Opinion Commentary & Media IV

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Billy Not Really said:


Holy sh*t.
Click to expand...


Can't wait for someone to genuinely cramp up on the mark and attempt to stand still.

oh, and how about if there's delayed concussion on the mark; The guy gets dizzy and almost faints... There's the 50 metre & 12 days out combo right there!
 
 
Billy Not Really said:


Holy sh*t.
Click to expand...

Is the best way to respond to this to not stand a man on the mark?

Maybe position a player just outside the protected zone and tempt them to play on.

That 50 was seriously one the worst penalties for the most minor infringements possible. But it’s the AFL so what else would we expect?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

giantroo said:
Click to expand...


Gee! Has he gone a bit late with this? Don't you just love what he was in the 90s? He was delicious. So what do you think fellas, has he been less special lately?

In all seriouslyness, the bloke had become a self-parody and his calling in the last few years was crap. They say of footballers that it's better to be asked "Why have you retired" than "Why don't you retire" and the same applies here. Still, I think Bruce had a huge part to play in the NMFC image of the 90s. As the best caller, calling the best player, in the best team, in the best timeslot, I think I'll always have a soft spot for him.
 
SonofSamsquanch said:
Is the best way to respond to this to not stand a man on the mark?

Maybe position a player just outside the protected zone and tempt them to play on.

That 50 was seriously one the worst penalties for the most minor infringements possible. But it’s the AFL so what else would we expect?
Click to expand...
Not allowed to not have a man on the mark.
 
The new rule itself definitely opens up the game and creates a more free-flowing contest but the officiating of the new rule is a whole different kettle of fish.

What did the AFL expect to happen by adding in a complex new rule when the umpires have a hard enough time getting the current rules right.

Personally I hope they keep the rule because it opens the game up nicely but they use a bit of common sense when implementing it and don’t pay 50’s for ridiculous things like that^^^
 
Clarence2norton said:
The new rule itself definitely opens up the game and creates a more free-flowing contest but the officiating of the new rule is a whole different kettle of fish.

What did the AFL expect to happen by adding in a complex new rule when the umpires have a hard enough time getting the current rules right.

Personally I hope they keep the rule because it opens the game up nicely but they use a bit of common sense when implementing it and don’t pay 50’s for ridiculous things like that^^^
Click to expand...
Then it's already failed and will keep failing.
 
Clarence2norton said:
The new rule itself definitely opens up the game and creates a more free-flowing contest but the officiating of the new rule is a whole different kettle of fish.

What did the AFL expect to happen by adding in a complex new rule when the umpires have a hard enough time getting the current rules right.

Personally I hope they keep the rule because it opens the game up nicely but they use a bit of common sense when implementing it and don’t pay 50’s for ridiculous things like that^^^
Click to expand...

The problem is that the poor umpire here is right. OK, no one like umpires, but the rule as it stands means he has to pay a 50m penalty that looks, feels and is wrong and so he looks like a prime turd by doing what he's told. "Common sense" appears nowhere in the rule book and if an umpire has to consider the "look" and "feel" in the second he has to make a decision, then it's probably a stupid rule.
 
Last edited:
Marstermind said:
The problem is that the poor umpire here is right. OK, no one like umpires, but the rule as it stands means he has to pay a 50m penalty that looks, feels and is wrong and so he looks like a prime turd by doing what he's told. "Common sense" appears nowhere in the rule book and an umpire has to consider the "look" and "feel" and the second he has to make a decision, then it's probably a stupid rule.
Click to expand...
Now if only they knew how to call incorrect disposal more than once in every ten instances.
 
DaveyBoy123 said:
Can't wait for someone to genuinely cramp up on the mark and attempt to stand still.

oh, and how about if there's delayed concussion on the mark; The guy gets dizzy and almost faints... There's the 50 metre & 12 days out combo right there!
Click to expand...

Remember the game a few years back ( may have been pre season) where Boomer was whacked in the head, given the free kick, and then as he was walking back to take the kick, the effects of concussion caused him to stumble sideways and collapse. Moron umpire calls play on as he had gone off his line and the opposition players piled on top of a semi conscious Boomer. Umpire calls holding the ball. Quite possibly the worst few seconds of umpiring in the history of the game.
 
The legendary call from Bruce.

 
Look, thats a bad one and hopefully it's the type that gets addressed in pre-season, but the early reports from pretty much everyone who's seen the new rule in action is that it's having an enormous positive effect on teams playing quick attacking footy and been good.
 
 
Re: the standing on the market rule ....

I’m going to be in the minority here (and howled down) but at the Saints praccy match, a few times I could see how it MIGHT actually work! 😬

If we are looking to speed up attacking movement, I saw 2 benefits live at the game:

1. A static man on the mark resulted in improved vision on downfield options for the attacking player, and
2. Gives the attacking player a slight head-start if he decided too run and play on.

It’s frustrating when a player forgot and moved a step or 2 as 50m is a big penalty.

bit at ground level live.... I can kinda see why they think it’s worth trying 🤭
 
Now hear me out for this new 50m rule people have all sorts of ideas about how it should be changed etc to make it better.

the idea is to make the corridor more open and faster player with better leading lanes - how about this slight addition;

man has to stand still on the mark, until the mark is i50

currently, you’d lose the multiple man on the mark for a boundary line snap, the multiple man on the mark for the goal after the siren and the classic lachie hansen spin manoeuvre.

makes sense up the ground but let’s remove it from the F50
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yianni
Roast The state of modern football media...
Replies
5
Views
747
ferball
ferball

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top