Hawk_francais
Cancelled
- Sep 20, 2015
- 3,509
- 7,036
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I think this is a better idea than AFLX
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
“Prior opportunity” is a relatively new concept. It didn’t used to exist. It’s laughable people think the game would be a totally different sport.
Players would always take possession whenever possible because having possession of the ball means a more effective disposal. It’s much easier to kick or handball accurately than it is to tap or soccer the ball.
Watch any passage of play. Players grab the footy constantly and either dispose of it extremely quickly before being wrapped up, or even as they’re being tackled. That’s fine and will continue.
But there’s no doubt there’s instances when players take possession of the ball - usually around stoppages - knowing full well they’ll be mauled to the ground. And the rules protect them.
It’s not good for the game. It causes repeat stoppages which allow players to take a break (offsetting the fatigue the AFL is so intent on creating anyway) and put in place more defensive zones to further slow the game down.
Players shouldn’t have a god-given right to take possession. The key to a flowing game, and everything that everybody wants (higher scoring, a more attractive game) is to keep it moving.
That needs to be the number 1 priority: keep it moving. Not “take possession”. That’s the way the game was designed and what made it what it was. It’s one of the major differences to rugby which is all about protection of the ball.
This obsession with allowing possession and protection of the ball has been the biggest cause of congestion.
Keep it moving... keep it moving... keep it moving
I wonder if you're stance against taking possession is because Essendon have the worst inside midfield stocks in the league? As previously stated, it's a farcical approach and your justifications nonsensical, therefore I can only assume it is rooted in your distate for the way football is played due to your clubs inability to compete in that facet of the game.I have no doubt part of the issue is we’ve become obsessed with possession. The ability to “win the ball” is lauded like it never was. Win possession! “Inside mids!”
What differentiated the game and made us all love it was the speed, unpredictability, high marking contests and goals. The athletic feats... not wrestling in a pack like rugby.
Now we’re obsessed with trying to get it back, but not recognising the real issue and true causes.
I wonder if you're stance against taking possession is because Essendon have the worst inside midfield stocks in the league? As previously stated, it's a farcical approach and your justifications nonsensical, therefore I can only assume it is rooted in your distate for the way football is played due to your clubs inability to compete in that facet of the game.
I used to be against this idea but I've come around to it.
Imagining today's games with players standing around looking at a loose ball won't happen because the game won't look like it does now. And that's the point.
And if the play gets to the point where a ball is locked into a small scrum of players the umpire can come in and bounce it. Have a look at games from the 80s and the ball ups happened really quickly once the ball stopped moving.
Plus it would make htb a million times easier to umpire, fans to understand and to explain to foreigners what the rules actually are.
What year was prior opportunity really discussed? was it 95 96ish?
So, in congestion, a player grabs the ball and is immediately tackled and is caught for holding the ball?
Not sure that is fair and under your suggestion won’t everybody in a pack situation just sit off the ball and wait for someone else to take possession? Then wrap their arms around them waiting for the free kick?
I realise Dwayne isn't the most respected commentator but he was saying during the Essendon v Port game that prior opportunity won't be around next year. He was saying it matter-of-factly, like it's a known rule change. Good.
I'll throw a man from my own team under the bus here. When the Hawks are defending a lead late in the match, I always see Liam Shiels at least once or twice grab the hit-out and run directly into an opponent, he just wants to chew down the clock and give his team more time to set up behind the stoppage. The coaches love it, and it's alarm bells for the game.The prior opportunity/knocked out in the tackle rule has brought the game to its knees. If two players get to the same ball, it's a ball up, otherwise the player:
1) Legally disposed of the ball and it's play on or/
2) Illegally disposed of the ball and it's a free kick.
The way it was adjudicated in the 90s was fine, why it got changed is beyond me.
If someone dived on the ball and is tackled it'd be a free against, same as it is now.Coming back to this thread... I'm stretching my knowledge of the rules a bit here.
What is the original intention of the ball-up (or throw-up, as is the current AFL rules jargon, seems to more accurately describe the look of the games this weekend though)? It's not defined in the AFL 2019 rules. I believe it's meant to indicate that the ball is in dispute. Much the same as the boundary throw-in, it's an indication that neither team has possession of the ball.
If prior opportunity were to be taken away, under what conditions would we see a ball-up? Would the 'dived on it' style of decision still be interpreted that way, as when the player 'attempts to take possession'.
I really believe that the 6-6-6 rule change has been a failure, it has made no visible difference to the flow of games, overall scoring etc. It has only meant to umpires have one more bloody thing to do. If the AFL really wants to make the game more offensive, then they need to take away every teams number 1 defensive strategy, i.e. numbers around the ball, lock it in. As yes, pay incorrect disposal as the free-kick that's stated in the rules.
Exactly right, and exactly wrong. It would reduce the incentive for teams to have a large group of players around the ball in the first place. Having extra bodies around simply makes it more difficult for the player taking possession to get the ball away. And if only one team tries to lock it in, they risk being a) caught in possession or b) killed on the spread with free players everywhere.You'd have a situation where a group of players are all standing around looking at the ball with no one willing to pick it up
Exactly right, and exactly wrong. It would reduce the incentive for teams to have a large group of players around the ball in the first place. Having extra bodies around simply makes it more difficult for the player taking possession to get the ball away. And if only one team tries to lock it in, they risk being a) caught in possession or b) killed on the spread with free players everywhere.
Teams would instruct only their best ball-winners and tacklers to follow the ball and have everyone else out of the way and trying to receive the ball in space.
Sounds almost like how football is supposed to be, right?
“Prior opportunity” is a relatively new concept. It didn’t used to exist. It’s laughable people think the game would be a totally different sport.
Players would always take possession whenever possible because having possession of the ball means a more effective disposal. It’s much easier to kick or handball accurately than it is to tap or soccer the ball.
Watch any passage of play. Players grab the footy constantly and either dispose of it extremely quickly before being wrapped up, or even as they’re being tackled. That’s fine and will continue.
But there’s no doubt there’s instances when players take possession of the ball - usually around stoppages - knowing full well they’ll be mauled to the ground. And the rules protect them.
It’s not good for the game. It causes repeat stoppages which allow players to take a break (offsetting the fatigue the AFL is so intent on creating anyway) and put in place more defensive zones to further slow the game down.
Players shouldn’t have a god-given right to take possession. The key to a flowing game, and everything that everybody wants (higher scoring, a more attractive game) is to keep it moving.
That needs to be the number 1 priority: keep it moving. Not “take possession”. That’s the way the game was designed and what made it what it was. It’s one of the major differences to rugby which is all about protection of the ball.
This obsession with allowing possession and protection of the ball has been the biggest cause of congestion.
Keep it moving... keep it moving... keep it moving
With due respect, the game's about kicking a higher score than the opposition. If you don't get the ball you can't do that and it's why the priority will always be the ball. The aim of tackling should be to get the ball from the opposition, it should never be about 'stopping' them, but with the current rules it often (usually) is, and is what you would call "defensive tactics". How often do you see the ball 'pinned' to a player? Far too much!You don't understand what you are saying. You are rewarding defensive tactics then so coaches will double down on teaching tackling and pressing and just ignore kicking. It'll be way more important to stick a tackle than it will be to handball and kick well especially if you devolve the game back to wet weather footy in the dry where people just hack it forward all the time.
Right and the higher score can be 1-0 if they want.With due respect, the game's about kicking a higher score than the opposition. If you don't get the ball you can't do that and it's why the priority will always be the ball. The aim of tackling should be to get the ball from the opposition, it should never be about 'stopping' them, but with the current rules it often (usually) is, and is what you would call "defensive tactics". How often do you see the ball 'pinned' to a player? Far too much!
You've just described modern footy. Get it forward, lock it in.You don't understand what you are saying. You are rewarding defensive tactics then so coaches will double down on teaching tackling and pressing and just ignore kicking. It'll be way more important to stick a tackle than it will be to handball and kick well especially if you devolve the game back to wet weather footy in the dry where people just hack it forward all the time.
No s**t SherlockYou've just described modern footy. Get it forward, lock it in.
OP is talking about taking away the opportunity to lock it in. Therefore winning the footy and possessing it through clean hand and foot skills is the only way to keep the ball in your attacking zone. The game isn't supposed to revolve around ball-ups.