Opinion Non-Crows AFL 13: Cyclone Season

[1970crow]

Very few players are national news ....unless you think Lachie Hunter / Harmes / McKay are that newsworthy

I can say a lot of senior company managers get highlighted in the media these days .....and they don't get unlimited time off .....work continues

LOL, not for those two it didn’t.

 

[1970crow]

This is his 2nd what appears to be serious shoulder injury in recent times, don't try and tell me he's not more susceptible to that kind of injury in the midfield than he is playing his former roving half back distributor role.

1 friendly fire fractured collarbone and a preseason training injury, think you’re jumping at shadows. The foot injury would be more of a concern.

 

[Daniel6]

If the general population have a breakup, either with a girlfriend or wife .....how many employers give you time off work to mourn ? ......allow you to decide when you want to come back

In both the government sector and private entities, HR have different leavers to pull to have an employee operate to the best of their ability,

They have grievances leave, mental health leave, family leave, individual sick days and in most cases, no one has any idea why they are on leave.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Or players have 8 seconds to kick the ball before play on is called, but a forward gets 30 seconds to start walking in to kick for goal, but can then pass off without having a shot.

Yeah that one is absurd. Especially when they allow this to occur outside 50. The simplest way to remove 90% of this is to only allow the 30 seconds for marks inside 50.

 

[Ham]

Wonder if with the new rule that the umpires dont wait for the rucks, having a true ruck in your forward line could be a massive advantage with i50 ball ups and throw ins going up against a defender, especially with dangerous small forwards. Plus whilst theres an extra on the bench, the allowable interchanges hasnt changed - not fully sure what that means mathematically but 4 on the bench you completely swap them 18.75 times vs 15 with 5, does that make more sense to carry someone who doesnt come off than just another of the same?

 

[spenze]

Wonder if with the new rule that the umpires dont wait for the rucks, having a true ruck in your forward line could be a massive advantage with i50 ball ups and throw ins going up against a defender, especially with dangerous small forwards. Plus whilst theres an extra on the bench, the allowable interchanges hasnt changed - not fully sure what that means mathematically but 4 on the bench you completely swap them 18.75 times vs 15 with 5, does that make more sense to carry someone who doesnt come off than just another of the same?

It will be interesting to see what teams do go the two ruck model, it was the go when we first had a 4 man bench.

 

[baldandbroke]

Yeah that one is absurd. Especially when they allow this to occur outside 50. The simplest way to remove 90% of this is to only allow the 30 seconds for marks inside 50.

That is not the answer as plenty of players can kick goals from outside 50 - and it’s a highlight of our game.

How about we just stop the clock when they mark it / get a free and start it again when the dispose of it / play on?

Shorten the official time for a quarter of needed.

Ps - I’d be happy with two 30 minutes halves of we played more games. Play each team twice in a season plus finals series of three games each once you hit the prelim stage.

 

[adelaidecrows]

That is not the answer as plenty of players can kick goals from outside 50 - and it’s a highlight of our game.

How about we just stop the clock when they mark it / get a free and start it again when the dispose of it / play on?

Shorten the official time for a quarter of needed.

Ps - I’d be happy with two 30 minutes halves of we played more games. Play each team twice in a season plus finals series of three games each once you hit the prelim stage.

Players can still have a shot from outside 50, it doesnt prevent that.

Nah, game is fine as it is. Covid showed the time between games can be shortened and clubs can play a game every 5 days easy enough. People only are against it because players might get injured and they will struggle to come up in the 5 day break. It becomes a management issue then. I actually think keeping the game as it is and bringing in more games with a shorter break, can mean we see the full squad play more games. Players will be rotated more for rest.

Unfortunately the reality is this will never happen. The game will likely get shorter but its not going to result in extra games being added to the calendar in any real meaningful attempt to play a full home and away season.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

 

[StonesThrow]

Good on Carlton for taking a punt on Hollands

 

[Mutineer]

Good on Carlton for taking a punt on Hollands

Well it's either that or payout his 2026 contract.

 

[Gtowncrow]

The AFL has a few hypocrisys within the rules. For example you cant high tackle but you can complete a full knee to the back of the head in a marking contest and as long as you touch the ball its play onIts accepted because the speccy came first so all is fair. However, Is it time for the AFL to tidy up come of the hypocrisy.

I think one of the biggest issues in the game that is just weird is that the AFL will call players for lack of intent at keeping the ball in play but allow defenders to punch the ball with a massive roundhouse into the second tier grandstand under the guise of defense during a marking contest.

This to me is absurd. If its clearly an intentional action, its deliberate too bad so sad. Screw the action. Its clearly deliberate so players should be penalised. I for one would have no complaints.

Strongly agree.
A 'last touch ' rule would fix the later. Unfortunately, a Phil Hughes tragedy will be needed for the former...even though it was in plain sight for years.

 

[Coopers]

Strongly agree.
A 'last touch ' rule would fix the later. Unfortunately, a Phil Hughes tragedy will be needed for the former...even though it was in plain sight for years.

Any rule where you have to judge intent is a stupid rule. Leave intent to the tribunal.

For umpiring, what matters is what actually happens - so make it unambiguous.

 

[Fud#3]

Yeah that one is absurd. Especially when they allow this to occur outside 50. The simplest way to remove 90% of this is to only allow the 30 seconds for marks inside 50.

If a player elects to have a shot, the opposition gets the ball where it lands or is first touched if they don’t score.

 

[FR0GGY]

If a player elects to have a shot, the opposition gets the ball where it lands or is first touched if they don’t score.

What rule are we even trying to fix here?

 

[cleanhands]

What rule are we even trying to fix here?

Fairy kicks

 

[Smart Fella]

What rule are we even trying to fix here?

Time wasting I'd presume.

 

[FR0GGY]

Time wasting I'd presume.

Ah so something that’s not really an issue?

 

[Fud#3]

What rule are we even trying to fix here?

Consistency of rules across the ground

 

[FR0GGY]

Consistency of rules across the ground

Why does that matter?
You don’t get a goal for kicking it through the opposition goals.
Every game has different rules for different parts of the game.
IMO it doesn’t make the top 100 issues with the game.

 

[baldandbroke]

Last touch everywhere could work - but only if you get a handball, not a free kick.

 

[Smart Fella]

Why does that matter?
You don’t get a goal for kicking it through the opposition goals.
Every game has different rules for different parts of the game.
IMO it doesn’t make the top 100 issues with the game.

Is it a major issue? No, but at least the rule is consistent with not getting a goal kicking it through the opposition's goal.

Allowing players to say they're kicking for goal then pass it off shows a flaw within the rule. If you don't care about that, why have a problem with any of the top 100 issues of the game?

 

[FR0GGY]

Is it a major issue? No, but at least the rule is consistent with not getting a goal kicking it through the opposition's goal.

Allowing players to say they're kicking for goal then pass it off shows a flaw within the rule. If you don't care about that, why have a problem with any of the top 100 issues of the game?

Because it has basically zero effect on the game?

 

[Smart Fella]

Because it has basically zero effect on the game?

It does have an effect on the game. It just doesn't happen that often.

It's just a clear flaw, it's fine that you don't care about it. The rule might as well be that all players get 30 seconds no matter where they are after marking it, would you have an issue with that?

 

[FR0GGY]

It does have an effect on the game. It just doesn't happen that often.

It's just a clear flaw, it's fine that you don't care about it. The rule might as well be that all players get 30 seconds no matter where they are after marking it, would you have an issue with that?

Yes because that would have a far greater effect on the game.