It is time!

[Ricky]

It is time for these umpires to become full-time.

Everybody else in the AFL is full-time. Players, coaches, medical staff etc.

AFL, spend 1.5 million on the umpires and get them fully trained and work everything out. Put them on handsome salaries! I don't care what you do, just make them full-time so they can do their job properly

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Great, so instead of having part-timers who don't umpire by the rules, we will now have full-timers who don't umpire by the rules.

Sensational.

 

[Ricky]

Brought up by Luke Darcy on OWAAT. Needs to happen!

 

[Winky]

Brought up by Luke Darcy on OWAAT. Needs to happen!

The fact that he thinks it is a good idea is absolute proof that it isn't.

 

[Colin D'Cops]

Not a fan of the proposal put forward by Darcy.

What are the umpires meant to do during the week? Twiddle their thumbs?

 

[VascoDaGamer]

Who is to blame?
In the AFL there has been much discussion this season with the substantial changes appearing in the game. Change that is judged by many non-attending as undesirable change.

What was a game of anarchy and few rules has become a congested rolling scrum imitating the worst aspects of Rugby Union. It seems that the one non-rule that served the AFL well for so long has failed to enshrine the anarchy so close to our bicentennial heritage.

AFL has resisted the off-side rule that makes other games (Soccer, NRL, Union) so structured and one-dimensional.
But with the recent congestion it is necessary to re-examine many of the local rules to see which should be tweaked.

Debate has continued on many fronts during the season, together with a promise from the AFL Commission to review the situation during the end-of-year break.

Last night 60,000 attended a knockout final between a south australian team and a western suburbs team. This was an exceptional turnout.
Why did the spectators come?
Answer: Because they expected a ripper game, a bit in the old mold.

The game itself has now obtained legend status.
Some in the media have said it is the most thrilling game in 30 years.

What does all this mean?

It means that the rules themselves are not at fault.
It means the interpretation of the rules by the referees is not the source of congestion.
It means Roos, Longmire, Lyons, Hird, Malthouse are the coaches at fault. They are the coaches who have promoted structure, predictability, conservatism, and consequential congestion with boredom.

Having identified these as the ultimate culprits then 2016 should have a mitigating strategy.
Can I suggest that the weekly Match Review Panel have their terms of reference widened to examine the completion of each round of games and appropriately charge coaches with bringing the game into disrepute if a game fails to excite in any even-matched contest.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

Who is to blame?
In the AFL there has been much discussion this season with the substantial changes appearing in the game. Change that is judged by many non-attending as undesirable change.

What was a game of anarchy and few rules has become a congested rolling scrum imitating the worst aspects of Rugby Union. It seems that the one non-rule that served the AFL well for so long has failed to enshrine the anarchy so close to our bicentennial heritage.

AFL has resisted the off-side rule that makes other games (Soccer, NRL, Union) so structured and one-dimensional.
But with the recent congestion it is necessary to re-examine many of the local rules to see which should be tweaked.

Debate has continued on many fronts during the season, together with a promise from the AFL Commission to review the situation during the end-of-year break.

Last night 60,000 attended a knockout final between a south australian team and a western suburbs team. This was an exceptional turnout.
Why did the spectators come?
Answer: Because they expected a ripper game, a bit in the old mold.

The game itself has now obtained legend status.
Some in the media have said it is the most thrilling game in 30 years.

What does all this mean?

It means that the rules themselves are not at fault.
It means the interpretation of the rules by the referees is not the source of congestion.
It means Roos, Longmire, Lyons, Hird, Malthouse are the coaches at fault. They are the coaches who have promoted structure, predictability, conservatism, and consequential congestion with boredom.

Having identified these as the ultimate culprits then 2016 should have a mitigating strategy.
Can I suggest that the weekly Match Review Panel have their terms of reference widened to examine the completion of each round of games and appropriately charge coaches with bringing the game into disrepute if a game fails to excite in any even-matched contest.

Now that we have watched the two PRELIM finals it is time to review the recommendation made in my previous post. One from the 'blamed' coaches list was involved in the PRELIMs; this was Ross Lyon who coaches FREO. As is his usual coaching plan the FREO team moved the ball slowly, and sought to congest the game. This runs the risk of "bringing the game into disrepute if a game fails to excite in any even-matched contest". Fortunately, Hawthorn rescued the spectacle and we had a watchable game. So, the MRP have no need to take action against Ross, this week. Nevertheless, Ross' boss at FREO might well consider if they could afford similar disappointment in 2016. <Minor premiers and then bundled out>.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

2005 ended with the AFL taking the route over the long break to tweak the rules about manning the mark. Was this to be the solution to the problem identified in the above two posts; namely, some coaches/asst coaches bring the game into disrepute by preferring stoppages and preferring structured plays.

Certainly in the first 5 rounds of 2016 there were many exciting games and the crowds were thrilled with anarchic football that we had seen in the rare occurrence at the Bulldogs v Crows final of 2005.

Exciting footy is back we all remarked.

But it did not take long for the ‘stoppage coaches’ to gain the ascendency and ensure rolling mauls from one end of the ground to the other. How did the stoppage coaches achieve the shut-down of excitement this time? Essentially it was by refined training on how to hold the ball in a hunch thus inviting multiple tacklers which results in a stack of players on the ground. Strangely the umpires became reluctant to call holding the ball when the hunched player was pretending the ball was actually being held to him. Of course there was the play-acting of the player in the possession of the ball as his pump action with the right fist gives the impression that he is trying to release the ball, but in fact he is holding it hunched to his chest with his left hand.

So, it becomes one ballup after another as the umpires fail to adjudicate the holding the ball strategy by hunching.



What to do for 2017? I am still of the view that a few references of boring congested games to the tribunal for consideration of coaches bring the game into disrepute, with appropriate penalty, would be the revolutionary and effective approach. Stoppage coaches are the culprits, as analysed in early posts so they should be brought to account.

However, if it is to be yet another tweak of the rule, then let us have the umpires crack down on hunching, and pay holding the ball instead.

 

[joey ramos]

bra what r u talking about

 

[VascoDaGamer]

End of season time again, and time for a review of whether the stoppage coaches have prevailed.

Just a reminder that in post #6 in this thread we identified 'stoppage coaches as <They are the coaches who have promoted structure, predictability, conservatism, and consequential congestion with boredom as a result.> Stoppage coaches produce crap games, and bring the game into disrepute.

The stoppage coaches of 2016 are in this list [Collingwood, Richmond, Swans, Fremantle, West Coast]; fewer than last year, which is a bit of a relief ,{Paul Roos left off the list this year even though he has been a major culprit in the past}. But sadly one of the stoppage coaches made it into the Grand Final. And if the unthinkable had have occurred then the Swans would win and the competition would lurch next year to more stoppage strategies.
But, praise the Lord, the stoppage coach's team lost. They lost to a team (the Doggies) who don't play for stoppages; the Doggies play to win the ball in contests wherever the contest appears on the ground. If the Doggies player takes possession of the ball in a contest and gets grabbed he releases the ball immediately with a hand-ball. No hunching to retain possession, just a mad scramble to move the ball on. No playing for a ball-up.

Totally refreshing and mesmerising.

So, you the reader, join me in calling for the next time two stoppage coaches are matched against each other, and produce a dull contest, call for those two coaches to be put in front of the MRP for bringing the game into disrepute.

The culprits of producing boring football are the coaches.
The remedy lies with the MRP and you and me. Demand better.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

2017 starts with some terrific games, some rule changes (3rd man up and out-of-bounds) and UMPIRES prepared to ping for holding the ball and holding the man after the release of the ball. How long did it last? 4 rounds in my view, and then a return to HUNCHING. Hunching is when the player tackled immediately bends over, hnches his shoulders and holds the ball in with the left hand while false-pumping the ball with the right hand. The tackler often goes along with this charade because his coach has told him to 'lock the ball in' if out-numbered around the ball. If the UMPIRE takes the easy way out and says MINE, and prepares throw the ball up then we have a stoppage, structured play, and the beginning of a pack forms. Who likes stoppages and structure? Answer: Assistant coaches .... because it gives them a job to earn money teaching stoppages strategy.
Thus in round 5 and round 6 it was back to HUNCHING and stoppages. Who has the solution? It is UMPIRES; guys make a decision, get the game flowing again. Remember ...if the tackled player is HUNCHING, it is not because he is constipated, it is because he is playing for a stoppage. Ping him for holding the ball.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

End of year REVIEW time again.
All the talk is about premiership hangovers. Doggies had one. Will Tigers have one.
Many commentators refer to the new element of PRESSURE.
The Doggies had it is 2016.
The Tigers had to have it in 2017 because they had a small forward line.
Is PRESSURE the new secret ingredient?

Nah. the secret ingredient changes from year to year.
The Hawks had accurate left-foot kickers and a game plan of possession by 35 metre kicks at 45 degrees to the man on the mark. That strategy worked in 3 years out of 4. (They lost in 2012 when a very windy day made the kicking strategy fall apart, and the Hawks managed 11.15).
The Doggies had frenetic handball that was allowed by Umpires in 2016 but quickly reversed in 2017. (No more Bontempelli over-the-head flicks). The 2016 liberal interpretation of handball sounded the deathnell of Freo who were all defensive, and they tumbled with a GF hangover.


I forecast no hangover for Tigers. They have Martin (greatest number of brownlow votes of all time), Cotchin, Rance and Riewoldt. Enough for another top 4 finish at the end of 2018.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

End of year REVIEW time again.
All the talk is about premiership hangovers. Doggies had one. Will Tigers have one.
Many commentators refer to the new element of PRESSURE.
The Doggies had it is 2016.
The Tigers had to have it in 2017 because they had a small forward line.
Is PRESSURE the new secret ingredient?

Nah. the secret ingredient changes from year to year.
The Hawks had accurate left-foot kickers and a game plan of possession by 35 metre kicks at 45 degrees to the man on the mark. That strategy worked in 3 years out of 4. (They lost in 2012 when a very windy day made the kicking strategy fall apart, and the Hawks managed 11.15).
The Doggies had frenetic handball that was allowed by Umpires in 2016 but quickly reversed in 2017. (No more Bontempelli over-the-head flicks). The 2016 liberal interpretation of handball sounded the deathnell of Freo who were all defensive, and they tumbled with a GF hangover.


I forecast no hangover for Tigers. They have Martin (greatest number of brownlow votes of all time), Cotchin, Rance and Riewoldt. Enough for another top 4 finish at the end of 2018.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

So, what has the JLT series revealed?
First, quite a few teams have decided to copy the Richmond model of pressure acts in the forward line. But the Tigers achieved this by 3 years of recruiting just that type of small player. There have not been many pressuring small forwards over the years (and there is a distinction between the pesky pests like Milne and Hayden Ballentyne) (and a further distinction between greased lightning like the Wiz and Tipinwiti). And certainly not a whole fleet of them as the Tigers have put together. Good luck to other teams trying to play catchup on this strategy.
Second, the umpires still epic fails on the decisions that lead to ballups. When a tackle is laid either it is

1. holding the ball,or
2. holding the man,or
3. umpire cannot decide

We should allow the umpires to have a sprinkling of 3, ...cannot decide. But not have this as a universal cop-out. The umpires should make more decisions of the type 1, or 2.
And here is some help in deciding (umpy) guys. Read the Rules and see that the player with the ball is only obliged to make one attempt to punch the ball; nowhere does it say he has to go punch, punch, punch like a threshing machine. And when he does punch (once) he can release his left hand from the ball. So, if the ball is now held to him then that is holding the man!
Move to this interpretation of the rules and the packs will disappear, and I will return to watching.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

So, what has the JLT series revealed?
First, quite a few teams have decided to copy the Richmond model of pressure acts in the forward line. But the Tigers achieved this by 3 years of recruiting just that type of small player. There have not been many pressuring small forwards over the years (and there is a distinction between the pesky pests like Milne and Hayden Ballentyne) (and a further distinction between greased lightning like the Wiz and Tipinwiti). And certainly not a whole fleet of them as the Tigers have put together. Good luck to other teams trying to play catchup on this strategy.
Second, the umpires still epic fails on the decisions that lead to ballups. When a tackle is laid either it is

1. holding the ball,or
2. holding the man,or
3. umpire cannot decide

We should allow the umpires to have a sprinkling of 3, ...cannot decide. But not have this as a universal cop-out. The umpires should make more decisions of the type 1, or 2.
And here is some help in deciding (umpy) guys. Read the Rules and see that the player with the ball is only obliged to make one attempt to punch the ball; nowhere does it say he has to go punch, punch, punch like a threshing machine. And when he does punch (once) he can release his left hand from the ball. So, if the ball is now held to him then that is holding the man!
Move to this interpretation of the rules and the packs will disappear, and I will return to watching.

The agenda in the footy news is crowding. I discussed this in September2015, in this thread, so it is not new even though it is in the news.
Change is required. That is what ALL the dogs are barking now.
To fix the problem there are two theoretical debates you can indulge in.
The first is "What is the fundamental driver that caused crowding". This one is easily answered. There are too many coaches (including assistant coaches) and they like stoppages because you can coach for 'how to get benefits for our side out of stoppages'. So the first debate is ...can we reverse this and have fewer coaches? Probably not.
The second theoretical approach is "What can we change to cause a reduction in the number of stoppages?". Answer ...we can change the interpretations. An example is the prior_opportunity rule. But surely we have fiddled so often with this one that it is not a solution.
Ok, let us turn to the interpretation of rule 15.2.3 to 15.2.6. It talks about disposing the ball by handball. Hold the ball in one hand and hit with the other (for most players the right hand). If the player has punched ONCE with right hand and withdraws his LEFT hand then he has complied with the rule. If then the ball is held to him then it should be deemed HOLDING THE MAN. This is the interpretation that will solve the stoppage problem.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

2019 now at round 6; time for an update on what we have seen.
1. Low scoring on average in spite the 6-6-6 rule. We know from previous analysis in this thread that frequent stoppages suit the assistant-coach community...gives them a job and a reason for being. So, no surprise that that have found a new way to ensure/continue stoppages so that 'we can then employ our structures'.
2. Stoppages excess is aided and abetted by the umpires general reluctance to award free kicks for holding the ball; a ball-up is the easy (fail) option. So, what is the solution? Tell umpires that any player with possession of the ball, and is hunched over with the ball against the front of his body, is not really making an attempt ...hence HOLDING the ball. Hunching is the giveaway to wanting a stoppage.
3. Rotations cap is far too high to impact the formation of packs. For the cap to have an effect we must lower the number and prevent this capability of the FORWARDS dropping back behind the ball. We must have some way of exahusting the players at least before the start of the second half.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

Congratulations to the AFL for introducing the 2021 rule changes that have led to more open play.
By paper media reports the objective was to stamp out the pre-2021 misbehaviour around the manning of the mark, in that it was team tactic by the offenders to reduce the amount of time available to make decisions for ball use. Examples given were given as:

• Cotchin creeping over the mark by a yard, requiring the umpire to intervene to SET the mark
• The man-on-the-mark sliding in-board to cut down the angles available to the kicker.

The AFL has done excellent analysis and has come up with a great set of rule changes.

But sadly, the player with the free kick (or mark) has now changed his approach, to the detriment of the flow of the game. Because the player with the ball has so many new options available he is waiting an eternity before finding a suitable target. In fact, he might as well wait unil his team returns from flooding the back-line and can re-set down in the forward zone. The net result is that flooding now is renewed (example...the Giants v Bulldogs game on 23/4/2021).

So, we need to analyze further. The player with the ball has a free kick (or mark). That is a FREE KICK, not a FREE KICK and a PAUSE. The moment that the player with the ball PAUSES on his walk back from the mark should be the moment that the umpire calls play-on.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

Congratulations to the AFL for introducing the 2021 rule changes that have led to more open play.
By paper media reports the objective was to stamp out the pre-2021 misbehaviour around the manning of the mark, in that it was team tactic by the offenders to reduce the amount of time available to make decisions for ball use. Examples given were given as:

• Cotchin creeping over the mark by a yard, requiring the umpire to intervene to SET the mark
• The man-on-the-mark sliding in-board to cut down the angles available to the kicker.

The AFL has done excellent analysis and has come up with a great set of rule changes.

But sadly, the player with the free kick (or mark) has now changed his approach, to the detriment of the flow of the game. Because the player with the ball has so many new options available he is waiting an eternity before finding a suitable target. In fact, he might as well wait unil his team returns from flooding the back-line and can re-set down in the forward zone. The net result is that flooding now is renewed (example...the Giants v Bulldogs game on 23/4/2021).

So, we need to analyze further. The player with the ball has a free kick (or mark). That is a FREE KICK, not a FREE KICK and a PAUSE. The moment that the player with the ball PAUSES on his walk back from the mark should be the moment that the umpire calls play-on.

After 10 rounds (2021) the game delays are increasing. Chip kick after chip kick. Each time the potential for a www delay as the player with the ball waits for all the half -forwards to run from the half back line to where they should be, the half-forward line.
Just take the Carlton West Coast Eagles game for example. The uncontested marks were 453. Each one has the potential for delay (the WWW ...the world-wide-wait), as the guy dawdles back off the mark to survey his options before kicking. He has been awarded a mark or a free kick....NOT A FREE PAUSE button.