No kidding. That was not what my post was about. It was about someone that has no clue of football beyond what he seen from recent era make silly comments of another era that had different defence systems.
Hocking’s Mess
- Thread starter The Burger King
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #152
Agreed, but that was always the rule until buddy
The thing with Buddy though is he isn't using it for an advantage as sure he has an arch that advantages him if he is on the right hand side of the field, but if he is on the left hand side of the field his arch actually makes it a tougher angle for him, so he isn't using the arch as an excuse to gain an advantage.
I do not think many would disagree with me you not seen footy from eras you seem to think you know a lot about.
You simply do not know. Stick to the eras you have seen would be wise for someone as lacking in knowledge as knowing whom Captain Blood was.
It's time for this administration to go before the game is completely unrecognisable.
It is almost is there already.
Last season was worst I seen but given the shorter quarters it just complicated what was already bad to look almost twice as bad. I would not pay to watch that in person if that became the norm.
This season back to normal length games will help a bit.
My jury is still out on some of the changes they trying. Still many of them do not address the root causes of why the spectacle of the game is so much less than it should be.
Last edited:
You seem mildly obsessed. Just because I did not live through much of the 80's doesn't mean I don't know about it. I did not live through the Cuban Missile Crisis either but I know quite a bit about that.
Either way it doesn't change the facts that there was a lot less pressure back in the 80's as tackling was twice, even three times less common than it is now, there was very limited to no zoning, teams basically played one on one and they were not even particularly professional in terms of pay or even attitude.
How could there be as much pressure if there was 300% fewer tackles and almost no zoning?
You could know about it if you actually watched and observed what you seen but your sweeping statements of it show you not really watched and you actually do know little about it.
Someone saying there was no defence clearly has no clue about it to actually believe such a silly thing. Yes, your know how is very very poor and I'd rather let you know it is poor and stop making same mistakes.
If I made silly comments on UFC that I not seen I'd hope someone would pull me up on it too to learn from mistakes.
Kick out rule is terrible for what it was intended to do.
Kick ins are still not a viable scoring method - one or two goals per game between both teams, and no team will set themselves up for it because it relies on the other team almost kicking a goal.
Turnovers are the biggest scoring source and all it really does is take from that.
quotemokc
Brownlow Medallist
Every year they add more and more rules telling players what they CAN'T do!
How about they remove some rules and bring some more freedom back?
How about they remove some rules and bring some more freedom back?
The point being coavhes will get their data analysts to then model expected scoring chains based on field position and implementing different penalties.
IF it is seen as more vakuable to waste time, so that defenders can get back they will slow the return of the ball, hold them down a bit longer, not get back to the mark etc.
The players are coached to exploit the current lack of strict adherance, despite the 'harsh' penalty.
If players start giving away plenty of 50s as they cant stand still on the mark, the fans lose their s**t at the umpires....but the reality is it is on the coaches and players.
Interesting, I like it
Give some leeway for ignorance/idiocy, and post that no more takung the piss.
It realky is fecking simple, you just stand where the umpire says the bloke marked it until the umpire calls play on.
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,445
- 28,080
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Down at HQ
- Aug 31, 2008
- 23,640
- 47,666
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Nuggets
He needs to be sacked ASAP, he's an absolute buffoon
Your take is close to how I interpret the rule changes. For many years\decades the rules of the game allowed tactics that have been imagined and implemented from coaches in the modern era that could have been used back then, tactics such as flooding and how coaches have gotten their players to cover the area around the mark nowadays but back then coaches didn't coach this way, I'd like to think because they wanted to maintain the spirit of how they believed it needed to be played.
I think coaches got more innovative over the years, obviously to find that game plan edge, but it's been at the expense of the visual quality. I personally don't blame them, especially when we see them get dumped for reasons out of their control but I see these rule changes as a way to force teams to play the game in the original spirit of the game, which is seemingly what most appear to wish for.....so I don't mind the zone changes from last year and this stand mark rule, personally.
On AOSP on Manta using BigFooty.com mobile app
Yep...very minimal need to keep the goal "square" now.
Shoukd scrap it and put the arc down instead.
The penalty was previously about foot having to be inside the goal square, if that is redudant now...why bother keeping the suare.
The goal square is still relevant. You've played on as soon as you've exited the square.....also, it is now also used for straightening when a mark is taken
They should add a 25 metre arc now though
No it won't because players still head towards the wings when kicking in where everyone is, hello congestion. The closer the players were to goal for a kick in the easier it was to get out the back, now the players are all back up the field making it harder to get out the back.
The square itself isnt relevant, just use the goal post as a guide.
Umpire can call play on if you havent left the square.
And re the mark, who cares
That is not relevant, if he moves off his line directly to the man on the mark then it is play on and no player should be given exemption.
AnEmptyChair
Premiership Player
- Nov 12, 2020
- 4,167
- 16,817
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Yeah, this. There will be some kinks that need to be ironed out in the preseason, especially when the man on the mark and the kicker move at the same time before play on's called, but for the most part this actually should be a really positive change. I want to see it properly in action in a game before I'm fully on board, but I'm optimistic that this change will result in better footy.
- Banned
- #173
Not good enough excuse for Muralidharan apparently.
Just cause buddy isn't doing deliberately, doesn't mean it's within the rules. They literally changed the rules just for him.
Cotchins Hair Piece
Bouffant Flat Top
- Mar 6, 2019
- 4,774
- 10,355
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Creep.
No, it won’t
Kick ins were already part of the last set of rule changes. It did nothing.
