Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion - Part 3

[LordLucifer]

Get rid of prior opportunity. Give a player 2 seconds to dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot when tackled or penalise him. This swinging a player round 360 or 720 degrees and then disposing of the ball with a throw without penalty is bullshit. 2 seconds no more. Pay the free and reduce congestion.

Don't give them any seconds, if an opposition player applies a vice-like legal tackle then reward it. Tackling is a major feature of our game and it is being slowly eroded.

If the tackled player does not dispose of it by hand or foot or holds onto the aggot due to the quality of the tackle, then the umpire should be paying a free kick to the tackler.

 

[LordLucifer]

Get rid of nominating the ruckmen. By the time the umpire's got himself sorted for the ball-up it's allowed other players from further afield to clog up any escape routes from the stoppage.Bring back 3rd man up in the ruck contests. 1 more player in the air means 1 less player competing at ground level.

Could not agree more, whoever thought this nominating thing was a good idea should be sacked immediately, makes it sound like a game between primary school kids. It also eliminates a plethora of tactical options at the coaches disposal meaning that the game becomes even more sanitised & 'same-same'.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Don't give them any seconds, if an opposition player applies a vice-like legal tackle then reward it. Tackling is a major feature of our game and it is being slowly eroded.

If the tackled player does not dispose of it by hand or foot or holds onto the aggot due to the quality of the tackle, then the umpire should be paying a free kick to the tackler.

Sorry but that's crazy. Pinging players for being tackled the second they receive or pick up the ball will just lead to a situation where no one actually goes in to pick up a loose ball and they just continually punch or toe it forward along the ground. Yuck.

 

[LordLucifer]

Leave interchange numbers where they are. Reducing them further is not the answer. Anyone who grew up watching footy in the 70s & 80s will tell you from around the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter until the final siren players would fall all over the ball (and each other) making no attempt to move the ball on or tackle their opponent. They were simply too buggered. They'd be stax-on-the-mill, looking at the ump and pleading for a free. It was a blight on the game and one of the chief reasons interchange was adopted in the first place.

This is the only one on your list that I disagree with.

Get rid of the interchange bench (subs only) or reduce the number back to two players only.

The introduction of the interchanging of players plus an increase in the number of player changes/rotations has changed the game to such an extent that we now see midfielders as 'THE' position of dominance in the game. However, it has done nothing to increase the scoring in the game or improve the actual contested aspect of the game.

I do not understand and never will, when I see a player kick a goal and then run off the field. I also do not understand the need for 5-6 players to come on and off the ground all at once either.

With less player changes onfield, the speed of the game will slow down somewhat as coaches & players pace themselves to get through it. Why is there this need for the game to be played at breakneck speed anyway ??

It results in a quick turnover inside the defensive 50 and we then see the AFL version of a fastbreak until they realise there is no-one upfield to kick it too. It's goddam farcical and makes our game look silly especially to any potential new fans who may be looking on for the first time.

Sheedy was the driving force behind the increased player numbers and the interchange bench because he had created a tactical reason for its introduction & ended up using it successfully. Had there been no change at all, coaches would of still come up with new & exciting fads, tactics & theorums to combat their opposition.

We are missing a lot of continual evolution of the game with this interchange thing, it has stifled the creativity and made those in clubland look at pure athletes instead of genuine footballers which is IMO, a disgrace.

 

[LordLucifer]

Sorry but that's crazy. Pinging players for being tackled the second they receive or pick up the ball will just lead to a situation where no one actually goes in to pick up a loose ball and they just continually punch or toe it forward along the ground. Yuck.

Absolute rubbish !!

We are rewarding players for shit tackles which has created your problem.

 

[TooBlue14]

Don't give them any seconds, if an opposition player applies a vice-like legal tackle then reward it. Tackling is a major feature of our game and it is being slowly eroded.

If the tackled player does not dispose of it by hand or foot or holds onto the aggot due to the quality of the tackle, then the umpire should be paying a free kick to the tackler.

Unless he gets tackled by multiple opposition players. Also another rule I hate when the opposition player is clearly holding it in or to the player and gets the decision when there was clearly no
Prior. In 2017 what I thought was a prior opportunity wasn’t, and what I thought was a free kick was no prior opportunity. It reeked of bias.

 

[Jimmae]

Could not agree more, whoever thought this nominating thing was a good idea should be sacked immediately, makes it sound like a game between primary school kids. It also eliminates a plethora of tactical options at the coaches disposal meaning that the game becomes even more sanitised & 'same-same'.

So we'll go back to a system where a team deploys a third player that completely nullifies the ruck contest?

 

[Blue__Balls]

Random thought -what's everyone's take on the International Rules approach to taking possession, specifically that if a player takes possession of the ball while on the ground (ie. not on their feet) that it's a free kick to the opposition?

Seemed to me at the time quite an elegant rule that reduced the amount of stoppages and congestion caused by players dog-piling on a loose ball.

Not sure on any flow-on effects, haven't given it that much thought, but it was something that stuck in my mind at the time.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Absolute rubbish !!

We are rewarding players for shit tackles which has created your problem.

I’m interested to know why you think that’s rubbish. Blokes being wrapped up the instant they pick up the ball happens all the time, particularly at stoppages. If that suddenly resulted in a free kick against, rather than another stoppage, coaches would tell players to stop picking the ball up, sure as night follows day. They’d simply toe it forward, resulting in very scrappy clearances.

It’s easy to say reward the tackle, footy is too soft etc but you’ve got to consider the practical implications.

 

[LordLucifer]

Unless he gets tackled by multiple opposition players. Also another rule I hate when the opposition player is clearly holding it in or to the player and gets the decision when there was clearly no
Prior. In 2017 what I thought was a prior opportunity wasn’t, and what I thought was a free kick was no prior opportunity. It reeked of bias.

Agree on the point of multiple tacklers, if it is impossible for the player with the ball to make correct disposal because the ball is bear-hugged to him by a swarm of tacklers he should not be penalised.

 

[LordLucifer]

So we'll go back to a system where a team deploys a third player that completely nullifies the ruck contest?

Will we ??

So what if that happens ??

The coaches will work around it, in fact they will come up with other fads & tactics as well.

What has been implemented is like a number of recent rule changes, a kneejerk reaction to something that is not such a big problem.

 

[LordLucifer]

I’m interested to know why you think that’s rubbish. Blokes being wrapped up the instant they pick up the ball happens all the time, particularly at stoppages. If that suddenly resulted in a free kick against, rather than another stoppage, coaches would tell players to stop picking the ball up, sure as night follows day. They’d simply toe it forward, resulting in very scrappy clearances.

It’s easy to say reward the tackle, footy is too soft etc but you’ve got to consider the practical implications.

If we stopped rewarding flimsy tackles then this won't be an issue.

The aim of the game is to get the ball and get it through the big sticks, you have no chance to do that if you stand by as an onlooker.

Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting that the player being tackled can be ridden into the ground or infringed upon by any other illegal grappling etc.

 

[JustaBattler]

Get rid of the arrant nonsense of the hand ball and let players dispose of teh ball anyway they like ( see rugby pass) and watch the game explode out of its current ridiculous congestion...

 

[azlou]

Take away prior opportune the players will skilfully tap or punch to new set ups that don’t reward congestion I hate rules that require the umpire to read a players mind

 

[katmanblue]

Kim Dotcom?

Megashare ftw.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gethelred]

Unless he gets tackled by multiple opposition players. Also another rule I hate when the opposition player is clearly holding it in or to the player and gets the decision when there was clearly no
Prior. In 2017 what I thought was a prior opportunity wasn’t, and what I thought was a free kick was no prior opportunity. It reeked of bias.

Then have the AFL create a clear definition of what constitutes 'prior opportunity'.

There isn't anything - in the published rules - as to what exactly it is; the exact amount of time it takes, whether your options are realistic, whether your attempt is 'genuine' or not. The whole thing is not defined, yet we are meant to take it as a given that the umpires know how to adjudicate it, and that it's umpired exactly the same way each week.

Either that, or enforce the rules as written.

This is the only one on your list that I disagree with.

Get rid of the interchange bench (subs only) or reduce the number back to two players only.

The introduction of the interchanging of players plus an increase in the number of player changes/rotations has changed the game to such an extent that we now see midfielders as 'THE' position of dominance in the game. However, it has done nothing to increase the scoring in the game or improve the actual contested aspect of the game.

I do not understand and never will, when I see a player kick a goal and then run off the field. I also do not understand the need for 5-6 players to come on and off the ground all at once either.

With less player changes onfield, the speed of the game will slow down somewhat as coaches & players pace themselves to get through it. Why is there this need for the game to be played at breakneck speed anyway ??

It results in a quick turnover inside the defensive 50 and we then see the AFL version of a fastbreak until they realise there is no-one upfield to kick it too. It's goddam farcical and makes our game look silly especially to any potential new fans who may be looking on for the first time.

Sheedy was the driving force behind the increased player numbers and the interchange bench because he had created a tactical reason for its introduction & ended up using it successfully. Had there been no change at all, coaches would of still come up with new & exciting fads, tactics & theorums to combat their opposition.

We are missing a lot of continual evolution of the game with this interchange thing, it has stifled the creativity and made those in clubland look at pure athletes instead of genuine footballers which is IMO, a disgrace.

Could not agree more.

I’m interested to know why you think that’s rubbish. Blokes being wrapped up the instant they pick up the ball happens all the time, particularly at stoppages. If that suddenly resulted in a free kick against, rather than another stoppage, coaches would tell players to stop picking the ball up, sure as night follows day. They’d simply toe it forward, resulting in very scrappy clearances.

It’s easy to say reward the tackle, footy is too soft etc but you’ve got to consider the practical implications.

You know what keeps the game moving? Having to give up the ball legally when tackled. You know what doesn't? Being able to have stacks on and yet another ball up if all you did was hang onto it, or just drop it in the tackle over and over until you get a favorable break.

The thing that a return to the older rules would do is it would open the door for Sam Mitchell types again; slower players with football brains first, capable of disposing of it to advantage faster than their opponents. It'd reward the strength of your great players in Dusty and Voss as well as rewarding those who can run all day and dispose to advantage. There is literally zero bad involved if they scrapped the interchange, and even less of an issue if they began penalising those that don't legally dispose of the thing in a tackle, unless you think the mere fact of more free kicks is a bad thing.

That's probably the only downside. The game starts seeing 60 odd frees in three quarters of footy. But then, if that's the cost of a better spectacle, I'm fine with it.

 

[azlou]

I think the players would adapt very quick Ely and the game would become more skilful

 

[OnceWeWereKings]

So we'll go back to a system where a team deploys a third player that completely nullifies the ruck contest?

Jim, the current change to the rule has done this anyway.
Shaun Grigg ain’t no ruckman, the current rule change made a bigger farce of the ruck contest than it was under the previous rules.
Griggs sole purpose was to nullify the ruck contest with the opposition ruckman. This was assisted as there wasn’t any fear of contact by some 6 foot 6 opposition player.
Also went someway to helping Richmond win the flag as they were the first team to really exploit it by having a player like Grigg ruck.

 

[Captain Cripps]

Cricket discussion belongs in the Blue Room.

Thanks guys!

Blue room or Microsoft windows trash bin?

 

[Jimmae]

Jim, the current change to the rule has done this anyway.
Shaun Grigg ain’t no ruckman, the current rule change made a bigger farce of the ruck contest than it was under the previous rules.
Griggs sole purpose was to nullify the ruck contest with the opposition ruckman. This was assisted as there wasn’t any fear of contact by some 6 foot 6 opposition player.
Also went someway to helping Richmond win the flag as they were the first team to really exploit it by having a player like Grigg ruck.

Let's be clear about a couple of things:

1. Richmond's main ruck for 2017 isn't really much of a ruckman, and the rest were injured or past it
2. Jacobs is one of the slowest players in the AFL

With those points in mind, explain to me again how Shaun Grigg has reinvented the 2nd ruck role. I'll save you the trouble: you can't because it was a tactical exploitation of Adelaide's setup, which was/is one that no other team in the league uses.

EDIT: I apologise, as it appears Gold Coast and St Kilda also used such a system in 2017. Huge ringing endorsements.

 

[DangerousD]

So we'll go back to a system where a team deploys a third player that completely nullifies the ruck contest?

No way, two people go up, any two people, no nomination.

If more than two go up then it’s a free.

Simple

 

[Jimmae]

No way, two people go up, any two people, no nomination.

If more than two go up then it’s a free.

Simple

The process of nomination is about 2 seconds. It's not a congestion-inducing issue, though arguably the man staying down is.

 

[ShanDog]

I still the think the greatest change to our game will come when the AFL accepts my 'Pinball Wizard' rule:

----------------------------------------​

Once per quarter, each team's coach has the ability to smash a comically big red button in the coaches box, whereby "M-M-M-M-MULTIBAAAAAAAAL!!" will be played over the stadium loudspeakers with obnoxiously loud air horn noises and other hip young sounds in conjunction with all TVs and LED barriers around the ground lighting up to indicate the triggering of the Multi-ball Power Play (MPP).

Once a coach engages their MPP, a player is allowed to retrieve a brightly-coloured Sherrin from a bag behind their defensive goal and kick the ball out as per the rules for bringing a ball back into play after a behind is scored. This ball is now in play in addition to the standard ball, and is designated the Power Play Ball (PPB) for the team the team calling the MPP, designated the PowerPlay Team (PPT). There are no limitations on when the MPP can be called by each coach, and may be called by both concurrently.

An additional umpire dressed in the same colour as the multi-ball for that match runs onto the field at the commencement of the MPP and is solely responsible for adjudicating play around that ball with a whistle of distinctly different sound to the regular field umpires.

The PPB may remain in play for three minutes (real time) or until one of the following occurs which designates the end of the MPP:
1. A goal is kicked by the PPT, which is awarded 12 points.
2. A behind is scored by PPT, which is awarded 3 points.
3. A player from the PPT is caught holding the ball.
4. The opposition team scores a goal with either the PPB or regular ball.

Should the PPB become out of bounds by any means, the MPP clock will pause until the PPT retrieves another PPB to once again kick the ball out from their defensive goal square.

------------------------------------------​

It'll be beautiful.

 

[TD2010]

that's total.....

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[cookie monster]

Sick list management chat. Mods talking off topic too