YesThe AFL is stupid
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
YesThe AFL is stupid
Not technically against it so well played to Collingwood.. but it defeats the purpose of the entire 6-6-6 if you allow something like that to happen. Similar if you wanted a spare back. Just line your quickest defender up on the corner of the square and get him to start running back as soon as the umpire moves, Crippa type small forward run from half forward to cover the wing. Spare back successful.
Thought something like this would come up when they introduced the rule last year. Players and coaches are going to try and find ways around it.. they aren’t going to just play by the rules and sit a player in the middle of the wing at every centre bounce like I assume the rule was designed to do.
Wonder what the reaction would have been if we were the first ones to try it out on our way to a one point victory over the Pies. If we go by any other WC controversial incidents you can guarantee it would be the top story of the week. #arrogance #cultureissuesImagine if every player did the same with their position. It would render the 6-6-6 pretty impotent, especially on grounds like the SCG where the 50m line is so close to the centre square anyway.
It is clearly a loop hole that needs to be fixed to maintain the integrity of the rule.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Whether or not it is legal , these umpires wouldn't have the guts or no-how to pick up on that.Noticed at the game on the weekend everytime Nicnat was rucking, Sidebum would start at the side of the square and run to the back of the square prior to the ball being bounced.
Can acknowledge the tactic of cutting off the big smack by Nicnat, was well implemented all game.
Steele runs by the umpires everytime and my question is - does the movement prior to the bounce breach the starting position rules?
Starting positions this year have changed, one player must start on each wing in the shaded area.
A free kick under 17.2.2 (a) stipulates that if a player is in breach of the starting area when the ball is bounced or thrown up then a free kick is to be given.
Have a look at the GIF and have a say, I may be missing something :/
What's the point of starting positions if movement before the bounce is allowed out of there?? View attachment 710495View attachment 710497View attachment 710498View attachment 710500
On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Looks within the rules - it will become common place.
But, and a big but - the umps have trouble with simple rules like push in the back, shepherding / blocking when the ball is more than 5m away etc.
Ain't that the truth!!More goals = more ad breaks = more revenue for Ch7.
Except it’s backfired and we’re having an extremely low scoring year. In before they push it further down the hole rather than admit they were wrong and take it back to how it was.The 6-6-6 rule was a knee jerk reaction to the almighty broadcast rights holders.
The rule was brought in to address the issue of flooding back lines and therefore hampering scoring (alegedly)
More goals = more ad breaks = more revenue for Ch7.
Simple. Nothing to do with the game or equalizing the weaker teams. It was ch7 placing pressure on the AFL for more revenue
6-6-6 has taken a coaches ability to nullify the opposition through tactics.
The team with the strongest midfield will win - Geelong and there is pretty much nothing that can be done to nullify that...
AFL will profess 666 is working to appease the almighty broadcast rights overlords.
Imagine if every player did the same with their position. It would render the 6-6-6 pretty impotent, especially on grounds like the SCG where the 50m line is so close to the centre square anyway.
It is clearly a loop hole that needs to be fixed to maintain the integrity of the rule.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
I never really understood why we didn't do it either.I’ve often wondered why clubs haven’t lined up a back six with your interceptor starting on the defensive point of the wing and then just sprinting back to the 50 on the umpire’s approach.
Set up our backline, Hurn Barrass Cole Jetta McGovern Duggan, start Shep on the defensive point of wing, umpire walks in and Shep makes his way as the loose. Would be well inside the 50 by the time the rucks have touched it, and unless the opposition got the cleanest centre bounce going Shep is now in place.
You can bet your ball that the minute we start using this ploy successfully the VFL will modify the rules.I’ve often wondered why clubs haven’t lined up a back six with your interceptor starting on the defensive point of the wing and then just sprinting back to the 50 on the umpire’s approach.
Set up our backline, Hurn Barrass Cole Jetta McGovern Duggan, start Shep on the defensive point of wing, umpire walks in and Shep makes his way as the loose. Would be well inside the 50 by the time the rucks have touched it, and unless the opposition got the cleanest centre bounce going Shep is now in place.
Worth noting 13.1 is part of the match provisions section which deals with how things are supposed to operate.The AFL never learns that the smartest minds in football are employed by the clubs. Every idea they come up with triggers coaches/strategists to immediately think of ways to exploit it.
This rule is stupidly worded. Section 13 says the players must be in position when the umpire commences their approach to bounce, but 17 talks about contravening section 13 at the point the ball is bounced/thrown.
And was bad coaching by Simmo - was asleep at the wheel.The rule is that you have to be in set positions as the umpire approaches the bounce. You can move once they start the approach. It may be a pointlessly AFL grey area rule, but it’s the rule. Similar happened at the final centre bounce of the Carlton/Freo game.
There’s no issue with it and, given they did it from the first bounce, the problem becomes us failing to address it defensively.
Similarly, the result was we had a winger standing alone at nearly every centre bounce, nothing stopping us from capitalising on that more.
Non issue, clever coaching by Bucks.
didn't Carlton apply the same tactics when they recently played Freo, thus managing to cause an upset win in the dying minutes?Imagine if every player did the same with their position. It would render the 6-6-6 pretty impotent, especially on grounds like the SCG where the 50m line is so close to the centre square anyway.
It is clearly a loop hole that needs to be fixed to maintain the integrity of the rule.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
And even with this tactic Collingwood still only managed to win by a point! Anyway Bucks has shown his hand now so very unlikely any team they play in future will let it happen again as the coaching staff will or should put tactics in place to prevent this happening thus making it nul and void!Wonder what the reaction would have been if we were the first ones to try it out on our way to a one point victory over the Pies. If we go by any other WC controversial incidents you can guarantee it would be the top story of the week. #arrogance #cultureissues
Yep, something like that.didn't Carlton apply the same tactics when they recently played Freo, thus managing to cause an upset win in the dying minutes?
13.1 defines what position he must be in when the umpire begins their approach; it doesn't say whether they can move after that point so it's not clear that any rule has been broken by what Sidebottom did.Worth noting 13.1 is part of the match provisions section which deals with how things are supposed to operate.
Rule 17.2 is in the free kicks section which deals with penalties.
Sidebottom's movement comes under 17.2 - he moves out of a legal starting position (defined in 13.1) before the ball touches the ground - and should be a free kick against.
Well done to Collingwood for getting away with it.
It's good to see Simmo is above the public 'seeking clarification' tactics employed by other coaches.13.1 defines what position he must be in when the umpire begins their approach; it doesn't say whether they can move after that point so it's not clear that any rule has been broken by what Sidebottom did.