2022 Free Kick Differential

[Macca 17,034]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

I will work it out. But as i said yesterday. The game changed once the Bench became rotational

Before that, the Rules were certainly easier to interperate. Fans didn’t always like it, but they were fairly obvious. 
 

You are right, the rotations changed the way the game is played.  And fitness levels are far greater too

Back in the day there was a thinking that we needed to play on larger ovals ... Waverley was a great example of what was seen as the future of the sport

Seen as overly big for quite a while and then later seem as a great big ground, perfect for footy (logistics on how to get there and get out of the carpark was a separate issue)

Docklands was embraced early and now it is on the nose.  So it's gone the other way to Waverley

[Kent 2,914]

(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

You mean like Trent Cochin??

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

16 minutes ago, Kent said:

(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

You mean like Trent Cochin??

CAPTAIN COTCH: anagram of NOT TOBY GREENE

No case to answer.

[tiers 2,843]

I have posted before that the rules we played with when we at school were the simplest and the best. The main criteria are 1. to protect the players 2. to ensure an even contest and 3. to make the game attractive.

The rules under 1. should include: round the neck (high dangerous tackle and NOT gentle hand on shoulder); in the back (a shove NOT a touch); trip in any form; kicking in danger; sling or forceful tackle into the ground.

The rules under 2. should include: throwing the ball; holding the ball when tackled or restrained (longer than needed to dispose of the ball ie prior opportunity); dropping the ball when fairly tackled or restrained (incorrect disposal); interference in a marking contest that severely disadvantages an opponent (NOT just pushing and shoving and jumper grabs);

The rules under 3. should include: bounce every 15 m; interference in marking contests not allowed unless there is a genuine attempt or a mark taken; hip and shoulder bumps to the hip and shoulder.

Eliminate all tiggy touch wood frees and overly technical garbage like stand, deliberate and 50m penalties when the kicker is not inconvenienced or affected.

That's all for now. The classifications can be adjusted but the 3 guiding principles remain intact. Let's get on with our great game.

[Macca 17,034]

17 minutes ago, tiers said:

I have posted before that the rules we played with when we at school were the simplest and the best. The main criteria are 1. to protect the players 2. to ensure an even contest and 3. to make the game attractive.

The rules under 1. should include: round the neck (high dangerous tackle and NOT gentle hand on shoulder); in the back (a shove NOT a touch); trip in any form; kicking in danger; sling or forceful tackle into the ground.

The rules under 2. should include: throwing the ball; holding the ball when tackled or restrained (longer than needed to dispose of the ball ie prior opportunity); dropping the ball when fairly tackled or restrained (incorrect disposal); interference in a marking contest that severely disadvantages an opponent (NOT just pushing and shoving and jumper grabs);

The rules under 3. should include: bounce every 15 m; interference in marking contests not allowed unless there is a genuine attempt or a mark taken; hip and shoulder bumps to the hip and shoulder.

Eliminate all tiggy touch wood frees and overly technical garbage like stand, deliberate and 50m penalties when the kicker is not inconvenienced or affected.

That's all for now. The classifications can be adjusted but the 3 guiding principles remain intact. Let's get on with our great game.

Just about every ruling you highlighted has some degree of grey area attached.  Some more than others

In principle, it would be great if we could make every rule clear cut but I don't like the chances

The game has changed dramatically, way less 1 on 1's, congestion aplenty and numerous players in one part of the ground on a constant basis

Rules are being exploited by the coaches and it's a way more complicated game

By no means am I giving up but in practical terms, the league has a gigantic uphill battle in terms of making the sport easy to umpire

Edited May 24, 2022 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

40 minutes ago, tiers said:

I have posted before that the rules we played with when we at school were the simplest and the best. The main criteria are 1. to protect the players 2. to ensure an even contest and 3. to make the game attractive.

The rules under 1. should include: round the neck (high dangerous tackle and NOT gentle hand on shoulder); in the back (a shove NOT a touch); trip in any form; kicking in danger; sling or forceful tackle into the ground.

The rules under 2. should include: throwing the ball; holding the ball when tackled or restrained (longer than needed to dispose of the ball ie prior opportunity); dropping the ball when fairly tackled or restrained (incorrect disposal); interference in a marking contest that severely disadvantages an opponent (NOT just pushing and shoving and jumper grabs);

The rules under 3. should include: bounce every 15 m; interference in marking contests not allowed unless there is a genuine attempt or a mark taken; hip and shoulder bumps to the hip and shoulder.

Eliminate all tiggy touch wood frees and overly technical garbage like stand, deliberate and 50m penalties when the kicker is not inconvenienced or affected.

That's all for now. The classifications can be adjusted but the 3 guiding principles remain intact. Let's get on with our great game.

100% with you so far Tiers

[Demonland 73,161]

[Nascent 9,283]

Considering we had something like 7 x 50 metres penalties in one pre-season game we've adjusted well to the 'dissent' rule.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Nascent

[tiers 2,843]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Just about every ruling you highlighted has some degree of grey area attached.  Some more than others

 

So what? That there are grey areas and teams and coaches can try to game the rules to their advantage should not affect the principles embedded in these rules. For example, why should a minor insignificant jumper pull in a marking contest be penalised if the affected player is still able to make the contest? The umpires should be instructed to look for the affect on a fair contest and not the trivial, strict  interpretation of obtuse rules. It's the contest that matters, not applying the rules.

Another example. High contact (a dreadful expression) should be seen as a "coathanger" round the neck infringement, not a fairly applied tackle that slides up the shrugging arms of the tacklee. A fair tackle made into "high contact" by the actions of the tacklee  does not deserve to be penalised. Similarly ramming one's head into the body of an opponent does not qualify for a free kick.

There are many more examples but there is a rules committee who should and could fix these problems. Get rid of the overly legalistic language and the overly technical wording and footy could become fun again just like it was when we were at school in the good old days.

[sue 9,145]

I agree with Tiers.  There are too many frees and 50m penalties given for things which do not affect the play.  

Admittedly some frees, like seeing a minor jumper pull make it easy for the umpire to make a decision without having to judge if it had an effect. On the other hand, umps have to judge if a touch to a shoulder was really there or if there was a 2mm gap between hand and shoulder. So you could argue it's easier for the ump to judge by the effect rather than trying to judge if the hand actually touched the shoulder.

Placing more burden on the umps may not be a good thing given the shoddy way the AFL treats the whole area now.  And as usual there will be grey areas.  But it might be worth a trial at an appropriate level before thinking of introducing it at the highest level  - a novel idea for the AFL.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

34 minutes ago, tiers said:

So what? That there are grey areas and teams and coaches can try to game the rules to their advantage should not affect the principles embedded in these rules. For example, why should a minor insignificant jumper pull in a marking contest be penalised if the affected player is still able to make the contest? The umpires should be instructed to look for the affect on a fair contest and not the trivial, strict  interpretation of obtuse rules. It's the contest that matters, not applying the rules.

Another example. High contact (a dreadful expression) should be seen as a "coathanger" round the neck infringement, not a fairly applied tackle that slides up the shrugging arms of the tacklee. A fair tackle made into "high contact" by the actions of the tacklee  does not deserve to be penalised. Similarly ramming one's head into the body of an opponent does not qualify for a free kick.

There are many more examples but there is a rules committee who should and could fix these problems. Get rid of the overly legalistic language and the overly technical wording and footy could become fun again just like it was when we were at school in the good old days.

While I like your thinking, I just wonder whether such an approach would make umpiring more complicated and controversial. Your approach makes adjudicating highly subjective. What one umpire (or viewer) thinks is innocuous or incidental another might think is worthy of penalising. 

One of the problems with umpiring now is the degree of subjective assessment required, most obviously seen with the "insufficient intent" rule. If we add more subjectivity into the process, I think matters will get worse, not better.   

[Macca 17,034]

34 minutes ago, tiers said:

Another example. High contact (a dreadful expression) should be seen as a "coathanger" round the neck infringement, not a fairly applied tackle that slides up the shrugging arms of the tacklee. A fair tackle made into "high contact" by the actions of the tacklee  does not deserve to be penalised. Similarly ramming one's head into the body of an opponent does not qualify for a free kick.

A hobby horse of mine for over 10 years on this site ... must have mentioned the farcical high contact ruling at least 50-60 times over the years

Under Neeld we at one time during a  match had a 3-22 free kick count against the Eagles ... nearly every free kick was for high contact or in some cases, holding the man

The Eagles players were dropping their knees and shrugging their arms up all game to accentuate the high contact

So it's not a new thing

And you are the first person to speak in the same way (that I've seen)

In fact, I've probably mentioned it over 10 times lately on this thread and a few other recent threads about the umpires

But, because of the protection of the head and the expert way that players milk high contact, only draconian measures might fix things ... retrospectively ping the stagers and rub them out for 3 or 4 weeks and that can help

Can't see it happening though as if they were going to take such measures, they would have done so by now

As for the other grey areas, I truly believe we need a more open game to help reduce the grey areas.  And many don't want any rule changes so we end up back at square one

 

[Jjrogan 1,439]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Just about every ruling you highlighted has some degree of grey area attached.  Some more than others

In principle, it would be great if we could make every rule clear cut but I don't like the chances

The game has changed dramatically, way less 1 on 1's, congestion aplenty and numerous players in one part of the ground on a constant basis

Rules are being exploited by the coaches and it's a way more complicated game

By no means am I giving up but in practical terms, the league has a gigantic uphill battle in terms of making the sport easy to umpire

Im with you Macca. But Rome is the mob. No matter what the rules were or are or will be, in pretty much every sport people have complained, do complain and will complain. (Its just tiresome to read week in, week out). You're right though, even in the medium term it has very little outcome on a clubs fortunes.  Clubs arent over analysing or discussing or whinging about umpiring decisions. Apart from the heat of the moment (even thats taken away) they just move on. Why? Because they realise it doesnt matter.  Its for the media and the fans to generate emotions and click bait. 

[loges 6,767]

38 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

Im with you Macca. But Rome is the mob. No matter what the rules were or are or will be, in pretty much every sport people have complained, do complain and will complain. (Its just tiresome to read week in, week out). You're right though, even in the medium term it has very little outcome on a clubs fortunes.  Clubs arent over analysing or discussing or whinging about umpiring decisions. Apart from the heat of the moment (even thats taken away) they just move on. Why? Because they realise it doesnt matter.  Its for the media and the fans to generate emotions and click bait. 

It's tiresome alright just like someone who gives unsolicited advice and presumes to lecture people on how they should react to umpiring decisions.

[Macca 17,034]

1 hour ago, Jjrogan said:

Im with you Macca. But Rome is the mob. No matter what the rules were or are or will be, in pretty much every sport people have complained, do complain and will complain. (Its just tiresome to read week in, week out). You're right though, even in the medium term it has very little outcome on a clubs fortunes.  Clubs arent over analysing or discussing or whinging about umpiring decisions. Apart from the heat of the moment (even thats taken away) they just move on. Why? Because they realise it doesnt matter.  Its for the media and the fans to generate emotions and click bait. 

I reckon game day and perhaps the next day it's ok to vent ... footy is an emotional game and we are heavily invested

But days later?  In the same way? 

But here's the thing ... you dare not take the opposite view or a different view here.  It's like an unwritten law to tow the line in a certain way

I can see why others don't bother but the other side of the argument deserves to be seen and heard

Before I started posting about the umpires there was a former VFA player here who used to post up against the tirade of umpire abuse

His catch-cry was always 'You don't have a game without umpires' but he got zero support.  Gone now but he was a very good poster and his footy knowledge was immense

He was the voice for a long period of time and he used to speak on my behalf!  haha

Edited May 24, 2022 by Macca

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

On 5/15/2022 at 10:01 PM, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I saw the dumbest 50m I’ve ever seen today in the Casey game.

Marty Hore had a mark( ? Free), and took a step forward, standing on Toby Bedford’s  foot.  Toby jumped in pain. …………...50 m for not “ standing” on the mark!

Or ....the umpire (one of them) confused Toby jumping in the air as a delayed protest to the free kick given a few seconds beforehand and gave him a belated 50 for "dissent" !!

[tiers 2,843]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While I like your thinking, I just wonder whether such an approach would make umpiring more complicated and controversial.

 

Could it be any more complicated and controversial? Time to try a different approach.

[Demon_spurs 1,872]

On 5/23/2022 at 6:14 PM, Mazer Rackham said:

Oh, so Bevo is now all for teams playing the game in accordance with the rules? How quaint. He's a character, that Bevo.

I hope they do start paying frees for blocking off the run. Teams have been doing it to BBB for a few weeks now, and in the North game it looked like he was being grappled so far off the ball that not even the tribunal chairman who thought Barry Hall's biff was "in play" could overlook it.

(It seems like the umps are ball bound and don't watch ahead of the play ... but how can they if they're put in a different mix every week? If umps were in "teams" [such as they do in major league baseball] then maybe they'd develop some synergy and just "know" who's watching the ball and who's watching ahead of the play. We'd need professional umps for that and maybe a second postage stamp of turf to practice on. My nature strip is available, AFL! More than that, we'd need an executive organisation that did more than just pretend to give a [censored] about the refereeing of the game.)

Careful Bevo, this is bordering on greed, might just get the umps offside and start looking at the Free kick leg up the Bullies get nearly every game. How arrogant to criticise the umps when they get such an advantage every week.

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,274]

I watched a replay of the Round 1 match 2011 v Swans. (On Foxtel via Kayo.)

Boy ... how many turnovers did the Demons commit in that match! (Answer ... lots). Rohan Bail/Col Garland/Grimes/Trengove/Sylvia/Nate Jones  et al.

Chalk and cheese compared to the 2021/2022 side.

One striking feature was the virtual absence of round the neck free kicks. Why would that be? The fact that players did not drop their knees/try to milk free kicks in those days? 

 

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

55 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

I watched a replay of the Round 1 match 2011 v Swans. (On Foxtel via Kayo.)

How amazingly obscure. What took you there?

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,274]

20 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

How amazingly obscure. What took you there?

I didn't make a conscious choice ... it was just 'on' when I switched onto Kayo. FWIW I could remember being at that match ... 

[Deemania since 56 6,718]

On 5/24/2022 at 11:52 AM, Kent said:

(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

You mean like Trent Cochin??

Who else other than Cochin can we recall using this technique?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

15 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Who else other than Cochin can we recall using this technique?

Toby Greene. And more than once.

[Demonland 73,161]

The Bulldogs though. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

14 hours ago, Demonland said:

The Bulldogs though. 

I think Richmond, and to a lesser extent Sydney, are bigger stories. I would expect winning teams to get more frees paid to them because they're generally first to the ball. Hence, Richmond's and Sydney's numbers seem more unexpected than the Bulldogs.