The Game, the Press and the future

[Fork 'em 6,505]

4 hours ago, bingers said:

It possibly has only marginal relevance to this thread, but does anyone else think that Bjorn from Abba looks like a big rat?

A big lucky rat that got to fork Agnetha.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Fork 'em

[DaveyDee 421]

6 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

See Dank.

Exactly , but have faith he went above and beyond normal legal practices- and I would say from what I’ve seen was a lone wolf. 

Edited May 6, 2018 by DaveyDee

[daisycutter 28,427]

6 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Exactly , but have faith he went above and beyond normal legal practices- and I would say from what I’ve seen was a lone wolf. 

lol, how naive can you get

must be a lot of "lone wolves" in world sport and afl is not an island

[sue 8,402]

A simple way to reduce the number of boundary throw-ins (very slightly) - drop the rule that says you must control the ball before it goes over the boundary to be paid a mark, so a second grab is OK.  (ditto for marks on the goal line perhaps, perhaps not) . Can't see what bad effect it could have on the game, so zero cost for a small improvement.

[Diamond_Jim 11,670]

Gil now floating the idea of the ball player being further discouraged by reduction of the prior opportunity rule.

Can just see the plays of the future ... six players stand around looking at the ball daring each other to pick it up.

I am a big fan of it going the other way... the opportunity must be real not just a stumble forward or the like.

"AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan favours a weakening of the "prior opportunity'' rule for the player with the ball, in the belief that this will reduce congestion and inconsistency in umpiring holding the ball calls."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-boss-wants-less-prior-opportunity-for-holding-the-ball-decisions-20180509-p4ze7b.html

[SFebes 4,692]

So...Hawks trial some new rule changes on Saturday, Clarko and Gil seem thick as thieves.

Proposed changes are having a certain number number of players in forward and back 50's when there's a stoppage, throw in/ball up or goal. Unsure if waiting for all the players to get in their zone before a ball up is going to be fast?

I'm all for tradition and umpiring the game properly and balling it up quicker. unsure where our game is going, but seems to be losing it's tradition. So many rule changes, going to look very different next year I think.

Edited June 14, 2018 by SFebey

[deebug 1,754]

Well Gil, the first thing you should be doing is fixing these bias umpires before, you stuff up our game any further!

[SFebes 4,692]

2 minutes ago, deebug said:

Well Gil, the first thing you should be doing is fixing these bias umpires before, you stuff up our game any further!

He needs to go, well that's my opinion.

[trout 385]

I notice Dangerfield and others are pushing for the length of game to be dropped by up to 25%. Personally don't think that is needed at all and i wouldn't think Fox or CH 7 would like that either.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,274]

1 minute ago, trout said:

I notice Dangerfield and others are pushing for the length of game to be dropped by up to 25%. Personally don't think that is needed at all and i wouldn't think Fox or CH 7 would like that either.

Is he willing to take a 25% cut in pay? That’s one hell of a hit to advertising revenue etc. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Is he willing to take a 25% cut in pay? That’s one hell of a hit to advertising revenue etc. 

Yeah, but more time for Roaming F***wit after the game.

[SFebes 4,692]

5 minutes ago, trout said:

I notice Dangerfield and others are pushing for the length of game to be dropped by up to 25%. Personally don't think that is needed at all and i wouldn't think Fox or CH 7 would like that either.

No worries, then make it a 34 round competition so each team plays each other twice

[DV8 2,271]

On 5/9/2018 at 1:39 PM, Diamond_Jim said:

Gil now floating the idea of the ball player being further discouraged by reduction of the prior opportunity rule.

Can just see the plays of the future ... six players stand around looking at the ball daring each other to pick it up.

I am a big fan of it going the other way... the opportunity must be real not just a stumble forward or the like.

"AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan favours a weakening of the "prior opportunity'' rule for the player with the ball, in the belief that this will reduce congestion and inconsistency in umpiring holding the ball calls."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-boss-wants-less-prior-opportunity-for-holding-the-ball-decisions-20180509-p4ze7b.html

Reduce the interchange bench back to 3 players.  And have 2 emergencies, for serious hospital cases only.

Reduce the number of rotations by 10 per quarter, from where they are now in 2018.

I'll give him a clue;  take the rules of the game back to what they all were back in 1993;,,, and then leave them the Hell alone.

Edited June 15, 2018 by DV8

[monoccular 15,985]

The only “zoning” I could be comfortable with would be requiring all players other than centre square four, and two wingers, being inside the 50 meter arc at the start of quarters and after goals.

No mark for backward kicks other than from inside forward 50 arc could reduce the frustrating time wasting clock running especially late in games, and force more attacking thrusts.

No mark paid to the defending team at the kick out after a behind until the ball clears the 50 arc could provide more contests.

And definitely only a perfectly executed tackle should ever result in a HTB free, thus encouraging and rewarding the guy who goes in and gets the ball. The stacks on the mill crushing the guy who goes in and gets it rewarding the vultures is a source of anger and frustration to me and others. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

The answer is staring us all in the face.

In the last 25-odd years, the one change with the biggest effect on how the game is played is interchange. It was introduced as a protection against injury. Your player comes off with a dodgy ankle but later is good to resume. Your player thinks his hammy is twingey and comes off for the docs to check out, turns out it's ok. In the traditional system, they're out for the rest of the game.

Like everything Sheedy touched in the rulebook, it got amped up to 11, then to 111. No-one had intended it to be an Olympic relay of players constantly dashing on and off all day.

It was ugly footy in 2012/13 with unlimited interchange. Just like today. With the introduction of the cap, the players couldn't roam in a huge pack following the ball. The game opened up again. But now the players have adjusted.

Reduction to 16 players means you'll have a huge pack (of 4 less players) following the ball. Players starting in their "set" positions means there will be a delay of 5-10 seconds or so before the huge pack forms. Backwards kicks won't affect the pack. Etc etc.

All the fiddling at the edges won't do much. The interchange is the biggest factor and has changed the way the game is played. Don't pile on more counter-rules further changing "the fabric" of the game.

Get rid of interchange, or drastically curtail it. (In the NRL, they have 8 per match!)

[deanox 8,502]

They are looking at the wrong rules. 

Start paying holding the man against the third player into a tackle (a teammate of the ball carrier who "wraps up" the tackler). This is already illegal, was never part of the game and is a major cause of increasing stoppages.  

 

Pay more shepherding from marking contests.  It has always been illegal to block or prevent someone contesting a mark. Players have mastered the art of this.  Stop it and we go back to old fashion marking contests, not uncontested marks for the defenders. 

 

No rule changes needed, just enforce the ones we have. 

[Deemania since 56 6,118]

On 4/30/2018 at 7:00 PM, Mazer Rackham said:

A week or so back there was a story on the AFL web site. Buddy Franklin was about to take a shot on goal and he wiped the ball with a chux wipe that the trainer brought out. "You can't do that" said the ump. Later the wise men of the media wanted to know what was up. "You can't do that "said Steve Hocking. "You can only wipe the ball with your jumper, your shorts or your socks. No chux wipes."

The story went on to say that Franklin was "correctly allowed" to take his kick.

As I do, I ran to the official laws of the game. Can you believe, there is nothing in the rules about wiping the ball and what you can/can't wipe it with. The only rule that might be in play is 15.11.1(b) which says a free kick will be awarded against a player who "interferes" with the football. Whatever that might mean. It's not defined.

So either Franklin is allowed to wipe the ball with a chux, or he gave away a free which wasn't paid.

And we see this kind of bull*** every game, every week. "Laws" of the game that don't actually exist, or "laws" of the game that are ignored.

Which brings me to rule 15.2.5,  Diving on Top of the Football. "Where a Player is in possession of the football by reason of diving on
top of or dragging the football underneath their body, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if they do not immediately knock the football clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Correctly Tackled."

We see this all the time. Why no free?

Or rule 15.4.5,  Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick. "A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player. A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player  if the Player: ... (b)  pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football;" No ifs or buts. No allowances. Black and white. Push in the back = free.

Again, we routinely see guys piledriven into the turf with a player or players squarely on their back. No free.

What is going on? Imagine if in tennis ... you're watching Wimbledon. Federer vs Nadal ... Nadal double faults. Ump says nothing. Nadal gets third serve. It's another fault. Nadal gets fourth serve. No one blinks. Then Federer keeps hitting it after it's bounced twice. Nadal protests. Ump says each time, play the rally again. No one blinks. Then players decide not to change ends. Later the tournament director says something like, the ump felt there was no disadvantage to either player due to the similar conditions at each end of the court. And everyone swallows it.

That's what we've been conditioned to in this game. It's weird. It's perverse. It's just wrong. And the AFL don't give a f*** that they are permitting this corrupted version of Aussie Rules to be played week in week out.

Footballers, particularly in winter conditions wherein they run hard for a couple of hours constantly breathing hard, fast and heavy, often expectorate and spit/slag gunk out of their chests, throats, noses, and onto the ground it goes. I have never seen a footballer draw from within his shorts, socks or jock strap a delicately laundered and ironed 'kerchief with which such unpleasantries may be ameliorated and then, on with the game. Have you? There is nothing wrong with calling for a Chux to wipe a football, surely. It's not mud that players might be removing to alter the condition of the ball, let me assure you of that! Has one ever been playing in a game when the chips are down, going hell for leather at the leather and been required to take a mark or handle the ball when it is covered with the same gunk some player could not retain in peaceful harmony with nature? Have you ever had a 'splash' across the face from the said 'well-used football' when marking or receiving a handball? Sadly, some of us have! How delightful. Good onyer, Buddy, for wiping the ball with a Chux for the benefit of the 35 other players on the field - and I suppose, the field and boundary umpires - because this is a real outcome of some disgust when playing. It's nearly as bad as being on the bottom of a pack of 6 guys pinning you down, and one of them farts in your face as he is similarly crushed and immobilised. Talk about corrupt versions of the game?

[trout 385]

9 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Is he willing to take a 25% cut in pay? That’s one hell of a hit to advertising revenue etc. 

I wouldn't think so.

[Willmoy1947 3,758]

No Runners at all.....

[buck_nekkid 5,457]

Demons start to play attractive footy and now everyone wants to change the rules?  Go get [censored].

[daisycutter 28,427]

12 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Is he willing to take a 25% cut in pay? That’s one hell of a hit to advertising revenue etc. 

yes except the rights holders would just replace the lost 25% of play with an extra 25% of ads ?

[Deemania since 56 6,118]

10 hours ago, monoccular said:

The only “zoning” I could be comfortable with would be requiring all players other than centre square four, and two wingers, being inside the 50 meter arc at the start of quarters and after goals.

No mark for backward kicks other than from inside forward 50 arc could reduce the frustrating time wasting clock running especially late in games, and force more attacking thrusts.

No mark paid to the defending team at the kick out after a behind until the ball clears the 50 arc could provide more contests.

And definitely only a perfectly executed tackle should ever result in a HTB free, thus encouraging and rewarding the guy who goes in and gets the ball. The stacks on the mill crushing the guy who goes in and gets it rewarding the vultures is a source of anger and frustration to me and others. 

Interesting to note here how umpires delay the game for certain sides and not for other sides - some lucky clubs get time to man-up or to gain vital positioning downfield whilst others do not, for ball-ups, marks, free kicks and critical moments of 'excitement' when the seconds tick by at varying rates of progress before 'play on' is called. MFC are such a side on the non-receiving end of such perfect and righteous judgment. We see it each week! 

[red and blue forever 768]

I am not in favour of any change to the rules, they have been buggered around with enough already.

 

the current congestion that we are seeing will naturally work it's way out if we keep making new laws very soon we will not recognize the game at all.

 

reducing rotations makes the players more tired and slows them down is a suggestion people make, but why do we want to see them tired running around. I  want to see the players at full speed and effort.

 

zones fundamentally change the structure of our game. and the ideas around about certain numbers being excluded from the square until the ball comes out and other such ideas would be a bugger to officiate and would only slow the game down  while we wait for players to be in their set positions and the umpires to check.

 

leave the numbers of players alone too otherwise again you drastically change how the game flows and matches up.

leave the length of the game alone too lazy bastards (looking at you dangerfield)

Keep the hard tackling and the bump.

I am for the abolition of nominating the rucks. just bounce the ball, if three players go up then a penalty is imposed.  I have heard counter arguments that it would be open to manipulation and trickery about who was really going up but that is actually a positive in my mind, and throws some added tactics to the ruck contest.

 

 

the game has had too many changes and what we are seeing is a result, let it evolve, and it will become something much improved than what we currently are seeing. you can see it in the better games this year the game is actually headed in a great direction, if we don't stuff it up first.

 

 

 

[daisycutter 28,427]

5 minutes ago, red and blue forever said:

.....

reducing rotations makes the players more tired and slows them down is a suggestion people make, but why do we want to see them tired running around. I  want to see the players at full speed and effort.

.....

the point is that you won't see them any more tired than they are now

with minimal rotations they won't try (or be able) to run both ways constantly clogging up play. they (and the coaches) will be forced into a different sustainable game plan where they will spend more time in their traditional position

you also might see more natural footballers playing than athletes. skill vs grunt.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,274]

Make the playing surface twice the length and width.