2015 Pre-Season (All news, press conferences, training reports)

[Mr Ripper]

Rip, do you have an opinion on how the umpiring might play out?

Haven't really focussed on the umpiring this pre-season. Think the "new interpretations" have been well handled, although I have seen a couple of instances where the umpire was a little too keen to pay htb where a tackle was barely even made.

Tbh, I'm more worried about the ugly, boring football being played and its potential to turn people off the game for good - especially in Queensland and NSW.

 

[James North]

Tbh, I'm more worried about the ugly, boring football being played and its potential to turn people off the game for good - especially in Queensland and NSW.

Stoppage, stoppage, stoppage?

I'm hopping that at least in our forward half, we ramp it up and run and spread with our little men ... but I know what you mean - watching Fremantle last year at the Gabba was a snore-fest apart from Freeman's mark.

 

[jjami15]

Stoppage, stoppage, stoppage?

I'm hopping that at least in our forward half, we ramp it up and run and spread with our little men ... but I know what you mean - watching Fremantle last year at the Gabba was a snore-fest apart from Freeman's mark.

The first few rounds are played at quite a frenetic pace which could assist us with our game style.

 

[Hollow Knight]

The first few rounds are played at quite a frenetic pace which could assist us with our game style.

Except at the Gabba where the first few games are dewy messes.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Stoppage, stoppage, stoppage?

Yeah, it's got to the point where there's more time spent pulling players off each other in scrimmages than having the ball in motion. I reckon, conservatively, there would be 3 times as many stoppages in modern footy than what there was a quarter of a century ago.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I genuinely think it's time for 16 on the field per side.

 

[POBT]

I genuinely think it's time for 16 on the field per side.

I think all codes of football need to have on field numbers reduced. Players are bigger, faster, more agile and can run for longer. You either increase the playing arena size (not possible) or reduce the number of players. I really don't know why it is not looked at more closely. They might cite tradition but, geez, it was only a 150 years ago that a game of Aussie rules had a heap of participants with barely a score in the game. Besides, reducing player numbers actually preserves the tradition of football being an open, free flowing spectacle.

 

[Ironmonger]

Unfortunately there's another competing problem, which is the focus on endurance. It's getting harder for dynamic players to do well.

Reducing the teams to 16 a side would only make that worse - each player would have to run a little further.

The solution is shorter games.

 

[Dom PC]

I don't see why they don't hurry up and reduce the interchange cap. Having a cap at say 40 per game will have the same effect as reducing player numbers on the field.

 

[jjami15]

its rotations not numbers of players. There were dynamic players before when there wasn't a revolving door on the wing and it will also bring back the contests between individual players as well. I would take it as low as 40 a game, 10 a quarter or even 20, 5 a quarter. It pains me to say that Rugby League are doing the right thing with the possible reduction to 6 a game which will bring their little players into the game. It would benefit OUR game a bloody lot if we did it as well.

 

[Matt_BL]

I don't see any correlation between reducing or restricting the game and having it become more free flowing. The more physically demanding the game is the less likely these 'dynamic' players are to get drafted. If fatigued players have more skill errors, how would making the game harder make it more open?

 

[Viceregal]

I'm afraid that as our team develops, the umpiring will not. I think it is what it is (rightly or wrongly, I acknowledge it's a tough gig) and the frustration will continue ad infinitum. We can only hope it becomes more balanced during critical parts of the game, instead of giving us cheapies to square up when it's too late.

People often mention that the umpires tend to assume that the 'good' players on 'good' teams are doing it right and tend to get the benefit of the doubt ... back in 2000-2004 were we blessed with such upmiric affection or was it just as 'biased' but we were good enough to win anyway? (was watching the games back then but didn't know enough to notice and a long time ago now!)

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

I don't see any correlation between reducing or restricting the game and having it become more free flowing. The more physically demanding the game is the less likely these 'dynamic' players are to get drafted. If fatigued players have more skill errors, how would making the game harder make it more open?

What about a correlation between congestion and number of players on the field? If you want to ease traffic congestion you want to take cars off the road don't you? I think if you take 2 players off the field and limit interchanges skills will be better because the worst 2 players in each team are playing in the reserves, and the best players spend more time on the ground. Also the play will be more open so there will be less defensive pressure on each kick and handball. I don't see any reason why players will fatigue themselves more than they do now. They might be forced to get even fitter, but in an actual match why would they get themselves more tired? They'll run hard all day like they've always done, they won't run themselves to death. And coaches will find with less players on the field, players that can actually play football will be a lot more valuable than pure athletes. That's how I see it.

 

[chopperduck]

Problem is we are trying to make the game harder to run out so players physically cant run and are forced not to crowd the ball. Problem is it is too late to reverse this trend, coaches and clubs simply demand more running.

Think zoning players to parts of the ground is about the only real way to stop it. 3 players must be in your forward 50m arc and 3 must remain in your defensive 50m arc. Think this would be more effective than simply tiring players out so they cant run. Tired players also cant kick straight. Having dedicated forwards might bring some of the big forwards back to the game as well.

 

[Crimso]

Nah guys, the only way to open the game up & take it back to one on ones is to go bak that quater century that RIP mentioned. Make 'em all smoke a pack of Benson & Hedges before each game. That'll stop 'em from running around so much.
Another benefit is we could get rid of at least two bloody umpires too!

 

[Skoob]

People often mention that the umpires tend to assume that the 'good' players on 'good' teams are doing it right and tend to get the benefit of the doubt ... back in 2000-2004 were we blessed with such upmiric affection or was it just as 'biased' but we were good enough to win anyway? (was watching the games back then but didn't know enough to notice and a long time ago now!)

A long time ago, and ages since I've watched a game from the day.
I think 'interpretations' were simpler, like a push in the back having to be a push in the back, so the job was probably a bit easier. There were definitely players who got away with more, but I can't remember if there was club bias, based on standing. Certainly don't recall us getting a dud deal in that period. It is still true that better teams are less clumsy and therefore are likely to infringe less. As I've always said, it is more annoying, the ones missed than the dodgy ones paid.

 

[Skoob]

In regard to the 'stoppages' debacle, hopefully if umpires are to react more quickly to HTB, then they might react more quickly to a ball not coming out/being won. This might push coaches to instruct the importance of clearing the ball rather than locking it in. With players under heavier scrutiny HTB, maybe they'll get it out quicker instead of holding onto it to give their ruckman another chop at it.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Coaches are more than happy to have as many stoppages as possible - hence why they are one group that should never, ever have a say on laws/interpretations.

 

[bato]

Seeing as though the pre-season is well and truly over, reckon we can get a 2015 Season thread going?

 

[Big Sauce 21]

When do we get our fricken vent thread

 

[bato]

When do we get our fricken vent thread

When we have something to vent about. Everything's been perfect so far.

 

[MacMum]

Ssshhhhh!!!!

 

[Balony_pony16]

its rotations not numbers of players. There were dynamic players before when there wasn't a revolving door on the wing and it will also bring back the contests between individual players as well. I would take it as low as 40 a game, 10 a quarter or even 20, 5 a quarter. It pains me to say that Rugby League are doing the right thing with the possible reduction to 6 a game which will bring their little players into the game. It would benefit OUR game a bloody lot if we did it as well.

It would also help the big guys as the relentless 2 way running that sees flooding zones infront the big guys disappear... one of the best part of any sport is watching players deal with fatigue...atm the AFL is keeping players way to fresh into the late stages

 

[wantok]

Coaches are more than happy to have as many stoppages as possible - hence why they are one group that should never, ever have a say on laws/interpretations.

It is actually pleasing to see the level of dismay with the current state of the game. It indicates that maybe we are closer to a resolution to the symptomatic problem of congestion that is degrading our game as a spectacle. Congestion is symptomatic because it can only exist if there are enough players aerobically and physically capable of tracking the ball around the ground.
We can say it just that players are fitter and stronger. We can say that this is just evolution and it will all be fixed in time. We can also look at the facts that say that this blight has only occurred since the coaches realised the impact of unlimited interchange and have been able to send players out with the express instruction to "press", "flood", "zone". Call it what you like. Its ugly and ruining the game as a spectacle and as an enjoyable sport for many participants that aren't blessed with the physical attributes to play the game this way. The Commission need to act quickly and forget the bleating of coaches with ulterior motives.
Wayne Bennett predicts Rugby league will no longer be played by the likes of Alfie Langer unless they act to limit interchange. The big boppers will keep coming off the bench and pounding the smaller, faster players into tackling burnout. In Our game its similar except its the continuing onslaught from the big bodied aerobic midfielder who can run for 4 minutes then refresh for 4 and repeat the cycle. The game is at a tipping point and in danger of losing its unique attributes to this cancer of interchange abuse.

 

[Wounded Lion]

I think we can all agree that the Chicken came before the Egg.