Is the mooted 20m rule a response to Hawthorn?

[Boxhead_31]

The problem is Umpires are not enforcing the 15m properly - anyone with average depth perception can get the estimate of 15m very close (within 2m) - now the umpires are blindly ignoring the 15m rule for whatever reason.

It really shouldn't be that difficult, the mower marks are either 7.5m or 10m wide

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Just enforce the current rule but make it 15m from the mark not where the kicker kicks from.

Currently we have guys going back 15m and kicking to someone 2m to the left or right of the mark

Agreed.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The problem is Umpires are not enforcing the 15m properly - anyone with average depth perception can get the estimate of 15m very close (within 2m) - now the umpires are blindly ignoring the 15m rule for whatever reason.

You're talking about umpires mate. The same guys that miss things that I can see from the stands 150m away while they are right next to the play........

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Chris Scott moaning about the umpires in a press conference? Even after a great win?

Well I never.....

Moaning? Did you watch the press conference, or are you just making baseless assumptions?

Scott never once mentioned the umpires. When asked this week if he had any problems with the way the game was currently played, he said he was fine with the way it was and he didn't think rules should be changed, but if the AFL sought the opinions of the coaches, he would give it in private.

Here's the small quote about Hawthorn's kicking Scott made: "...they kicked the ball very well. And they kicked the ball very, very short at times. So sometimes it's hard to stop all of them, especially the ones that only go 10 or 12 meters." Do you think that constitutes complaining about umpiring?

 

[master bate]

The funny thing about all these suggestions about rule changes to try to return the game to an "old days style" is that no-one is considering what the future makeup of players will be over the next few generations. Here's a few facts that show the direction of the game (and all other sports):

- average height of population is getting taller, yet tallest are not - there is a compression in the height of the population, not the height range of older days.
- all levels of sport are far greatly enjoying the benefits of sports science (not a select few or only elite teams) partly due to the wide availability of that information to everyone

What this all means is there is a progressively smaller height range and far more athletes in all sports are far fitter and have ability to close the gap to the fittest. We are heading to increasing fitness and athleticism in ALL sports (not just AFL). The rule makers really ought to consider future demographics of players as it is happening in all sport. No way the game can ever return to the semi-amateur ways of old. Coaches and clubs know this and develop tactics and strategies that give them the best chance of success. The future of taller (small difference in heights) is gradually coming and we will have teams of predominantly tall strong midfielders with the rolling maul and quick spread style. the only way to change it for AFL is to introduce netball style zones, which I am sure everyopne would agree would utterly destroy the sport as a spectacle (imagine chasing a ball and having to stop at a line).

People need to realize the facts - there is no returning to the old days of one on one.

Not sure what population height change has to do with it. Even if all midfielders are 190cm (and that alone will take 20 or 30 years), KPP players will still be 200cm and ruckman 205. That's still a big difference and will take years to change. Even still more players of a similar height should actually increase one on one's shouldn't it?

The fitness issue is the big one as coaches worked out it was possible to get players to run forward and back all over the ground and footy evolved from one on ones in to 18 on 18's with coordinated running and ball movement.

The reason I'd be against rule changes right now is that Geel, Haw, Port and Coll are playing great footy. West Coast, North, Gold Coast have had their moments. Freo can be good to watch when winning or in close games against the likes of Geel and Haw. A bunch of other sides have played perfectly watchable footy throughout the year. There also seems to be a link between the better you are to watch and the more games you win.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Moaning? Did you watch the press conference, or are you just making baseless assumptions?

Scott never once mentioned the umpires. When asked this week if he had any problems with the way the game was currently played, he said he was fine with the way it was and he didn't think rules should be changed, but if the AFL sought the opinions of the coaches, he would give it in private.

Here's the small quote about Hawthorn's kicking Scott made: "...they kicked the ball very well. And they kicked the ball very, very short at times. So sometimes it's hard to stop all of them, especially the ones that only go 10 or 12 meters." Do you think that constitutes complaining about umpiring?

Umm. Yes.

 

[Freo2012]

You're talking about umpires mate. The same guys that miss things that I can see from the stands 150m away while they are right next to the play........

Yep the umpiring consistency and standards are absolutely abysmal in OUR game. If the AFL was legitimately wanting to improve umpiring standards they would do thorough reviews of every match and legitimately identify all the errors. It is then a very simple statistical process to weed out the biased and inconsistent umpires.

 

[MinerBoy]

It is a response to congestion, something Hawthorn's kicking skills are designed to pick apart. Therefore, no, the mooted rule isn't in response to Hawthorn.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I reckon you have to give the umpires less to worry about, not more.

Kicking backwards is fine. If teams played man on man more often instead of the zone, this crap wouldn't happen. The coaches need to evolve the game, not the ridiculous rules committee.

Yeah agreed. It could help, but it's likely to just add more grey and make a few umpires look silly for no good reason.

It's like the deliberate rushed behind rule. If you still want to rush a behind, go for your life. But time is blown and you can't bring the ball back in until the umpire has waved his flags (and deliberate or not doesn't come into it). Problem solved and there's not a massive penalty either way, if the umpire gets it wrong.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It really shouldn't be that difficult, the mower marks are either 7.5m or 10m wide

Now if we can just have the players kick either vertically or horizontally it will be easy! Or have a computer run pythag in the umps ear.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Change the umpires not the law

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Yep the umpiring consistency and standards are absolutely abysmal in OUR game. If the AFL was legitimately wanting to improve umpiring standards they would do thorough reviews of every match and legitimately identify all the errors. It is then a very simple statistical process to weed out the biased and inconsistent umpires.

We need full time umpires that study the game thoroughly.
FFS we have a multi billion dollar business and we leave the crucial match day decisions to part timers.....


What a load of crock!!!

 

[Freo2012]

Not sure what population height change has to do with it. Even if all midfielders are 190cm (and that alone will take 20 or 30 years), KPP players will still be 200cm and ruckman 205. That's still a big difference and will take years to change. Even still more players of a similar height should actually increase one on one's shouldn't it?

The fitness issue is the big one as coaches worked out it was possible to get players to run forward and back all over the ground and footy evolved from one on ones in to 18 on 18's with coordinated running and ball movement.

The reason I'd be against rule changes right now is that Geel, Haw, Port and Coll are playing great footy. West Coast, North, Gold Coast have had their moments. Freo can be good to watch when winning or in close games against the likes of Geel and Haw. A bunch of other sides have played perfectly watchable footy throughout the year. There also seems to be a link between the better you are to watch and the more games you win.

The differential is becoming far less between KPP's and mids - in the future only truly athletic talls will be successful at being KPP's as the more athletic slightly shorter will have massive advantage over them. If you think its tough finding (and wastting so many years developing) talls now wait another generation. And that does have a very big bearing on tactics and strategies.

All sports are recognizing this, but for whatever reason the AFL turns a blind eye to it with the powers that be thin king they can somehow turn back the clock.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

It is a response to congestion, something Hawthorn's kicking skills are designed to pick apart. Therefore, no, the mooted rule isn't in response to Hawthorn.

You think kicking the ball 10 meters stops congestion?

The rule change is a good one, because when the rule calls for 20m kicks, the umpires will just finally start calling 15m as the minimum and will start declaring the dinky 8-12m kicks the Hawks do as play on, which they should be. Will kill Hawthorn's gameplan, though.

 

[MinerBoy]

You think kicking the ball 10 meters stops congestion?.

Well it doesn't cause it.

 

[Mr Magic]

It is a response to congestion, something Hawthorn's kicking skills are designed to pick apart. Therefore, no, the mooted rule isn't in response to Hawthorn.

What does the 15 metre rule for marking from a kick have to do with congestion? If anything it relieves congestion as the kicker has a broader range of space to kick to

 

[MinerBoy]

What does the 15 metre rule for marking from a kick have to do with congestion? If anything it relieves congestion as the kicker has a broader range of space to kick to

Why did you quote me to agree with me then?

 

[Ported]

The future is to track the ball in 3D to be checked against a virtual stadium for all distance/boundary decisions.

Also, where is my jet pack.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

next they'll want to revisit kicking backwards is play on, which will destroy Melb's gameplan

 

[Oneiros]

Clearly, there is no issue in football that the AFL community does not have a poorly thought out, knee-jerk rule change for.

It is just as well they can also come up with a knee-jerk rule change to fix the mess their original knee-jerk rule change made, or who knows where we'd end up.

 

[Freo2012]

Clearly, there is no issue in football that the AFL community does not have a poorly thought out, knee-jerk rule change for.

It is just as well they can also come up with a knee-jerk rule change to fix the mess their original knee-jerk rule change made, or who knows where we'd end up.

Spot on

A code is not a good code if you have to continually tinker with it. Let footy evolve under one set of fixed rules.

Why don't we treat Footy as the premier code and give it its due respect? Don't change ANY rule without majority vote of all the clubs and a panel of AFL experts (not old hacks), and only do so under limited timeframe (once every 5 years).

 

[Oneiros]

I often think Brad Scott is a prize numb-nut, but he was right in that AFL clubs now complaining about the head-clash rule were the architects of their own fates when everybody had the Lindsay Thomas freak-out and another knee-jerk rule was brought in to govern that situation. And you have to wonder if it hadn't been a noted villain (LT) against a big club's player (Collingwood) in that instance, if we would have ended up with yet another disciplinary rule that discards the notion that accidents that do not deserve sanction can happen in a high-intensity sport.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

The fitness issue is the big one as coaches worked out it was possible to get players to run forward and back all over the ground and footy evolved from one on ones in to 18 on 18's with coordinated running and ball movement.

You've just inspired me for the perfect solution - we need to make the ground bigger. Whack another 50m between the arcs and try running back and forth on that all day you bastards.

 

[Jewbacca]

I don't mind it. Basically you have to decide how long you want the minimum for a mark to be then add 5m due to the way it's umpired. If you want kicks to be 15m for a mark set the rule at 20m.

 

[rumply]

next they'll want to revisit kicking backwards is play on, which will destroy Melb's gameplan

Dees aint alone there