Lindrum/Tigers: Were the new rule changes brought in to curtail Richmond's dominance?

[The Warlord]

The rules of billiards were famously changed to curtail Walter Lindrum's dominance of the sport.

Was the same done to bring the Tigers back to the pack?

The Tiges had the comp by the throat with their patented fast break play.

Now any decently coached side with suitable players on the list can do what the Tiges did - and possibly even better.

Did the AFL change the rules to stop Richmond killing interest in the game with their unchallenged success?

 

[bzparkes]

For this thread NOT to be started by a Richmond supporters astounds me.

No, it was to stop the boring flooding and rolling packs done by many teams.
Because more goals = more FTA ad breaks which means more broadcast revenue.

Has made the game more exciting to watch though.

 

[Kwality]

The rules of billiards were famously changed to curtail Walter Lindrum's dominance of the sport.

Was the same done to bring the Tigers back to the pack?

The Tiges had the comp by the throat with their patented fast break play.

Now any decently coached side with suitable players on the list can do what the Tiges did - and possibly even better.

Did the AFL change the rules to stop Richmond killing interest in the game with their unchallenged success?

No different to the Hawks?

 

[kaiserchief13]

They changed the rules to make games better viewing with more goals. The way Richmond played over the past 4-5 years is not meant to be how the game should be played

 

[Kwality]

For this thread NOT to be started by a Richmond supporters astounds me.

No, it was to stop the boring flooding and rolling packs done by many teams.
Because more goals = more FTA ad breaks which means more broadcast revenue.

Has made the game more exciting to watch though.

More revenue from FTA, big ask.

 

[The Warlord]

They changed the rules to make games better viewing with more goals. The way Richmond played over the past 4-5 years is not meant to be how the game should be played

 

[RUNVS]

No. Congestion has been a huge problem for years and the AFL have been trying to fix it for years. Just pure luck they have done a much better job of it with the latest batch of rule changes. Nothing to do with Richmond though.

 

[kaiserchief13]

View attachment 1093681

The game is meant to be open, free flowing with big marks. Richmonds style is hold, tackle and try and force a turnover then rush the ball forward like a rugby game

 

[banzai]

People bring up the new rules now after any upset. We would have been smashed yesterday under any set of rules.

 

[eggtardo]

The game is meant to be open, free flowing with big marks. Richmonds style is hold, tackle and try and force a turnover then rush the ball forward like a rugby game

The game isn't 'meant' to be anything.

 

[Back One Out]

Did the AFL change the rules to stop Richmond killing interest in the game with their unchallenged success?

They changed the hands in the back rules too which has given Tom Hawkins a new lease of life, late in his career

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

People bring up the new rules now after any upset. We would have been smashed yesterday under any set of rules.

If anything Richmond was beaten at thier own game.

 

[Ricketz]

The rules of billiards were famously changed to curtail Walter Lindrum's dominance of the sport.

Was the same done to bring the Tigers back to the pack?

The Tiges had the comp by the throat with their patented fast break play.

Now any decently coached side with suitable players on the list can do what the Tiges did - and possibly even better.

Did the AFL change the rules to stop Richmond killing interest in the game with their unchallenged success?

This doesn't make much sense to me. They wouldn't try to curtail Richmond by making it easier to play a Richmond game style. Thats the equivalent of trying to use petrol to put a fire out.

My reckoning is that due to the rigours of last season, the top four teams are well behind the pace of teams that had an early finish. That just magnifies the effect of the rule changes against them.

I would fully expect those teams to level out and adjust to the new rules.

 

[Tugga27]

I think you're right.
Richmond have lost one in a row.

Put a line through them

 

[Daka]

I don't like the rule, I said it from the beginning it's the other way too much, now the game is too free flowing you will never those tough contest finals anymore it will always be back n forth, if they just reduced the interchange more it would have opened it up.

 

[kaiserchief13]

The game isn't 'meant' to be anything.

Yeah it is because afl had more viewers in 90s and early 2000s than now. Reason is why?

 

[eggtardo]

Yeah it is because afl had more viewers in 90s and early 2000s than now. Reason is why?

Did it really?

 

[Lsta062]

Definitely not surprising if they did tbh. However, it is not necessarily because the AFL don’t want Richmond specifically dominating because they don’t like them (the AFL is basically impartial to all clubs). It’s more about Richmond’s style of play and the effect it had on the competition because that is exactly what fans (the primary consumers) have been complaining about for years (even before Richmond played like this).

The main reasons why I think that they brought in rule changes that go against us specifically (man on the mark, 6-6-6 etc.) are two:

1. Richmond’s style does not encourage scoring across the competition. Just because Richmond can score in finals and look good playing that pressure style doesn’t mean that everyone else can. So many teams emulated the way we play and it was borderline unwatchable at times.

2. Richmond’s style does not promote the execution of good skills. It makes the competition too focused on negating good skills rather than building it up.

While the changes are not part of a “let’s screw Richmond” movement, I wouldn’t be surprised that the way Richmond in 2017-2020 and Bulldogs in 2016 played initiated the conversations surrounding the rules in order to address the core issues impacting the game (i.e. the consumers not liking the product). I liken these changes as a response to Richmond like the AFL changing the NGA bidding rules after Western Bulldogs got Jamarra Ugle-Hagan. How? Well their goal is a more equal draft and a finalist getting JUH with pick 1 doesn’t exactly scream equality. In terms of the game, their objective is to make the game more appealing to fans and Richmond’s gamestyle isn’t helping when implemented across basically the whole league. Our games were OK to watch for me, but having more than half of the competition playing that way was just not entertaining.

TL;DR version - It kinda was because of Richmond, but kinda not too.
- The AFL is interested in making the game more watchable and attractive for fans.
- Richmond (2017-2020) and Bulldogs (2016) winning the Premiership led the game in a direction where it became less appealing.
- Consumers complained a lot about the borderline unwatchable state of the game.
- The AFL implemented rules to try and make it more appealing that went against the way Richmond played.

 

[maskmcgee]

I don't like the rule

And you're a Richmond supporter, so the opposite of what you say is true.

 

[Shane Heard]

It’s the final nail in the coffin of the Paul Roos/Swans inspired flood-a-rama style of coaching that spread through the league like a plague for the last 15 years.

Roos started it back in 2002 when he began his coach tenure at Sydney a d for 10 years stuck to the same formula.

Others copied.

This era is now dead.

 

[The Warlord]

Definitely not surprising if they did tbh. However, it is not necessarily because the AFL don’t want Richmond specifically dominating because they don’t like them (the AFL is basically impartial to all clubs). It’s more about Richmond’s style of play and the effect it had on the competition because that is exactly what fans (the primary consumers) have been complaining about for years (even before Richmond played like this).

The main reasons why I think that they brought in rule changes that go against us specifically (man on the mark, 6-6-6 etc.) are two:

1. Richmond’s style does not encourage scoring across the competition. Just because Richmond can score in finals and look good playing that pressure style doesn’t mean that everyone else can. So many teams emulated the way we play and it was borderline unwatchable at times.

2. Richmond’s style does not promote the execution of good skills. It makes the competition too focused on negating good skills rather than building it up.

While the changes are not part of a “let’s screw Richmond” movement, I wouldn’t be surprised that the way Richmond in 2017-2020 and Bulldogs in 2016 played initiated the conversations surrounding the rules in order to address the core issues impacting the game (i.e. the consumers not liking the product). I liken these changes as a response to Richmond like the AFL changing the NGA bidding rules after Western Bulldogs got Jamarra Ugle-Hagan. How? Well their goal is a more equal draft and a finalist getting JUH with pick 1 doesn’t exactly scream equality. In terms of the game, their objective is to make the game more appealing to fans and Richmond’s gamestyle isn’t helping when implemented across basically the whole league. Our games were OK to watch for me, but having more than half of the competition playing that way was just not entertaining.

TL;DR version - It kinda was because of Richmond, but kinda not too.
- The AFL is interested in making the game more watchable and attractive for fans.
- Richmond (2017-2020) and Bulldogs (2016) winning the Premiership led the game in a direction where it became less appealing.
- Consumers complained a lot about the borderline unwatchable state of the game.
- The AFL implemented rules to try and make it more appealing that went against the way Richmond played.

Really good post although only supporters of Big Rich Clubs That Get Armchair Rides could ever believe the bolded.

 

[The Warlord]

It’s the final nail in the coffin of the Paul Roos/Swans inspired flood-a-rama style of coaching that spread through the league like a plague for the last 15 years.

Roos started it back in 2002 when he began his coach tenure at Sydney a d for 10 years stuck to the same formula.

Others copied.

This era is now dead.

Did Roos start it?

My view is that the Eade coached Dogs kind of lucked into inventing it in 2000 when they beat you in that game and Roos has gone ... hang on.

Also and any Freo supporters reading feel free to correct me, but I read somewhere that Ric Charlesworth said to maybe Chris Connolly, one of the Freo coaches back in the day, here's how you win Freo a flag:

* You aim to win 9 goals to 5 or 6.

* You do this by playing 14 men behind the ball with 4 forwards at most

* You ensure you're fitter and have the bigger bodies so you score the 3 decisive goals in the last quarter

* You accept this style will be hugely unpopular, that the media and the governing body will try and stop you, and probably will change the rules

The Freo coach couldn't do it because the board wanted fast flowing attacking footy to get crowds.

Reckon Roos just saw what the Dogs did in 2000, and he's the kind of guy who'd be aware of what the likes of Charlesworth are saying ,and has gone, well, AFL House isn't going to get shirty with me if I'm getting their baby into Grand Finals and winning them.

But yes, agreed this era is now dead.

What replaces it will be interesting.

 

[Billys Back]

For this thread NOT to be started by a Richmond supporters astounds me.

No, it was to stop the boring flooding and rolling packs done by many teams.
Because more goals = more FTA ad breaks which means more broadcast revenue.

Has made the game more exciting to watch though.

If it wasn’t from a Richmond supporter, it had to be from a North supporter. For they are a sad folk bereft of self esteem.

 

[The Warlord]

If it wasn’t from a Richmond supporter, it had to be from a North supporter. For they are a sad folk bereft of self esteem.

What does this even mean?

 

[DrEvil_]

Yeah it is because afl had more viewers in 90s and early 2000s than now. Reason is why?

The internet. People have more entertainment options nowadays.