Oppo Camp Other Clubs News/General Discussion (Part 2)

[Visions]

Just to clarify it's 'last disposal' ie a kick or handball only between the 50 metre arcs of the ground.

I like this because it takes away the interpretation of individual umpires as to whether it was deliberate or not.

Yep, last disposal. Off hands its still a throw in.

Considering how much we our gameplan is focused on hugging the boundary line, can see it biting us moreso than any other team with kicks that land short or go over the head of oncoming player targets that will dribble over the line.

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

No he didn't. It was a light hearted q&A. He was asked about the craziest conspiracy theory and he said: Sandy Hook being fake.

Womp womp



At about 4:30, the question is "what is the best conspiracy theory you've ever heard of," to which his response is Sandy Hook.

 

[BillyElliott]

Yep, last disposal. Off hands its still a throw in.

Considering how much we our gameplan is focused on hugging the boundary line, can see it biting us moreso than any other team with kicks that land short or go over the head of oncoming player targets that will dribble over the line.

Yep. A disposal is a kick or handball.

I guess we'll just have to adapt our game plan. Or make sure our disposal is super efficient.

 

[JuniorB]

Just to clarify it's 'last disposal' ie a kick or handball only between the 50 metre arcs of the ground.

I like this because it takes away the interpretation of individual umpires as to whether it was deliberate or not.

The insufficient intent rule is one of the worst.
You could kick it out deliberately as long as you had a teammate near the ball, but a 50m kick up the ground that dribbles out is insufficient intent.
A much too subjective rule.

With all the umpires on the ground they should leave the decisions on free kicks to the umpire actually in the zone of play.

 

[Pistol Night]

The insufficient intent rule is one of the worst.
You could kick it out deliberately as long as you had a teammate near the ball, but a 50m kick up the ground that dribbles out is insufficient intent.
A much too subjective rule.

With all the umpires on the ground they should leave the decisions on free kicks to the umpire actually in the zone of play.

That rule is the biggest "me time" decision the umps can make and they love it

 

[sr36]

That rule is the biggest "me time" decision the umps can make and they love it

What I don't get is that they get all this focus on them when everyone is watching to see if they'll pay the free and the best they can do is a Trevor Chappell impersonation - surely you'd pull out a Thommo or a Lillee in that situation.

 

[sr36]

Anyone else think the change to the stand rule is going to be bad for us?

I think it'll make it easier to expose our lack of pace through the middle.

 

[neilk]

Anyone else think the change to the stand rule is going to be bad for us?

I think it'll make it easier to expose our lack of pace through the middle.

So if there is a large pack of players contesting a mark, and say Curnow flies from the back and tacks a big grab. Does that mean all the oppo players in the contest have to stand where they are? That could mean maybe 3 players standing like statues while the other team's players in the contest can run off and become a target, unopposed.

 

[sr36]

So if there is a large pack of players contesting a mark, and say Curnow flies from the back and tacks a big grab. Does that mean all the oppo players in the contest have to stand where they are? That could mean maybe 3 players standing like statues while the other team's players in the contest can run off and become a target, unopposed.

I doubt it. I'm assuming one will stand and the others will leave.

 

[neilk]

I doubt it. I'm assuming one will stand and the others will leave.

From The Age (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...es-one-of-them-is-absurd-20251029-p5n6c6.html):

"That is the new stand rule as it is written and released on Wednesday. A player – any player – within five metres of a player who is paid a mark or a free kick must stand.

It does not specify the closest one – and besides, which player is to decide who is closest? – and it does not say a single player, it says players inside the five-metre protected zone.

So if a free is paid in a pack, all players on the offending team must theoretically stand and not run forwards.

Likewise, if a pack flies for a mark and one player comes down with it. All opposition players must stand."

 

[JuniorB]

From The Age (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...es-one-of-them-is-absurd-20251029-p5n6c6.html):

"That is the new stand rule as it is written and released on Wednesday. A player – any player – within five metres of a player who is paid a mark or a free kick must stand.

It does not specify the closest one – and besides, which player is to decide who is closest? – and it does not say a single player, it says players inside the five-metre protected zone.

So if a free is paid in a pack, all players on the offending team must theoretically stand and not run forwards.

Likewise, if a pack flies for a mark and one player comes down with it. All opposition players must stand."

That's totally ridiculous!

 

[sideswipe]

From The Age (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...es-one-of-them-is-absurd-20251029-p5n6c6.html):

"That is the new stand rule as it is written and released on Wednesday. A player – any player – within five metres of a player who is paid a mark or a free kick must stand.

It does not specify the closest one – and besides, which player is to decide who is closest? – and it does not say a single player, it says players inside the five-metre protected zone.

So if a free is paid in a pack, all players on the offending team must theoretically stand and not run forwards.

Likewise, if a pack flies for a mark and one player comes down with it. All opposition players must stand."

So is it going to look like "What's the time Mr Wolf?" when the wolf turns?

 

[neilk]

I think the wording may need to be tweaked or else it will be like Squid Games.

 

[JuniorB]

I think the wording may need to be tweaked or else it will be like Squid Games.

It would need to read something like "the player, either instructed by the umpire, or who elects to be on the mark must stand."

 

[live fast pieyoung]

Anyone else think the change to the stand rule is going to be bad for us?

I think it'll make it easier to expose our lack of pace through the middle.

massively
and will totally advantage brisbane

i dont think the AFL value integrity and fairness when they do rule changes . it impacts gameplans and a team needs to draft for 2-3 years to have the right players

 

[BillyElliott]

 

[BillyElliott]

 

[sideswipe]

View attachment 2467191

Prestia saying he was nowhere near it. There must be witnesses saying otherwise. Should make for a fun court case.

 

[sr36]

massively
and will totally advantage brisbane

i dont think the AFL value integrity and fairness when they do rule changes . it impacts gameplans and a team needs to draft for 2-3 years to have the right players

I like chaos and contest. Not a big fan of rules seemingly designed to aid uncontested footy - particularly of the chip kick variety.

 

[BillyElliott]

This shows footage of examples of the new rule changes :

Watch examples of the seven rule changes that will impact 2026

Ruck contests, the stand rule, and the 'last disposal' out of bounds rule are among a host of changes ahead of 2026

www.afl.com.au

 

[DinoSoar]

The insufficient intent rule is one of the worst.
You could kick it out deliberately as long as you had a teammate near the ball, but a 50m kick up the ground that dribbles out is insufficient intent.
A much too subjective rule.

With all the umpires on the ground they should leave the decisions on free kicks to the umpire actually in the zone of play.

I’m still a little confused on this - I get what happens outside the arcs, but what does it mean inside the arcs? Is the insufficient intent rule still in place and at umpire’s judgement? This where the uproar and outrage occurs, not on the wings. So it seems, not much will really change and the inconsistency/rubbish decisions will still occur with a partisan crowd having a significant influence on the outcome at times as well.

 

[WanderingDude]

View attachment 2467191

Surely Prestia allegedly throwing one would miss. Allegedly May would have been better off if he had remained team focused.

 

[sideswipe]

I’m still a little confused on this - I get what happens outside the arcs, but what does it mean inside the arcs? Is the insufficient intent rule still in place and at umpire’s judgement? This where the uproar and outrage occurs, not on the wings. So it seems, not much will really change and the inconsistency/rubbish decisions will still occur with a partisan crowd having a significant influence on the outcome at times as well.

At a guess I reckon far more of the contentious deliberates occur between the arcs, eg. that is where the clearing kick out of defence might end up out of bounds?

 

[live fast pieyoung]

I like chaos and contest. Not a big fan of rules seemingly designed to aid uncontested footy - particularly of the chip kick variety.

The AFL makes changes based on a series of assumptions about what fans want
and imho those assumptions are miles off it

 

[JuniorB]

View attachment 2467191

We can see why Melbourne wanted to offload May, now they're stuck with him for another year.