Did he knock him out though? I thought he was just bloody around the head.
Hocking’s Mess
- Thread starter The Burger King
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Should have put a brick in his handbag
Property steward lost the handbags somewhere on way up from Sleepy Hollow to Princes Park that day.
Kozzie_Magic
Senior List
When i heard the latest change i honestly thought it was a joke, i was thinking 'nah, that's ridiculous, not even this mob are that dumb to bring in a rule like this'
And here we are.
And here we are.
Your implied that kick out rule was designed to increase scoring. It wasn't so you were wrong
It was designed to make it easier to clear the ball at a kick in....in the lead in to the change it was repeatedly sighted that the attacking team was twice as likely to score the next goal than the defending team.
Your assertion that the previous kick in change had no affect on opening the game up is unsupported by any evidence.
In my view (self consciously an assertion) the new change will almost certainly open the game up at the kick in. Players can effectively run out to 20 metres in any direction before kicking it.
We will see this year how many teams, for instance, kick the ball to a contest on the boundary 60 metres out or through a dicky kick to a team mate 20 metres away.
naaah, it's a good change
Don't mind the on the mark rule change. Actually think it's less confusing, there's been such a grey area over encroaching the mark for ages, if players have to just stand still it makes it more clear.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,946
- 43,375
- AFL Club
- Essendon
It's an offensively biased rule, designed to increase scoring. My guess is the player with the ball will be given a lot more leeway than the man on the mark.
Might want to take your own advice.
‘To open the game up’ is just a marketing way to get around quantitative measures of whether rule changes worked.
You can just come out and say ‘the game definitely feels more open’
Instead of looking at the data and seeing scoring decrease by 10ppg
I do not think there is any might with you.
Just do it.
Nonsense. For a start you can easily develop quantitative measures based on options taken by teams kicking out.
Certainly better than moronically (i.e. like a moron) using a metric that explicitly wan't the intent of the rule and moronically (i.e. like a moron) making no effort to establish a causal link with the moronic choice of metric....
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,946
- 43,375
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Keep living in the imaginary past if you like.
Keep trying pathetic drive by comments.
It's the professionalism of coaching that is affecting the spectacle, not rule changes.
All football codes seem to get more defensive over time.
The rulemakers have the double whammy of:
1. More contests, more players around the ball, more fitness, more tackles, collisions, etc
2. The growing spectre of CTE and the AFL's duty of care to players
.. to deal with.
Changes are always going to be part of the game, more so than ever before. You can choose to accept that or forever feel anxious about it.
All football codes seem to get more defensive over time.
The rulemakers have the double whammy of:
1. More contests, more players around the ball, more fitness, more tackles, collisions, etc
2. The growing spectre of CTE and the AFL's duty of care to players
.. to deal with.
Changes are always going to be part of the game, more so than ever before. You can choose to accept that or forever feel anxious about it.
The kicker moves off the line & the umpy doesnt call play on.
How you deal with the guy on the mark & ignore the kicker....
Exactly !!
It gives the kicker a free go at playing on with little to no chance of being tackled.
May as well not have anyone on the mark at all.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,946
- 43,375
- AFL Club
- Essendon
You're trying to lecture people about 80s football as though it has any relevance today, in order to discredit their comments (which, mind you, were quite valid).
You are right, 7 on the bench is a massive overkill.
I've come around to the reduction of players onfield but 16 should the first option, not 15.
As for the number of players on the bench, 4 is way more than enough so the complete team should be 20 in total.
You go no idea. Only addressed one poster about his stupid general comment of defence did not exist in 1980's.
That is not lecturing people. That is pulling up one poster on his stupid comment and calling him out on fact the reason for that stupid comment because he actually did not watch football then and anybody who did watch football then knows that.
Think again before making such a dumb comment as "lecturing people"
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,946
- 43,375
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Yet again you're too busy lecturing everyone else about what they should think and calling their comments stupid or dumb, to actually understand what he was saying.
80's defence, and modern defence are so different that they might as well not even be called the same thing. RUNVS wasn't saying "past defenders were crap" but defence in the modern form didn't exist, and coaches can't unlearn what they've learnt.
A one-in-100 result: New rule nearly unsighted in scratch match
AFL’s new ‘stand’ rule for player on the mark just a one-in-a-hundred moment in Wednesday’s AFL scratch match.
So far so good it seems...
You're too busy posting crap to even think before you post.
So what data shows us the game has been more open in the last two seasons?
Will check out the Carlton and Essendon hit out in over an hour and see how it goes.
A one-in-100 result: New rule nearly unsighted in scratch match
AFL’s new ‘stand’ rule for player on the mark just a one-in-a-hundred moment in Wednesday’s AFL scratch match.www.theage.com.au
So far so good it seems...
