They were consistent, he flogged Taylor every time

Loved the way he would belt Taylor ( and other forwards ) when spoiling and then look all innocent as though butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

As I reported earlier, watching the final stages of training at Gosch's paddock on Friday 28th Jan, Joel MacDonald consistently outperformed Strauss with his torps from the goalsquare. On more than one occasion he hit close to the centre circle. I made a quick measurement later and came to the conclusion that MacDonald had been kicking 65 metres (75m from goal when you take the square into account).

Tassie was an excellent drop kicker, but he was no match for Geelong's Paul Vinar who regularly got highest marks for distance on WOS (I seem to remember a 91 metre monster).

Modern examples of longest drop-punters at MFC would include Bennett, Wheatley, Neitz and Dean.

Lyon was also a long kick. Best I have seen was "Diamond Jim" Tilbrook in his first game at a wet Waverley kick a monster goal from near the wing. I thought he could be anything but sadly I was wrong.

..............................

Tassie was an excellent drop kicker, but he was no match for Geelong's Paul Vinar who regularly got highest marks for distance on WOS (I seem to remember a 91 metre monster).....................

I have to agree wayne. Vinar was a massive kick, and definitely a few yards longer than our Tas. I too remember the kick that they raved about on WOS, and 91 yards rings a bell.

Danny Hughes would be a great kicking coach-His long bombs were so consistent, as were his Battles with Brian Taylor in the late 80's!!

Geez, tell me about it! That shizen taylor.

As an off centre tactical punt, if you will, I like this Idea.

Defences love the predictable, and build there structure around the kickouts. The torp will throw up the element of doubt, compounded by the worry the defending side naturally carries, and a fumble would easily occur, if they're the first to the ball.

When going forward, the torp again can favour the attack, catching the defenders out of position. If a loose ball arises and we have smalls swooping with speed. An attacking brand of footy.

Still gotta be a surprise attack , no good consistantly kicking torps from a kick-in .

Variety and hitting up moving targets is the key .

Expanding the square has merit. Another version of this idea is drawing an arc from behind post to behind post extending out 15-20 metres from goal. This will allow the kicker freedom to shift play wide either side or straight ahead, or change direction quickly before actually disposing of the ball. This will create freer short and long options up to the wings and beyond.

That's an interesting variation on my proposal, and would fit with the oval shape of the grounds. One catch here is the rule for taking a mark anywhere in the 10 metre square, where a player can have a shot from directly in front of goal regardless where the mark is taken in the square.

Would you still retain the 10 metre square for this rule, or would you expand the rule to cover anyone who takes a mark within this arc?

That's an interesting variation on my proposal, and would fit with the oval shape of the grounds. One catch here is the rule for taking a mark anywhere in the 10 metre square, where a player can have a shot from directly in front of goal regardless where the mark is taken in the square.

Would you still retain the 10 metre square for this rule, or would you expand the rule to cover anyone who takes a mark within this arc?

I suppose the square could be kept, or go back to the old way where the mark is lined up with the centre of the goal. Or even having a half circle marking zone from goal post to goal post which would extend out 7 metres which is as wide as the goal mouth.

Another advantage of the arc proposal is that a full back can kick the ball on the run and get extra distance.

That's an interesting variation on my proposal, and would fit with the oval shape of the grounds. One catch here is the rule for taking a mark anywhere in the 10 metre square, where a player can have a shot from directly in front of goal regardless where the mark is taken in the square.

Would you still retain the 10 metre square for this rule, or would you expand the rule to cover anyone who takes a mark within this arc?

I'm sick of rule changes .

Name another sport that make up the rules as they go along like ours .

It's becoming a bad joke .

I'm sick of rule changes .

Name another sport that make up the rules as they go along like ours .

It's becoming a bad joke .

Hey Fork, if I were you I wouldn't be too worried about the odd rule change and less so about others talking about them. Our games has evolved enormously in the past couple of decades and continues to do so. Our game is unique and fast flowing and not stifled by constraining rules like offside and encyclopaedic law books, etc which affect other field ball games. Because of lack of restrictions in player movements, negative tactics continue to creep in to stifle creative play and shift the balance in favour of negative play. Any potential rules that ensure the fluidity and freedom of of our game and resist it from becoming a melee should always be on the discussion table and open to all opinions pro or con.

To be honest I think that was just Strauss having a bit of fun, however, I think the torp should definitely be implemented into our game plan, if placed and excecuted correctly it can break the zone defence apart and create free space in the middle of the ground which definitely helps us with our running style of game play

To be honest I think that was just Strauss having a bit of fun, however, I think the torp should definitely be implemented into our game plan, if placed and excecuted correctly it can break the zone defence apart and create free space in the middle of the ground which definitely helps us with our running style of game play

I don't think he would be doing it just for fun. More likely he had been given instruction to give it a go (given the license) and practise it during a scratch match - with the view that he might use it for the very reason that you mention.

I agree with you HT, I never saw Danny kick a drop kick. I think Barrie has his full-backs mixed up. Maybe he is thinking of someone from his era, perhaps Tassie Johnson who was the best exponent of the drop kick that I ever saw.

You guys were starting to make me think "Old-timer's Disease" had set in even harder...until I found the following on the internet...

"An excellent kick, he combined dexterous use of the body with superb ..... the most conspicuous feature of his play was his prodigious drop kicking. ..... Recruited locally, Danny Hughes made his league debut for Port Adelaide in 1981 "

So, maybe my memory aint as bad as some of you claim. LOL

Hey Fork, if I were you I wouldn't be too worried about the odd rule change and less so about others talking about them. Our games has evolved enormously in the past couple of decades and continues to do so. Our game is unique and fast flowing and not stifled by constraining rules like offside and encyclopaedic law books, etc which affect other field ball games.

Read my lips america de cali .

If the umpires (and even the MRP) could umpire the game like did through the last final series throughout the season I would be happy .

Problem is they don't , we get lumbered with their BS whimsical interpretations of rules which are becoming greyer by the minute . If your at a game there can be times when frees are getting paid that the supporter in the stands has no idea WTF just happened . Just let 'em fricken play .

You guys were starting to make me think "Old-timer's Disease" had set in even harder...until I found the following on the internet...

"An excellent kick, he combined dexterous use of the body with superb ..... the most conspicuous feature of his play was his prodigious drop kicking. ..... Recruited locally, Danny Hughes made his league debut for Port Adelaide in 1981 "

So, maybe my memory aint as bad as some of you claim. LOL

Well we may owe you an apology "Vagg".

I will retrack my comments, I just don't remember him doing drop kicks.

I thought they had gone from the game by the early 80's

He may have been a very good drop kick but I don't recall Danny ever kicking one and I saw him play many times. I have trouble recalling if I saw any one else kick drop kicks from the mid eighties onwards.

Well we may owe you an apology "Vagg".

I will retrack my comments, I just don't remember him doing drop kicks.

I thought they had gone from the game by the early 80's

No probs, Old Dee. The memory of many things is fading fast, unfortunately. It's just that I have this vivid memory of Danny kicking out with some raking drop kicks near the end of his days at Melbourne. When you guys questioned it, I really thought I was losing it. But, at least whoever wrote that bio I referred to earlier was obviously suffering from the same delusions as me!

Anyway, all good!

You guys were starting to make me think "Old-timer's Disease" had set in even harder...until I found the following on the internet...

"An excellent kick, he combined dexterous use of the body with superb ..... the most conspicuous feature of his play was his prodigious drop kicking. ..... Recruited locally, Danny Hughes made his league debut for Port Adelaide in 1981 "

So, maybe my memory aint as bad as some of you claim. LOL

I think it pays to not believe every thing you read on the internet.

I never saw Hughes or any other MFC player kick a drop kick.

Given the slippers they wear as football boots since the 1970s I doubt whether many players would risk the toe injuries.

I think it pays to not believe every thing you read on the internet.

I never saw Hughes or any other MFC player kick a drop kick.

Given the slippers they wear as football boots since the 1970s I doubt whether many players would risk the toe injuries.

Then you have my sympathy RR to see the drop kick done well was a thing of beauty.

Over the years the Dees had some players who were very good.

The big problem was that not many players could do it well

and it was deleted from the Game because if you could not do it well

it resulted in a turn over and in modern football that is the ultimate sin.

Re injuries I have never heard of anyone injuring their toes.

I did a few my self over the years ( even in "the slippers" ) and not one injury.

Then you have my sympathy RR to see the drop kick done well was a thing of beauty.

Over the years the Dees had some players who were very good.

The big problem was that not many players could do it well

and it was deleted from the Game because if you could not do it well

it resulted in a turn over and in modern football that is the ultimate sin.

Re injuries I have never heard of anyone injuring their toes.

I did a few my self over the years ( even in "the slippers" ) and not one injury.

I ripped off half my big toe nail once when kicking a drop kick. It can happen and is extremely painful. Not a problem with clunky old fashioned boots with solid toes. I agree it was a very low percentage kick for all except a very few. The advantage of it was its low fast trajectory and extra distance. It was also better suited for the more static game played pre 1980 hence obsolete for a long time now. The torp is just as unreliable but a fluffed torp will not grub along the ground as a fluffed drop kick usually does.

I don't think he would be doing it just for fun. More likely he had been given instruction to give it a go (given the license) and practise it during a scratch match - with the view that he might use it for the very reason that you mention.

I agree. Bails likes to think out of the square as much as he can. So I'm hoping he'll prove to be a Coach with flair, and courage, to attempt things. This should rub off on our players.

Good topic, "Dirty Dees"!!

I must say, it's one I've mentioned a number of times on Demonland.(but not as often as my notorious bugbear....point kick-ins!!!!)

No-one's mentioned the most obvious reason to become proficient at the torpedo, namely the set shot from 60 metres after the siren ends a quarter(or the match!) Very few players can make 60 m. with a drop punt(assuming no wind). But a well timed torpedo will carry the extra 10 metres.My point here is this. A player is freed as the siren goes, and the man on the mark is at 55m. Inevitably, a powerful drop punt will land in the goalsquare and be punched away. The only hope is a torpedo, and there's no downside. If it slews off the side of the boot, it's no worse than the kick that falls just short.

Players(esp. forwards) )should practise torpedoes. It's fun to practise them, and with the skills,strength(and training time) modern players possess, I think they'd become even more proficient than the torp exponents of yesteryear(Blight, Wade,Daicos etc).

I like the idea of the fullback roosting the odd torp down the centre, the way Wheaters did a few times, but only if he has a high success rate with his torps at practice.

How inspiring it has been for Collingwood when Rocca let fly with a torp from 65m! I remember Daicos changing the course of a game against us at Vict. Park when he let go with a 60m. torp to set up a comeback from about 5 goals down in the last quarter.

Remember when ex-Bomber Stephen Clarke had a shot after the final siren at Windy Hill when we were less than a goal down. He got on to it, and it very nearly carried from 65 metres!

I once sat next to Dean Bailey at a sponsors' dinner, and asked him his attitude to torps. He said it wasn't banned, but didn't seem to agree with me on the importance of adding this skill to our armamentarium

Then you have my sympathy RR to see the drop kick done well was a thing of beauty.

Over the years the Dees had some players who were very good.

The big problem was that not many players could do it well

and it was deleted from the Game because if you could not do it well

it resulted in a turn over and in modern football that is the ultimate sin.

Re injuries I have never heard of anyone injuring their toes.

I did a few my self over the years ( even in "the slippers" ) and not one injury.

The issue is not the beauty but the effectiveness. If you care to look at the history of football boots, the hard nose needed on the end of your White Diamond football boot was replaced by the soft mould shoe more designed with different kicking and greater running.

Good topic, "Dirty Dees"!!

I once sat next to Dean Bailey at a sponsors' dinner, and asked him his attitude to torps. He said it wasn't banned, but didn't seem to agree with me on the importance of adding this skill to our armamentarium

Now why was that?? Hmmm.

[quote name='Rhino Richards'

"Now why was that?? Hmmm."

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I outlined, in my post above, why I think judicious use of the torpedo punt would be a useful addition to our tactics. As "Dirty Dees" said....."if you can't get past them, get over them!" So, Hmmm, like you Rhino, I also wonder why DB didn't think it was worth considering. Especially seeing he doesn't ban the torpedo altogether. I can't see an argument against the torp. from 60m. from the set shot after the siren.

I think the penny might have dropped with AFL coaches.

Tuohy let go with a few torps yesterday from fullback, when Geel were within a goal and no time left.

Bernie's tried a couple for us, but hasn't made good connection.

Hunt had a try from 75 m after the final siren v Geelong.

I think I remember a few other torps from other teams this season.

The players should practise torps till they become more proficient, with a low rate of poor contact.

There is absolutely NO downside to trying a torp from outside 60m after a siren.

I admit that a slewed torp from a kick in could yield an easy goal, but players should be so skilled at this type of kick that miskick is a rarity.