Diving on the Ball

[cmndstab]

The biggest concern was when Jeff Geischen (sp?) said on the radio that the new rules had had the desired affect by reducing the number of stoppages, which he said were slowing down the game and reduced the spectacle.


If you're removing them and replacing them with free kicks, it doesn't make the game a better spectacle!!

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

The biggest concern was when Jeff Geischen (sp?) said on the radio that the new rules had had the desired affect by reducing the number of stoppages, which he said were slowing down the game and reduced the spectacle.


If you're removing them and replacing them with free kicks, it doesn't make the game a better spectacle!!

Gee that in itself is a worry. The break away from a stoppage is one of the great aspects of our game.

 

[cmndstab]

Agreed. Certainly it is a better spectacle than a frustrating free kick, or a player desperately trying to handball the ball anywhere rather than be caught with it and the seagulls nearby swooping off with the ball.


Then again, perhaps they were trying to reduce the number of times they would look ridiculous by giving away invisible ruck infringement frees!

 

[smoovy]

The biggest concern was when Jeff Geischen (sp?) said on the radio that the new rules had had the desired affect by reducing the number of stoppages, which he said were slowing down the game and reduced the spectacle.


If you're removing them and replacing them with free kicks, it doesn't make the game a better spectacle!!

Well I actually agree with him. Remove the rule about diving on the ball and you watch the game be ruined by stoppages.

People always like to bring up the football that used to be played 20 years ago as being a better spectacle, but there were a lot of crap games then too.

The difference between then and now is that players are so much fitter and able to get to many more contests, so there are always plenty of numbers around the ball.

 

[pjcrows]

I've just about given up. If the ball is on the ground they would rather the players tap the ball further along without taking possession, than actually attempt to take possession.

This is simply not Aussie Rules. And I'm simply not interested any more.

 

[pjcrows]

Well I actually agree with him. Remove the rule about diving on the ball and you watch the game be ruined by stoppages.

Bollocks. "Ruined" by stoppages? Stoppages are a natural part of Aussie Rules. A ball that stops is balled up, players re-set themselves and the game keeps going. There was what, one season where there was an increase in stoppages, so they make a snap decision to keep the ball moving all the time. This is NOT a better spectacle.

Whoever actually sat down and made the decision that the game would be more of a spectacle if there were no stoppages should be sacked. Stoppages are a NECESSARY part of our game.

 

[smoovy]

Bollocks. "Ruined" by stoppages? Stoppages are a natural part of Aussie Rules. A ball that stops is balled up, players re-set themselves and the game keeps going. There was what, one season where there was an increase in stoppages, so they make a snap decision to keep the ball moving all the time. This is NOT a better spectacle.

Whoever actually sat down and made the decision that the game would be more of a spectacle if there were no stoppages should be sacked. Stoppages are a NECESSARY part of our game.

There will always be stoppages, there is plenty now. Change the rule to allow for a player just to dive on the ball and hold it in and there will be a lot more. I don't see anything wrong with legislating against a player just diving on the ball to kill the play. The application of how that is done is open to debate. You are still allowed to make a play for the ball on the ground, you just better make sure you get it out.

I do think there could be a relaxation on the amount of time you have to get it out though. Maybe 5 seconds once possession is taken, to make things consistent.

 

[pjcrows]

There will always be stoppages, there is plenty now. Change the rule to allow for a player just to dive on the ball and hold it in and there will be a lot more. I don't see anything wrong with legislating against a player just diving on the ball to kill the play. The application of how that is done is open to debate. You are still allowed to make a play for the ball on the ground, you just better make sure you get it out.

I do think there could be a relaxation on the amount of time you have to get it out though. Maybe 5 seconds once possession is taken, to make things consistent.

But they used to pay that anyway. If you genuinely dove on the ball and dragged it in to deliberately create a ball-up, the umpires generally pinged you for it. It was left up to the umpires judgement as to whether it was a standard ball up or a deliberate drag in.

To have a rule written that says any player who takes possession of the ball on the ground and is tackled, regardless of circumstances, is pinged, is outrageous.

 

[Deaneus!]

There is no protection for the player who actually takes possession of the ball now. The defenders just sit off and tackle over the head, around the neck, jump on them and then there is the ride them into the ground tackle. Suddenly all of these things have become"legal". Why would any sane player want to actually try and get a loose ball? They are expected to keep their footing so that results in an arm wrestle with the ball laying at their feet.

The game is truly f***ed with these stupid rule changes.

There are some on here that think the current rule is good because there are fewer ballups. BFD, that is the main reason ruckman are slowly disappearing from the game.

I hate the modern game as a spectacle especially when the knobs on TV try to talk it up. That is, when they are not telling us about mooning werewolves or screaming Kingggggggggggg endlessly. None of them actually call the game anymore.

the whole thing

It's become the cult of personality instead of actual commentating. Lots of nicknames and yelling and cliche, but very little actual commentating, other than "kicks inside... handballs...". Makes me appreciate ABC's cricket coverage in the summer. Given, this game is a bit faster, but they could at least try.

 

[smoovy]

But they used to pay that anyway. If you genuinely dove on the ball and dragged it in to deliberately create a ball-up, the umpires generally pinged you for it. It was left up to the umpires judgement as to whether it was a standard ball up or a deliberate drag in.

To have a rule written that says any player who takes possession of the ball on the ground and is tackled, regardless of circumstances, is pinged, is outrageous.

I agree, there should be a provision to give a reasonable time to dispose of the ball. I think generally that is actually given by the umps (you hear them say "knock it out, knock it out"), but the rule is not written that way.

 

[crowsup]

This is just my opinion and I may very well be wrong but I still need to state it.
I don't think that the new rules are ruining the game. I think it is the inconsistency shown by the umpiring fraternity that cause all these problems.
I don't necessarily believe that umpires are blatantly biased but I believe that quite a lot of them are subconsciously very biased. Unfortunately having most of the umpires are Victorian and whether we like it or not, we are always going to get fewer frees for than against.
Again I could be wrong but I don't think that in the last 5 seasons there is been more than 10 times where we have had more frees than the opposition.
Now, considering that we play 10 home games per year and it, usually, works out the home team gets more frees, our frees for and against ratio should be more even than it is. Unless we are a very undisciplined team. But, if that were the case, wouldn't that mean we would have had more players fronting the tribunal?
Now, if I were to use last Friday's game as an example, I would say that there were good and bad decisions for both teams. I.E. free to Tippet for hands in the back being wrong and free against Otten for hands in the back being wrong. The real mistakes made by umpires are the frees given for HTB when a player is tackled as soon as he takes possession of the ball and given no time to get rid of it and the times that the umpire count to five before a) he gives a free kick for HTB b) he says there was no prior opportunity. The last 3 occasions are left to his indiscretion so he can interpret it any way he can. These are the times where the bias comes in and, in my opinion, there were plenty of these, last Friday.

 

[cmndstab]

Well I actually agree with him. Remove the rule about diving on the ball and you watch the game be ruined by stoppages.

People always like to bring up the football that used to be played 20 years ago as being a better spectacle, but there were a lot of crap games then too.

The difference between then and now is that players are so much fitter and able to get to many more contests, so there are always plenty of numbers around the ball.

I don't think the game was a better spectacle 20 years ago. I do think the game was a better spectacle, say, five years ago. Personally, I quite like stoppages. Everyone gets to reset, the rucks battle it out and if you do well a player gets to stream away from the stoppage. You surely can't be arguing that knocking a ball loose or giving away a free makes for a better spectacle?


The whole argument about how the umpires give you more time yelling "knock it out, knock it out" is rubbish. Russell Ebert made a good point on the radio this morning (funny how he's always really insightful whenever he's not actually talking about Port), he once rung the umpires and asked them if they've actually practised trying to knock a ball out in a pack of players. Obviously it was a facetious question but the point remains - they don't seem to understand how difficult it is to actually knock the ball out. More often than not players are not attempting to dive on the ball and tuck it in, they're diving at the ball in an attempt to take possession, get tackled instantly and can barely move, let alone dispose of the ball. Every game you hear an umpire saying "you didn't make any oppurtunity to dispose of it!" when there clearly was not any oppurtunity to do so. The only other option is simply not to take possession of the ball at all. I will cringe the day that a ball is in dispute and six players all sprint up to the ball and then simultaneously hold off to wait for a chance to tackle.


The inconsistency is another issue again. I can deal with inconsistency between umpires since it is an interpretive game. I'd like to see the level of inconsistency reduced but it's always going to be there. What frustrates me is when you see the same umpire adjudicate the entire first quarter one way and then it changes in the next quarter, or the second half. That surely needs to be treated harshly by the umpire reviews. If the AFL wants less ugly on-field incidents, they should try to ensure inconsistent calls don't frustrate the hell out of the players.

 

[relapse]

The holding the ball interpretation for "diving on the ball" was a knee-jerk reaction to Sydney being successful through ball-ups. So rather than letting the game evolve and sort itself out, like it always does, they quickly invented the "dragging it in" rule.

Since when is being on the ground and taking possession of the ball a bad thing? It actually creates play! Still bemused.

I totally agree and this is where the AFL are currently hurting the game.

Like I said in a thread on the main board the AFL need to let the coaches evolve the game.

As soon as any team find a new gameplan the AFL invent rules to stop it instead of just leaving it to the coaches to sort it out.

North used Pagan's paddock, the AFL didnt try and stop it through rule changes. The coaches eventually nullified the tactic.

The recalling bounces and rushed point rules are okay, but everything else is really bad. It is natural instinct to go and win the hard ball. I just hope that once Andy Dumbetriou leaves that whoever comes in undoes the rubbish that he and his cronies have inflicted rule wise to our game.

Let the game evolve itself and let the coaches evolve the game instead of trying to do it from AFL house.