Carlton Supporters Club

“We had a lot of rule changes in the off-season designed to increase scoring,” Cometti said. “Well, after four rounds, I can tell you we’re losing ground here because currently the average team score is 81 points a game. The last time it was lower was 1967.

“In this season so far, teams have scored over 100 points 14 times — the same time last year, we had the number at 26.”

Interesting Lods, but that has to be seen in the context of low scoring games across the board, as Dennis Cometti points out:

Are our gains actual, or a product of the rule changes?  I suspect that our defence is a lot more effective than it was last season.  Although our forward line looks dysfunctional, it can’t be too bad if we’re matching last year’s scores - unless everyone else has been dragged down to our level 

Lets look at in relation to other sides.

We're 18th best for "points for"
But 11th best for "points conceded"....last year we were last.
So yes, we're considerably better

As for the forward line....all they're matching is the worst performance by a Carlton attack since we went to  22 game season.
It's bad!

Lets look at in relation to other sides.

We're 18th best for "points for"
But 11th best for "points conceded"....last year we were last.
So yes, we're considerably better

As for the forward line....all they're matching is the worst performance by a Carlton attack since we went to  22 game season.
It's bad!

Interesting Lods, but that has to be seen in the context of low scoring games across the board, as Dennis Cometti points out:

Are our gains actual, or a product of the rule changes?  I suspect that our defence is a lot more effective than it was last season.  Although our forward line looks dysfunctional, it can’t be too bad if we’re matching last year’s scores - unless everyone else has been dragged down to our level 

Can I just say, that the tinkering of the rules is doing more harm than good (its a position I have held for years)?? Yes, rule changes generally produce counter-intuitive results and often fail to give appropriate credit for coaches’ ability to develop tactics to negate the changes.

How do we expect a young inexperienced team get better in a situation where the game is transformed every year by rule changes??I’m not sure that rule changes have much impact; younger players will make poor decisions regardless of the rules.  Perhaps a more pertinent question is how do we expect supporters to appreciate the game when the AFL is constantly attempting to transform it?


Geelong are going to win a flag, because they keep having a team of experienced players, with a solid foundation of game plan and culture, which is conducive to being best able to make minor tweaks to take advantage of said rule changes.I’m not sure that they will win the flag but they do have a well-balanced list and plenty of depth.  In fact, they are considerably better than I thought.  Of course, they do have a considerable home ground advantage on their side too!

Rules don't affect one's ability to execute BASIC SKILLS.

Let's get the basics sorted before we address the nuances?

Yes and no.

I.e. The experienced sides are better able to adjust, because all they have to change where they are kicking under pressure.

Yes, it's clear rules can affect the threshold which determines a basic skill non-linearly. There are many who were OK under the old rules who have quickly become unacceptable, this seems to be the driving force behind coaching tactics.

So exposed is the fact that the megalomaniac coaches are nowhere near as good at teaching athletes to kick the football as they claim. The game tactics confirm this, it's like an admission of guilt or inability!