Ending congestion

Remove this Banner Ad

Hoops said:
What if the tackled did nothing wrong but grab the ball, should the tackler be rewarded despite being second to the ball?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your view.

Being first to the ball gives you the advantage because you have possession.

The tackler still has to tackle you legally, and you still have the opportunity to legally dispose of the ball once you've been tackled.

The team in possession still has the advantage.
 
Libba39 said:
You missed the point. Contested football has ALWAYS been as important as high marks or speedy action and long kicks. Its all part of the game, and the day they turn it into a pretty game of zones, few tackles, and most importantly not rewarding players for actually going and winning the hard ball is the day I (and many others) stop watching.
Click to expand...

Prior opportunity is not what delivers contested football. I don't know what to say to people who think it does. It's an interpretation of the holding the ball rule that was only introduced 20-odd years ago.

It wasn't a non-contested game before then and it won't be after.

All it has served to do is allow players to hold the ball without penalty and thus, delivered a stack more ball-ups.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
I don't understand your view.

Being first to the ball gives you the advantage because you have possession.

The tackler still has to tackle you legally, and you still have the opportunity to legally dispose of the ball once you've been tackled.

The team in possession still has the advantage.
Click to expand...
There is no advantage if you don't have time to dispose of the ball. it's a disadvantage
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Hoops said:
There is no advantage if you don't have time to dispose of the ball. it's a disadvantage
Click to expand...
If you're aware of what's around you you'll know if you're about to be tackled - and players know - knock the ball on instead of grabbing it.
 
Hoops said:
There is no advantage if you don't have time to dispose of the ball. it's a disadvantage
Click to expand...

True. But couldn't you argue that if you only got possession a split second before someone else - you don't really deserve all that much advantage anyway?

It's not like a contested mark or a clean contested possession. It's usually that your teammate ****ed up and handballed to you when they shouldn't have, or you picked up a ball under pressure with the sole intent of forcing a stoppage anyway.

Neither of those scenarios really warrant any sort of advantage. The ball is still largely in dispute really.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
True. But couldn't you argue that if you only got possession a split second before someone else - you don't really deserve all that much advantage anyway?

It's not like a contested mark or a clean contested possession. It's usually that your teammate f’ed up and handballed to you when they shouldn't have, or you picked up a ball under pressure with the sole intent of forcing a stoppage anyway.

Neither of those scenarios really warrant any sort of advantage. The ball is still largely in dispute really.
Click to expand...
What advantage is balling it up? its a disadvantage with Geelongs ruck stocks.
 
Also, many times when you're first to the ball it's simply luck considering the ball usually bounces anywhere but straight. Being first to the ball shouldn't necessarily be a criteria for getting an advantage.

Ok so let's say a player dives on the ball... Regardless of whether or not he tries or doesn't try to get the ball out a free kick is paid if he's tackled and it doesn't come out. How about we equate that to the prior opportunity and holding the ball rules, for consistency. When someone's tackled, if the ball doesn't come out via a handball or kick it's a free against. All the umpire has to do is decide if there was a kick or handball, he doesn't have to work out if there was prior and he doesn't have to work out how much prior there was. This makes the decision simpler, which should be the aim of ALL rule changes.
 
sprockets said:
Also, many times when you're first to the ball it's simply luck considering the ball usually bounces anywhere but straight. Being first to the ball shouldn't necessarily be a criteria for getting an advantage.

Ok so let's say a player dives on the ball... Regardless of whether or not he tries or doesn't try to get the ball out a free kick is paid if he's tackled and it doesn't come out. How about we equate that to the prior opportunity and holding the ball rules, for consistency. When someone's tackled, if the ball doesn't come out via a handball or kick it's a free against. All the umpire has to do is decide if there was a kick or handball, he doesn't have to work out if there was prior and he doesn't have to work out how much prior there was. This makes the decision simpler, which should be the aim of ALL rule changes.
Click to expand...
I'd assume the 'held to him' clause would still apply.
 
Making it simpler for umpires is not a reason to bring in rules, it's secondary. Look at the deliberate rule..umpires are just lazy now they just pay it every time even if it's a shank because they know they won't be scrutinized for it. And the game is worse off as a result.
 
Making it easier for umpires to officiate the game is not the main reason for the rule change but to encourage players to move the ball on quickly thus reducing congestion.

Tom Liberatore is a perfect example he plays like they used to before the prior rule came in and that is, he gets in with the intent of getting the ball out in a split second before and or while being tackled. No wonder he is leading the comp in clearances and the dogs are doing well with quick ball movement.

Now this could be a huge conspiracy by the AFL lol because I think that if the no prior rule was taken away the play will move more quickly there will be less congestion more scoring BUT more blowouts in game margins. Some teams just don't have the cattle and the footy smarts and the AFL knows this because they want close games not thrashings. Hence why Hardwick wants the rule gone.

Problem is we have to put up with congested footy low scores over coached defensive set ups and inconsistent umpiring decisions.

Don't get me started on the umpires nominating the ruckmen and the deliberate out of bounds. :thumbsdownv1:
 
Dogsbestfriend said:
Making it easier for umpires to officiate the game is not the main reason for the rule change but to encourage players to move the ball on quickly thus reducing congestion.

Tom Liberatore is a perfect example he plays like they used to before the prior rule came in and that is, he gets in with the intent of getting the ball out in a split second before and or while being tackled. No wonder he is leading the comp in clearances and the dogs are doing well with quick ball movement.

Now this could be a huge conspiracy by the AFL lol because I think that if the no prior rule was taken away the play will move more quickly there will be less congestion more scoring BUT more blowouts in game margins. Some teams just don't have the cattle and the footy smarts and the AFL knows this because they want close games not thrashings. Hence why Hardwick wants the rule gone.

Problem is we have to put up with congested footy low scores over coached defensive set ups and inconsistent umpiring decisions.

Don't get me started on the umpires nominating the ruckmen and the deliberate out of bounds. :thumbsdownv1:
Click to expand...
And that will be the issue. The AFL will go even softer on throws than they already are.

It's a blight on the game as it is.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sprockets said:
If you're aware of what's around you you'll know if you're about to be tackled - and players know - knock the ball on instead of grabbing it.
Click to expand...

To knock the ball on or tap the ball in front of you would generally require you to be moving and bent over the ball, would it not?
Do you think that there's a chance the AFL might not want that considering that most dangerous high bumps these days result from two players bending over a ball in dispute?

Lets say they do change the rules. So at a stoppage someone wears Dusty like a glove, and the second he grabs it he's tackled. How is that good for football? Say goodbye to the fend-off!
 
Libba39 said:
Lets say they do change the rules. So at a stoppage someone wears Dusty like a glove, and the second he grabs it he's tackled. How is that good for football? Say goodbye to the fend-off!
Click to expand...

The fend off is prior though. So nothing changes there.

And even if Martin takes possession, he can still legally dispose of it without being pinged.
 
Libba39 said:
To knock the ball on or tap the ball in front of you would generally require you to be moving and bent over the ball, would it not?
Do you think that there's a chance the AFL might not want that considering that most dangerous high bumps these days result from two players bending over a ball in dispute?

Lets say they do change the rules. So at a stoppage someone wears Dusty like a glove, and the second he grabs it he's tackled. How is that good for football? Say goodbye to the fend-off!
Click to expand...
No, no and how would changing the rule make it any different to what already happens? People are already tagged all day long and can't be tackled until they get the ball.

Libba39 said:
Seriously are we playing EA Sports here?
He's got a guy on his back, 8 times out of 10 he gets tackled.
Click to expand...
His stats will show otherwise.
 
scottyt2 said:
Making it simpler for umpires is not a reason to bring in rules, it's secondary. Look at the deliberate rule..umpires are just lazy now they just pay it every time even if it's a shank because they know they won't be scrutinized for it. And the game is worse off as a result.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying NOT to bring in new rules. Bringing in new rules is the problem. Reduce rules, don't bring in new ones to fix bad rules. Less rules = simpler.

EDIT: And the rules MUST be made simpler for umpires (and everyone else). Remember, the outgoing umpires coach stated the umpires have to make 10 - 20 decisions every 30 seconds, which is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Libba39 said:
You missed the point. Contested football has ALWAYS been as important as high marks or speedy action and long kicks. Its all part of the game, and the day they turn it into a pretty game of zones, few tackles, and most importantly not rewarding players for actually going and winning the hard ball is the day I (and many others) stop watching.
Click to expand...
Contested football doesn’t need to be a contest between 20 players at once. Removing prior opportunity means removing numbers around the ball, which means we’ll see more 1v1 or 2v2 contests for the ball.

In the words of Bob Murphy, there are tackles and then there are tackles. There’s the tackles which happen on the wing, the lion-bringing-down-an-antelope style tackles, and then there’s the fall-on-top-of tackles. We don’t want the second type of tackle, where neither the tackler nor the tackled player actually wants the ball to come out. We have to up the stakes - players can almost always get it out if they want to, or better: avoid falling on top of the ball in the first place.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
Buckley has b


The AFL just seem so idiotic at times, when it comes to this stuff.

They constantly introduce things without considering the side effects, and then introduce more stuff to counter the side effects! Rinse and repeat.

Although I agree with your post, it never should have gotten to this point.

By introducing 'prior', then trying to counter the side effect of guys throwing the ball - they've just created this clusterfu** of a situation that has deviated so much from traditional Aussie Rules footy that it's as unrecognisable as it is unwatchable.

Not only do good tackles not get rewarded, they allow blatant throws, and they've managed to clog the game up!! Well played AFL. Nailed that one.

I could live with 'prior', if they crack down on incorrect disposal.
Personally, I find that players blatantly throwing is a far worse look for the game than congestion.
Click to expand...
I think paying the free kicks in not enough anymore. Because of the amount of congestion there are just too many to be paid without stopping play every thirty seconds. Time to put some of the onus back on the players. Take away the right to grab the ball when you know you can’t dispose of it legally. That’s your prior opportunity.
 
Libba39 said:
Seriously are we playing EA Sports here?
He's got a guy on his back, 8 times out of 10 he gets tackled.
Click to expand...

Lets not underestimate elite players ability to take possession and dispose of it in a millisecond even when tackled because they are expecting it and they know they have to dispose of it correctly. I think players will actually take on the tackler even more than now knowing that if they dispose of it correctly they are ok.

At the moment players know that when they take possession and get tackled with no prior they "pretend" to make an effort because they know they wont get pinged. Coaches want predictability to get a stoppage this helps teams set up defensively causes congestion low scores frustration rinse and repeat.
Boring controlled footy in my book

Also, at the moment some players will tap it to a teammate but only when they think its to their teams advantage as I'm sure coaches are coaching them to not take risks to limit turnovers.

Footy is way more exciting when its unpredictable.
 
Libba39 said:
Lets say they do change the rules. So at a stoppage someone wears Dusty like a glove, and the second he grabs it he's tackled. How is that good for football? Say goodbye to the fend-off!
Click to expand...
Another illustration that you can’t imagine the change properly. In a fast moving game you can’t afford to double team anyone, because the ball could move quickly to a part of the ground where you’re outnumbered. Dusty would have one opponent to beat - a contest he would win 9 times out if 10. If there’s holding, it’s a free. No prior would favour a player like Dusty who is wonderful at evading tackles and getting a clean disposal away.

All the best players in the comp would kill to play a version of AFL where they had a 1v1 every time. Buddy, Dusty, Petracca, Pickett, Fyfe - would be a great game to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Rules Holding the ball. Eliminate prior opportunity. Penalty. Clear congestion.
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
terrybull
terrybull

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top