Autopsy Autopsy vs Gold Coast - Round 15, 2021

[Mav]

Why was the deliberate rule/interpretation even changed? Was it really a major issue in the game that demanded revision? Sure, it caused the occasional bit of annoyance but I would say it is more annoying now. See Powell getting pinged for a fantastic repeat effort to push the ball forward last week. Classic AFL, got to change things.
As for the game on weekend, we saw Tarrant knock it out and get pinged as ball bounced so it wasn't a marking contest.
Then we saw a GC player panic and thump it out when he could actually have taken an almost uncontested mark. The very same umpire, Nicholls, ruled that was ok.
That GC player was under far less pressure than Tarrant and didn't have an opponent to deal with, yet it was okay. All because it was a marking opportunity. Which is not in the rule book. What nonsense!
It's not in the rules and whether it bounces or not should be irrelevant if the player's primary intent is to deny an opponent possession with a defensive act.

Can you imagine the s**t this would cause. Any right handed defender trying to spoil a mark on the left side of the field naturally spoils towards the boundary. All you are doing is adding more grey to it.

 

[Mav]

It is clearly stated it is also related to preventing possession. You don’t have to agree with it, but you can save the petty I know you are but what I am routine, if someone has the nerve to disagree with you.

Should have blocked you earlier after your petty PE comment and now I will. Don’t bother replying, as you can’t act like an adult.

You want childish….What ever helps you sleep at night.

 

[ferball]

So if you’re lying on the ground and someone is about to pick the ball up and you deliberately punch it out that’s ok? What if theres a minute go and there’s a boundary throw in. Ruckman taps to the rover and he just thumps it out to waste more time. Is that ok?

Spirit and intent is a thing in our game and cause I’m the only one that get my head around this I’m the one acting like a child!!!

FMD some of you guys will complain about anything.

Yeah i don't actually have a problem with that.

The reason this game is ****ed is because morons keep changing the rules to fix miniscule issues. And the way they do it is ludicrous - in response to whiny campaigners in the media just looking to justify their paychecks with column inches (oooer I bet they wish they had real column inches instead.) I think we both agee having the ump decide what is "insufficient intent" is completely unreasonable, (I'm assuming that is why you prefer the "last touch before oob is a free" rule in SA.)

Personally I think the last touch rule is problematic but I guess if push came to shove its better than leaving the interpretation of whether the player used enough intent to keep the ball in in the umps hands because players will know and train to avoid that from the start of the season/pre-season.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

So you want guys penalized for punching the ball out in a spoil? Is that right?

Yes. Unlike others I don't have much issue with the way the rule is currently interpreted. I think umpires are perfectly capable of deciding whether a player spoiling in a marking contest could realistically have kept the ball in play.

 

[Psychic Roo]

With Hawthorn winning, those that are especially keen on pick 1 will sleep well tonight. I’m not one of them. I would love to get a few more wins and if it means pick 2 or pick 3, so be it. Can still draft an absolute champion


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

absolutely - morale, belief and a well developed game plan for 2022 is worth more than pick 1 vs pick 2. we have some momentum the last month - if that keeps going, we will win a few more.

 

[scottywiper]

Can you imagine the sh*t this would cause. Any right handed defender trying to spoil a mark on the left side of the field naturally spoils towards the boundary. All you are doing is adding more grey to it.

Umm. What.
I don't think spoils should be penalised at all. The primary intent of a spoil is to deny an opponent possession. It going out of bounds is a flow on from that.

 

[Only Forwards]

With Hawthorn winning, those that are especially keen on pick 1 will sleep well tonight. I’m not one of them. I would love to get a few more wins and if it means pick 2 or pick 3, so be it. Can still draft an absolute champion


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

absolutely - morale, belief and a well developed game plan for 2022 is worth more than pick 1 vs pick 2. we have some momentum the last month - if that keeps going, we will win a few more.

Pick 1 could be pick 3 and pick 3 pick 5 because as usual the drat is compromised as f***.

We have played alright on a slower Deck in Tassie. We are about to take on a side that flicks it to the outside a lot on the quickest deck in the game. THe momentum we've built should mean we don't get completely opened up again, but that is not absolutely off the table either.

Looking at our remaining fixture, I think we have Carlton and Adelaide where we will be a real show. The rest I doubt we will be able to muster more than honourable losses.

The Bradism of you're not as bad as you think and not as good as you think comes into play here. We have done ok, and got a draw, a respectable loss and a win which was unconvincing on the scoreboard. We have a couple of months of footy left and the vast majority of it is going to be losses.

We are still a fair way from anywhere.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Pick 1 could be pick 3 and pick 3 pick 5 because as usual the drat is compromised as f***.

We have played alright on a slower Deck in Tassie. We are about to take on a side that flicks it to the outside a lot on the quickest deck in the game. THe momentum we've built should mean we don't get completely opened up again, but that is not absolutely off the table either.

Looking at our remaining fixture, I think we have Carlton and Adelaide where we will be a real show. The rest I doubt we will be able to muster more than honourable losses.

The Bradism of you're not as bad as you think and not as good as you think comes into play here. We have done ok, and got a draw, a respectable loss and a win which was unconvincing on the scoreboard. We have a couple of months of footy left and the vast majority of it is going to be losses.

We are still a fair way from anywhere.

This year is very much a right off in terms of results and the grand scheme of things. Next preseason needs to be very fitness orientated as we simply aren't fit enough to implement any worthwhile gameplan.

 

[ferball]

This year is very much a right off in terms of results and the grand scheme of things. Next preseason needs to be very fitness orientated as we simply aren't fit enough to implement any worthwhile gameplan.

We all knew this going into the season tho (didn't we?) and its why its a bit easier to take and the improvements and change in the way we play are so enjoyable when they might otherwise be barely noticeable against all the losses.

We are the number one team for taking the game on thru the corridor. I love that and am rapt its the direction we have chosen to go in.

I'd love to see a comparison on that stat between this season, last season and the post 2016 years under Scott.

 

[Only Forwards]

This year is very much a right off in terms of results and the grand scheme of things. Next preseason needs to be very fitness orientated as we simply aren't fit enough to implement any worthwhile gameplan.

Of course.

We have won 2 games and are a game and a half clear on the bottom.

I mean sure over the last couple of months we have played our best footy this season but it is not really saying much.

Sure people on here have become a bit fixated on pick 1 and what that may mean. But there is also a very realist element to that.

We stacked the deck against ourselves this year. We stripped out journeymen and blokes who were limited but on their day could scrounge wins and we knew the dip was coming.

Wins from this point to the end of the year will be largely irrelevant. In 2019 we knocked off teams that were significantly above us and it didn't translate into some formidable culture of winning in 2020. If we did the same thing in 2021 they would be equally as meaningless. Because as you say, the year is a write-off. We will cut again this pre-season and build on the stability we now appear to have in the FD.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

We all knew this going into the season tho (didn't we?) and its why its a bit easier to take and the improvements and change in the way we play are so enjoyable when they might otherwise be barely noticeable against all the losses.

We are the number one team for taking the game on thru the corridor. I love that and am rapt its the direction we have chosen to go in.

I'd love to see a comparison on that stat between this season, last season and the post 2016 years under Scott.

Funnily enough, I found this:

18 Clubs: Stats that show how each team is playing

Plenty of improvements for the Power in Rounds 1-5.

www.portadelaidefc.com.au

An 0-5 record generally doesn't lend itself to positive developments, and the Roos are no different. Rival teams are not only punishing them more on turnovers this season (23.3 per cent compared to 22.1 per cent last year), but they are leaking goals like a sieve in the fourth quarter. It is no coincidence then that North has given up multiple big leads and suffered losses by five or fewer points three times. The Kangaroos' daring approach of using the corridor more often out of defensive 50 – 24.8 per cent of the time, up from 15 per cent in 2016 – helps explain opposition sides' greater potency on turnovers. Figuring out why North has conceded five goals or more in every fourth quarter this season is tougher. You have to go back to round 20 last year against the Dogs to find a game where the blue-and-white won a final term. Are Brad Scott's men not fit enough?



Seems so familiar.

 

[Only Forwards]

We all knew this going into the season tho (didn't we?) and its why its a bit easier to take and the improvements and change in the way we play are so enjoyable when they might otherwise be barely noticeable against all the losses.

We are the number one team for taking the game on thru the corridor. I love that and am rapt its the direction we have chosen to go in.

I'd love to see a comparison on that stat between this season, last season and the post 2016 years under Scott.

Not all the pieces fit together yet because we still fail to get it on the board and can be opened up by quick play. THis makes the dogs a scary prospect.

I certainly like the attack the corridor much more than it like the long down the line stuff from Shaw.

as to Brad, he did what he did and ran his race. At his very best we were ok. At his worst we were shithouse. The only thing that was truly consistent was our inconsistency. Not that it was all his doing but I am very hopeful we are on a path away from that.

I would love for our team to be described as having a great amount of composure. something we have lacked for forever.

 

[Colbys Boots]

Regardless of what is written in the rule book, it is clear the way the umpires have been told to interpret the rule is that a spoil out of bounds in a marking contest is legal whereas a spoil out of bounds when it is not a marking contest will be ruled deliberate. Whether you like that interpretation or not, that's the way it is being applied. We've been pinged twice for this. First time was unlucky. Second time, the player probably should have known better but understandable in the circumstances. If it happens a third time, the player deserves a bake for being dumb as *.

 

[ferball]

Funnily enough, I found this:

18 Clubs: Stats that show how each team is playing

Plenty of improvements for the Power in Rounds 1-5.

www.portadelaidefc.com.au

An 0-5 record generally doesn't lend itself to positive developments, and the Roos are no different. Rival teams are not only punishing them more on turnovers this season (23.3 per cent compared to 22.1 per cent last year), but they are leaking goals like a sieve in the fourth quarter. It is no coincidence then that North has given up multiple big leads and suffered losses by five or fewer points three times. The Kangaroos' daring approach of using the corridor more often out of defensive 50 – 24.8 per cent of the time, up from 15 per cent in 2016 – helps explain opposition sides' greater potency on turnovers. Figuring out why North has conceded five goals or more in every fourth quarter this season is tougher. You have to go back to round 20 last year against the Dogs to find a game where the blue-and-white won a final term. Are Brad Scott's men not fit enough?



Seems so familiar.

Good one.

I'd be interested to see how that changed over the 2017 season.

Because it was after that time that we started using the boundary line more (2018/19) and changing our play to limit turnovers. I felt Brad was more concerned with stopping turnovers than attacking footy by the time he got sacked and with hindsight that structure is what Shaw was able to use during 2019 to great effect.

I think fitness is an issue that goes all the way back to then or earlier than then.

Only Forwards mentioned composure ... I think its coming to the players. Multiple times in the last few rounds players have lowered their eyes and taken time they probably didn't think they had to choose good options and they have hit their targets. That is what you need if you are gonna use the corridor, and if you can do it it makes things so much better. You also need it to know when to go down the line because the corridor is vulnerable. Footy IQ. It can obviously be taught to an extent. (Even Atley is more composed.)

Players might have exactly the same time to make and execute decisions but when they are composed they seem to have more time. They use what time they have more effectively. That seems to be a big part of "the process." And fitness makes it easier. That's one of the reasons we are seeing it more too. Match fitness is no substitute for a good pre season, but eventually it lets players catch up on a poor pre season. One of the reasons Brad's teams often finished the season better than they started.

 

[Mav]

Yeah i don't actually have a problem with that.

The reason this game is f’ed is because morons keep changing the rules to fix miniscule issues. And the way they do it is ludicrous - in response to whiny campaigners in the media just looking to justify their paychecks with column inches (oooer I bet they wish they had real column inches instead.) I think we both agee having the ump decide what is "insufficient intent" is completely unreasonable, (I'm assuming that is why you prefer the "last touch before oob is a free" rule in SA.)

Personally I think the last touch rule is problematic but I guess if push came to shove its better than leaving the interpretation of whether the player used enough intent to keep the ball in in the umps hands because players will know and train to avoid that from the start of the season/pre-season.

yet people are whining on here to change the rules!!

I thought I'd hate the last touch but it works really well. My son plays Under 18's and the kids dont even care, they just play to it.

I hate the quick kick from a contest that is deemed "insufficient intent" its open to interpretation. But its not that often that you go, OMG there was no way he wasn't trying to keep that in. The Zurhaar one is about the only one that comes to mind. Fact is, we know the player was kicking to the boundary, and the ump knows it. We, as one eyed supporters just cant admit it.

 

[ferball]

Regardless of what is written in the rule book, it is clear the way the umpires have been told to interpret the rule is that a spoil out of bounds in a marking contest is legal whereas a spoil out of bounds when it is not a marking contest will be ruled deliberate. Whether you like that interpretation or not, that's the way it is being applied. We've been pinged twice for this. First time was unlucky. Second time, the player probably should have known better but understandable in the circumstances. If it happens a third time, the player deserves a bake for being dumb as fu**.

That is true.



But it seems inconsistent. Like the rule about impeding a player meaning a free and 50m it only applies to us.

 

[ferball]

yet people are whining on here to change the rules!!

I thought I'd hate the last touch but it works really well. My son plays Under 18's and the kids dont even care, they just play to it.

I hate the quick kick from a contest that is deemed "insufficient intent" its open to interpretation. But its not that often that you go, OMG there was no way he wasn't trying to keep that in. The Zurhaar one is about the only one that comes to mind. Fact is, we know the player was kicking to the boundary, and the ump knows it. We, as one eyed supporters just cant admit it.

That's what I'm getting at. It provides certainty and players adapt.

I don't mind the deliberate rule apart from the punching thing. It works well enough to keep the game flowing. But players who punch the ball don't have the same control over what happens as when they are disposing of it from possession. Its rare that players effectively punch to another teammate from any "spoil", mark or bouncing ball. I used to try it all the time when I played and it would work less than half the time. When you have possession you have a level of control over the ball that isn't necessarily there when the ball is in dispute and you just belt it in a general direction.

At least in that situation last touch oob means there is nothing wishy washy about the onus being on players to keep the ball in play at all costs. Insufficient intent doesn't provide that certainty.

I guess one issue I have is that there is often space near the boundary and the rule ends that kick to space that used to open up play. The game is so regimented now and that whole "chaos ball" that people talk about now ... it opens the game up and allows players like Tarryn Thomas to thrive. Guys who have above average (for that level) skill, vision and athleticism can really turn that situation to their advantage and it used to look great. They used to call it "kicking to touch" as a deliberate reference to the Rugby play and I can see how that influenced the rule change but it wasn't always a case that the players were just kicking to the boundary.

You can't really do that just into open space on the fat side cos it leaves everything way too open. It has to happen near the boundary.

 

[Mav]

That's what I'm getting at. It provides certainty and players adapt.

I don't mind the deliberate rule apart from the punching thing. It works well enough to keep the game flowing. But players who punch the ball don't have the same control over what happens as when they are disposing of it from possession. Its rare that players effectively punch to another teammate from any "spoil", mark or bouncing ball. I used to try it all the time when I played and it would work less than half the time. When you have possession you have a level of control over the ball that isn't necessarily there when the ball is in dispute and you just belt it in a general direction.

At least in that situation last touch oob means there is nothing wishy washy about the onus being on players to keep the ball in play at all costs. Insufficient intent doesn't provide that certainty.

I guess one issue I have is that there is often space near the boundary and the rule ends that kick to space that used to open up play. The game is so regimented now and that whole "chaos ball" that people talk about now ... it opens the game up and allows players like Tarryn Thomas to thrive. Guys who have above average (for that level) skill, vision and athleticism can really turn that situation to their advantage and it used to look great. They used to call it "kicking to touch" as a deliberate reference to the Rugby play and I can see how that influenced the rule change but it wasn't always a case that the players were just kicking to the boundary.

You can't really do that just into open space on the fat side cos it leaves everything way too open. It has to happen near the boundary.

Last touch is a kick or hand ball. A punch is a throw in.

 

[shintemaster]

Why was the deliberate rule/interpretation even changed? Was it really a major issue in the game that demanded revision?

100% spot on scotty. It wasn't even an issue. If players want to kick for touch or chew up time - go for it. It literally never bothered me at all. That's just part of the game - instead now its a poorly adjudicated inconsistent part of the game. There is already provision for time wasting in the rules, if a player literally sat there pushing the ball out of bounds repeatedly they could be punished however end of the day it wasn't an issue that needed fixing and I don't agree that it is deserving of a free kick either. It is one of many rules that could quite easily be removed and the game wouldn't even notice the difference either way.

 

[shintemaster]

Figuring out why North has conceded five goals or more in every fourth quarter this season is tougher. You have to go back to round 20 last year against the Dogs to find a game where the blue-and-white won a final term. Are Brad Scott's men not fit enough?

Seems so familiar.

Well we're still not fit enough however to be fair this year we have a mix of injury to a significant number of senior players (ie. the most fit) and a reasonably young team outside of them. We obviously need to improve but saying Mahony or Phillips need to get fitter is largely an exercise in pointing out the obvious. It's not a 1-2 pre season job.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

100% spot on scotty. It wasn't even an issue. If players want to kick for touch or chew up time - go for it. It literally never bothered me at all. That's just part of the game - instead now its a poorly adjudicated inconsistent part of the game. There is already provision for time wasting in the rules, if a player literally sat there pushing the ball out of bounds repeatedly they could be punished however end of the day it wasn't an issue that needed fixing and I don't agree that it is deserving of a free kick either. It is one of many rules that could quite easily be removed and the game wouldn't even notice the difference either way.

The rushed behind rule as well.

Only the AFL would institute a rule that punishes you for scoring for the opposition.

 

[shintemaster]

The rushed behind rule as well.

Only the AFL would institute a rule that punishes you for scoring for the opposition.

Exactly. That is literally the point of the, well, point. There is already a disincentive. If you can't get close enough over 4 quarters that the opponent can afford to concede so much that's your problem IMO.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Like the rule about impeding a player meaning a free and 50m it only applies to us.

It really doesn't. It was just one of those rule of the week things and LMac got pinged for it first against Dusty. Over the rest of the weekend and for a couple more rounds they paid quite a few.
Fair dinkum, if you only read Bigfooty you would think the umpies have it in for 18 different teams. Which probably means they don't actually have it in for anyone.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

It really doesn't. It was just one of those rule of the week things and LMac got pinged for it first against Dusty. Over the rest of the weekend and for a couple more rounds they paid quite a few.
Fair dinkum, if you only read Bigfooty you would think the umpies have it in for 18 different teams. Which probably means they don't actually have it in for anyone.

Except for the doggies board....

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Except for the doggies board....

Ha ha, good point but I bet there's even a few there who can have a whinge without blushing.