Non Lions Discussion 2019

[Hollow Knight]

umpires had enough....Dangerous tackle...

Genuinely inexplicable.

 

[MSB ROYS]

umpires had enough....Dangerous tackle...

It was a look at me moment from the umps.

 

[seanthelion]

Will after the olympics

Source?

 

[Hollow Knight]

It was a look at me moment from the umps.

Or he’d backed Port by more than 19.5 points.

 

[Viceregal]

Bruce is past it. Needs to retire.

Is he the one who says 'clever' all the time?

 

[Football Pope]

Source?

From an interview......here you go..knock yourself out

Bruce has Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) from a blood and bone marrow disease that usually gets severer in time. He returned at the Seven 2017’S Australian Football League and is planning to work with the channel until the Tokyo Olympic in 2020

.

http://wikinetworth.com/celebrities/bruce-mcavaney-cancer-health-illness-family.html

 

[bungalow_bill]

Is he the one who says 'clever' all the time?

"Arches his back..."

 

[lionraven]

The problem with the game is twofold. Firstly the rules keep changing based on several different aims and whims which results in a lot of grey areas that need ironing out. Secondly the enforcement of rules changes over between seasons, between rounds and even between quarters of games.

We watch footy because of the contest/marking/tackling/strength contests that are akin to rugby; the technique and ball movement akin to basketball and the pure fitness/athleticism to cover large distances like soccer. With the lift in professionalism in the AFL, defense has really improved and the game has become a rolling maul. We bring in rules to bust congestion. Then people complain that there are too many soft free kicks so we introduce a lot of grey areas around tackling/contested marks etc. Then there is player safety/concussion risks so we bring in more rules. Then we complain the game is too soft and too many people milk frees so we bring in a bunch of further grey areas with ducking etc.

Secondly we always complain when umpires actually adjudicate the game to the letter of the law. We complain of tiggy touchwood frees and they should 'let the game go'. Then they dont blow frees and suddenly we complain about the inconsistency in application of the law. We then get confused players, coaches, media and fans who have no idea on what is the game anymore. Then we get Steve Hocking coming in week in week out to justify whatever the flavour of the month is at AFL house. We then complain when the umpires try and bring in further guidelines to clarify all this grey area. We complain there are too many laws and the game is constantly changing. Why cant we go back to the good old days of X (except no one agrees on when exactly this perfect golden era of footy was and if you actually watch footage of those eras you realise how much these semipro players suck compared to the modern era)? Imagine how many goals Y would kick now hahahaha (answer is way less).

Lethal was making a point in our game against the pies that enforcing more free kicks. I think that is absolutely right. We have so many rules that would bust congestion and increase flow of the game by reducing repeat stoppages which we simply just dont enforce because people bitch about how involved umpires are in the game. The NBA enforces plenty of laws and their game flows impressively. We should review our laws to make sure a) the first priority is to protect the player and b) the second priority is to continue to flow the game. High stoppage games allow low skilled; low athleticism/fitness players to persist in the game. Making sure the game flows will mean teams focus on drafting talented players that can run and dispose the ball well instead of athletes that can just tackle and congest.

After the grey areas have been clarified with some guidelines we should look to enforce every instance of those laws to the letter of the law. We should keep the current umpire setup then also add a 'third umpire' review system. These umpires should be based in the broadcast box. If there is a stoppage in play/free kick paid/mark + shot then the previous 10 seconds should be reviewable in the booth. If there is an incorrect decision then it should be reversed or a ball up paid. If there is a free kick missed then that should be paid over stoppages.

Yes free kick counts will sore and there will be much gnashing of teeth from fans but this will mean the laws are consistently applied. The increased frees will prevent the boring rolling mauls and increase ball movement by reducing stoppages. It will prevent the missing/not paid frees in the 50m arcs that really ruin games and have the biggest impact on results. The consistency of laws being applied and the decisions being reviewable in the booth will mean teams will learn to play better to the rules. There will be no point ducking as any ducked free kicks will be reversed on replay. There will be an improved impetus on tackling technique if push in the back, holding off the ball, dangerous tackles etc are called. Scragging/off the ball s**t would be gone within a couple of rounds.

The rules around marking contests show how effective it can be to have clearly enforced rules. Contested marks were dying for the past decade with zone defenses promoting blocks/third man ups. Blocks/holding/arm chops/over the shoulder frees being paid has meant contested marking has become a bigger focus in games. Then they improved the rules by changing how push in the back/push off is interpreted sp that now the player in front doesnt always get the advantage/benefit of the doubt and marking contests have really improved this year. Despite all this there are still many missed calls particularly when the ball moves too fast and the umpire is out of position to see a hold etc. If there was a third/broadcast umpire then they could quickly review the marking contest and catch those missed blocks/holds when the ball is spoilt for a stoppage. This would mean dominant forwards would be more rewarded for their forward craft/leading/positioning and would force defenders to become better and actually contest marks instead of trying to scrap/scrag/hold/block etc.

Rules should be designed to protect players and promote a fair contest. We, as a community, need to get over our umpire hate and stop the 'let them go' vibe we put out. This idea of 'soft free kicks' etc is what ruins the game because of the inconsistency it introduces to the game. Empower umpires to blow the whistle. This will reduce stoppages and move the ball (and probably result in better scoring). Introduce a broadcast umpire that can use all the available technology to reverse poor decisions and enforce missed free kicks - thus increasing consistency. In the long term this will force teams to improve their technique around tackling/marking/defense and will make the game more watchable.

 

[Dylan12]

I'm not a Jack Riewoldt fan by any means, but had to laugh at his tweet in response to Tom Browne by stating what we already know:

 

[M Malice]

The problem with the game is twofold. Firstly the rules keep changing based on several different aims and whims which results in a lot of grey areas that need ironing out. Secondly the enforcement of rules changes over between seasons, between rounds and even between quarters of games.

We watch footy because of the contest/marking/tackling/strength contests that are akin to rugby; the technique and ball movement akin to basketball and the pure fitness/athleticism to cover large distances like soccer. With the lift in professionalism in the AFL, defense has really improved and the game has become a rolling maul. We bring in rules to bust congestion. Then people complain that there are too many soft free kicks so we introduce a lot of grey areas around tackling/contested marks etc. Then there is player safety/concussion risks so we bring in more rules. Then we complain the game is too soft and too many people milk frees so we bring in a bunch of further grey areas with ducking etc.

Secondly we always complain when umpires actually adjudicate the game to the letter of the law. We complain of tiggy touchwood frees and they should 'let the game go'. Then they dont blow frees and suddenly we complain about the inconsistency in application of the law. We then get confused players, coaches, media and fans who have no idea on what is the game anymore. Then we get Steve Hocking coming in week in week out to justify whatever the flavour of the month is at AFL house. We then complain when the umpires try and bring in further guidelines to clarify all this grey area. We complain there are too many laws and the game is constantly changing. Why cant we go back to the good old days of X (except no one agrees on when exactly this perfect golden era of footy was and if you actually watch footage of those eras you realise how much these semipro players suck compared to the modern era)? Imagine how many goals Y would kick now hahahaha (answer is way less).

Lethal was making a point in our game against the pies that enforcing more free kicks. I think that is absolutely right. We have so many rules that would bust congestion and increase flow of the game by reducing repeat stoppages which we simply just dont enforce because people bitch about how involved umpires are in the game. The NBA enforces plenty of laws and their game flows impressively. We should review our laws to make sure a) the first priority is to protect the player and b) the second priority is to continue to flow the game. High stoppage games allow low skilled; low athleticism/fitness players to persist in the game. Making sure the game flows will mean teams focus on drafting talented players that can run and dispose the ball well instead of athletes that can just tackle and congest.

After the grey areas have been clarified with some guidelines we should look to enforce every instance of those laws to the letter of the law. We should keep the current umpire setup then also add a 'third umpire' review system. These umpires should be based in the broadcast box. If there is a stoppage in play/free kick paid/mark + shot then the previous 10 seconds should be reviewable in the booth. If there is an incorrect decision then it should be reversed or a ball up paid. If there is a free kick missed then that should be paid over stoppages.

Yes free kick counts will sore and there will be much gnashing of teeth from fans but this will mean the laws are consistently applied. The increased frees will prevent the boring rolling mauls and increase ball movement by reducing stoppages. It will prevent the missing/not paid frees in the 50m arcs that really ruin games and have the biggest impact on results. The consistency of laws being applied and the decisions being reviewable in the booth will mean teams will learn to play better to the rules. There will be no point ducking as any ducked free kicks will be reversed on replay. There will be an improved impetus on tackling technique if push in the back, holding off the ball, dangerous tackles etc are called. Scragging/off the ball s**t would be gone within a couple of rounds.

The rules around marking contests show how effective it can be to have clearly enforced rules. Contested marks were dying for the past decade with zone defenses promoting blocks/third man ups. Blocks/holding/arm chops/over the shoulder frees being paid has meant contested marking has become a bigger focus in games. Then they improved the rules by changing how push in the back/push off is interpreted sp that now the player in front doesnt always get the advantage/benefit of the doubt and marking contests have really improved this year. Despite all this there are still many missed calls particularly when the ball moves too fast and the umpire is out of position to see a hold etc. If there was a third/broadcast umpire then they could quickly review the marking contest and catch those missed blocks/holds when the ball is spoilt for a stoppage. This would mean dominant forwards would be more rewarded for their forward craft/leading/positioning and would force defenders to become better and actually contest marks instead of trying to scrap/scrag/hold/block etc.

Rules should be designed to protect players and promote a fair contest. We, as a community, need to get over our umpire hate and stop the 'let them go' vibe we put out. This idea of 'soft free kicks' etc is what ruins the game because of the inconsistency it introduces to the game. Empower umpires to blow the whistle. This will reduce stoppages and move the ball (and probably result in better scoring). Introduce a broadcast umpire that can use all the available technology to reverse poor decisions and enforce missed free kicks - thus increasing consistency. In the long term this will force teams to improve their technique around tackling/marking/defense and will make the game more watchable.

Great thought provoking post lionraven (IIRC Skoob agrees with you), thanks. I am slowly coming around to this point of view as well, the only idea in there that the jury is definitely out on for me is the 10 seconds before video review.

It wouldn't take the coaches and players long to adapt to the letter of the law/strict application of the laws of the game, we'd maybe have to put up with massive free kick counts for a JLT series and a few games at the start of the season.

Thinking about it as I'm typing this............. I love the idea.

 

[Lazza16]

The problem with the game is twofold. Firstly the rules keep changing based on several different aims and whims which results in a lot of grey areas that need ironing out. Secondly the enforcement of rules changes over between seasons, between rounds and even between quarters of games.

We watch footy because of the contest/marking/tackling/strength contests that are akin to rugby; the technique and ball movement akin to basketball and the pure fitness/athleticism to cover large distances like soccer. With the lift in professionalism in the AFL, defense has really improved and the game has become a rolling maul. We bring in rules to bust congestion. Then people complain that there are too many soft free kicks so we introduce a lot of grey areas around tackling/contested marks etc. Then there is player safety/concussion risks so we bring in more rules. Then we complain the game is too soft and too many people milk frees so we bring in a bunch of further grey areas with ducking etc.

Secondly we always complain when umpires actually adjudicate the game to the letter of the law. We complain of tiggy touchwood frees and they should 'let the game go'. Then they dont blow frees and suddenly we complain about the inconsistency in application of the law. We then get confused players, coaches, media and fans who have no idea on what is the game anymore. Then we get Steve Hocking coming in week in week out to justify whatever the flavour of the month is at AFL house. We then complain when the umpires try and bring in further guidelines to clarify all this grey area. We complain there are too many laws and the game is constantly changing. Why cant we go back to the good old days of X (except no one agrees on when exactly this perfect golden era of footy was and if you actually watch footage of those eras you realise how much these semipro players suck compared to the modern era)? Imagine how many goals Y would kick now hahahaha (answer is way less).

Lethal was making a point in our game against the pies that enforcing more free kicks. I think that is absolutely right. We have so many rules that would bust congestion and increase flow of the game by reducing repeat stoppages which we simply just dont enforce because people bitch about how involved umpires are in the game. The NBA enforces plenty of laws and their game flows impressively. We should review our laws to make sure a) the first priority is to protect the player and b) the second priority is to continue to flow the game. High stoppage games allow low skilled; low athleticism/fitness players to persist in the game. Making sure the game flows will mean teams focus on drafting talented players that can run and dispose the ball well instead of athletes that can just tackle and congest.

After the grey areas have been clarified with some guidelines we should look to enforce every instance of those laws to the letter of the law. We should keep the current umpire setup then also add a 'third umpire' review system. These umpires should be based in the broadcast box. If there is a stoppage in play/free kick paid/mark + shot then the previous 10 seconds should be reviewable in the booth. If there is an incorrect decision then it should be reversed or a ball up paid. If there is a free kick missed then that should be paid over stoppages.

Yes free kick counts will sore and there will be much gnashing of teeth from fans but this will mean the laws are consistently applied. The increased frees will prevent the boring rolling mauls and increase ball movement by reducing stoppages. It will prevent the missing/not paid frees in the 50m arcs that really ruin games and have the biggest impact on results. The consistency of laws being applied and the decisions being reviewable in the booth will mean teams will learn to play better to the rules. There will be no point ducking as any ducked free kicks will be reversed on replay. There will be an improved impetus on tackling technique if push in the back, holding off the ball, dangerous tackles etc are called. Scragging/off the ball s**t would be gone within a couple of rounds.

The rules around marking contests show how effective it can be to have clearly enforced rules. Contested marks were dying for the past decade with zone defenses promoting blocks/third man ups. Blocks/holding/arm chops/over the shoulder frees being paid has meant contested marking has become a bigger focus in games. Then they improved the rules by changing how push in the back/push off is interpreted sp that now the player in front doesnt always get the advantage/benefit of the doubt and marking contests have really improved this year. Despite all this there are still many missed calls particularly when the ball moves too fast and the umpire is out of position to see a hold etc. If there was a third/broadcast umpire then they could quickly review the marking contest and catch those missed blocks/holds when the ball is spoilt for a stoppage. This would mean dominant forwards would be more rewarded for their forward craft/leading/positioning and would force defenders to become better and actually contest marks instead of trying to scrap/scrag/hold/block etc.

Rules should be designed to protect players and promote a fair contest. We, as a community, need to get over our umpire hate and stop the 'let them go' vibe we put out. This idea of 'soft free kicks' etc is what ruins the game because of the inconsistency it introduces to the game. Empower umpires to blow the whistle. This will reduce stoppages and move the ball (and probably result in better scoring). Introduce a broadcast umpire that can use all the available technology to reverse poor decisions and enforce missed free kicks - thus increasing consistency. In the long term this will force teams to improve their technique around tackling/marking/defense and will make the game more watchable.

In the future I can see a couple of professional ball bouncers placed strategically across the oval and 10 dudes in a bunker watching the game on monitors adjudicating via the PA system. Bring it on.

 

[MSB ROYS]

Here is the decision from last night...

 

[marooned]

The Bump is back in fashion and how good is it.Sydney Stack,AMT.It can be so damaging and give your team a massive lift.I thought it was a dying art with coaches instructing players to tackle instead because of the risk of high contact and big suspensions being handed out.Love the bump

 

[CarterS]

That last ten minutes from Port was horrible.

On another note, it feels like that INXS stuff has run its course too.

 

[abcde12345]

Here is the decision from last night...

That free looks fine to me. There's been a huge movement to stop the players driving the head into the ground.

I do wish they'd do something about the soccer mob mentality the players have started using towards the umpires though. It frustrates me when every single free kick the players have to come up to the umps and have a sook about, even if it's clear as day.

EDIT - clarification - when I say that free looks fine - I mean that looks like the free kick call is correct to me

 

[lionraven]

Great thought provoking post lionraven (IIRC Skoob agrees with you), thanks. I am slowly coming around to this point of view as well, the only idea in there that the jury is definitely out on for me is the 10 seconds before video review.

It wouldn't take the coaches and players long to adapt to the letter of the law/strict application of the laws of the game, we'd maybe have to put up with massive free kick counts for a JLT series and a few games at the start of the season.

Thinking about it as I'm typing this............. I love the idea.

We already do this in a crude way with the nonofficiating/off the ball umpires. Having a broadcast umpire will just formalise the process and will also allow umpires to reverse decisions if they are howlers.

Here is the decision from last night...

I think this is a perfect example for my post above where we introduce grey areas to rules because we complain a free is 'too soft' etc. To me that looked like a dangerous tackle. The blokes arms were pinned and he was driven head first into the ground. Just because he was caught in possession doesnt mean the defender doesnt have a duty to lay a legal tackle first. Secondly the other week Carlton player laid a similar tackle on a Suns player who missed a week due to concussion afterwards - no free kick was paid in that instance but on review the Carlton player missed a week on suspension. Just because Butters or whomever gets up without concussion doesnt mean this tackle wasnt as poor as the Carlton one. Goes to show how our constant moaning from fans, players, media types and coaches causes umpires to introduce grey areas to laws that are already pretty clear.

A counter example of rules becoming clear due to consistent enforcement and teams adapting is the dragging the ball in free kick. I remember being taught that in defense you need to lock the ball in by dragging in. This would also happen at AFL level and games would devolve to stoppage fests. With frees being consistently paid for dragging in, defenders have learnt not to do it and now it almost never happens in games.

Consistent application of rules will reduce the 'interpretation' element to decisions. Was the blokes arms pinned? - yes. Was the head driven into the ground? - yes. Then it is a free kick. It shouldnt matter where, when, to whom, how it occurred or was the guy concussed.

 

[abcde12345]

We already do this in a crude way with the nonofficiating/off the ball umpires. Having a broadcast umpire will just formalise the process and will also allow umpires to reverse decisions if they are howlers.




I think this is a perfect example for my post above where we introduce grey areas to rules because we complain a free is 'too soft' etc. To me that looked like a dangerous tackle. The blokes arms were pinned and he was driven head first into the ground. Just because he was caught in possession doesnt mean the defender doesnt have a duty to lay a legal tackle first. Secondly the other week Carlton player laid a similar tackle on a Suns player who missed a week due to concussion afterwards - no free kick was paid in that instance but on review the Carlton player missed a week on suspension. Just because Butters or whomever gets up without concussion doesnt mean this tackle wasnt as poor as the Carlton one. Goes to show how our constant moaning from fans, players, media types and coaches causes umpires to introduce grey areas to laws that are already pretty clear.

A counter example of rules becoming clear due to consistent enforcement and teams adapting is the dragging the ball in free kick. I remember being taught that in defense you need to lock the ball in by dragging in. This would also happen at AFL level and games would devolve to stoppage fests. With frees being consistently paid for dragging in, defenders have learnt not to do it and now it almost never happens in games.

Consistent application of rules will reduce the 'interpretation' element to decisions. Was the blokes arms pinned? - yes. Was the head driven into the ground? - yes. Then it is a free kick. It shouldnt matter where, when, to whom, how it occurred or was the guy concussed.

Agree with all this - except Setterfield was suspended for 2 games IIRC.

Goes to show how results oriented the suspension system is. Setterfield's tackle looked a lot less dangerous than that one IMO too. Sling that just happened to be hard enough for the GC player's head to hit the ground hard. That one, as you said, arms pinned, head driven into the ground. That can cause a lot worse than a concussion.

 

[MSB ROYS]

In reflection, different camera angles suggest different results IMO.

 

[MSB ROYS]

Consistent application of rules will reduce the 'interpretation' element to decisions. Was the blokes arms pinned? - yes. Was the head driven into the ground? - yes. Then it is a free kick. It shouldnt matter where, when, to whom, how it occurred or was the guy concussed.

In principle, I agree but you will start to get players diving forward to get the freekick. Some players will do anything to get a free.
I still think that this was HTB. There was no pinning of the arms and the Port player got a free kick because the other guy was too strong. Each to their own.

 

[lionraven]

In principle, I agree but you will start to get players diving forward to get the freekick. Some players will do anything to get a free.
I still think that this was HTB. There was no pinning of the arms and the Port player got a free kick because the other guy was too strong. Each to their own.

That would mean players would need to learn how to tackle effectively. Grabbing and driving forwards is a recipe for disaster - you can get pinged for dangerous tackle, push in the back, trip if the tackle slips down etc. In this instance the North player should have pinned his arms and then rolled onto his back. This way the Port player's head and back is protected. If the ball then rolls out/isnt disposed of then a free paid. Poor tackles shouldnt get rewarded. Penalising poor tackles will mean players will learn to tackle better.

 

[Nunez]

In reflection, different camera angles suggest different results IMO.

Incredibly hard to blame the umpire from where he was standing.

 

[Football Pope]

That free looks fine to me. There's been a huge movement to stop the players driving the head into the ground.

I do wish they'd do something about the soccer mob mentality the players have started using towards the umpires though. It frustrates me when every single free kick the players have to come up to the umps and have a sook about, even if it's clear as day.

EDIT - clarification - when I say that free looks fine - I mean that looks like the free kick call is correct to me

Incredibly hard to blame the umpire from where he was standing.

That is the problem....the free kick was paid by the ‘out of zone’ umpire ( pick that up on the on ground audio 26 sec mark of MSB ROYS post above).. who didn't have full view of the Wright tackle ..Duursma contributes by ducking his head, which is as stupid as all f***

 

[bungalow_bill]

The Bump is back in fashion and how good is it.Sydney Stack,AMT.It can be so damaging and give your team a massive lift.I thought it was a dying art with coaches instructing players to tackle instead because of the risk of high contact and big suspensions being handed out.Love the bump

Needs its own theme song

 

[Dylan12]

Looks like another bad leg injury; this time to the Saints Jack Lonie (footage didn't look great, although I'm pretty squeamish at the best of times).

 

[Dylan12]

Looks like another bad leg injury; this time to the Saints Jack Lonie (footage didn't look great, although I'm pretty squeamish at the best of times).