Bob_vic
Club Legend
History / Future of the Centre Bounce - REMOVE THE SECOND CIRCLE!!!
Just been doing a bit of research of the Centre Bounce.
The VFA introduced the bounce in 1887, along with a number of other uniform measures. Before that, the umpires threw the ball up. Even before that, the loser of the toss had first kick.
Right up until 1980, ANY player or players could contest a centre bounce. Therefore, the straightness of the bounce was of no importance, because, most of the time, the players would play one-on-one, so an offline bounce would still result in a contest. Even these days, an offline bounce not contested by the ruck, in the majority of circurmstances, results in a contest between two or more opposing players.
Get one thing straight, I don't think the bounce was EVER intended to be so only the ruckmen had first contest for the ball every single time play was restarted. The bounce was never intended to be a "basketball-style" tip-off. By reading past coaching manuals, an offline bounce would then be contested by the followers. This makes for a more interesting contest, because as the coaching manuals say, the players have to think of other possible circumstances, and the manuals have a number of tactics and positions to counter the uncertainty of the bounce.
These days, the players and coaches want to too easy. They want one plan, the ball going straight up, the ruckman contesting and hitting it to the followers. When there's on offline bounce, suddenly, it f*cks up their one plan.
Anyway, the change in the laws haven't helped either.
At the start of the 80s, they introduced the centre line, meaning that only ONE player from either side of the line could contest the ball at a centre bounce. That meant, unless the umpires called "play on" on a really bad bounce, the ball could be contested by any number of players from either side. The only difference being, if the ball was in an accepteable margin of accuracy to be contested by one player of opposing teams from either side of the line, that was still ok.
Then, in 2002, the rules were changed because the ruckmen wanted greater CERTAINTY in regards to which ONE player they were contesting against, (a nomination of the ruckman), because coaches were starting to put two potential ruckmen on their side of the line, to counter an offline bounce. In my opinion, this makes more interesting tactics, but the rule-makers decided against it, pressured by whinging AFL coaches.
In bringing in this rule, it then put more pressure on the the umpire to bounce the ball straighter, because if the one nominated player can't reasonably (I mean, the ruckman hasn't stood so far away from the the expected drop of the ball) reach the ball, the umpire is left with no choice to call "play on", so the followers can contest the ball.
Even with the rules like that, it still gets back toe basic premise that the followers contest on offline bounce. It is very rare that one team gets a clear advantage, unless the bounce was a compete shocker.
Now, this year, they've introduced the 10 mere second circle. The rule was introducted supposedly to stop injuries to the ruckmen. The two opposing ruckmen now have to start inside the second circle. By bringing in that rule, there is more pressure than ever for the umpire to bounce the ball straight, because no other player is allowed within that second circle before the bounce. Now, if the ball is only slightly offline, the umpire has to call "play on" or else it result in an unfair free kick to the opposition is the follower then goes up for the contest. Also, the second circle makes it harder for the follower to get to the ball, because he has to start further away from the drop of the ball. Therefore, virtually the ball has to be dead straight, or else it makes for an unfair contest. That's what some of the coaches are saying.
What we should get back to (and basically the rule still) is:
If the ball is straight, the ball is contested by the ruckmen.
If the ball is offline, the ball contested by anybody, because in the majority of circumstances, the fall of the ball still results in a contest between two or more opposing players.
Rarely, does the ball go straight to one player (where the bounce is a compete shocker, the umpire should recall the bounce. Even though the laws don't allow that, the laws don't say the umpire can't do it either.)
Getting back to what I originally said, I don't think the bounce was EVER intended to be so only the ruckmen had first contest for the ball every single time play was restarted. The bounce was never intended to be a "basketball-style" tip-off. If it was meant to be like that, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON, for the bounce.
The second circle should be abolished immediately, or else, the whole philosophy behind the bounce goes out the window and becomes unfair.
KEEP THE BOUNCE, REMOVE THE SECOND CIRCLE.
MEMO TO COACHES: HAVE MORE THAN MORE THAN ONE PLAN FOR YOUR RUCKMEN AND FOLLOWERS.
USE YOUR BRAINS TO THINK AND CREATE!!!!!
Bob
Just been doing a bit of research of the Centre Bounce.
The VFA introduced the bounce in 1887, along with a number of other uniform measures. Before that, the umpires threw the ball up. Even before that, the loser of the toss had first kick.
Right up until 1980, ANY player or players could contest a centre bounce. Therefore, the straightness of the bounce was of no importance, because, most of the time, the players would play one-on-one, so an offline bounce would still result in a contest. Even these days, an offline bounce not contested by the ruck, in the majority of circurmstances, results in a contest between two or more opposing players.
Get one thing straight, I don't think the bounce was EVER intended to be so only the ruckmen had first contest for the ball every single time play was restarted. The bounce was never intended to be a "basketball-style" tip-off. By reading past coaching manuals, an offline bounce would then be contested by the followers. This makes for a more interesting contest, because as the coaching manuals say, the players have to think of other possible circumstances, and the manuals have a number of tactics and positions to counter the uncertainty of the bounce.
These days, the players and coaches want to too easy. They want one plan, the ball going straight up, the ruckman contesting and hitting it to the followers. When there's on offline bounce, suddenly, it f*cks up their one plan.
Anyway, the change in the laws haven't helped either.
At the start of the 80s, they introduced the centre line, meaning that only ONE player from either side of the line could contest the ball at a centre bounce. That meant, unless the umpires called "play on" on a really bad bounce, the ball could be contested by any number of players from either side. The only difference being, if the ball was in an accepteable margin of accuracy to be contested by one player of opposing teams from either side of the line, that was still ok.
Then, in 2002, the rules were changed because the ruckmen wanted greater CERTAINTY in regards to which ONE player they were contesting against, (a nomination of the ruckman), because coaches were starting to put two potential ruckmen on their side of the line, to counter an offline bounce. In my opinion, this makes more interesting tactics, but the rule-makers decided against it, pressured by whinging AFL coaches.
In bringing in this rule, it then put more pressure on the the umpire to bounce the ball straighter, because if the one nominated player can't reasonably (I mean, the ruckman hasn't stood so far away from the the expected drop of the ball) reach the ball, the umpire is left with no choice to call "play on", so the followers can contest the ball.
Even with the rules like that, it still gets back toe basic premise that the followers contest on offline bounce. It is very rare that one team gets a clear advantage, unless the bounce was a compete shocker.
Now, this year, they've introduced the 10 mere second circle. The rule was introducted supposedly to stop injuries to the ruckmen. The two opposing ruckmen now have to start inside the second circle. By bringing in that rule, there is more pressure than ever for the umpire to bounce the ball straight, because no other player is allowed within that second circle before the bounce. Now, if the ball is only slightly offline, the umpire has to call "play on" or else it result in an unfair free kick to the opposition is the follower then goes up for the contest. Also, the second circle makes it harder for the follower to get to the ball, because he has to start further away from the drop of the ball. Therefore, virtually the ball has to be dead straight, or else it makes for an unfair contest. That's what some of the coaches are saying.
What we should get back to (and basically the rule still) is:
If the ball is straight, the ball is contested by the ruckmen.
If the ball is offline, the ball contested by anybody, because in the majority of circumstances, the fall of the ball still results in a contest between two or more opposing players.
Rarely, does the ball go straight to one player (where the bounce is a compete shocker, the umpire should recall the bounce. Even though the laws don't allow that, the laws don't say the umpire can't do it either.)
Getting back to what I originally said, I don't think the bounce was EVER intended to be so only the ruckmen had first contest for the ball every single time play was restarted. The bounce was never intended to be a "basketball-style" tip-off. If it was meant to be like that, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON, for the bounce.
The second circle should be abolished immediately, or else, the whole philosophy behind the bounce goes out the window and becomes unfair.
KEEP THE BOUNCE, REMOVE THE SECOND CIRCLE.
MEMO TO COACHES: HAVE MORE THAN MORE THAN ONE PLAN FOR YOUR RUCKMEN AND FOLLOWERS.
USE YOUR BRAINS TO THINK AND CREATE!!!!!
Bob
