Opinion Commentary & Media IV

[Twinkletoes]

LDU and JS are going to have to work really hard in the plywood and cardboard mockup of Chaddy Food Court at mod pre-season if they have any chance of cracking the big time. They'll be moderating in the twos (the GWS board) for the foreseeable future otherwise

Let’s see how they handle the Tender Touch “All You Can Eat Night” initiation first.

 

[tazaa]

How about you get 1 premiership point for every 10 goals in a game on top of win/draw points


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I’ve always been fond of awarding an extra point for scoring 100 points as a rule.

This the best idea and the brain dead campaigners at the AFL wont do it because it would favour Dockland tenants apparently. Like the comp isnt already compromised enough

 

[desie]

I agree with this. Less interchange will just lead to high fatigue levels and sides default to defensive strategies and not be brave with the ball.

the only answer is you have to reduce congestion at stoppages and spread the ground, which can only be achieved by either:
- starting points, a certain amount of players and their opponents need to start in their attacking 50 or half of the ground. Similar to 6/6/6
- less players on ground. Think rugby 7’s.

although it’s a major shift from what I’m used to I could live with 1 - stops the defensive grids which I hate most about the current game

We’ve had starting positions after every goal and at the beginning of each quarter since 1974, it’s hardly a new concept.

Stretching the ground is the only thing that will fix the biggest issue - congestion.

 

[DrZaius]

This the best idea and the brain dead campaigners at the AFL wont do it because it would favour Dockland tenants apparently. Like the comp isnt already compromised enough

Honestly I hate that idea. So if you happen to be playing in poor weather conditions, for instance lets say round 1 in a monsoon in Cairns where it's impossible to score 100 points, then what? Just too bad?

 

[The Pleb]

I’ve always been fond of awarding an extra point for scoring 100 points as a rule.

I don't mind this, but I'd start by changing percentage to point differential. Currently a 60-40 win is valued the same as a 120-80 win. Making the switch would make larger margins (and higher scoring) tangibly more beneficial to clubs.

 

[El Triggso]

We’ve had starting positions after every goal and at the beginning of each quarter since 1974, it’s hardly a new concept.

Stretching the ground is the only thing that will fix the biggest issue - congestion.

A ruthlessly strict application of the rules re: a legal handball would help dramatically.

The ability to throw, flick or incidentally touch your hand on the footy makes it too easy to ‘handball’ amongst congestion.

A true handball, punching your fist through the ball, is slower to execute and would force players to kick or handball to the outside of congestion rather than brazenly throw their way through it.

 

[big_e]

Honestly I hate that idea. So if you happen to be playing in poor weather conditions, for instance lets say round 1 in a monsoon in Cairns where it's impossible to score 100 points, then what? Just too bad?

A side that gets to play the bottom sides twice gets two shots at a percentage boost - this is no different. And realistically, the incredibly wet games only happens once or twice a year, it's not that big a deal, IMO.

 

[DrZaius]

A side that gets to play the bottom sides twice gets two shots at a percentage boost - this is no different. And realistically, the incredibly wet games only happens once or twice a year, it's not that big a deal, IMO.

Ok picture this:

- We annihilate bottom teams by 10 goals all year, have a very healthy % but the highest we score is 99, even though we consistently kick 80+ points
- We are currently 8th, 4 points above a relatively low scoring 9th team going into the final round, but because of our % there is no way they could (usually) overtake us
- We lose our final game by 1 point, which barely impacts our %
- The team in 9th wins their game 101-99 and sneaks in ahead of us to the finals because of that extra premiership point, despite the fact we scored on average 20 points more than them a game and had a huge amount of % over them

See the problem?

 

[North1411]

Ok picture this:

- We annihilate bottom teams by 10 goals all year, have a very healthy % but the highest we score is 99, even though we consistently kick 80+ points
- We are currently 8th, 4 points above a relatively low scoring 9th team going into the final round, but because of our % there is no way they could (usually) overtake us
- We lose our final game by 1 point, which barely impacts our %
- The team in 9th wins their game 101-99 and sneaks in ahead of us to the finals because of that extra premiership point, despite the fact we scored on average 20 points more than them a game and had a huge amount of % over them

See the problem?

That would be annoying, but I would just remove percentage as it values low scores against too highly e.g. A team that wins with a scoreline of 40 to 30 has a better % than a team that wins 100 to 90 even though they both won by 10 points. Just make the deciding factor your total accumulated score, if that is also equal bring in aggregate score e.g. total for minus total against. If they are still equal do most goals.

That way high scoring is more valued than defence, and if all teams know about it at the beginning of the year then you can't complain.

 

[DR Tipple]

A ruthlessly strict application of the rules re: a legal handball would help dramatically.

The ability to throw, flick or incidentally touch your hand on the footy makes it too easy to ‘handball’ amongst congestion.

A true handball, punching your fist through the ball, is slower to execute and would force players to kick or handball to the outside of congestion rather than brazenly throw their way through it.

this is spot on i hate hearing "ne attempted"from the umpire as an excuse to not make a decision im sure that the rule is a player must correctly dispose of the ball not drop it and stick out a boot in hope, stop balling it up and pay the bloody free kick and hey presto no nore rugby scrums more open footy more goals

 

[The Dingrel]

Not really keen on any changes, but with the obvious shift in list management to speed and flash, less congestion will definitely suit us.

Wasn't the 6/6/6 rule supposed to address that? Regardless what changes are made coaching staff are paid to try to stop the opposition scoring. It's become a lot like basketball in that scores are set up from turnovers in defence and a fast break forward. Defend first then attack. Other codes, union and and league by their very structure are defensive, and its up to the attacking team to break the defence. All out attack leaves teams exposed. Plenty of analogies in trench warfare too, and how you break that defence down. Boxing is another. The very nature of most combative sports mean defend first and look for opportunities to attack opponents weaknesses. I don't think anything needs to change, as coaches will always look for new ways to nullify a teams attacking advantage.

 

[The Dingrel]

I reckon it would have the opposite effect.

Power players & natural footballers would rise to the fore again. Kicking, marking & classical field structuring would return to the game.

nah be a lot of rotations to forward pockets, and recruiting staff would be looking for elite endurance athletes. I reckon it would go backwards as a spectacle, and teams would be strategically kicking backwards to try and slow it down, and then try to attack in bursts. It could favour a long kicking team with dominant marking tall forwards. Physically less taxing kicking it forward than run and carry.

 

[AnEmptyChair]

this is spot on i hate hearing "ne attempted"from the umpire as an excuse to not make a decision im sure that the rule is a player must correctly dispose of the ball not drop it and stick out a boot in hope, stop balling it up and pay the bloody free kick and hey presto no nore rugby scrums more open footy more goals

Nah, pretty sure the rule actually says that if a player doesn't have prior opportunity then they only have to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. If they have prior opportunity they have to dispose of it correctly.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

I think it's too soon to be tinkering with the fundamental rules of the game again. I'd much prefer a system like this in place next year than them going ham on certain other aspects.

That said I still think getting the ball into play faster will alleviate some congestion and make it harder to set up defensively. The ruck nominating nonsense is a large reason it takes so long, as is the way players haggle and fight over giving the ball back to the ump or delay giving it to a player after a free. Ball should just be put straight onto the ground, I hate the sh*t some blokes/teams get away with.

SOME blokes/teams get away with it. Yet some get pinged for 50 because they threw the ball back to the bloke with free too high and wasted about 1 second due to the hang-time of the looping throw. Others can pretend they don't know who's free it is so they look left and right with a stupid expression and the ump gives them 20 seconds before a gentle reminder.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

Nah, pretty sure the rule actually says that if a player doesn't have prior opportunity then they only have to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. If they have prior opportunity they have to dispose of it correctly.

That is correct. The rule does not penalise the player who makes a genuine attempt when they didn't have prior opportunity.

UNLESS... a bloke is nailed in a spectacular tackle the split second he takes possession and Razor-****ing-Ray Chamberlain decides to impose himself on the game by making an exaggerated motion of "I AM IN CHARGE OF THIS GAME" and pays the free for holding the ball.

 

[speedy]

Why is the media always talking about splitting pick 2? Why not pick 1? It seems like they are hell bent on another club landing McDonald other than us. There is every chance the crows will pick him anyway.

The crows need more players than wee do. We have already brought in 4 players, the afl site says we have 6 live draft picks compared to the crows 8? Why not talk about splitting pick 1?

I might be over sensitive about these things but it's as if we're not worthy of a pick 2, we might as well split it.

 

[speedy]

Also on sen some expert d*ckwad just said if we swapped pick 2 for 6&8 we would have to give another pick back to make up the points differential.
Like we don't even have to be offered overs to persuade us to give it up.

 

[big_e]

That is correct. The rule does not penalise the player who makes a genuine attempt when they didn't have prior opportunity.

UNLESS... a bloke is nailed in a spectacular tackle the split second he takes possession and Razor-*******-Ray Chamberlain decides to impose himself on the game by making an exaggerated motion of "I AM IN CHARGE OF THIS GAME" and pays the free for holding the ball.

That's the other thing I'd change. Forget prior opportunity - I reckon the real problem is "genuine attempt". If it is knocked out in the tackle by the tackler, then play on, but if you attempt to kick or handball and you don't connect, that should be incorrect disposal.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Also on sen some expert d*ckwad just said if we swapped pick 2 for 6&8 we would have to give another pick back to make up the points differential.
Like we don't even have to be offered overs to persuade us to give it up.

Some 'experts' believe North and smaller clubs exist to serve the needs of the bigger clubs.

 

[Intothewind]

I'd suggest keep prior opportunity but take away the umps ability to award a ball up. If, after a tackle, ball hasn't been disposed of or splilled out...Tackle before prior opportunity = free against. Tackle after prior opportunity = free for. No ball up, no congestion. It's not quantum physics, it can't be both things at the same time.
If in doubt, go the bump!

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[1975]

Just read about Bar-ratt’s serve he gave Eddy.
I expect he is mostly annoyed that Collingwoods wos resulted in NM having a good trade period.
can’t wait for muffin heads reply!
Life just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Snake_Baker]

nah be a lot of rotations to forward pockets, and recruiting staff would be looking for elite endurance athletes. I reckon it would go backwards as a spectacle, and teams would be strategically kicking backwards to try and slow it down, and then try to attack in bursts. It could favour a long kicking team with dominant marking tall forwards. Physically less taxing kicking it forward than run and carry.

You're thinking about a new game with an old mindset.

Interchanges go down, tactics change. Endurance football ends.

 

[R00StaR]

Why is the media always talking about splitting pick 2? Why not pick 1? It seems like they are hell bent on another club landing McDonald other than us. There is every chance the crows will pick him anyway.

The crows need more players than wee do. We have already brought in 4 players, the afl site says we have 6 live draft picks compared to the crows 8? Why not talk about splitting pick 1?

I might be over sensitive about these things but it's as if we're not worthy of a pick 2, we might as well split it.

They dont want us to have a player they want to gush over.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

I'd suggest keep prior opportunity but take away the umps ability to award a ball up. If, after a tackle, ball hasn't been disposed of or splilled out...Tackle before prior opportunity = free against. Tackle after prior opportunity = free for. No ball up, no congestion. It's not quantum physics, it can't be both things at the same time.
If in doubt, go the bump!

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

I had some doubts originally, but if you think about it, the perfect tackle should be rewarded. If the tackle locks the opponent with the ball so they can't dispose of it, then tackler deserves the free.

If the player tackled does get a legal kick or handpass out, then they should not be penalised and the tackler must release them straight away (remember, by the current rules, if a tackler holds a player after they release the ball for the extra second so they cannot participate in the next piece of play then they get a free kick and 50m - that's the rule).

If the ball gets knocked free by the act of the tackler then play on (and immediate release required).

If the Footscray player who is tackled throws the ball out in front of them then a free is payed AGAINST them as it is no longer 2017. Same for anybody else.

The biggest issue becomes this: Some negative players like those from Geelong and the Wiggles will sweat on an opponent to take possession so they get the opportunity to tackle and win a cheap free, when they could have possibly competed for the ball. In my opinion, if you give up a chance to take possession you are not entitled to a free for tackling the bloke who had the guts to go for it. But we have umpires who want to make pricks of themselves and do the exaggerated free kick motion for holding the ball (Chamberlain is one). So anything sensible is doomed.

 

[FlyHigh18]

Why is the media always talking about splitting pick 2? Why not pick 1? It seems like they are hell bent on another club landing McDonald other than us.

or maybe it's bc we openly said we're shopping it?