Stand up football - an ill-conceived idea?

[Melb-A-Toast 257]

I have wondered about two things that have come to prominence is recent years.  Head knocks and rugby scrum/ruck and maul style game which seems to slow the game down.

Q. Could/should there be consideration for (oh yes, another rule change!) not allowing possession if your knees or elbows are on the ground?  I don't profess to have a fully clear approach on how this rule could be written, or adjudicated but maybe this forum can put forward some ideas.  We already have a rule for below the knees contact.

In the past, I have loved the aggression and foolhardy bravery of players diving on the ground to get the ball, sometimes winning the impossible to the awe of teammates and the crowd.  My appreciation has now waned based on the potential injury to players - and it makes me wonder how many talented youngsters had their potential curtailed,  as well as a better appreciation that the struggles that post career footballers may experience are somewhat impacted by repeated head knocks. 

It would change some part of the game that we know, but could this change create more opportunities for the parts of the game we love?  Things like fast paced with reduced scrappy kicks and handballs, skills more prominent overall, fewer ball ups, and higher scores.

If you have to retrieve a loose ball whilst keeping your feet, then great exponents like Cripps, Pendlebury, and our own Oliver will have more capacity to show their elite skills, and not be dragged (literally) down to the scrappy mess that games have become, especially in the wet.

I am sure that there are cons to this idea, so I await the vehement rebukes that are about to come.

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

Courageous act to put this out there... well done.

[Melb-A-Toast 257]

1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

Courageous act to put this out there... well done.

Thanks. A lack of response from others is startling considering the other topics and inane rhetoric. Did I use too many big words?

[hemingway 7,631]

3 minutes ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

Thanks. A lack of response from others is startling considering the other topics and inane rhetoric. Did I use too many big words?

Arrogant. That’s my only rebuke to your conceit. Too many  big words?  I don’t notice any. Perhaps you have a limited vocabulary. 

Rubbish. Now that’s a word I like. 

[Melb-A-Toast 257]

1 minute ago, hemingway said:

Arrogant. That’s my only rebuke to your conceit. Too many  big words?  I don’t notice any. Perhaps you have a limited vocabulary. 

Rubbish. Now that’s a word I like. 

My vocabulary is limited. But I noticed that you attacked me without actually responding to the topic. 

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

Perhaps there should be no tackling,  when a player standing bent over,  'to pickup the slippery ball',  is vulnerable to head-high contact. 

So, no tackling when head is below knees,  during retrieving ball,  butt perhaps buming could be allowed,  but only from behind,  so as to not collect the head on the way past.?

 

I can't wait until this gets the go ahead, and the AFLW have to adopt,, these rules into their competition. ?

 

[daisycutter 29,743]

17 minutes ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

My vocabulary is limited. But I noticed that you attacked me without actually responding to the topic. 

maybe because your knees weren't touching the ground?

[Cards13 9,117]

4 hours ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

I have wondered about two things that have come to prominence is recent years.  Head knocks and rugby scrum/ruck and maul style game which seems to slow the game down.

Q. Could/should there be consideration for (oh yes, another rule change!) not allowing possession if your knees or elbows are on the ground?  I don't profess to have a fully clear approach on how this rule could be written, or adjudicated but maybe this forum can put forward some ideas.  We already have a rule for below the knees contact.

In the past, I have loved the aggression and foolhardy bravery of players diving on the ground to get the ball, sometimes winning the impossible to the awe of teammates and the crowd.  My appreciation has now waned based on the potential injury to players - and it makes me wonder how many talented youngsters had their potential curtailed,  as well as a better appreciation that the struggles that post career footballers may experience are somewhat impacted by repeated head knocks. 

It would change some part of the game that we know, but could this change create more opportunities for the parts of the game we love?  Things like fast paced with reduced scrappy kicks and handballs, skills more prominent overall, fewer ball ups, and higher scores.

If you have to retrieve a loose ball whilst keeping your feet, then great exponents like Cripps, Pendlebury, and our own Oliver will have more capacity to show their elite skills, and not be dragged (literally) down to the scrappy mess that games have become, especially in the wet.

I am sure that there are cons to this idea, so I await the vehement rebukes that are about to come.

Covid has everyone’s attention I think toasty. I was always taught the harder you go the more ball you win either yourselves but at the very least for your team. I used to love sliding in/diving in hard and hated the idea of any changes to the game.

The sliding rule I hated at the time but as time wears on I see more merit in changes to the game that promote the likely hood of less injuries especially head injuries. 
 

(I think Ernie was taking the fizz, he thinks he can write you know).

[Bitter but optimistic 22,249]

42 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Arrogant. That’s my only rebuke to your conceit. Too many  big words?  I don’t notice any. Perhaps you have a limited vocabulary. 

Rubbish. Now that’s a word I like. 

Haven't seen you on our favourite thread for a while Ernie and was actually a tad concerned.

However your abruptness with the OP  suggests all is well.

[daisycutter 29,743]

33 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Haven't seen you on our favourite thread for a while Ernie and was actually a tad concerned.

However your abruptness with the OP  suggests all is well.

yep, uncle, ernie is flying

[hemingway 7,631]

1 hour ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

My vocabulary is limited. But I noticed that you attacked me without actually responding to the topic. 

The topic was good. Your response to the lack of comment was poor. 

[Skuit 10,031]

2 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

So, no tackling when head is below knees,  during retrieving ball,  butt perhaps buming could be allowed,  but only from behind.

Spelling errors like these remind me that I'm still not yet a mature adult. 

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

edi-ted.

Edited March 13, 2020 by MyFavouriteMartian

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

15 hours ago, Skuit said:

Spelling errors like these remind me that I'm still not yet a mature adult. 

HaHa, yes me too.

But Clayton Cameron would have played well in these games.  It seems he was forever pushing players from behind using his legs, and giving away free kicks for his efforts.

Anyhow stand up footy still stands on this board,  so lets have fun with these posts, whilst Nero fiddles with our well beings.

 

Go Nero-Mo.!

Edited March 13, 2020 by MyFavouriteMartian

[Melb-A-Toast 257]

17 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

Perhaps there should be no tackling,  when a player standing bent over,  'to pickup the slippery ball',  is vulnerable to head-high contact. 

I wonder whether how that could be played.  I am pondering the many times that a ball is neutral and two or more opponents go for the ball.  The second player may have a near impossible task to stop/slow their attack on the ball

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

55 minutes ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

Perhaps there should be no tackling,  when a player standing bent over,  'to pickup the slippery ball',  is vulnerable to head-high contact. 

 

55 minutes ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

I wonder whether how that could be played.  I am pondering the many times that a ball is neutral and two or more opponents go for the ball.  The second player may have a near impossible task to stop/slow their attack on the ball

Tackle high, in that scenario.   But no pushing.   Or a free kick shall be awarded.

[hemingway 7,631]

The increasing incidence of concussion and its lifelong consequences including reduced life span, means that the game and the rules will be forced to change. The AFL will be forced to make significant changes to maintain a duty of care and reduce the impact of litigation.

It will drastically change the way the game is played and coaching tactics. 

We will see less contact in all forms and a free running game where athleticism and speed will be paramount.

Perhaps we will see protective headgear and body padding a la gridiron. 

Not allowing possession if your hands or knees are on the ground is a possible option, more so the latter. 

Interesting. 

[hemingway 7,631]

17 hours ago, daisycutter said:

yep, uncle, ernie is flying

Daisy, I have told you before not to refer to my past proclivities. 

 

[Redleg 41,503]

9 minutes ago, hemingway said:

The increasing incidence of concussion and its lifelong consequences including reduced life span, means that the game and the rules will be forced to change. The AFL will be forced to make significant changes to maintain a duty of care and reduce the impact of litigation.

It will drastically change the way the game is played and coaching tactics. 

We will see less contact in all forms and a free running game where athleticism and speed will be paramount.

Perhaps we will see protective headgear and body padding a la gridiron. 

Not allowing possession if your hands or knees are on the ground is a possible option, more so the latter. 

Interesting. 

Agree that concussions will bring changes to the game, just not sure exactly what form they would take, other than completely outlawing any form of bump/tackle/sling, where the head is hurt. 

I suppose they are trying to achieve that already.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Redleg

[pineapple dee 2,892]

21 hours ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

Thanks. A lack of response from others is startling considering the other topics and inane rhetoric. Did I use too many big words?

No, you've done really well Melb A. Just the right amount of big words in your post and it's coherent as well. Just goes to show what buying ' Crossword ' sctratchies can help you achieve.

 

[Melb-A-Toast 257]

13 hours ago, pineapple dee said:

No, you've done really well Melb A. Just the right amount of big words in your post and it's coherent as well. Just goes to show what buying ' Crossword ' sctratchies can help you achieve.

 

I didn't know that crossword scratchies were a thing..  A lifelong learner I am ?