Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XIII

[revival_mode]

Agreed. Norf fans are getting out of control.

i actually quite like north and they have been the team i have most interest in following outside of us for as long as i can remember... but geeeez do their supporters on here make me want to reconsider

 

[Phone]

Better or worse Hall of Fame pick than Mark Bickley?

oh of course it's better than that. although tbf, Bickley got in when we had a worse rule than "must include 2 people to have retired in the past 10 years". It was include 3 people...maybe they were struggling for numbers that year.

I'm not really sure why that rule exists in the first place. i would have thought "must include 1 person whose career predates 1945" would be better

 

[citizen-erased]

i actually quite like north and they have been the team i have most interest in following outside of us for as long as i can remember... but geeeez do their supporters on here make me want to reconsider

...............
*spews in mouth a little

 

[Phone]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/kevin-sheedy-it-s-time-to-try-16-a-side-20180530-p4ziig.html

I'm ok going down this path before zones, etc, but I'm putting that aside for a second, on this part of Sheedy's thoughts:

‘‘There’s two things – kick a goal and get off the ground,’’ Sheedy said, referring to the practice of players who kick a goal immediately running off the ground for a scheduled rest. He said he wanted ‘‘less rotations’’, adding, ‘‘I’m with Bartlett on this one.’

Given how often people complain about this, I'm surprised there hasn't been a real push to just ban an interchange occurring when the umpire has stopped time running. So of course most notably after a goal has been kicked but other stoppages too. I always just assumed the bolded thing happens because it's a rare time where the forward can get to the bench and his replacement has plenty of time to be in position before time starts again. So to combat the bolded, just don't allow it to be possible, right?

(they'd still be able to make the change if it's a set shot anyway)

 

[threeleggedgoat]

He is also the face of a great beer... also helping a great cause.

Yep, was doing his thing promoting his beer at GABS in Melbourne the other week, chatting to everybody and generally being very down to earth and friendly. Seemed a good bloke

 

[Burzum]

I believe it was ant555 who talked about two players from each side needing to be in their respective forward lines at all time. I think that idea is much more desirable than having four fewer players on the ground.

 

[Andronicus]

I believe it was ant555 who talked about two players from each side needing to be in their respective forward lines at all time. I think that idea is much more desirable than having four fewer players on the ground.

I might be reading it wrong, but 2 from each team in the 50, or just in the forward 50? Does the restriction apply to defenders or would they be free to push up the ground?

 

[Burzum]

I might be reading it wrong, but 2 from each team in the 50, or just in the forward 50? Does the restriction apply to defenders or would they be free to push up the ground?

So each side must have at least two forwards in their respective forward line. I don't believe defenders have the same restriction. Perhaps ant555 can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[TheGrizz]

So each side must have at least two forwards in their respective forward line. I don't believe defenders have the same restriction. Perhaps ant555 can correct me if I'm wrong.

I think thats a bit unreasonable because what if you only have 2 forwards in your 50 but the ball bounces just outside the 50. Your player just has to stand there and look at it as his opponent runs past him to pick up the ball. Not a great look.

However I wouldnt mind a variation of that rule.
You could make it that there has to be 2 players in your forward 50 at every stoppage. That would make at least 2 forwards stay close to the 50 anyway because if the ball gets locked up and they are too far away to get back inside 50 then they give away a free kick. It also means that if there is a loose ball at half fotward they have the freedom to go contest for it.

 

[Mercurial89]

Heard a suggestion on the radio this morning.

Instead of clash jumpers, clubs use the indigenous jumpers for when clashes occur. Why should it only be a 1 round thing?

I actually really like that idea and it makes a bit more sense as an alternative to jumpers that would have a bit more to them than just an alternate strip.

Thoughts?

 

[BrunoV]

Heard a suggestion on the radio this morning.

Instead of clash jumpers, clubs use the indigenous jumpers for when clashes occur. Why should it only be a 1 round thing?

I actually really like that idea and it makes a bit more sense as an alternative to jumpers that would have a bit more to them than just an alternate strip.

Thoughts?

Only works if the change in colour is sufficient.

 

[AcuteWhistle]

However I wouldnt mind a variation of that rule.
You could make it that there has to be 2 players in your forward 50 at every stoppage. That would make at least 2 forwards stay close to the 50 anyway because if the ball gets locked up and they are too far away to get back inside 50 then they give away a free kick. It also means that if there is a loose ball at half fotward they have the freedom to go contest for it.

I'm coming around to that suggestion as well as it eliminates the restriction on any particular players from exiting the 50 to lead, attack the ball etc but requires that at any given time, there would need to be 2 players from each side on or about their 50m arc & should help open up the game.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Can't be an all-game thing, or you introduce yet more frustrating off-the-ball frees and turn the sport ever further into netball.

 

[HirdyLannister]

I'm more of a shirts and no-shirts type of guy.

 

[baz_machine]

It's a TAC Cup rule.

Correct me if wrong but I think each team must have two players in both the forward 50 and defensive 50 at EVERY stoppage.

Once ball is in play they can run wherever but they must have two back in each when there is another stoppage

Basically means you force both sides to have four players in or near the 50 at all times

Edit : best I could find

The anti-density rule means at any stoppage or kick-in, teams are required to ensure that a least five players remain inside their forward half with two of those five players required to be inside the 50-metre arc.

 

[Stopher]

It's a TAC Cup rule.

Correct me if wrong but I think each team must have two players in both the forward 50 and defensive 50 at EVERY stoppage.

Once ball is in play they can run wherever but they must have two back in each when there is another stoppage

Basically means you force both sides to have four players in or near the 50 at all times

Were there to be a rule change, I'd be far more open to this as opposed to reducing the number of players on the ground.

 

[baz_machine]

To me it's just an extension of the centre square rule which was only brought in the 60s(?) to reduce congestion at centre bounces

Were there to be a rule change, I'd be far more open to this as opposed to reducing the number of players on the ground.

 

[Mercurial89]

Only works if the change in colour is sufficient.

Would have to be reviewed to make sure they were different enough but i liked it as an idea

 

[BrunoV]

Would have to be reviewed to make sure they were different enough but i liked it as an idea

The red jumper has really grown on me, to be honest. It's a great colour, almost regal.

If we were going down the path with the indigenous jumpers, we'd have to just choose one design and be done with it, though I'd only be advocating Wanganeen's design or the possum skin jack design (which are basically the same colours as our normal strip).

I'd not want to be running around in the cartoon design we've got this year more than once.

 

[Mercurial89]

The red jumper has really grown on me, to be honest. It's a great colour, almost regal.

If we were going down the path with the indigenous jumpers, we'd have to just choose one design and be done with it, though I'd only be advocating Wanganeen's design or the possum skin jack design (which are basically the same colours as our normal strip).

I'd not want to be running around in the cartoon design we've got this year more than once.

Yeah ive never minded clash jumpers as a concept and aome of ours certainly arent the worst in the league.
i guess this idea would rob us of a variety of different artists we get now. But then again maybe it would rotate yearly with clubs kind of honouring that artist for a season.
Would also add the money spin as they can sell a new one each year, maybe with part of sales going towards helping aboriginal pathways or something.

I think it has potential as a concept, obviously implementation and logistical issues but when i heard it i was struck by the possibilities something like that could bring and what it would mean to indigenous people.

 

[Saint]

Gold Coast at home (1st time for the year) with Lynch and Day back paying $3.55 is a pretty good bet.

Geelong are playing putrid at the moment, flogged by us and limped over the line against Carlton at home.

If GC back themselves, which I think they will with a big crowd, they're better than a $3.55 shot.

 

[Old Stuckup]

If GC back themselves, which I think they will with a big crowd, they're better than a $3.55 shot.

20k is a big crowd these days?

 

[ant555]

So each side must have at least two forwards in their respective forward line. I don't believe defenders have the same restriction. Perhaps ant555 can correct me if I'm wrong.

What they use in the under 18 championships is two forwards and two defenders inside each forward 50 at all stoppages. Umpire at each end controls the 50. Players can lead out of the 50 in general play but when there is a stoppage there had to be 2 forwards and two defenders inside the arcs at both ends. Has worked really well and last year I think there was only 1 fee kick paid for outside the zone. During the game you hardly notice it is a zone other than there are players in that half of the ground for 90% of the game.
What it has done is allow forwards to play deep and lead up at the ball without running into congestion. There are more 1 on 1 contests in the forward half and the game does not look like a 18 on 18 basket ball game with tackling that is played on an oval. It looks more like a football game.

I would never have been in favour of zones but having seen this for a number of games it really does work and IMO actually makes the game better to watch.

To add another opinion for peeps to discuss. Reducing the interchange alone will not work. Coaches will not give up their press. What will happen is the demise of the KP players unless he can run a 14 beeper. Coaches will just tell recruiters not to draft anyone who can not get up and down the ground all day long. They will be looking to field a team of endurance athletes.

 

[ant555]

20k is a big crowd these days?

It is a good number up there. They can make a decent dollar is they are drawing 20,000 to 25,000 each home game. Right now I think the numbers have been more like 12,000 to 17,000 with the odd spike.

 

[ant555]

I think thats a bit unreasonable because what if you only have 2 forwards in your 50 but the ball bounces just outside the 50. Your player just has to stand there and look at it as his opponent runs past him to pick up the ball. Not a great look.

However I wouldnt mind a variation of that rule.
You could make it that there has to be 2 players in your forward 50 at every stoppage. That would make at least 2 forwards stay close to the 50 anyway because if the ball gets locked up and they are too far away to get back inside 50 then they give away a free kick. It also means that if there is a loose ball at half fotward they have the freedom to go contest for it.

Second part is what they are using. Works well.