Opinion Commentary & Media IV

[hilly]

I swear Denis must insist on his real estate business getting a mention if he is to be interviewed.

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Horizons_00]

And West Coast.

They have comprehensively shat the bed since moving to the hub. Being found out as a bunch of flat track bullies.

To be fair they travel shitloads during a normal season. Tigers travel once a year and then maybe from Etihad to MCG and still manage to behave like a bunch of entitled babies lol

While Eddie betts has 4 kids and said he is willing to do anything for his club and to make sure the footy keeps on going.

Not a good look

 

[zoomba23]

Honestly, I just want them to reverse almost all of the rule changes of the past ten years or so.

1. Stop being dicks about the protected area
2. Allow third man up (and penalise blocking if it's there)
3. Unlimited interchange (footy's gotten worse since the interchange cap was imposed, and worse each time it was decreased)
4. The 30 sec shot clock can fu** off (call time off, you idiots!)
5. The 6-6-6 starting positions have done nothing - and won't be missed.

I'm sure there's more but this is a start.

To add on to this list:
1. Scrap the double 50m penalty. Keep the option to play on while taking a 50 tho
2. Instances where contact below the knees occurs cos of a player sliding in/player is taken high cos he slides in, are called play on. Sick of seeing the umps arbitrarily make a call when this happens. Often both players are at fault. Let them play on
3. Scrap the 'back to the 9' rule. The mark should be wherever the player marked the ball. Defenders should be able to withstand pressure, this s**t just makes it more complicated for the umps who are already on a ******* hiding to nothing with Hocking and Gil in control

 

[muttley45]

Top of the agenda for whistleblowers should be the ability to judge 15m (+/- 1 or 2m), i heard Whately mention they never pracitse that at all, as if we didn't already know.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

First thing i heard this morning when i put the radio on, all clubs have e been sent a memo Re. interpretation of holding the ball, now, if no clear attempt to dispose of pill, ie, holding it in to cause a stoppage, a free kick will be paid, looks like Clarko got an instant result. Then some dude rings in and says "there goes North's game plan", kind of makes you think, yes, we are very good at stoppages, but now they want the quick release/throw/drop to team mates advantage that certain clubs prefer, indeed Bulldogs won a flag using this approach. Interesting times for Rhyce ahead.

Clearly, going by point (a) where they set out to remove all doubt, half of the frees (and all paid over the years by Chamberlain) are wrongly interpreted.

 

[koshari]

making it 16 a side is simple. try it in the pre season games and see if it works, i can't see how it wouldn't work. it would work better than the stupid interpretive rule changes they've brought in/want to introduce.

I agree. Worked fine in the vfa for years.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

View attachment 904639

Clearly, going by point (a) where they set out to remove all doubt, half of the frees (and all paid over the years by Chamberlain) are wrongly interpreted.

HTB is a simple rule made complicated to give umpires wriggle room for ******* up.

 

[big_e]

I agree. Worked fine in the vfa for years.

So did throwing, though.

 

[Passmore]

So did throwing, though.

King hits and all in brawls worked a treat in the VFA too.

 

[ferball]

Lol. I reckon he looks petrified.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

He's thinking "Oh s**t. I can't hit this bloke. He's like my dad."

And I know he's right.

 

[ferball]

Yeah, Goldy is 17-2 in free kicks this year.

So Goldy has 20% of our free kicks this year.


Take them away and we are mid table.

The other thing is take away the cheapies in front of goal. I'd like to know how many frees we get in front of goal compared to opposition team. Especially cheap, soft frees that aren't in marking contests.

Also ...who gets the most 50s and who gives away the most.

 

[Dirty_11]

Yeah, Goldy is 17-2 in free kicks this year.

And they missed the out and out most obvious one that cost us a goal before quarter time. Ceglar did everything bar penetrate him. Play on.

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dirty_11]

i agree that there are too many rule changes. but it's interpretive rules such as holding the ball, contact below the knees, holding in the ruck, high tackles/ducking etc. that ruin the game. ppl are talking about increasing the kicking distance required, not kicking backwards, less prior opportunity etc. this puts more onus on the umpires whom already can't rule correctly as it is! the more interpretations those idiots have to make the worse the game gets. the best umpired sports in the world are the ones which almost eliminate any subjective opinions from the umpire.

making it 16 a side is simple. try it in the pre season games and see if it works, i can't see how it wouldn't work. it would work better than the stupid interpretive rule changes they've brought in/want to introduce.

The dog chasing its tail.

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ferball]

Honestly, I just want them to reverse almost all of the rule changes of the past ten years or so.

1. Stop being dicks about the protected area
2. Allow third man up (and penalise blocking if it's there)
3. Unlimited interchange (footy's gotten worse since the interchange cap was imposed, and worse each time it was decreased)
4. The 30 sec shot clock can fu** off (call time off, you idiots!)
5. The 6-6-6 starting positions have done nothing - and won't be missed.

I'm sure there's more but this is a start.

I like the third man up rule on principle. But I hate the way it's implemented.

The nominations thing is stupid. Instead of making players nominate and waiting for them ball up straight away if a third player goes up for the contest pay the free.

It will speed up the game and decrease congestion.

 

[RobZombie]

not really that much of a fundamental of the game if the VFA had 16 a side for decades...

without a doubt it would open up the game these days. what is an argument against it other than a subjective take such as "it takes away a fundamental of the game"

Over the long term it didn't increase scoring in the VFA. If it were to happen it would be a shortlived spike at best. Same with Last Touch OOB. Hasn't increased scoring in the SANFL.

I doubt very much that either one of those would open up the game. If you take away 2 players, what are coaches going to sacrifice? Numbers at the contest or on the outside? If all you're doing is taking away possible outlet options, you could well end up with more congestion, not less.

And last touch OOB would effectively narrow the ground due to it being riskier to use the boundary, turning every ground into Kardinia Park and making it easier to set up zones. The "lasso" frees you see in the AFLW are very rarely taken quickly or played on from, so there's no real get-the-thing-moving advantage because the defending team has time to set up.

 

[ferball]

Over the long term it didn't increase scoring in the VFA. If it were to happen it would be a shortlived spike at best. Same with Last Touch OOB. Hasn't increased scoring in the SANFL.

I doubt very much that either one of those would open up the game. If you take away 2 players, what are coaches going to sacrifice? Numbers at the contest or on the outside? If all you're doing is taking away possible outlet options, you could well end up with more congestion, not less.

And last touch OOB would effectively narrow the ground due to it being riskier to use the boundary, turning every ground into Kardinia Park and making it easier to set up zones. The "lasso" frees you see in the AFLW are very rarely taken quickly or played on from, so there's no real get-the-thing-moving advantage because the defending team has time to set up.

All the artificial slowing of the game, like I mentioned above re waiting for nominated ruckmen, contributes to congestion. The league should be doung what it can to remove these instances from the game first.

I like the change to the kick in rule. And so long as it's still okay to kick in before the goal ump finishes their flag waving then on reflection I actually like what happened to Betts Last week. It did open the game up.

The other thing is crack down on standing the mark properly and scraging, not returning the ball properly to players with a free or mark and other space limiting infringements. Pay those 50s on a hair trigger for a month and everyone will hold back on encroaching on the space and the game will flow better. Ie * over Hawthorns game plan...

Our game is best when contests open up into space. That is when high scoring, free flowing footy gets played. It's what people love to see and what the game great to watch a couple of decades ago. You could use the rules we have now to protect that space.

It might move the game away from its emphasis on zoning too. That's the othreally thing... one on one duels were a highlight of the game once upon a time. Bring them back.

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

IMO the slowness in play, congestion, general ugliness of the game gets down to 3 key factors

1. Allowing 100 interchange rotations
2. Players are now elite athletes
3. The increase in assistant coaches and the need for them to justify their role

We are not going back to the old days of part time players so 2. is locked in.

However, the AFL can adjust 1 and 3.

1. Interchange rotations should be brought down to 2 per quarter. This will ensure more tiredness in players and therefore less ability to crowd the ball and push back in defence. Coaches and the plethora of paid fitness personnel that clubs have on hand can do something useful and devise plans to ensure players do not get injured more than they do now under the new rotation system. I would bring this in over 3 years - 50, then 25, then 8.

3. The soft cap to be reduced substantially (as it is this year). Official assistant coaches to be limited to 2 with a maximum of 5 people, including the coaches, in the box at any one time. Laptops/technology to be banned from the coaches box during the game. This will ensure the coaches are looking at the play during the game - not analysing every players move, heat map and every other statistic they can think of to reduce scoring and the chances of their team being blown out.

 

[big_e]

IMO the slowness in play, congestion, general ugliness of the game gets down to 3 key factors

1. Allowing 100 interchange rotations
2. Players are now elite athletes
3. The increase in assistant coaches and the need for them to justify their role

We are not going back to the old days of part time players so 2. is locked in.

However, the AFL can adjust 1 and 3.

1. Interchange rotations should be brought down to 2 per quarter. This will ensure more tiredness in players and therefore less ability to crowd the ball and push back in defence. Coaches and the plethora of paid fitness personnel that clubs have on hand can do something useful and devise plans to ensure players do not get injured more than they do now under the new rotation system. I would bring this in over 3 years - 50, then 25, then 8.

3. The soft cap to be reduced substantially (as it is this year). Official assistant coaches to be limited to 2 with a maximum of 5 people, including the coaches, in the box at any one time. Laptops/technology to be banned from the coaches box during the game. This will ensure the coaches are looking at the play during the game - not analysing every players move, heat map and every other statistic they can think of to reduce scoring and the chances of their team being blown out.

Reducing interchange has not improved the game.

 

[Mav]

I like the third man up rule on principle. But I hate the way it's implemented.

The nominations thing is stupid. Instead of making players nominate and waiting for them ball up straight away if a third player goes up for the contest pay the free.

It will speed up the game and decrease congestion.

You can’t do this. If you don’t nominate, the ruckman can pretend to be going to ruck but stays down, and someone that isn’t the ruck will jump into the back of his direct opponent and claim blocking in the ruck contest. It will be a complete balls up (pun intended)

 

[DunderHead]

Reducing interchange has not improved the game.

Reducing interchange just makes it tougher for anyone who isnt an endurance running athlete to play AFL.

AFL will look better if they have bigger stronger, more explosive amd skilled players on the ground. To enable of these types of players at that level you need to reduce the endurance running demands.

The easy fix is zones. But im not sure whether that will batardise the game too much for us to be willong to go down that path.

They need to focus on bringing back big gorilla forwards and backmen. What ever it takes to get these sorts of players and body shapes playing is in the best interest of game and its growth.

 

[Mcarcherey]

Over the long term it didn't increase scoring in the VFA. If it were to happen it would be a shortlived spike at best. Same with Last Touch OOB. Hasn't increased scoring in the SANFL.

I doubt very much that either one of those would open up the game. If you take away 2 players, what are coaches going to sacrifice? Numbers at the contest or on the outside? If all you're doing is taking away possible outlet options, you could well end up with more congestion, not less.

And last touch OOB would effectively narrow the ground due to it being riskier to use the boundary, turning every ground into Kardinia Park and making it easier to set up zones. The "lasso" frees you see in the AFLW are very rarely taken quickly or played on from, so there's no real get-the-thing-moving advantage because the defending team has time to set up.

but the VFA did this decades ago when players played in their positions, it's a completely different scenario now.

last touch OOB i didn't reference and i don't agree with.

like i said, my point was primarily to take away umpire decisions, they can't be trusted now and giving them more interpretations will just make it a whole lot worse. coaches may just take half forwards/backs to the ball but there will be ultimately less ppl around the bail out kick, forcing more one on ones and less of a chance or another ball up.

 

[ferball]

You can’t do this. If you don’t nominate, the ruckman can pretend to be going to ruck but stays down, and someone that isn’t the ruck will jump into the back of his direct opponent and claim blocking in the ruck contest. It will be a complete balls up (pun intended)

In that situation the someone who isn't the ruck jumping into their opponent gets a free against them. I know we (well some of us) like to give umps s**t but at the same time it's clear when the ball is thrown up that there are two players competing. Umps are smart enough to work that out. It should be a job requirement.

So there are multiple solutions. The umpire always clears the ball up area and two players line up to compete, as much as I hate to admit it umps aren't complete morons. They can work out who is spiosed to be competing and who isn't.

I know this isn't an easy ready made solution, and has some issues, which is why the situation we have now came about, but I think a way can be found to make it work.

IMO one of he biggest issues in the game is the time it takes to ball up in general play. Simply because of all the time it gives players to recover energy and set up defensively.

 

[Mav]

In that situation the someone who isn't the ruck jumping into their opponent gets a free against them. I know we (well some of us) like to give umps sh*t but at the same time it's clear when the ball is thrown up that there are two players competing. Umps are smart enough to work that out. It should be a job requirement.

So there are multiple solutions. The umpire always clears the ball up area and two players line up to compete, as much as I hate to admit it umps aren't complete morons. They can work out who is spiosed to be competing and who isn't.

I know this isn't an easy ready made solution, and has some issues, which is why the situation we have now came about, but I think a way can be found to make it work.

IMO one of he biggest issues in the game is the time it takes to ball up in general play. Simply because of all the time it gives players to recover energy and set up defensively.

You don’t think coaches and players will manipulate it by have 3 guys pretending to be the ruck? You want to take a black and white rule and make it gray.
How many time do we have repeated ball ups? Clearances aren’t the issue, it’s the s**t that leads to the clearance. You’re wanting to knock, what 5 seconds off? It won’t make much difference.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Call for the ball up faster instead of the bullshit we have going at the moment with players just reefing it from the hands of their teammates to avoid being done for HTB.

 

[75-77-96-99]

allow only 1 person to tackle - simple