Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Non-Crows AFL 10

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samcro24
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Who will win a final first?


  • Total voters
    73

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given how quickly an AFL player can handball now, I think prior opportunity should be limited to an instant tackle.

The penalty mainly being for a team mate putting a player under pressure.



Coaches would not want this though, as they want to create stoppages/ball ups.

Therefore such a play, to create a stoppage is exactly the desired play.

Tightening up on prior op removes this.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Given how quickly an AFL player can handball now, I think prior opportunity should be limited to an instant tackle.

The penalty mainly being for a team mate putting a player under pressure.



Coaches would not want this though, as they want to create stoppages/ball ups.

Therefore such a play, to create a stoppage is exactly the desired play.

Tightening up on prior op removes this.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
They need a couple of seconds to position the ball and look for a team mate. They don’t always have time to know where everyone is around them.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

They need a couple of seconds to position the ball and look for a team mate. They don’t always have time to know where everyone is around them.
You watched a handball drill these guys do. Very quick.

As I said, it puts the responsibility on the guy giving them the ball to look for a better option.


Maybe a bit more leniency if it was a loose ball pick up.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Browsing through Reddit and came across a post that GWS and Sydney are strongly considered for granting a cost of living allowance.

Like Sydney don’t get a leg up at all…..

I thought there may be something in it when I saw that it was to compensate housing, but then I saw this quote...

"Pridham said the Sydney staff could not purchase or rent the same quality of accommodation as their counterparts in other states due to housing costs."

“Even the top players [at the Swans] don’t live in mansions.”

Isn't that a fair advantage for those of us in states where it may be less exciting or less desirable for someone from out of state to live?

Like, come to Adelaide, you'll be able to live by the beach or near the city, bigger home to bring up the family, sorry you wont get near anonymity, the night life or the harbour bridge to look at.

Better work/influencing opportunities for partners in Sydney and I bet their total household incomes are higher too.

It balances out?

Should being at a AFL football club entitle you to live the exact same lifestyle in all cities, should being a top player in Sydney get you the same size house as a top player in Adelaide?
 
Last edited:
I thought there may be something in it when I saw that it was to compensate housing, but then I saw this quote...

"Pridham said the Sydney staff could not purchase or rent the same quality of accommodation as their counterparts in other states due to housing costs."

“Even the top players [at the Swans] don’t live in mansions.”

Isn't that a fair advantage for those of us in states where it may be less exciting or less desirable for someone from out of state to live?

Like, come to Adelaide, you'll be able to live by the beach or near the city, bigger home to bring up the family, sorry you wont get near anonymity, the night life and the harbour bridge to look at.

Better work/influencing opportunities for partners. I bet their total household incomes are higher too.

It balances out?

Should being at a AFL football club entitle you to live the exact same lifestyle in all cities, does being a top player in Sydney get you the same size house as a top player in Adelaide?
As I said on Reddit, give me some data on players that left Sydney (or didn't go there) because of housing.
 
And in the footage you can clearly see the umpire DOES pay holding the ball.
Yeah eventually but their point was and they stopped the vision that it will be paid earlier before he gets slung. (As it should have been anyway imo)
 
As I said on Reddit, give me some data on players that left Sydney (or didn't go there) because of housing.
Apparently Jay Clark, from The Hun, says that Dawson left Sydney because of the cost of living:
“The cost of living in Sydney is extraordinary. That’s why Jordan Dawson went from Sydney to Adelaide, the house he could buy was half the amount of money.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/s...s/news-story/4adb550a6c4923202496313df9fb3911

Utter bullshit of course... but what else do you expect?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The six teams with the bye this week will be cheering that they have an extra week of non-match training as well as analysing the umpiring during the games this week to prepare.
But all teams playing are in the same boat.
There’s more of an advantage imo to those that play this week against those who don’t play.
They have a game to be used to it.
 
Holding the ball has to be balanced out by holding the man though

You can't ping players for HTB after a shorter period of time if you're allowing players to tackle others before they get the ball
If they're smart (haha) the shorter time for HTB devisions will only apply in situations where HTB was ever a possibility in the first place. Players who are tackled immediately or even before taking the ball shouldn't be pinged, although calling for the stoppage earlier wouldn't hurt in those cases.
 
Sholl has both hands free and chooses not to handball. It's clearly holding the ball

In the Neale one he has one hand free so that's also clearly holding the ball because he elects not to kick

But yeah it's stupid to point out decisions that were already being paid
I think the pause on the Sholl one is saying it will be paid there now, not wait until he's taken to ground
 


didnt see that coming at all :think:

All this will do is give umpires more wiggle room to screw the crowd and give Carlton and Collingwood leg ups because once Again it's still an interpretation. If they said you have 3 seconds once tackled to get rid of the ball otherwise it's a ball up or a free depending on what happens during those 3 seconds or prior to it.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

All this will do is give umpires more wiggle room to screw the crowd and give Carlton and Collingwood leg ups because once Again it's still an interpretation. If they said you have 3 seconds once tackled to get rid of the ball otherwise it's a ball up or a free depending on what happens during those 3 seconds or prior to it.
Why not make the rules black and white as possible instead of changing interpretation every second week.
:mad:

I hated Izak getting called for running too far the other week (although correct) because players do it every week. Our LOTG need a massive review for clarity.
 
Pinning one arm to prevent a handball but still allowing a kick, then either preventing the kick or forcing a drop/illegal disposal, is a textbook tackle and should be holding the ball every single time

You also can’t talk about reasonable time without talking about prior opportunity, they are inexptricably linked.

You get more “reasonable time” if you haven’t had prior.

If you’ve had prior, you get zero time.

They are two different things, but linked.

Why is this difficult for anybody to understand?

If you don’t understand this, stop watching or participating in the game. Forever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom