Opinion Non-Crows AFL 4: The Centre Cannot Hold

[Gtowncrow]

Frost is looking at the ball, and yes has his hands on Hawkins. But not pushing him. Just getting position.


Hawkins could have easily contested the mark, but chose to flop.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

It has to be a free kick every time. Unless we want to look like NFL where scragging players anywhere, anytime is part of their game.
Playing the ball is central to our game and although I understand that shepherding to directly protect the ball is part of our game, blocking of any disputed ball is actually a massive change.
Play on I say.

 

[FR0GGY]

 

[FR0GGY]

It has to be a free kick every time. Unless we want to look like NFL where scragging players anywhere, anytime is part of their game.
Playing the ball is central to our game and although I understand that shepherding to directly protect the ball is part of our game, blocking of any disputed ball is actually a massive change.
Play on I say.

He wasn’t blocking though.
Hawkins had a better position than frost and is twice as strong.

 

[GameofSloanes]

what happens when the marking contest is on the boundary line and the ball falls over the line without bouncing over the line, or the ball is spoiled back to where it came from but goes over the boundary line

Pretty sure it's only a free from a kick or handball

 

[MatthewB]

Pretty sure it's only a free from a kick or handball

i know, but he was suggesting to bring a rule for spoils that go over the boundary deliberately

 

[pjcrows]

The AFL's massive shift on "dissent" stems from figures in the off-season saying they're down thousands umpires nation wide at all levels. As always we get a poorly thought-out knee jerk reaction - "it must be due to abuse, let's change the rule at the elite level", rather than address the real reasons why umpire numbers are so low (no full-time career path, poor grass roots funding).

Classic AFL. Take shortcuts to solve problems that are of their own doing, only resulting in worse outcomes.

 

[baldandbroke]

a) I don't think it's paid that way. The umpires occasionally pick out random frees. They should be paying every hold, anywhere on the field. Don't care if there's 50 frees a game

How do you umpire that? You would need 20 umpires. You CANNOT see all the holds.

c) I disagree, hands in the back was a clear cut rule that's easy to adjudicate. There's no interpretation. The push rule requires the umpires to decide if the contact was enough to constitute a "push". They get this wrong a lot. It also encourages dives

It was horrible. You couldn't hold your position in the marking contest. You also use your hands to feel where your opponent is.

d) I would allow 3rd man up, the ruck nomination rule creates congestion. One of the stupidest rules ever introduced if the AFL wanted to increase scoring

I agree. Third man up is not a problem.

e) I mean you pay any high contact to the player that gets hit high, even if it's a duck, but then you suspend the ducker after the match. It would remove the interpretation element from the umpires (don't need to figure out whether a player has ducked or was just low to the ground) but heavily penalizes the ducker.

I just think you pay a free against ducking. Fixes it both ways.

The stand rule is the least of the AFL's concerns, it's actually very easy to adjudicate. The bigger issues are any grey areas and "interpretations"

It's such a blight on the game in its current form. "Stand" "Stand" "Stand" and the players do not even adhere to it. As soon as a player moves the umps either say "play-on" or the player scurries back off the mark 1m and they scream "Outside 5". If it was clear-cut, where the closest oppo player within 5m to the mark has to stand once the mark is taken / free is given AND everyone else has to get / stay outside 5m - then fine. I don't think the umpires should say "stand" - the same way I hate the umpires saying "Don't hold".

I'm also all for the 50m to become the 25m penalty. Then you can pay them more often without it being such a huge penalty.

 

[adelaidecrows]

The ridiculous rule changes from year to year (and the moronic blanketed AFL media) is a big reason why I take more interest and enjoyment from following the SANFL, obviously it’s a generational thing also. Unfortunately the SANFL is having the same stupid AFL rules thrust upon it also.
Remember when an opposition player couldn’t touch a player after they’d marked the ball if they also weren’t in the contest for fear of a 50m penalty……what happened to that stupid rule?
Self interested idiots making shit up to validate their overpaid and overinflated important jobs.
I’m not sure there’s a more fake and contrived competition in the world.

The AFL is victim to a culture developed under Wayne Jackson and fostered under Andy D of allowing ego into rule making. Half the rules that exist today or interpretations are because people wanted to manipulate the game into their vision. Now we have a mish-mash of rules and interpretations. The worst part is, the agenda appears to be more about the rules committee back slapping each other than providing a spectacle for the fans. Clearly the umpire who said Gunstan was demonstrative doesn't know what demonstrative behaviour means or the rules committee doesn't or the person in charge of teaching the umpires doesn't. Gifting goals so easily is not what fans want. There job is to create a league for fans and run it on behalf of the teams. Right now, you'd have to say they are horrendously bad at it.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jenny61_99]

Whateley is an idiot and a reflection of everything wrong with the rules of the game.

I think very often he plays the devils advocate though. If that’s the rule, it has to be paid consistently. You can’t really argue with that. You can argue whether or not it should be a rule though.

 

[jenny61_99]

View attachment 1377809

Oh, that’s so memable!

 

[George CantStandYa]

The AFL's massive shift on "dissent" stems from figures in the off-season saying they're down thousands umpires nation wide at all levels. As always we get a poorly thought-out knee jerk reaction - "it must be due to abuse, let's change the rule at the elite level", rather than address the real reasons why umpire numbers are so low (no full-time career path, poor grass roots funding).

Classic AFL. Take shortcuts to solve problems that are of their own doing, only resulting in worse outcomes.

They've just shifted the abuse and scrutiny to their role in the ridiculous rule. If you want to bring in such a rule, a 25 metre penalty would suffice

 

[adelaidecrows]

They've just shifted the abuse and scrutiny to their role in the ridiculous rule. If you want to bring in such a rule, a 25 metre penalty would suffice

Giving cheap goals will only infuriate a crowd. That alone means the rule is meaningless and won't achieve the desired result. They would be better off coming down hard on amateur clubs whose fans abuse umpires by removing them from the league. But in all honesty, I don't think abuse is the reason we don't have umpires anymore. Society is inherently becoming lazier. Kids prefer gaming, everyone's time poor and demands of work has increased. Every sport will be suffering umpire shortages. Laying on abuse is lazy research at its finest.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Shaunbkk]

So who here is Richard from Hahndorf writing into the Tiser...?

A serious contender for my soul mate. All suggestions FANTASTIC. The game was better before. My other concern is the players seems almost reluctant to grab the ball - the pressure is so high - and the moment you are grabbed after taking possession you can be caught holding the ball if the ball drops out, even when it isn't even a tackle (just a grab) l - hand grenade stuff - I wish people spend time watching the interpreations before (1980/90/2000s) when the ball winner was protected more and see how open and spectacular the game was. Lastly, a player attempting to mark can't have a finger on him yet tacklers can fall all over a player, a 2nd or 3rd diving on the scrimmage - this is ALWAYS high contact or in the back to the ballwinner surely - promote better tackling

 

[Gtowncrow]

Interesting thoughts.

I'd swap 1) and 2) in order of introduction. One of the reasons that so many players drop the ball in a tackle is that they are getting held on to before they even get the ball. Penalising holding more strictly would aid the player genuinely going for the ball.

I'm not sure about 3), the fact that people shepherd the ball over the line to get a free kick doesn't quite sit right. For 4), the other benefit of removing bouncing is the number of umpires who report injuries from bouncing should be a concern if we are trying to attract and keep talented umpires.

I'd also seriously look at the ability of a defender to spoil a contest 20 rows over the fence. It's a free in the ruck contest if the ball is punched over the line without bouncing, and I'd like to see that in a marking contest. At the moment, one of the biggest advantages Melbourne's got is that they can punch the ball out of bounds deliberately from any marking contest, and then deploy the most dominant ruckman in the league to win the next clearance. Paying a massive spoil as deliberate would keep the ball in play longer, allow more crumbing opportunities and reduce stoppages.

We all have our pet hate about the rules. Me too but I totally agree on the spoil out of bounds.

When thinking about the game and things we all like, find exciting and through the rules, should try to preserve, I made a very short list.
1...contested marking
2...free flowing chains of play
3...goals
I could argue that a hard fought scrap is exciting but I'd choose a shoot out in preference.

So, if focussing on the above short list, I believe there is one common enemy of these happening. Stoppages.

Minimising stoppages could be achieved with minimal rule changes. I want only one new rule and one reinterpretation of an existing rule.

1... reinterpretation of deliberate OOB.
Change to include ALL actions that might cause the ball to go out. This would include all deliberate actions and all lack of genuine intent to keep the ball in play. The interpretation of these two points will be significantly increased.
Deliberate out of bounds rules will apply to all boundaries with the exception of a teams forward goal and behind lines. All defensive goal and behind lines would be interpreted as all other boundaries.

Purpose for new interpretation... Teams are using the boundary as a defensive measure to allow them to reset at a stoppage. The reset is nearly always a defensive measure and is therefore likely to reduce scoring and free flowing (open) play.

2... New rule.
Any player may only take possession (hold) the ball if they are standing on their feet. When kneeling or on the ground, the ball cannot be held and must be knocked or kicked out. Holding the ball to a tackled player is holding the ball against the player holding the ball in their control.

This rule is very similar to the rules used in international rules games against the Irish. My memory of these is that stoppages in the field of play were very rare.

Purpose for the new rule...
Players are using tackles as a defensive measure to gain a stoppage. Stoppages are defensive in nature and create congestion, slow play down and interrupt free play.

Both of these two rules are not absolute as there will be circumstances where boundary throw ins and umpire ball ups would still occur. It is envisaged however that a 90% reduction of these occur.

Negatives for these two rule changes...
-Changing the game too radically.
-Reduced rucking contests.
-Reduced need for ruckmen.
-Reduced need for inside midfielders.
-Defending becomes more difficult.

Positives for the rule changes...
-The ball remains in the field of play more.
-The ball remains live for longer periods of time.
-Less resetting of team structure will allow greater attacking opportunity.
-With defending becoming more difficult, teams will have to change their overarching strategy from "defending" to victory, to, "attacking" to victory.
-Scoring will be increased.
-Open and flowing play will have occur more often.
-Less congestion and flowing play will increase contested one on one marking opportunities.

This naturally, is purely hypothetical but I've tried to rationalise my thinking.
However, I am sure that reducing stoppages will create a more attractive game.

 

[arrowman]

I thought this was satire when I first saw it.

WTF?!?! So, what if a player raises his hands and then drops them, in exasperation at himself for screwing up? Who among us has not made a similar gesture when we screw something up? What next - shaking your head, does that mean "sh*t I'm an idiot, that was clumsy", or does it mean "sh*t umpire you're an idiot"?

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

a) I don't think it's paid that way. The umpires occasionally pick out random frees. They should be paying every hold, anywhere on the field. Don't care if there's 50 frees a game

b) Yes the lasso rule would be fine

c) I disagree, hands in the back was a clear cut rule that's easy to adjudicate. There's no interpretation. The push rule requires the umpires to decide if the contact was enough to constitute a "push". They get this wrong a lot. It also encourages dives.

d) I would allow 3rd man up, the ruck nomination rule creates congestion. One of the stupidest rules ever introduced if the AFL wanted to increase scoring

e) I mean you pay any high contact to the player that gets hit high, even if it's a duck, but then you suspend the ducker after the match. It would remove the interpretation element from the umpires (don't need to figure out whether a player has ducked or was just low to the ground) but heavily penalizes the ducker.

The stand rule is the least of the AFL's concerns, it's actually very easy to adjudicate. The bigger issues are any grey areas and "interpretations"

The hands in the back rule was awful. Sometimes players would reach out while watching the ball just feel where their opponent was, basically just finger tips on the player, and these were paid as frees. It was pathetic.

 

[Pick4To6]

Anyone know anything about this Press Conference Port Power are holding this afternoon?

Doubt it would be sacking Ken.

Highly unlikely to be a new sponsor, but that could be it.

Could be Erin and other AFLW player signing. That would be disappointing as it’s highly likely to be the loss of our player.

 

[jo172]

ANZAC guernsey

 

[adelaidecrows]

It will increase abuse. Don't know what research the afl is looking at but it's wrong or lazy, purely decided by what I call a backroom nameless arsehat with an ego.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[adelaidecrows]

Anyone know anything about this Press Conference Port Power are holding this afternoon?

Doubt it would be sacking Ken.

Highly unlikely to be a new sponsor, but that could be it.

Could be Erin and other AFLW player signing. That would be disappointing as it’s highly likely to be the loss of our player.

Would be ANZAC day. Anything else would have leaked.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[chazwazza]

A glaring example of just how ridiculous umpiring and interpretation has become was the Richmond player jumping around on the mark deep in Richmond’s F50 when Ben Keays

2

Ben Keays

Age

28

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.1

3star

K

5.8

2star

HB

7.3

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.9

5star

G

0.4

3star

D

13.7

3star

K

8.7

3star

HB

5.0

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.7

4star

G

0.3

3star

D

13.0

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

8.2

5star

M

1.4

2star

T

4.4

5star

G

0.4

3star

was about to take a kick, he’s even told the umpire twice and been ignored, was the most obvious misinterpretation of this stupid rule.
It’s a mess but that’s nothing new, it’s been a mess for over a decade now, the only difference is they’ve run out of rules to screw around with and are now desperate to look for new things, absolute circus run by clowns.

 

[adelaidecrows]

A glaring example of just how ridiculous umpiring and interpretation has become was the Richmond player jumping around on the mark deep in Richmond’s F50 when Ben Keays

2

Ben Keays

Age

28

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.1

3star

K

5.8

2star

HB

7.3

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.9

5star

G

0.4

3star

D

13.7

3star

K

8.7

3star

HB

5.0

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.7

4star

G

0.3

3star

D

13.0

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

8.2

5star

M

1.4

2star

T

4.4

5star

G

0.4

3star

was about to take a kick, he’s even told the umpire twice and been ignored, was the most obvious misinterpretation of this stupid rule.
It’s a mess but that’s nothing new, it’s been a mess for over a decade now, the only difference is they’ve run out of rules to screw around with and are now desperate to look for new things, absolute circus run by clowns.

I think the umpire said he wasn't on the mark and gone back his five. If one thing I've seen is a lot of players have become lazy with the ball and don't go back far enough after a mark expecting some opponents to run off past the 5 metres. I suspect Keays didn't realise he hadn't gone back that far.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Pick4To6]

ANZAC guernsey

Oh yeah. Thanks.

 

[Pick4To6]

Would be ANZAC day. Anything else would have leaked.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yep. That’s true.

 

[arrowman]

He wasn’t blocking though.
Hawkins had a better position than frost and is twice as strong.

To be fair, Frost had his eyes on the ball but he had no intention of going for the mark; he could see that Jiath was in the box seat and his only intention was to block Hawkins from competing with Jiath.

BUT Hawkins could have made the contest - or at least forced Frost to make a genuine block. Hawkins' staging should have disqualified him from getting a free.

Remember when, a year or two ago, we were remarking on umpires saying to players who were exaggerating contact - something like "You make it difficult for us <to pay you a free> when you do that"? More of that, please. Players need to know that if they exaggerate or stage at all, they are losing any benefit of the doubt.