Oppo Camp General AFL Discussion - Opposition posters welcome

[joelsyt]

Do the MRO the same day...

Simplest and best answer.

Unfortunately can’t deny the MRO their weekend.

 

[Michaels]

How long until this rule is changed back?



Carlton player starts ahead of the Pies player while running forward for the initial 50m, does a head check, slows down to let the Pies player in front, then speeds up again claiming his run is blocked and gets an additional 50m!

This rule is an absolute joke.

Players are going to keep exploiting it now on the back of this video I reckon.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Simplest and best answer.

Unfortunately can’t deny the MRO their weekend.

The reason they don’t have same day/next day MRO is because of the amount of media content it generates. Specifically when its an Ablett/Fyfe/Martin its worth its weight in gold to have rags, radio and TV shows going on and on about it. It’s even better when the rules are inconsistently applied because of the outrage it causes. More media content.

 

[magpie_marty]

The MRO/Tribunal is literally trial by media.

It’s an absolute joke, it’s been mentioned on Michaels podcast a few times.

The media has way too much to say about the MRO/Tribunal.

joelsyt I totally agree 110%

What really irks me is we have,
3 Field Umpires
2 Boundry Umpires
2 Goal Umpires
1 Emergency Umpire

So let's let them all sit down and review the game they just umpired and if there was anything worthy to decide player x should go to the Tribunal they can vote and so be it.
This will solve a lot of problems.

 

[Wooden Robot]

I wonder how much the AFL - and clubs even - engage with the fans? Like focus groups, or something similar. Get Gill and co to sit around with 50-100 average fans over a few pies and Cokes and just gauge the average punter's thoughts, Albeit, they are only interested in the corporates.
I'd be interested to know how our club does likewise. I mean I fill out the members' survey at the end of each year and have at times been scathing of our direction, management, engagement etc. Never once has anyone from the club followed up, so it makes me wonder is the feedback being taken on board. Work has a similar survey each year and I'm sure they don't consult with me as they don't like constructive criticism.
But I guess that's just it - the game is not for the average punter anymore. It's for TV and corporates.

 

[Sir_Loin]

How long until this rule is changed back?



Carlton player starts ahead of the Pies player while running forward for the initial 50m, does a head check, slows down to let the Pies player in front, then speeds up again claiming his run is blocked and gets an additional 50m!

This rule is an absolute joke.

Players are going to keep exploiting it now on the back of this video I reckon.

This has to be the worst rule I’ve ever seen introduced and I hated the prior opportunity rule when that was brought it.

I get it, they want to eliminate lazy running from oppo players with free kicks. But that footage is not what that is. The umpires and the league need to be much better than this. If only they trialled these rules for any length of time first.

 

[Meli]

How long until this rule is changed back?



Carlton player starts ahead of the Pies player while running forward for the initial 50m, does a head check, slows down to let the Pies player in front, then speeds up again claiming his run is blocked and gets an additional 50m!

This rule is an absolute joke.

Players are going to keep exploiting it now on the back of this video I reckon.

Totally agree....

 

[Michaels]

I wonder how much the AFL - and clubs even - engage with the fans? Like focus groups, or something similar. Get Gill and co to sit around with 50-100 average fans over a few pies and Cokes and just gauge the average punter's thoughts, Albeit, they are only interested in the corporates.
I'd be interested to know how our club does likewise. I mean I fill out the members' survey at the end of each year and have at times been scathing of our direction, management, engagement etc. Never once has anyone from the club followed up, so it makes me wonder is the feedback being taken on board. Work has a similar survey each year and I'm sure they don't consult with me as they don't like constructive criticism.
But I guess that's just it - the game is not for the average punter anymore. It's for TV and corporates.

I've often wondered this too.

You look at all the social media platforms when AFLX was being re launched for example. There might have been 1 positive comment for every 15-20 negative comments, but it all falls on deaf ears.

I like your idea of them getting the average punters thoughts, but that might be too 'real' for them possibly!

 

[Tigerbob68]

Remember the old days of when, once a guy was reported, the incident was never replayed until after Monday/Tuesday night til the hearing was done.
Now it's sensationalised, replayed 3000 times, commented on by everyone from media people to Joe the Cameraman and supporters, rehashed, regurgitated, re-whatever. Should be blacklisted until dealt with, if only to stop media blokes and girls from going into bat for their favourites.

I was just watching an old game of ours from the 90s the other day and someone got reported by an umpire for a hit. The commentators said straight away "we can't show that again now" and therefore weren't able to dwell on it too much. Not sure when that rule ended?

 

[Cotcho]

Makeshft_Mauler and I were discussing on the podcast tonight that the biggest concern we / I have with the MRO still to this day is they are punishing players based on the outcome rather than the intent.

look at the weekend for example.

We have 2 intentional elbows to the head that caused no damage (thankfully) and 1 accidental head clash in a proper football act that unfortunately caused a concussion, and the accidental head clash is what copped a suspension.

Makeshft also made the good point that James Frawley got away with a fine (I think) for pushing Cameron into the fence. If anything we should be really trying to stamp that out with how dangerous it is.

It's just a bit confusing / frustrating that players who do things outside the rules of the game are being punished less than accidental incidents that happen from an action that is in the rules of the game with zero intent to hurt.


Until the AFL / MRO reverse this line of thinking, I don't think we will see any improvement.

I don't have a problem with the method. I've got a problem with the implementation as they've simply got the balance wrong. It should not be an argument of "Intent" over "Outcome" as both should always be considered just like in the real legal system.

The flow chart needs to look more like this:

1) Has player broken the rules of the game, undertaken an illegal act? Yes/No (If No, no case to answer)
2) Did the incident appear to be deliberate or accidental? Yes/No (If No, was there recklessness or lack of duty of care involved?)
3) What were the consequences of the players actions? Nothing -> Severe

Then simply assign weeks off based on the above. It's actually not hard....

The real problem has started when the AFL declared that bumps and tackles can be illegal. If they were not illegal or outside the rules then we wouldn't have justification for suspensions. If certain tackles and certain bumps are going to be illegal then they need to strictly define what they are. Ie a bump where someone jumps and their shoulder makes contact with the opposition face is illegal. This crap of head clashes causing suspensions is utter garbage.

You can clash heads in a marking contest and it's not a suspension. A head clash should always be considered accidental regardless of the skill the player is performing.....It's actually obvious.

 

[Cotcho]

I wonder how much the AFL - and clubs even - engage with the fans? Like focus groups, or something similar. Get Gill and co to sit around with 50-100 average fans over a few pies and Cokes and just gauge the average punter's thoughts, Albeit, they are only interested in the corporates.
I'd be interested to know how our club does likewise. I mean I fill out the members' survey at the end of each year and have at times been scathing of our direction, management, engagement etc. Never once has anyone from the club followed up, so it makes me wonder is the feedback being taken on board. Work has a similar survey each year and I'm sure they don't consult with me as they don't like constructive criticism.
But I guess that's just it - the game is not for the average punter anymore. It's for TV and corporates.

0

 

[captain blood 17]

The AFL is a basket case and is driving people away from the game. The organisation is always chasing its tail and obviously believes in t5he mantra that ypou can have your cake and eat it too.
I mean the Rampe call was obviously wrong on-field (and I say that knowing no one hates Essendon more than I and they would have won) and the free-kick in the square should have applied. The AFL first backs its umpires, as it sees that as the right thing to do, but then must act to the backlash. so it fines the player. But hang on, the player did nothing wrong, otherwise he would have been penalised. It's conflicted with what's right and what's wrong.
Same with the tanking debate. Melbourne didn't tank, says Gill. Fine. But why are you suspending Bailey etc. He didn't tank you just said. They tiptoe around conflict, but are conflicted. Basket case!

Your best post. Kudos.

 

[Muddiemoose]

I'm not sure that they realise how much more respect people would have for them if they come out and said 'look we got the Rampe one wrong. it's a rule in the game that has hardly ever come up and in the heat of the moment we failed to apply the rule. We will go back and provide more training in these areas for our umpires'

I know it doesn't change the result and maybe it would open up a can of worms from an Essendon perspective, but at least come out and own up to a mistake.


And your first line is absolutley on point about driving people away from the game.

we spoke about this last night off air but I used to watch as many games of football each weekend as possible, no matter the team.

But now I'm really selective on what games i'll watch and often I wont even watch a game from start to finish (unless it's richmond). It's just not the same anymore.

I feel like I don't know the rules to the game anymore, which is frustrating.

This 100%
We as fans understand that sometimes the umpires will make the wrong call weather it’s because they didn’t see the whole incident, mis interpreted a rule or the correct punishment for breaking a rule, or just be down right wrong

We get it, it’s hard
But instead of pretending that the umpires are always correct just own it
Admit the mistake and move on

We understand on game day the umps ruling is final but there is no harm in admitting any mistakes it just helps educate both the umpires and us as fans

 

[Muddiemoose]

I wonder how much the AFL - and clubs even - engage with the fans? Like focus groups, or something similar. Get Gill and co to sit around with 50-100 average fans over a few pies and Cokes and just gauge the average punter's thoughts, Albeit, they are only interested in the corporates.
I'd be interested to know how our club does likewise. I mean I fill out the members' survey at the end of each year and have at times been scathing of our direction, management, engagement etc. Never once has anyone from the club followed up, so it makes me wonder is the feedback being taken on board. Work has a similar survey each year and I'm sure they don't consult with me as they don't like constructive criticism.
But I guess that's just it - the game is not for the average punter anymore. It's for TV and corporates.

The odd email survey only sent to certain people with most of us junking the email anyway

 

[captain blood 17]

Wow some great comments from all in regards to the Tribunal and Match Review.
Unfortunately the Media play's a huge part in my opinion and i can see why re $.
But if player nobody did what Ablett did and copped 2 weeks we would not hear a thing.

The other thing is they take into account the medical reports which can actually over ride the actual incident. So is it the act or outcome which is now important in assessing incidents? Because to me it looks like the weight is more on the medical report and whether or not it was a football act. How that North kid got suspended for the bump on Rohan is a disgrace. Perfect bump. But, throw an elbow into the head of an opponent, and provided they are okay to play, nothing to see here.

 

[Muddiemoose]

The other thing is they take into account the medical reports which can actually over ride the actual incident. So is it the act or outcome which is now important in assessing incidents? Because to me it looks like the weight is more on the medical report and whether or not it was a football act. How that North kid got suspended for the bump on Rohan is a disgrace. Perfect bump. But, throw an elbow into the head of an opponent, and provided they are okay to play, nothing to see here.

What would of been interesting is what would the outcome of been if both players were knocked out or only the north bloke
Does the ruling change depending on who came worse off?
Like you said perfect bump in a football act and shouldn’t of been deemed anything but

 

[HTT]

How long until this rule is changed back?



Carlton player starts ahead of the Pies player while running forward for the initial 50m, does a head check, slows down to let the Pies player in front, then speeds up again claiming his run is blocked and gets an additional 50m!

This rule is an absolute joke.

Players are going to keep exploiting it now on the back of this video I reckon.

Such a stupid rule when such a simple solution is possible in treating the umpire as the 'mark' and otherwise treating play as normal. If you go off line or otherwise cross the mark, it's play on.

 

[captain blood 17]

I don't have a problem with the method. I've got a problem with the implementation as they've simply got the balance wrong. It should not be an argument of "Intent" over "Outcome" as both should always be considered just like in the real legal system.

The flow chart needs to look more like this:

1) Has player broken the rules of the game, undertaken an illegal act? Yes/No (If No, no case to answer)
2) Did the incident appear to be deliberate or accidental? Yes/No (If No, was there recklessness or lack of duty of care involved?)
3) What were the consequences of the players actions? Nothing -> Severe

Then simply assign weeks off based on the above. It's actually not hard....

The real problem has started when the AFL declared that bumps and tackles can be illegal. If they were not illegal or outside the rules then we wouldn't have justification for suspensions. If certain tackles and certain bumps are going to be illegal then they need to strictly define what they are. Ie a bump where someone jumps and their shoulder makes contact with the opposition face is illegal. This crap of head clashes causing suspensions is utter garbage.

You can clash heads in a marking contest and it's not a suspension. A head clash should always be considered accidental regardless of the skill the player is performing.....It's actually obvious.

The one thing i would change in your rationale Cotcho is 1 - is it a football act? That should be the first assessment made on an incident. Was Ablett and Fyfes hit a football act? Was Durdans a football act? Which incident got suspended, which two got cleared?

 

[captain blood 17]

What would of been interesting is what would the outcome of been if both players were knocked out or only the north bloke
Does the ruling change depending on who came worse off?
Like you said perfect bump in a football act and shouldn’t of been deemed anything but

As i posted earlier, if it wasn't Lynch who's 200cms and 100kgs who Fyfe hit and it was say George or Higgins, what would of the outcome been you reckon? I reckon he would of knocked them out.

 

[Cdog71]

Officiating the game and MRP needs to become more black and white it’s slowly pissing everybody off.
If it is all about interpretation now.
The tinkering with the rules...it’s got to the point I don’t think I understand them.

On the no prior.
I can’t help myself...”DROPPING THE BAALLLLLL!!!” Still comes out’ve me and startles my kids.
They should bring it back.
If you look at the Sydney Stack bump on Viney and keeping in mind you are allowed to drop it if you don’t have prior.
There’s a pretty good arguement you might as well teach kids to try and line up the oppo and bump them to the ground as soon as they pick it up there’s probably more opportunity for an advantage.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Not enough Public discussion like this with the various interested parties...coaches/players/umpires/medicos/fans...independent of the AFL...
To have imput into the MRO's rules set up and implementation...with some sort of yearly?!? review...

 

[magpie_marty]

The other thing is they take into account the medical reports which can actually over ride the actual incident. So is it the act or outcome which is now important in assessing incidents? Because to me it looks like the weight is more on the medical report and whether or not it was a football act. How that North kid got suspended for the bump on Rohan is a disgrace. Perfect bump. But, throw an elbow into the head of an opponent, and provided they are okay to play, nothing to see here.

So true captain blood 17

 

[magpie_marty]

Officiating the game and MRP needs to become more black and white it’s slowly pissing everybody off.
If it is all about interpretation now.
The tinkering with the rules...it’s got to the point I don’t think I understand them.

On the no prior.
I can’t help myself...”DROPPING THE BAALLLLLL!!!” Still comes out’ve me and startles my kids.
They should bring it back.
If you look at the Sydney Stack bump on Viney and keeping in mind you are allowed to drop it if you don’t have prior.
There’s a pretty good arguement you might as well teach kids to try and line up the oppo and bump them to the ground as soon as they pick it up there’s probably more opportunity for an advantage.

That bump made me shudder and smile you have a ripper there.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

I think with little Gaz I understand. Very clumsy and something he needs to address, thought the first one he was pretty lucky.
But I can’t get my head around the Fyfe one, that was just a blatant cocking of the elbow which is just not on regardless of the outcome.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Old mate Stacky frightens the crap out of me. Love his aggression but I can just see him getting a holiday soon.