AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking has explained the reasons why the competition has opted to tinker with some rules for the 2021 season.<\/p>\n
Interchange rotations have been slashed from 90 to 75 and there has also been a standing the mark rule introduced which has already prompted plenty of discussion.<\/p>\n
When asked what the decrease in rotations will give the game, Hocking said the main idea was to help find a \u201cbetter balance between attack and defence\u201d through player fatigue.<\/p>\n
\u201cQuite clearly where we\u2019ve seen with rotations previously, we\u2019ve continued to go up,\u201d he said on SEN Breakfast.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne of the things to come out of 2020 was the learnings. There was no adjustment to rotations as the game was shortened.<\/p>\n
\u201cAll of that extra energy was put further into defence. What we\u2019re trying to do is get a better balance between attack and defence.<\/p>\n
\u201cGet a bit more space back into the game. We\u2019re essentially talking about fatigue here. An element of fatigue, all of it working together.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo it\u2019s not in isolation only going from 90 down to 75. The thing that we\u2019ve recognised is with the system being as developed and as mature as what it is, we haven\u2019t gone from 90 to a much lower number. We\u2019ve just gone down to 75 because it gives the competition the opportunity to adapt to that over time.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re finely tuned athletes and they\u2019ll adapt. We think with the kicking change with the guy standing the mark, the return to 20-minute quarters and this, all of it working together is about finding a better balance between attack and defence.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hocking was also adamant that these changes, while perhaps controversial in their infancy, will eventually embed themselves in the game quite naturally just as the 6-6-6 rule has.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat we\u2019re hoping to see is just more space, and just that balance,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou never want to swing it too far one way. That\u2019s our role as custodians of the game, is to make sure the levers we are pulling doesn\u2019t send it too far in the direction you don\u2019t want it to go.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese are smaller adjustments to the game and I think personally the best decision making of all is when the fans show up to the game and there\u2019s something different about it but they can\u2019t actually pinpoint what it is.\u201d<\/p>\n
Speaking specifically about a 50-metre penalty being the sanction for the man on the mark impeding, which many have already labelled as too harsh, Hocking explained why he believes the crime fits the punishment.<\/p>\n
Calls for 25-metre penalties have been raised, but Hocking insists the 50-metre penalty is appropriate.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was something that was raised,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut the actual laws of the game are 50-metre penalties. So it’s really been about implementing that and staying with that. That’s what we’re all used to.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere has to be a reasonable size penalty. One of the things we\u2019ve got to remember around the introduction of this rule is the delay and the pressure that comes from a guy standing on the mark.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe 50-metre penalty, if you do move laterally, that\u2019s the transgression and that\u2019s what\u2019s within the laws of the game so that\u2019s what we\u2019re applying.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n