List Mgmt. Contracts. Trades. Draft. 2021 Edition

[Keys]

Follow link below for contract status of all current players

The Contracts Thread

Updated (20/3/24) the status of all contracts for people’s reference : Overall List - 44 Players : Main List(37), Rookie List(5), Cat B(2) Contracted until the end of 2027 (2) : Tom Barrass (8/10/95) - Signed a 5 year extension (2023,2024,2025,2026,2027) on an existing contract set to...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Biggie]

Pathetic

Opportunity missed.

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

Pathetic

Yeah I know . I hate quick ball movement and exciting football too

 

[Keys]

Umps to start carrying spraypaint like soccer refs and spray around the feet of the man on the mark

Players to go back to wearing caps so they can place it on the “mark” like they used to a couple of centuries ago

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

Players to go back to wearing caps so they can place it on the “mark” like they used to a couple of centuries ago

Bring back the droppies!

 

[Dark Sharks]

Braydens footskills would still be sub standard in 1921

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Braydens footskills would still be sub standard in 1921

Well yeah, he wasn’t born yet.

 

[Doashuey]

Bull sh!t.

Ump sets the mark and you don't move off it.

No imaginary line needed. Its the mark.

Jump up and down on the spot your all good.

Move sideways off it you are pinged. Easy to understand. Easy to enforce.

How can anyone think that policing an imaginary line with players moving sideways along an imaginary line is easier to police than don't move off the mark.

Imaginary line.......that's a hint.

Now will this new rule cause soft 50's paid? Maybe. But it isn't hard to follow or understand. It's just soft.

The 'mark' is the line. It is not hard to understand. They don't get out a can of paint and mark it out so in effect an imaginary line- not that hard of a concept to grasp, umpires have had a good handle on it for over 100 years. Im not saying it wont be easy to enforce, move sideways and you get a 50m penalty- but you were saying it is difficult to enforce when someone has encroached the mark if they move sideways and I call that a ridiculous statement. If you are behind the mark, you should have the right to move anywhere behind that mark as long as you stay behind it.This new rule is going to result in a lot of bullshit 50s . Blokes will be playing on all the time and if the ump is not quick enough to call play on early, the MOTM who starts to move off to chase will be pinged- unfairly in my mind. A
As I said originally to your claim that umpires have had issues determining the mark- ask any umpire what the top 20 hardest interpretations are in footy and manning the mark will not get a mention. It has never been an issue so why make the change? Our game has enough soft 50s (hello 10m protected zone) it does not need more added to it,.

 

[Doashuey]

That's a danger. Over officiating the lateral movement by the player on the mark could result in a lot of 50m penalties.

The one thing the umpires have to do is...
If the player on the mark has no freedom to move off his spot (laterally or forward), then the guy with the ball has to get the same strictness for a 'play on' call if he moves so much as an inch off his line.

Agree 100%. The ump has to make a very early call on play on or the defending team is at a major disadvantage. A team such as WC that relies heavily on precise kicking and controlling the ball will be disadvantaged when facing a team that relies on running power and line breakers . If Saad for example gets a mark in the backline, he could run to within 5 m of the mark and then take off- those 2 steps he takes before the ump blows play on will be enough for him to get around any defender or they risk a 50m penalty trying to cut off his run (whist still being behind the mark).
I dont see why anyone behind the mark has to be flat footed and unable to move behind the mark. What if nobody stands the mark? do they call a 50m because there is several players behind the mark that are moving? If not, I see that as a tactic- no one stands the mark but wait behind it to cut off any attempt to play on.

 

[Obeanie1]

That's a danger. Over officiating the lateral movement by the player on the mark could result in a lot of 50m penalties.

The one thing the umpires have to do is...
If the player on the mark has no freedom to move off his spot (laterally or forward), then the guy with the ball has to get the same strictness for a 'play on' call if he moves so much as an inch off his line.

That's exactly what happens now.

Players just need to look sideways to be called play on.

It's just the umps use a different interpretation for the backline than forwards though. Which is the real BS part of the current play on "interpretation".

 

[Obeanie1]

The 'mark' is the line. It is not hard to understand. They don't get out a can of paint and mark it out so in effect an imaginary line- not that hard of a concept to grasp, umpires have had a good handle on it for over 100 years. Im not saying it wont be easy to enforce, move sideways and you get a 50m penalty- but you were saying it is difficult to enforce when someone has encroached the mark if they move sideways and I call that a ridiculous statement. If you are behind the mark, you should have the right to move anywhere behind that mark as long as you stay behind it.This new rule is going to result in a lot of bullshit 50s . Blokes will be playing on all the time and if the ump is not quick enough to call play on early, the MOTM who starts to move off to chase will be pinged- unfairly in my mind. A
As I said originally to your claim that umpires have had issues determining the mark- ask any umpire what the top 20 hardest interpretations are in footy and manning the mark will not get a mention. It has never been an issue so why make the change? Our game has enough soft 50s (hello 10m protected zone) it does not need more added to it,.

So this imaginary line. What angle is it say comparing a mark set directly in front of goal versus being set on the the boundary? We play on an oval remember so the angle of this imaginary line changes as you move from directly in front versus on the boundary.

By asking umpires to police an imaginary line that is now becoming 5 meters from the mark which can't be seen you make things harder. You disagree?

Yep, they've been doing it for years and making errors all the way. Players now are being coached to move 5 m inside the corridor the mark to stop the player with the ball playing on into the corridor. So that imaginary line is getting longer and longer.

If you think policing that is easier than setting the mark and a player staying on it you are kidding yourself.

 

[Doashuey]

So this imaginary line. What angle is it say comparing a mark set directly in front of goal versus being set on the the boundary? We play on an oval remember so the angle of this imaginary line changes as you move from directly in front versus on the boundary.

By asking umpires to police an imaginary line that is now becoming 5 meters from the mark which can't be seen you make things harder. You disagree?

Yep, they've been doing it for years and making errors all the way. Players now are being coached to move 5 m inside the corridor the mark to stop the player with the ball playing on into the corridor. So that imaginary line is getting longer and longer.

If you think policing that is easier than setting the mark and a player staying on it you are kidding yourself.

Its clear that this concept of 'the mark' is too difficult for you to grasp and the imaginary line is compounding your misunderstanding so Ill leave it there.
Suffice to say, the AFL are introducing a rule to address a problem the umpires don't have with a very big consequence attached (50M) . I for one think it will be a big talking point throughout the season with the potential to result in controversial results. If WC are on the wrong end of one there will be a lot of melting around here.

 

[Rowan18]

It is clear that they haven't thought this rule through, as usual. Like others have said, what is to stop the team from not manning the mark and having a loose player stand 1 m behind it, who can then move laterally all they want?

 

[Dark Sharks]

Can we take a few moments to discuss the completely different set of rules for on the goal line?

That's one thing which has really pissed me since forever.


A defender can get shanked, scragged, shepparded, had THREE speccy attempts taken on him.. and STILL wont receive a free kick.

 

[WCE_phil]

Can we take a few moments to discuss the completely different set of rules for on the goal line?

That's one thing which has really pissed me since forever.


A defender can get shanked, scragged, shepparded, had THREE speccy attempts taken on him.. and STILL wont receive a free kick.

There is no different set of rules which is why umpires interpretations instead of hard and fast rules are a ******* joke. They just get told to do what the afl want.

 

[Keys]

Can we take a few moments to discuss the completely different set of rules for on the goal line?

That's one thing which has really pissed me since forever.


A defender can get shanked, scragged, shepparded, had THREE speccy attempts taken on him.. and STILL wont receive a free kick.

Same as a player running 25m into the goal square to kick a goal without bouncing the ball. Anywhere else it’s a free kick but run from the 50m arc to goals and it’s all good

(See Stephenson in 2018 GF for an example)

 

[Eastcoasteagle]

I’d be happy if one of them was a Pepperjack Shiraz. Grange is wonderful but the last Grange we drafted was Judd

Yep, I'd take half dozen of pepper jacks! haha. With them being Witherden, Winder, Edwards, Trew, Johnson and Langdon who all go on to be solid best 22 players.
Kelly can be the Grange.

 

[Eastcoasteagle]

Same as a player running 25m into the goal square to kick a goal without bouncing the ball. Anywhere else it’s a free kick but run from the 50m arc to goals and it’s all good

(See Stephenson in 2018 GF for an example)

And Shepharding the line, it's called everywhere else buy not there.
Stephenson's first goal in the granny, Donkey takes out McGovern on the line. Gov would've very very likely touched it.

 

[Obeanie1]

Its clear that this concept of 'the mark' is too difficult for you to grasp and the imaginary line is compounding your misunderstanding so Ill leave it there.
Suffice to say, the AFL are introducing a rule to address a problem the umpires don't have with a very big consequence attached (50M) . I for one think it will be a big talking point throughout the season with the potential to result in controversial results. If WC are on the wrong end of one there will be a lot of melting around here.

Don't be a dick. And you are.

The concept you don't get is a clearly defined mark is much easier to officiate than this imaginary line you keep talking about.

This imaginary line is not easy to officiate and coaches and players are starting to push the limits by being permitted to wander further and further off the mark along this imaginary line.

You don't understand the KISS principle?

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Don't over complicate rules and less mistakes are made by players and umpires.

Less mistakes all round is good for the game. It's THAT simple.

 

[Obeanie1]

It is clear that they haven't thought this rule through, as usual. Like others have said, what is to stop the team from not manning the mark and having a loose player stand 1 m behind it, who can then move laterally all they want?

I haven't read where they are saying a player must stand the mark. That would seem at tad silly.

Saying that defending the mark is very important and that's why defending teams do it.

If no one stands the mark well all good for the attacking team. They can easily play on unopposed in any direction as they see fit.

 

[larrikin]

There is no such thing as a "great change", unless you're dropping the sh*t rules which have been implemented and slowly ruining our game over the past decade.

Stricter rules around concussion and head knocks have been good. Sometimes interpreted inconsistently, but concussion is scary af and any changes towards making it less likely is good.

Yeah, and the 3rd man up should have been a good rule change, until they went and cocked it up with the nomination bullshit.

 

[southcoast]

Any new contracts signed?

Delistings?

Recruitment?

This years draft updates?


Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com

 

[Doashuey]

Don't be a dick. And you are.

The concept you don't get is a clearly defined mark is much easier to officiate than this imaginary line you keep talking about.

This imaginary line is not easy to officiate and coaches and players are starting to push the limits by being permitted to wander further and further off the mark along this imaginary line.

You don't understand the KISS principle?

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Don't over complicate rules and less mistakes are made by players and umpires.

Less mistakes all round is good for the game. It's THAT simple.

Oh- a clearly defined mark? And what is it clearly defined with? Does the ump mark it with chalk or does he put his whistle on the mark? No, he points to a spot and in his mind he draws an imaginary 'mark"- it is THE SAME THING. The player has to ensure he does not go over that, if he isnt on the mark initially, the umpire tells him to take 1 or 2 steps back until he says you are on it now. If he steps FORWARD over that it is 50m . Now why does side stepping behind the mark make it difficult for the umpire? So long as he doesn't step FORWARD of the mark- IE closer to towards the opposition goals, he is behind the mark. It is all very simple.

I don't understand how you cant get that? Its just baffling.

So your way of KISS is not to over complicate the rules by bringing in more rules to alleviate a rule that has no issues? Right.
Can you point me in the direction of the last time there was outrage over an umpire calling a 50m penalty for someone overstepping the mark when they didnt actually over step the mark? You seem to be of the opinion that this is an impossible rule to interpret for the umpires that they have been getting constantly wrong and has been a major blight on the game for years with offer officiating and too many 50m penalties unjustly dished out. It has never been an issue, but I guarantee this will now become an issue.

 

[Agent93]

I wonder what Pence is going to do about the mark officiating.

 

[Rowan18]

I haven't read where they are saying a player must stand the mark. That would seem at tad silly.

Saying that defending the mark is very important and that's why defending teams do it.

If no one stands the mark well all good for the attacking team. They can easily play on unopposed in any direction as they see fit.

My point was, what if instead of standing the mark, you stand the minimum distance you can behind the mark, which still allows you to move laterally (as you are not on the mark). What is this minimum distance? These are some of the questions and flaws in their stupid rule.

Let's face it though, we all know how this will work. In the early rounds there will be a game where they are too hot on the whistle. They will be awarding 50m penalties for guys standing still on the mark but looking sideways too quickly. Or they won't call play on quick enough and players will get frustrated.

Commentators/media will lose their s**t and AFL will brief the umpires and clubs on new interpretations, which pretty much render the rule redundant. Same thing happened with the crack down on holding the ball in 2020.

 

[EaglesVille]

I actually feel some sorrow for the umps. They are already under enough scrutiny. Adding new rules and interpretations and then introducing hot rule of the round sporadically only complicates things