Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2025, Part 2

[geelong_crazy26]

The chasing of Buckley for offers is over the top.

Just a good ordinary coach who inherited a premiership group, had them slowly decline, a grand final once, and then very poor in 2021. Now 4 years out of coaching systems and would be very rustic and tactically outdated

 

[Seeds]

Why would it discourage? If you actually smother it, rather than just get a fingernail, then it is smothered and no goal will result.

If your smother is perfect sure. But what if its not perfect? They now dont count. Thereby reducing incentive to smother as now only perfect smothers can stop goals.

And how do you draw the line between a finger clip and a fist full of ball deflection? Snicko is simply no longer about any deflection its about thickness of deflection? Too thick no goal but small thickness a goal?

And what if player does a bad kick and there is a deflection that goes up but turns at right angles to go through the goals? It wasnt going through the goals if it wasnt deflected but the deflection now makes it go through? That should be a goal in your books?

Even ignoring these perverse outcomes and the fact it makes officiating even harder, Why is this something you care about? It happens so little in the game and why do you think small deflections stopping goals is even a bad thing? Any deflection should count in my book as a point. Not a goal. Likewise i wish any deflection would stop a mark being a mark.

 

[Commando]

My conspiracy about the goal reviews is that the crypto ads paid for that screen spot on the review and there's an obligation to have the ad shown by means of reviewing simple calls

Could well be
Probably need one a quarter etc

 

[Kitcat]

Well before the era of video reviews, it was umpire's call and move on. If we must have video rules, then you want to absolutely minimize the need to use it. Change happens and you adjust, or are you arguing that the rules about not lifting the ball off the ground or that tripping is allowed should be reinstated to preserve the original 1859 rules?

I said nothing about reinstating rules. You do realise that the rules regarding lifting the ball and tripping were changed within a few years of 1859. The touched goal has remained unchanged for nearly 170 years. I merely pointed out that the AFL will look very carefully at changing it, as they are the Keepers of the Code. I also gave my view on it which you have ignored.

 

[standupand]

I would love the chaos if a poster bounces back in to play and it's game on

It would suck big time for a kick after the siren where any score wins!

 

[joe444]

Part of what annoys me is the ceremony of it all. Drawing invisible squares etc. Even when the Voice had announced the outcome, we wait for the graphic, the signal, the giving the ball back. etc.

I seem a lone voice on this, but has anyone else noticed how they do it in GAA? Ump signals, they go to HAWKEYE of all things, and then play on. They even get the ad for specsavers in there but not as some separate waste of time.

 

[jim boy]

If your smother is perfect sure. But what if its not perfect? They now dont count. Thereby reducing incentive to smother as now only perfect smothers can stop goals.

Just LOL - may as well say only perfect kicks score

And how do you draw the line between a finger clip and a fist full of ball deflection? Snicko is simply no longer about any deflection its about thickness of deflection? Too thick no goal but small thickness a goal?

As long as the ball continues its upward directory, it is deemed not have been touched, doesn't matter how touch the man on the mark got, may as well have bounced off his head.

And what if player does a bad kick and there is a deflection that goes up but turns at right angles to go through the goals? It wasnt going through the goals if it wasnt deflected but the deflection now makes it go through? That should be a goal in your books?

**** yeah - this is sport, shit happens, unjust things happen all the time. If you want get anal about these things, I suggest you become a lawyer

Even ignoring these perverse outcomes and the fact it makes officiating even harder, Why is this something you care about? It happens so little in the game and why do you think small deflections stopping goals is even a bad thing? Any deflection should count in my book as a point. Not a goal. Likewise i wish any deflection would stop a mark being a mark.

Well the end of the Freo/GC final was somewhat tarnished by the ticky touchwood finger touch of the man on the mark leading to a score review and subsequent delay.

 

[jim boy]

I also gave my view on it which you have ignored.

I have reread your original post, and realise I misinterpreted it somewhat - sincere apologies.

 

[Kitcat]

I have reread your original post, and realise I misinterpreted it somewhat - sincere apologies.

No problem. Ironically, when I was thinking about a reply to your post, I swung around to supporting a discussion on changing the rule.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

It would suck big time for a kick after the siren where any score wins!

Yeah actually that would be wild. A few cms either side and a win. How would you feel

 

[Kitcat]

It would suck big time for a kick after the siren where any score wins!

That is a very good point. It would mean that a scrambled kick from the boundary that just snuck inside the behind post would get a point, but a much better kick that hits the goal post and rebounded away would get nothing. Something wrong there.

I think the complicating factor is that unlike the in off the post kicks in soccer and rugby which score a goal, we have a secondary score for the near miss or poster.

 

[jim boy]

That is a very good point. It would mean that a scrambled kick from the boundary that just snuck inside the behind post would get a point, but a much better kick that hits the goal post and rebounded away would get nothing. Something wrong there.

Well yeah, but I would question the statement "much better kick that hits the goal post" - if you are in a first score wins scenario, then why would a goal be better than a behind? Why reduce your chances of winning the game by going for the harder shot.

 

[jim boy]

Sometimes perverse outcomes happen, when Swallow kicked the winning point against Freo, it was only a point because it brushed Neil Erasmus's fingers. On touching Neil immediately appealed to the umpire -and that effectively killed it for Freo. If he had stayed quiet, maybe there would be no review, the ball returns to the centre, Freo clear and kick a goal to level the scores resulting in extra time. Long odds definitely, but still better than the odds offered by going coast-to-coast in the available time.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Sometimes perverse outcomes happen, when Swallow kicked the winning point against Freo, it was only a point because it brushed Neil Erasmus's fingers. On touching Neil immediately appealed to the umpire -and that effectively killed it for Freo. If he had stayed quiet, maybe there would be no review, the ball returns to the centre, Freo clear and kick a goal to level the scores resulting in extra time. Long odds definitely, but still better than the odds offered by going coast-to-coast in the available time.

There was like 9 seconds on the clock. The only game i can think of that ended with a win with that little time on the clock from a centre bounce was port vs st kilda where Robbie Gray kicked the winner with 7 seconds left on the clock.

 

[dudusmaximus]

I know we like debating around here.

Rather than mess with the rules, why not just fix the Tech so there's close to real time adjudication? The Tech exists. AI can determine from the footage & sensors, far quicker. Else default to the Goal Umpire's call.

 

[Kitcat]

Well yeah, but I would question the statement "much better kick that hits the goal post" - if you are in a first score wins scenario, then why would a goal be better than a behind? Why reduce your chances of winning the game by going for the harder shot.

It applies at anytime during a match. A shot at goal that goes 6.3 metres wide of the goal post gets a point, but a shot that hits the goal post and rebounds away and is cleared, gets nothing. Not much fairness or integrity in that.

 

[jim boy]

It applies at anytime during a match. A shot at goal that goes 6.3 metres wide of the goal post gets a point, but a shot that hits the goal post and rebounds away and is cleared, gets nothing. Not much fairness or integrity in that.

Who is it unfair too? The team kicking at goal? If they just miss, then they get a second chance to score the goal. Yeah it might get cleared away and they get nothing but they may also get a goal - if it is 50/50, then it would average out at 3 points a poster. And if they miss by a bit more, well they only get a point and no second chance.

 

[jim boy]

There was like 9 seconds on the clock. The only game i can think of that ended with a win with that little time on the clock from a centre bounce was port vs st kilda where Robbie Gray kicked the winner with 7 seconds left on the clock.

Golly, you've already forgotten the highlight of the year for the neutral supporter.

 

[splashwave]

It applies at anytime during a match. A shot at goal that goes 6.3 metres wide of the goal post gets a point, but a shot that hits the goal post and rebounds away and is cleared, gets nothing. Not much fairness or integrity in that.

I don’t get this argument, if it applies to both teams then it’s fair.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I would've liked to see Freo to for a trick play when there wasn't enough time to go end to end.

Every Freo player goes to their attacking goal square and simultaneously falls over. Surely the umps would pick out at least 1 free kick.

 

[Kitcat]

I don’t get this argument, if it applies to both teams then it’s fair.

Bad laws apply to both teams. It doesn’t mean you keep them.

 

[cats_09]

 

[jim boy]

Last touch rule is in!

AFL to propose introduction of last touch rule from 2026

Greg Swann confirms his first change.

www.sen.com.au

 

[cats_09]

 

[joe444]

Thank god AFL is an investment I only expect hope from, not dividends.