No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs only - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

footscray1973

Premiership Player
May 17, 2004
4,998
9,431
Pepperland
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray
don't get me started on the special players where 'immediately' means they get three ring around the rosies.

"dispose immediately" looks like the tackle on Dahlhaus in the prelim that led to Caleb's goal. Once he was tackled it was an instant handball. Players get way too long to dispose of it which goes against how the rule is written.

Yep, too right. Two that come to mind are Chris (gets 720-degree spin in a tackle) Judd before an umpire even starts thinking about enforcing the rule, and (for older posters who remember) Peter Crimmins. I know he's a bit of a sacred cow, but was rarely penalised for anything, especially at WO. In the early 70s, wasn't all that popular with opposition fans for the dream run he got from umpires.
 

The Buck

All Australian
Sep 23, 2013
692
1,991
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Great point about 'interpretations'. If necessary those knuckleheads like Steve Hocking and Hayden Kennedy (I know, I know 'knucklehead' is generous),
just need to clarify and simplify the rules, and get the umpires to umpire to the effen rules. Although the rule you quoted seems pretty simple already.

I completely agree. And I think part of the problem is that these knuckleheads get paid huge amounts of money and outdo each other in tinkering with the great game to justify their existences.
 

scooter600x

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 14, 2003
8,896
2,111
Behind the goals, Geelong Rd end
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
The rule says prior opportunity. The interpretations of the rule are correct.

The issue is that with so many players around the ball hardly anyone ever has prior opportunity.

The HTB rule is fine. The problem is the interchange, go back to two interchange and two reserves and cap the interchanges to about 12.

Let's have the midfielders changing in the forward pocket, too buggered to run into defence.
 
Unfortunately umpire discretion will always be needed. The grey area where discretion is applied is the time considered enough for “prior opportunity”.

We have seen that sides with “quick hands” (including us) can handball within half a second when they want (ie when they see a creative option). So I think THAT needs to be the standard that prior opportunity is judged by.

Right now players very often choose to take the tackle either to slow the game down (when outnumbered or when narrowly in front close to the final siren) or to avoid coughing up the ball to a 50/50 situation. If they know they have only half a second before being pinged it will change dramatically. That includes deciding whether to even take possession in the first place.
 

footscray1973

Premiership Player
May 17, 2004
4,998
9,431
Pepperland
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray
The rule says prior opportunity. The interpretations of the rule are correct.

The issue is that with so many players around the ball hardly anyone ever has prior opportunity.

The HTB rule is fine. The problem is the interchange, go back to two interchange and two reserves and cap the interchanges to about 12.

Let's have the midfielders changing in the forward pocket, too buggered to run into defence.

How often is a player penalised as they take possession though? If you grab the ball, surely you get more than 1 step to attempt disposal?
 

Draft Pick

Cancelled
Jun 17, 2004
2,551
3,591
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
The rule says prior opportunity. The interpretations of the rule are correct.

The issue is that with so many players around the ball hardly anyone ever has prior opportunity.

The HTB rule is fine. The problem is the interchange, go back to two interchange and two reserves and cap the interchanges to about 12.

Let's have the midfielders changing in the forward pocket, too buggered to run into defence.
Exactly. It’s almost impossible to get a legal disposal away now in certain situations as the players who receives the ball is besieged by two players as there are so many around the contest.
 
The rule says prior opportunity. The interpretations of the rule are correct.

The issue is that with so many players around the ball hardly anyone ever has prior opportunity.

The HTB rule is fine. The problem is the interchange, go back to two interchange and two reserves and cap the interchanges to about 12.

Let's have the midfielders changing in the forward pocket, too buggered to run into defence.
It's not fine if it's not being adjudicated in accordance with the rules.

Unfortunately umpire discretion will always be needed. The grey area where discretion is applied is the time considered enough for “prior opportunity”.

We have seen that sides with “quick hands” (including us) can handball within half a second when they want (ie when they see a creative option). So I think THAT needs to be the standard that prior opportunity is judged by.

Right now players very often choose to take the tackle either to slow the game down (when outnumbered or when narrowly in front close to the final siren) or to avoid coughing up the ball to a 50/50 situation. If they know they have only half a second before being pinged it will change dramatically. That includes deciding whether to even take possession in the first place.
The way prior opportunity is being adjudged is generally pretty good. It's the incorrect disposal that is generally incorrect.
You can tell the difference in these cases because the ump will yell out, "no prior".

The "immediately" referred to in this discussion referenced in the rule in that once a player is tackled, after having prior, they must dispose immediately (and correctly).
 
Anyone think that Alir should cop a ban? Massive push in the back on Lloyd caused a broken collar bone. If that had been on the boundary and he hit the fence would it be different? I don't like the way he gets away with SOS like scragging too.
 

Leon

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 13, 2004
8,320
13,568
Bound for Germany 2006!
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Harry's Heroes
Kind of sick of the likes of Clarkson (who I actually like and respect) and the media claiming the game is in crisis as soon as there’s a low scoring game.

a) This season has shortened quarters and 18 clubs who’ve had an interrupted pre season and one 4 week pre season. Is it really that surprising that we’re seeing low scoring games?

b) Even without that, the whole hysteria that the game is in crisis that happens every time there’s a low scoring or boring game is overblown. It’s a competition with 18 clubs, does everyone expect every team to be Brazil of 1970?

c) Coaches are there to achieve results, not to entertain the masses. If they think that they have a better chance of winning by implementing a dour or defensive game plan then that’s absolutely their right.


And don’t get me wrong, I love attacking football, and find the likes of the Paul Roos coached Swans, McCartney coached Bulldogs or literally any Ross Lyon coached side painful to watch.

But these people aren’t paid to entertain me, they’re paid to coach their footy side to win matches and if their view is their best chance to do that is to go negative, then they should be able to.
 
Anyone think that Alir should cop a ban? Massive push in the back on Lloyd caused a broken collar bone. If that had been on the boundary and he hit the fence would it be different? I don't like the way he gets away with SOS like scragging too.

Nah, that sort of thing happens a lot but hardly ever results in injury. Just like the ****ed up tribunal of these days, the injury or outcome shouldn’t decide the punishment. It’s just the intent that matters, but Allir’s push was intended to put him off any follow up actions and you see that happen in games a lot. Take late shepherds for example where players will just swing an arm to hit a midriff just to stop players getting to the next contest at full speed.

Merrett for example should have been rubbed out as he was, but then Silvagni went with the players code. A closed fist to the ribs from behind is weak, he could have done the same thing without the fist & it’s business as usual.
 
It's not fine if it's not being adjudicated in accordance with the rules.


The way prior opportunity is being adjudged is generally pretty good. It's the incorrect disposal that is generally incorrect.
You can tell the difference in these cases because the ump will yell out, "no prior".

The "immediately" referred to in this discussion referenced in the rule in that once a player is tackled, after having prior, they must dispose immediately (and correctly).
I do understand the use of "immediately" in the rule. I also understand that prior/no-prior opportunity is the umpire's call.

My point is that the ump has to make a snap decision on whether it was prior opportunity or not. Sure, if a player is gang tackled the instant he takes possession that's clearly "no prior", but if he has a further instant to look up and he decides to take the tackle instead of dish it off then I think that should be "prior". Very often those situations are called "no prior", perhaps giving the benefit of the doubt to the player who hunts the ball.

It's only about an extra half second or so. My argument is that deciding to take the tackle is in fact a disposal opportunity missed. If they applied it there would be a lot fewer ball-ups and more continuous football.

No argument with your point about improper disposal.

Regardless of what we discuss now, we can pretty well guarantee that Thursday's St Kilda-Carlton clash will be umpired differently to the 35 games we've seen so far this season in respect of the HTB rule. It will be essential watching for anyone engaged as a coach or a player over the rest of the weekend.
 
Kind of sick of the likes of Clarkson (who I actually like and respect) and the media claiming the game is in crisis as soon as there’s a low scoring game.

a) This season has shortened quarters and 18 clubs who’ve had an interrupted pre season and one 4 week pre season. Is it really that surprising that we’re seeing low scoring games?

b) Even without that, the whole hysteria that the game is in crisis that happens every time there’s a low scoring or boring game is overblown. It’s a competition with 18 clubs, does everyone expect every team to be Brazil of 1970?

c) Coaches are there to achieve results, not to entertain the masses. If they think that they have a better chance of winning by implementing a dour or defensive game plan then that’s absolutely their right.


And don’t get me wrong, I love attacking football, and find the likes of the Paul Roos coached Swans, McCartney coached Bulldogs or literally any Ross Lyon coached side painful to watch.

But these people aren’t paid to entertain me, they’re paid to coach their footy side to win matches and if their view is their best chance to do that is to go negative, then they should be able to.
I agree with you, in that the game isn't in a crisis. The hysteria around how bad it is is over the top. As there always has been, there's some good games and some bad every week. Especially sick of journos whinging about it. Like, you get to write about footy for a living guys! Wake up. I'd totally be fine if the state of the game stayed as it is (or continued to evolve naturally as it would).
Having said that, I do agree with Clarkson that the HTB is adjudicated incorrectly and if that were fixed it would help with the congestion around the ball.
 
If there are fewer ball-ups and more free-flowing play a benefit that we shouldn't overlook is that it will work more to our strengths (supposedly our inside midfielders/CPs) and less to our weaknesses (hitouts). Tim English can then get on with what he does best.

Bring it on!
 
I do understand the use of "immediately" in the rule. I also understand that prior/no-prior opportunity is the umpire's call.

My point is that the ump has to make a snap decision on whether it was prior opportunity or not. Sure, if a player is gang tackled the instant he takes possession that's clearly "no prior", but if he has a further instant to look up and he decides to take the tackle instead of dish it off then I think that should be "prior". Very often those situations are called "no prior", perhaps giving the benefit of the doubt to the player who hunts the ball.

It's only about an extra half second or so. My argument is that deciding to take the tackle is in fact a disposal opportunity missed. If they applied it there would be a lot fewer ball-ups and more continuous football.

No argument with your point about improper disposal.

Regardless of what we discuss now, we can pretty well guarantee that Thursday's St Kilda-Carlton clash will be umpired differently to the 35 games we've seen so far this season in respect of the HTB rule. It will be essential watching for anyone engaged as a coach or a player over the rest of the weekend.
Ahh yes, sorry I thought your original post quoted mine so I had some wires crossed.
I agree with your assessment regarding the prior adjudication. Personally I think the time frame that constitutes prior/no-prior is pretty good as is. You raise a good point on benefit of the doubt, I think some benefit should go to the ball attacker as it would be ugly to see players preferring to wait for opposing players to pick the ball up before tackling. Having said that, there could be some benefit in shortening the time frame to get the ball moving.
 
Never mind HTB and "no prior", I think the bigger AFL crisis right now is what's going to happen to the 2020 season. I'm not sure why there hasn't been more media and BF discussion of this ... but perhaps I'm out of the loop.

  • As it stands no Victorian side can go to Qld, SA or WA without spending two weeks in quarantine. At least that's my understanding - correct me if wrong. In fact I think nobody is allowed to visit Perth at all right now.
  • Also no side from outside Victoria can enter Qld within two weeks of having played a Victorian side unless they go through 2 weeks quarantine. That might also apply to SA.
  • Having at least one ground in Melbourne - Whitten Oval - in a lockdown zone for the next month certainly doesn't make life any easier but at least it should count as a workplace so hopefully it won't be too disrupted.
The AFL has been trickle feeding us the fixture, a few rounds at a time. However they are soon going to hit the crunch - when and how are Vic teams going to play the interstate teams? GWS and Sydney seem more manageable at this stage due to NSW keeping the borders open (so far) but the other 6 teams are a challenge.

Below is the 2020 fixture in tabular form where every side plays every other side just once. There is one game shown in red - that's the postponed Ess v Melb game. I'm treating that as having been played, for current purposes. The white cells are the easy games to schedule. They are the ones where a club plays a local rival (eg Adelaide v Port, WB v Richmond, Geelong v Carlton, etc).

The coloured cells (yellow/orange/green) are the tricky ones. They are where a WA, SA or Qld team plays a Vic team. Green means it has already been played (phew!). Orange means it's scheduled in the next three rounds (5-7) and yellow just means there is no date or round announced for that game yet.

To keep it simple I've made all Sydney and GWS cells white because those two teams are allowed to go anywhere and play anyone, and every side is allowed to play in Sydney. However it won't be quite that simple from here on because of the 14-day quarantine requirement in Qld (&SA?) if they've just played a Vic team ... or another side that itself has just played a Vic team.

1593530420298.png


The AFL's problem is that they've been plucking the low-hanging fruit. That is, they've steadily been playing the games in the white cells and very few of those in the coloured cells. This strategy of "taking it three weeks at a time" works if the Covid19 restrictions are steadily eased as the season progresses and/or if rotating hubs can be set up in various cities for blocks of a few weeks at a time without any of the sides having to do a stint in quarantine.

The spike of cases in Victoria and the response from the governments of SA, Qld and potentially NSW has now turned that strategy on its head.

There are 153 H&A games to be played this year. Of those 153 games, 97 (63.4%) are white-cell or easy games and 56 (36.6%) are coloured-cell or tricky games to schedule.

A table probably expresses it best.

1593532041119.png


You can see that only 8.3% of the games played so far are "tricky" ones. By the end of Rd 7 this will have improved to 15.9% but it's still way less than the overall 36.6%.

This means that for the remainder of the season (Rds 8-17) 51.1% of all games still to be played are counted as "tricky" to schedule. And this is with interstate restrictions getting tougher over at least the next month and with Victorian health officials saying the Covid19 spike will get worse before it gets better.

Also if you have a look at the 7 "tricky" games they have scheduled over the next three rounds (orange cells) you have to wonder whether some or all of those will be able to go ahead. All but two of them involve an interstate team playing in Victoria. Will GCS still come to Geelong this week?

And then GWS have to play Port in Rd 6 after playing Hawthorn in Rd 5, and Sydney have to play Brisbane in Rd 7 the week after playing Carlton in Rd 6. As it stands I think they'd both be required to go through a 2-week quarantine period following their game against a Vic side.

I don't know if all my information and assumptions are correct but one thing seems certain - it's a real mess and it's only going to get messier. It looks like the AFL is rapidly painting itself into a corner. Some rounds might have to be delayed or played in a staggered fashion unless they can get creative.

As I see it, one workable option might be to quickly play as many of the easy intra-Victorian games as possible, leaving mostly tricky ones. There are about 20 games left involving Vic teams playing each other so this could be done over about 4 rounds.

Then send all Vic teams interstate for a 2 week quarantine hiatus and after that have them play out the rest of the season (Rds 12-17 plus some or all finals) in interstate hubs.

Another option might be to do it in 2-3 stages. Geelong and Collingwood are already due to head out next month. So maybe another 3 clubs could join them in extended hubs playing only interstate sides, not each other. When those hubs are completed they could come back home and start playing each other while the remaining five Vic sides head interstate to replicate the exercise.

EDIT: I've re-structured the matrix to make it more readable and I've adjusted the summary table for an error I found. See the post on the next page for the new tables.
 
Last edited:

Guido

Premium Gold
Aug 18, 2004
1,621
1,679
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Leros United
The game is not in ‘crisis’. Try watching soccer after you’ve been watching Aussie Rules. Absolute monotonous dirge. And that’s from an Englishman who loves it!

No other sport can get anywhere near AFL for constant and sustained entertainment.
Yep, I don't get this crisis stuff (other than the real threat of Covid derailing things, obviously).

Over 30 years of following the game, I've rarely watched games not involving us, yet I've loved every single game I've tuned into the last few weeks.

Apparently Essendon/Carlton and North/Hawthorn were terrible games? If that's our floor, I think we're doing well.

Looking at the upcoming few weeks, 90% of games look like crackers and genuinely up for grabs.

Half the comp could win the flag.

If that's a crisis, may our game continue in crisis forever.
 
I think a lot of the game is in crisis brigade, came up in the era of 90s football which was a golden era. I think if any other era is compared to this time, you might think the game is in crisis. It's an unfair comparison.
The other part of it is that with every single generation there is always the "better in my day" brigade. This applies to absolutely everything.... sport, music, society, morals, movies, etc. Those people will just always whinge and it's more about their ability to deal with change.

Those reasons aside I think there are some valid concerns about the state of the game (even if I disagree they are a problem), but I think the hysteria around it is definitely over the top.
 
Looxury! You call this a crisis? This is no crisis.

When I were a lad we had ter stand in rain on’t terraces at Western Oval watchin’ grown men slog through mud in t’howlin’ gale and then at three quarter time we had ter wade through ankle deep piss and vomit to get to urinal. Then we had to put up with taunts of cocky Essendon fans on’t train all the way home after we’d been flogged and EJ did his hammy...

Now THAT were a crisis.

But you tell the yoong people today and they won’t believe yer.
 
Jun 19, 2016
20,756
39,597
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Never mind HTB and "no prior", I think the bigger AFL crisis right now is what's going to happen to the 2020 season. I'm not sure why there hasn't been more media and BF discussion of this ... but perhaps I'm out of the loop.

  • As it stands no Victorian side can go to Qld, SA or WA without spending two weeks in quarantine. At least that's my understanding - correct me if wrong. In fact I think nobody is allowed to visit Perth at all right now.
  • Also no side from outside Victoria can enter Qld within two weeks of having played a Victorian side unless they go through 2 weeks quarantine. That might also apply to SA.
  • Having at least one ground in Melbourne - Whitten Oval - in a lockdown zone for the next month certainly doesn't make life any easier but at least it should count as a workplace so hopefully it won't be too disrupted.
The AFL has been trickle feeding us the fixture, a few rounds at a time. However they are soon going to hit the crunch - when and how are Vic teams going to play the interstate teams? GWS and Sydney seem more manageable at this stage due to NSW keeping the borders open (so far) but the other 6 teams are a challenge.

Below is the 2020 fixture in tabular form where every side plays every other side just once. There is one game shown in red - that's the postponed Ess v Melb game. I'm treating that as having been played, for current purposes. The white cells are the easy games to schedule. They are the ones where a club plays a local rival (eg Adelaide v Port, WB v Richmond, Geelong v Carlton, etc).

The coloured cells (yellow/orange/green) are the tricky ones. They are where a WA, SA or Qld team plays a Vic team. Green means it has already been played (phew!). Orange means it's scheduled in the next three rounds (5-7) and yellow just means there is no date or round announced for that game yet.

To keep it simple I've made all Sydney and GWS cells white because those two teams are allowed to go anywhere and play anyone, and every side is allowed to play in Sydney. However it won't be quite that simple from here on because of the 14-day quarantine requirement in Qld (&SA?) if they've just played a Vic team ... or another side that itself has just played a Vic team.

View attachment 903663

The AFL's problem is that they've been plucking the low-hanging fruit. That is, they've steadily been playing the games in the white cells and very few of those in the coloured cells. This strategy of "taking it three weeks at a time" works if the Covid19 restrictions are steadily eased as the season progresses and/or if rotating hubs can be set up in various cities for blocks of a few weeks at a time without any of the sides having to do a stint in quarantine.

The spike of cases in Victoria and the response from the governments of SA, Qld and potentially NSW has now turned that strategy on its head.

There are 153 H&A games to be played this year. Of those 153 games, 97 (63.4%) are white-cell or easy games and 56 (36.6%) are coloured-cell or tricky games to schedule.

A table probably expresses it best.

View attachment 903667

You can see that only 8.3% of the games played so far are "tricky" ones. By the end of Rd 7 this will have improved to 15.9% but it's still way less than the overall 36.6%.

This means that for the remainder of the season (Rds 8-17) 51.1% of all games still to be played are counted as "tricky" to schedule. And this is with interstate restrictions getting tougher over at least the next month and with Victorian health officials saying the Covid19 spike will get worse before it gets better.

Also if you have a look at the 7 "tricky" games they have scheduled over the next three rounds (orange cells) you have to wonder whether some or all of those will be able to go ahead. All but two of them involve an interstate team playing in Victoria. Will GCS still come to Geelong this week?

And then GWS have to play Port in Rd 6 after playing Hawthorn in Rd 5, and Sydney have to play Brisbane in Rd 7 the week after playing Carlton in Rd 6. As it stands I think they'd both be required to go through a 2-week quarantine period following their game against a Vic side.

I don't know if all my information and assumptions are correct but one thing seems certain - it's a real mess and it's only going to get messier. It looks like the AFL is rapidly painting itself into a corner. Some rounds might have to be delayed or played in a staggered fashion unless they can get creative.

As I see it, one workable option might be to quickly play as many of the easy intra-Victorian games as possible, leaving mostly tricky ones. There are about 20 games left involving Vic teams playing each other so this could be done over about 4 rounds.

Then send all Vic teams interstate for a 2 week quarantine hiatus and after that have them play out the rest of the season (Rds 12-17 plus some or all finals) in interstate hubs.

Another option might be to do it in 2-3 stages. Geelong and Collingwood are already due to head out next month. So maybe another 3 clubs could join them in extended hubs playing only interstate sides, not each other. When those hubs are completed they could come back home and start playing each other while the remaining five Vic sides head interstate to replicate the exercise.
It’s almost impossible to have any real meaningful discussion about it as there are so many moving parts. The afl has a real challenge on their hands to finish the season but also with any fixture integrity.
 
Like clockwork, every season after a few games we get the game is in crisis headlines.

In a football sense of course the game as it stands is not the engrossing spectacle that it once was, as its in a completely compromised position and currently only exists as a means of staving off its own demise.

The games aesthetics are not its biggest issue right now.
 

footscray1973

Premiership Player
May 17, 2004
4,998
9,431
Pepperland
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray
and started by the usual suspect who wants rules tweaked or adjudicated differently to suit his team.

I'm surprised the gimp at Corio isn't in on this too, but he's probably more concerned with how his ordinary coaching ability has yielded poor results.
He should stick to mutual pleasuring with his brother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back