2016 Non Crows AFL Discussion thread Part 2

[tinman]

Weak. Can't say I'm surprised

Sounds suspiciously like a "negotiated penalty". Weak as piss.

 

[tinman]

Oooh good question.

Pick 20 = 912
Pick 53 = 233
Pick 8 = 1,551
Pick 30 = 629

Total = 3,325

PLUS whatever Tippet was worth. Don't forget we got diddly squat for him....

 

[jenny61_99]

The AFL are corrupt

Fixed that for you.

 

[cmndstab]

We've got to remember we had back our picks that first year and then we still copped extra punishment. What would have been the consequences had we fought it? Not much more I would have thought.

I'm pretty sure at the time it was common knowledge that were going to lose our first two draft picks for two successive years if we were found guilty. Our picks that year were not great so we effectively pled guilty and offered that year's picks back as a way of saying "our picks this year aren't all that good, so if we admit guilt can we please use this draft as one of the punishment years rather than the one in two years time which could see us losing much better picks".

It's not like we were going to get fined one year's worth of picks and then we just gave away another. People were talking two years worth of draft sanctions throughout the whole process.

In hindsight, I'm glad we gave up the picks in 2012 rather than copping the penalties in 2014, where we turned our first two picks into Lever, Wigg, Cheney, Lowden and some late pick upgrades (50 into 43 which we used to take McGovern, and 68 into 59 which we used to take Dear). Hell of a lot better than we were likely to get for 20 and 53 in 2012 (for the record, those picks were used to select Tim Broomhead and Martin Gleeson).

It was a smart move, assuming we had already worked out were going to be found guilty (which was a reasonable assumption given that we were guilty and had given them access to our email trail). Whether we could have chosen to fight and get the two years down to one in return for throwing Trigg and Chapman under the bus is a separate question which I've heard conflicting stories about.


Andy D's comments about us "not cooperating" were, apparently, referring to us not having come to them with this information until the story had been basically broken and run as back page news the country wide. Whereas Essendon supposedly reported their issues unprovoked, if you can believe that.

 

[johnnypanther]

Was it Cathay Pacific that our State Govt paid out undisclosed millions of our taxpayers' money in order to get them to Adelaide airport?
If so, then Cathay subsequently handing over some of that money to Port, is really just another in the long list of taxpayers handouts being used to prop up that franchise.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Players POV on subjects depends on what their club POV ......having Sandilands in your club, what do you think Pavlich's opinion on the ruck rule was going to be ......unfortunately players have shown they can't separate the bias in comments made

 

[Pea Nut]

Players POV on subjects depends on what their club POV ......having Sandilands in your club, what do you think Pavlich's opinion on the ruck rule was going to be ......unfortunately players have shown they can't separate the bias in comments made

At least he is doing the right thing in respect to providing support to the AFL's latest rule change, even if from the outside it may look like he is supporting it because it gives his old side a playing advantage. On the other hand, players slamming it publically because it directly affects their team and game plan is completely the wrong thing to be saying in the media. Especially before it has been trialled. To me, I think the rule change makes a lot of sense.

 

[Janus]

I personally think the game ie the core product being elite Aussie Rules peaked in the 1995-2004 era. Players were becoming fitter and stronger and the game was still Aussie Rules as we know it. Not just in appearance but the skills of the average player were better.

The game has evolved into a less skillfull game and coaches have countered this by creating congestion and of course zoning as the art of one on one play has diminished somewhat.

The players have not grown the game.


What has grown the game is the media hype and advent of the 365 day AFL cycle. During footy season it reaches saturation point

Twenty years ago we would be debating the cricket not footy.

The draft was barely mentioned on the radio. And we certainly knew little about preseason training other than maybe weekly paragraph in the Advertiser.

And now, even though nothing is happening we still come here each day to debate stuff. The clubs and AFL use Twitter and Facebook to communicate with us in December on a daily basis. Plus we have Fox footy to watch old games to keep us interested in the sport even though there are no games being played . And it is still about 95 days till the season starts.

The machine grew the game and the players are cogs in that machine.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

I would respectfully disagree. At least about the game being less skillful.

The game only appeared to peak in that era because it was those years where the players drafted came into a system that was fully professional. However, the game itself was still tactically amateur. Every sport in the world starts off with a man on man defensive structure, because it's the easiest to understand. "Beat your man." But as the players became faster and stronger, coaches had to adapt. It started with Rodney Eade and his flooding tactics, which were designed to negate the lack of speed that his Sydney side had in transition. Then Roos came in and refined it even more, rolling the flood up and down the field. Lyon and Malthouse added the idea of forward defensive pressure.

That's why the skills appear to be worse. Players are asked to do more defensively, which adds to fatigue, both mentally and physically. When a high amount of players are drafted from the TAC cup premiership team, that's because teams know that those players understand the defensive requirements needed to perform at AFL level. Another reason why hardly any South Australian players get drafted - we have a system based on archaic methodologies.

It's often been said that if you want to get good at something, it takes 10 years (or 10,000 hours) to go from amateur to professional, and then another 10 to go from professional to master. I would say the dawn of the AFL becoming professional tactically started in 2005 with Roos winning the flag, and progressed to master level with Clarkson in 2015.

So the tactics are now at master level, but the professionalism and fitness of the players is still at professional level. That's why you're now seeing a lot of clubs like Adelaide pushing the envelope on things like sleep recovery etc. At Port, we are employing the services of Lorimer Moseley to assist with 'pain science':

 

[spenze]

Why is everyone obsessed with the third man up rule change?

* PLAYERS won’t get a free kick for high contact if they drop their knees or raise their arms to make a legal tackle illegal.

The end of the Selwoods right there

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Players POV on subjects depends on what their club POV ......having Sandilands in your club, what do you think Pavlich's opinion on the ruck rule was going to be ......unfortunately players have shown they can't separate the bias in comments made

I gather they will trial it in the preseason games.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I gather they will trial it in the preseason games.

Trial would insinuate an option not to implement in the season proper ? .....that's not my understanding, from what i read, it's a fait accompli ?

 

[Elite Crow]

Why is everyone obsessed with the third man up rule change?



The end of the Selwoods right there

The enforcement of this is going to be very interesting.

 

[GreyCrow]

At Port, we are employing the services of Lorimer Moseley to assist with 'pain science':

Interesting video. I do agree pain is a learned response and that some of us can manage pain differently to others. My only concern ( with the quick look) is the idea that we can ignore serious damage because we have taught ourselves it could be a false positive. We have all seen vision of footballers running with broken legs, and torn ACLs and even Darryn Cresswell slapping his dislocated knee back into place. Yet what is the physical damage and the long term outlook?

For bumps and collision management yes pain control has its place but we must be mindful of the underlying issues.

 

[spenze]

The enforcement of this is going to be very interesting.

I would have thought it was simple.

Look at the repeat offenders (Selwoods, that slimy s**t from the Western Bulldogs...nah scratch that, just the whole Western Bulldogs squad) and just don't pay them high frees next year

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Call me a cynic .....but you just knew the Port PR machine would have a fluff piece telling us that Impey is simply killing it at PS training ......geesus, they treat us as dumb

Bouncing back Impey rises to challenge

EMBATTLED Port Adelaide player Jarman Impey has emerged from the most challenging phase of his life as one of the standouts in the Power’s pre-season training.

 

[footy4ever]

Why is everyone obsessed with the third man up rule change?



The end of the Selwoods right there

As well as the Bulldogs' entire midfield ducking machine (except for Bonts). Too bad the AFL don't take things a step further and scrutinise hand balling. I'm so sick of watching throws go unpenalised.

 

[footy4ever]

I would have thought it was simple.

Look at the repeat offenders (Selwoods, that slimy s**t from the Western Bulldogs...nah scratch that, just the whole Western Bulldogs squad) and just don't pay them high frees next year

Snap! I hadn't read this post when I posted ^^^.

 

[footy4ever]

Call me a cynic .....but you just knew the Port PR machine would have a fluff piece telling us that Impey is simply killing it at PS training ......geesus, they treat us as dumb

Media *shakes head* bwa ha ha ha ha.

 

[Elite Crow]

I would have thought it was simple.

Look at the repeat offenders (Selwoods, that slimy s**t from the Western Bulldogs...nah scratch that, just the whole Western Bulldogs squad) and just don't pay them high frees next year

What should be simple will see the Umps and the AFL * it up.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

I would have thought it was simple.

Look at the repeat offenders (Selwoods, that slimy s**t from the Western Bulldogs...nah scratch that, just the whole Western Bulldogs squad) and just don't pay them high frees next year

The cynic in me says that for the traditional repeat offenders as you have named, nothing will change to a large degree.

Watch the non traditional offenders get done every time.

Was sick of watching the Dogs players first action to duck the head when tackled, it was their primary intent.

 

[Rotayjay]

The Laws of Australian Football need to be overhauled with respect to enforcement by umpires. I think as many of the subjective and interpretive grey areas need to be scrubbed out of the rule book and replaced with objective things which give a good equivalent.

'Genuine attempt', 'did not reasonably', 'dangerous', 'under pressure/not under pressure' ... toss the lot of it. You can't expect a human being to meaningfully officiate a fast sport like this if they're expected to exercise the discretion of a judge in the space of one second.

This subjective rubbish is the root cause of 'rule of the week' and basically changing of the rules in the middle of the season.

 

[MRB37]

We obviously co-operated to save Trigg and further scrutiny.

Essendon doped an entire squad, GWS willingly hid a player from testers because they were afraid he'd test positive and our whack with draft losses for one player contract was greater than the combined penalties for Essendon and GWS.

Just reminds me of why I disliked Trigg again.

 

[Geoffa32]

I would respectfully disagree. At least about the game being less skillful.

The game only appeared to peak in that era because it was those years where the players drafted came into a system that was fully professional. However, the game itself was still tactically amateur. Every sport in the world starts off with a man on man defensive structure, because it's the easiest to understand. "Beat your man." But as the players became faster and stronger, coaches had to adapt. It started with Rodney Eade and his flooding tactics, which were designed to negate the lack of speed that his Sydney side had in transition. Then Roos came in and refined it even more, rolling the flood up and down the field. Lyon and Malthouse added the idea of forward defensive pressure.

That's why the skills appear to be worse. Players are asked to do more defensively, which adds to fatigue, both mentally and physically. When a high amount of players are drafted from the TAC cup premiership team, that's because teams know that those players understand the defensive requirements needed to perform at AFL level. Another reason why hardly any South Australian players get drafted - we have a system based on archaic methodologies.

It's often been said that if you want to get good at something, it takes 10 years (or 10,000 hours) to go from amateur to professional, and then another 10 to go from professional to master. I would say the dawn of the AFL becoming professional tactically started in 2005 with Roos winning the flag, and progressed to master level with Clarkson in 2015.

So the tactics are now at master level, but the professionalism and fitness of the players is still at professional level. That's why you're now seeing a lot of clubs like Adelaide pushing the envelope on things like sleep recovery etc. At Port, we are employing the services of Lorimer Moseley to assist with 'pain science':

I do understand and somewhat agree with what you say. Tactically the game is more advanced than it ever was.

And as you say our game is following global sporting trends in terms of formations and defensive strategies.

However my main point was that the spectacle of Aussie Rules as a game was at its peak in that era. It was a distinct game that has now morphed into a different game that emulates a lot of aspects of other games. Soccer, Hockey (Ice and field), Basketball etc.

Given there are no fixed positions and very little rules in regards to zones on the ground it makes sense that it would evolve in such a way as coaches have more exposure to global trends and influenced by other sports.


The other aspect I consider is that kids don't spend the hours they used to honing skills. Drive around and see how many kids you see playing games like "marks up" etc. Yes the coaching may be better now than it was. But they don't have the free time to play the game unsupervised. The hours just kicking and handling a footy is where the skill set becomes innate. Kids now have more activities and emphasis on other pursuits than before.

I think coaches have compensated by employing team defences as the skill in defending one on one has disappeared. Not just in our sport but team sports in general. There is also the ten thousand hours concept where if you practiced something for that many hours you will be an expert in it. In previous generations kids were doing this without knowing. Today they play more varied sports and activities but less time on each one

It is just the evolution of modern sport I guess. And when you look back at old games shown on Fox footy it may not be as slick or polished as it is now. But I still think the actual game as a whole and as a distinct sport was better than now.

However I do still enjoy the actual game now. If I didn't I would not devote as time much to it as I do. Regardless of the inconsistent way it is administered. That is another subject though.....



Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[Pdub]

The Laws of Australian Football need to be overhauled with respect to enforcement by umpires. I think as many of the subjective and interpretive grey areas need to be scrubbed out of the rule book and replaced with objective things which give a good equivalent.

'Genuine attempt', 'did not reasonably', 'dangerous', 'under pressure/not under pressure' ... toss the lot of it. You can't expect a human being to meaningfully officiate a fast sport like this if they're expected to exercise the discretion of a judge in the space of one second.

This subjective rubbish is the root cause of 'rule of the week' and basically changing of the rules in the middle of the season.

The problem is you need to make the kind of changes that make people feel uncomfortable.

I would get rid of "deliberate out of bounds" by having a last-touch rule where the team who didn't touch the ball takes the place of the umpire to throw the ball back in like in soccer. I'd say 90% of the times a ball goes out it could have been avoided but it's only deliberate if the player is a bad actor. Perhaps a handball back in play, most players can handball 30m. The problem with the last touch rules we have trialled is that a free kick is too big of a penalty, especially inside 50, so don't kick it, pass it. Allow them to do it immediately, so if a team kicks for touch to gain space, the defenders can immediately bring the ball back into play and send it back into attack.

 

[Rotayjay]

The problem is you need to make the kind of changes that make people feel uncomfortable.

I would get rid of "deliberate out of bounds" by having a last-touch rule where the team who didn't touch the ball takes the place of the umpire to throw the ball back in like in soccer. I'd say 90% of the times a ball goes out it could have been avoided but it's only deliberate if the player is a bad actor. Perhaps a handball back in play, most players can handball 30m. The problem with the last touch rules we have trialled is that a free kick is too big of a penalty, especially inside 50, so don't kick it, pass it. Allow them to do it immediately, so if a team kicks for touch to gain space, the defenders can immediately bring the ball back into play and send it back into attack.

Indeed, the really difficult thing would be coming up with reasonable objective or at least semi-objective signs/prompts to replace the subjective interpretations. Even the word I just used - 'reasonable' - is subjective. A good rule to me could be a stupid rule in someone else's opinion. Indeed the idea of a last-touch rule for OOB makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.

Hence making the rules less subjective will inevitably remain in the too-hard basket.