisingly I'm all for those changes. I actually think they'll both improve the game substantially.

It'll put a lot more pressure on defenders though.

Imagine not having the option of kicking backwards when you get in a sticky situation?

 

[Spirit of Jack]

Possession footy began with the great Hawthorn sides of the 80s and was based on the sound logic that, if you've got the ball, the opposition haven't. Flooding became a tactic to counter the more skilful sides.

The proposed rules might prompt some teams not to flood so hard and to maintain at least some pressure on the ball carrier as the opposition moves the ball from the backline. Interesting to see if the proposals are passed and if so, what eventuates.

Nothing like the possession footy as it is played today, that was definately the result of flooding. See the Collingwood v Adelaide game at the start of the season as the perfect example. Richmond v Adelaide took it to another level again.

I say the new rules could encourage the flood (if the team is that way inclined) because you now have less ways to counter it - ie no longer able to hold onto the ball for a long period until an opportunity eventually presents itself. This must advantage the flooding team, hence flooding should become more prevalent.

 

[Spirit of Jack]

The rule changes being put up for discussion by the AFL are overly simplistic.  ie Increasing minimum kick distance from 15 to 20m and no kicking backwards in the back half.

Surprisingly I'm all for those changes. I actually think they'll both improve the game substantially.

It'll put a lot more pressure on defenders though.

Imagine not having the option of kicking backwards when you get in a sticky situation?

I'm not entirely against them, ostensibly they appear to make alot of sense. However for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and I think the rule makers should think very carefully.

 

[D85]

i think they should go back to how the game was played in the mid 90's myself.

im of the opinion that everything comes in cycles, eventually the game will work itself out, but if the afl keep on changing the rules EVERY season

pretty soon the only thing that will resemble the game we love will be the oval shaped ball(till they think that maybe a rounder ball will make it easier for spectators to see, or soemthing ridiculous like that)

 

[interested]

I hate the idea of the 'no kicking backwards rule'. Whats next? The basketball rule of you can't take it back beyong the halfway line once you've moved it into your attacking half? This is becoming ridiculous IMO.

 

[Al Bundy]

i think they should go back to how the game was played in the mid 90's myself.

im of the opinion that everything comes in cycles, eventually the game will work itself out, but if the afl keep on changing the rules EVERY season

pretty soon the only thing that will resemble the game we love will be the oval shaped ball(till they think that maybe a rounder ball will make it easier for spectators to see, or soemthing ridiculous like that)

Totally agree & add they should just leave the rules alone for another season & let see how it evolves.

There has been less flooding this year and it the possession games have mainly come when weak sides play good sides. To counter the possession game teams have to man up thats why I believe they should leave it for another season while teams organise better game plans are introduced to counter it when teams use these tactics.

I hate the idea of the 'no kicking backwards rule'. Whats next? The basketball rule of you can't take it back beyong the halfway line once you've moved it into your attacking half? This is becoming ridiculous IMO.

Interested totally agree. That suggest rule change is totally crap if introduced. Our game is unique. I will add, watch out if they introduce the zone areas (50m arcs) with only so many players allowed in.

 

[GoodOne]

Nothing like the possession footy as it is played today, that was definately the result of flooding.  See the Collingwood v Adelaide game at the start of the season as the perfect example.  Richmond v Adelaide took it to another level again.

Still maintain that the Richmond v Adelaide match was possession football on the Tigers part in the backline because Adelaide would not go man on man. This new rule of not being able to kick backwards would have to an extent prevented Richmond doing what we did for so long. Changing from 15 to 20 metres will make no difference. Umpires are already so incinsistent on that rule (you see 8metre kicks get paid, and 20 metre kicks not).

 

[blx]

We have two problems with modern footy, 1) flooding and 2) the possession game.

maybe the plan should be to sack the rules commitee and leave the F'n game alone.

whatever rules are made coaching departments will find a way to counter it with another tactic. NO amount of rule changing is gonna change this fact.

your chicken and egg theory is right on the button but i think its not the actual rules that are applied that is the problem, its the fact that a new rule (whatever it is) is applied in the first place and so starts the endless rotation of counter tactics.

 

[chislop]

Agree Mav and blx - this constant fiddling with the rules is mighty irritating. It would be fantastic if the rules committee could leave things alone long enough to see how they pan out over a couple of seasons, but Vlad and his mates have set a precedent on the modern game, i.e. if you can't actually play the game then make damn sure that you make your mark in some other way. Its all about ego and self aggrandisement.

Perhaps we can all put some money and send the rules committee some play stations to keep their minds occupied.