Oppo Camp Regular Non Eagles Discussion

[Seadog]

I'm sure you will be all glad to hear the AFL has released a new lot of rule changes for next year because.....Why Not!!!
Down to 75 interchanges
5m more room for kick ins
50m penalty for any lateral movement on the mark (I know)
lost interest after that, there may be more.

 

[Biggie]

lost interest after that, there may be more

Yeah for the VFL there is

 

[Coasters7]

I'm sure you will be all glad to hear the AFL has released a new lot of rule changes for next year because.....Why Not!!!
Down to 75 interchanges
5m more room for kick ins
50m penalty for any lateral movement on the mark (I know)
lost interest after that, there may be more.

Lateral manning of the mark being banned is okay as long as the umps are tight on the player with the ball. The only reason lateral movement exists is because the ball user seems to get a 10 metre radius in which to move before being called to play on (unless it’s a WC defender with the ball).

The other thing they’ve banned is “mark substitution”. So whoever mans the mark initially can’t be replaced if a player loses his man around the mark and needs to be covered. Going to increase the shithousery on the mark.. can’t wait for the first 3 rounds where it’s a complete balls up and some “unexpected” situations occur before they have to “adjust” it once again.

 

[Seadog]

Lateral manning of the mark being banned is okay as long as the umps are tight on the player with the ball. The only reason lateral movement exists is because the ball user seems to get a 10 metre radius in which to move before being called to play on (unless it’s a WC defender with the ball).

The other thing they’ve banned is “mark substitution”. So whoever mans the mark initially can’t be replaced if a player loses his man around the mark and needs to be covered. Going to increase the shithousery on the mark.. can’t wait for the first 3 rounds where it’s a complete balls up and some “unexpected” situations occur before they have to “adjust” it once again.

Basically the man on the mark has to let the kicker run around him or he'll get pinged, half the time the umps let the player with the ball wander around for 3 or 4 steps before running and playing on before the ump will call it, all the while the man on the mark will have to be stationary. Just creating problems .

 

[Smeg Head]

Lateral manning of the mark being banned is okay as long as the umps are tight on the player with the ball. The only reason lateral movement exists is because the ball user seems to get a 10 metre radius in which to move before being called to play on (unless it’s a WC defender with the ball).

The other thing they’ve banned is “mark substitution”. So whoever mans the mark initially can’t be replaced if a player loses his man around the mark and needs to be covered. Going to increase the shithousery on the mark.. can’t wait for the first 3 rounds where it’s a complete balls up and some “unexpected” situations occur before they have to “adjust” it once again.

No more mark substitution? No wonder Mason Cox

46

Mason Cox

Age

33

Ht

211cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.7

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.2

4star

D

6.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.3

2star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

complained about the changes.

 

[RookiePick]

Basically the man on the mark has to let the kicker run around him or he'll get pinged, half the time the umps let the player with the ball wander around for 3 or 4 steps before running and playing on before the ump will call it, all the while the man on the mark will have to be stationary. Just creating problems . open, attractive footy

AFL'd it for ya.

 

[ziad]

Lateral manning of the mark being banned is okay as long as the umps are tight on the player with the ball. The only reason lateral movement exists is because the ball user seems to get a 10 metre radius in which to move before being called to play on (unless it’s a WC defender with the ball).

The other thing they’ve banned is “mark substitution”. So whoever mans the mark initially can’t be replaced if a player loses his man around the mark and needs to be covered. Going to increase the shithousery on the mark.. can’t wait for the first 3 rounds where it’s a complete balls up and some “unexpected” situations occur before they have to “adjust” it once again.

used to be two steps off the line and its play on. garbage umpiring lately

 

[Wild Kelly]

No more mark substitution? No wonder Mason Cox

46

Mason Cox

Age

33

Ht

211cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.7

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.2

4star

D

6.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.3

2star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

complained about the changes.

$500k of his alleged $600k salary is as a result of this KPI. i.e. standing on the mark.

 

[Wild Kelly]

Surely they will also pay 50m for players jumping up and down or waving their arms too.

 

[Coasters7]

No more mark substitution? No wonder Mason Cox

46

Mason Cox

Age

33

Ht

211cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.7

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.2

4star

D

6.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.3

2star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

complained about the changes.

600k a year as a specialist mark manner. On par with NFL punters getting paid millions to torp the ball down the field 5 times a game.

 

[kane249]

600k a year as a specialist mark manner. On par with NFL punters getting paid millions to torp the ball down the field 5 times a game.

Collingwood should have just gone with one of these instead

Would also be full of less hot air than Mason...

 

[Godfather32]

Yeah for the VFL there is

The day the AFL brings in auskick style zones is the day I pretty much lose all interest. So looking like 2022.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

To be honest penalising players running in a big semi circle around the mark whilst being on the mark is long overdue. That rule is a great change.

They better not bring those Eastcoast VFL rules into the seniors.

 

[Bender_]

Get in quick guys!

 

[Shuestar13]

Get in quick guys!

View attachment 1014325

WOW. I trust this will put an end to the “Worst Australian’s bias” claims from over yonder? Not even Nic has had something like that

 

[Avalor]

WOW. I trust this will put an end to the “Worst Australian’s bias” claims from over yonder? Not even Nic has had something like that

He probably wouldn't want it either. Fyfe's head is bigger by quite some margin.

 

[Dylan82]

Get in quick guys!

View attachment 1014325

It's not actually Fyfe in the photo - just a wax model that he likes to spend his afternoons gazing over.

Details of the article will probably expand that Fyfe has several of these placed throughout his abode in various contrived positions with each other.

 

[Shuestar13]

He probably wouldn't want it either. Fyfe's head is bigger by quite some margin.

I agree 100%
This... whatever it is though certainly goes against the continuing “media against us” crusade from certain places

 

[boondy]

Dont mind them reducing the interchanges the less the better . Back in the old days when players were more fatigued they stayed in their positions . More 1v 1 was a much better game .

 

[kaII]

Dont mind them reducing the interchanges the less the better . Back in the old days when players were more fatigued they stayed in their positions . More 1v 1 was a much better game .

Why are you posting here Hocking?

Btw you're wrong

 

[shooshka]

Why are you posting here Hocking?

Btw you're wrong

I do wonder if these rules will help us (and maybe hurt the really 'high pressure' teams).

No lateral movement on the mark is huge for us - it opens up a heap of short kicking options
Less interchange, whilst a negative for someone like NN - is significant as we play a (generally) taller team (KPP usually spend more TOG) and also have Gaff, Duggan, Cripps et al who all spend high % of TOG.


I just hope the zones never make it to AFL level. I can deal with 6/6/6 at the CB (which, to be honest is a rubbish rule anyway as I'm not sure a team has ever been penalised for it - only warned), but zones for every stoppage will be too much.

 

[Dylan82]

Dont mind them reducing the interchanges the less the better . Back in the old days when players were more fatigued they stayed in their positions . More 1v 1 was a much better game .

The problem is that players on average are far superior in their fitness now when compared to previous eras. So what tends to happen lately with reduced interchanges is that players are still covering ground but start to reduce the amount of risk in their disposal as they fatigue.

Less risk in disposal amounts to less scoring, which explains why there is a statistically strong correlation between interchanges and scoring.

So ironically, the change reducing the number of interchanges will likely have a negative impact upon scoring, which is the exact opposite of its intention.


Once again absolute muppets governing and making rule changes to a sport when they don't have any comprehension of how it is currently played.

 

[boondy]

The problem is that players on average are far superior in their fitness now when compared to previous eras. So what tends to happen lately with reduced interchanges is that players are still covering ground but start to reduce the amount of risk in their disposal as they fatigue.

Less risk in disposal amounts to less scoring, which explains why there is a statistically strong correlation between interchanges and scoring.

So ironically, the change reducing the number of interchanges will likely have a negative impact upon scoring, which is the exact opposite of its intention.


Once again absolute muppets governing and making rule changes to a sport when they don't have any comprehension of how it is currently played.

Afl interchanges changed our game . Now it is like basketball .
Gaff would be a superstar if he was back in the 70's like Peter Featherby was . Kennedy would have been a Dunstal , Lockett because of his accuracy . Our contested marking defenders would have also loved the 70's . They were the days my friend .
I thought they'd never end .

 

[Dylan82]

I do wonder if these rules will help us (and maybe hurt the really 'high pressure' teams).

No lateral movement on the mark is huge for us - it opens up a heap of short kicking options
Less interchange, whilst a negative for someone like NN - is significant as we play a (generally) taller team (KPP usually spend more TOG) and also have Gaff, Duggan, Cripps et al who all spend high % of TOG.


I just hope the zones never make it to AFL level. I can deal with 6/6/6 at the CB (which, to be honest is a rubbish rule anyway as I'm not sure a team has ever been penalised for it - only warned), but zones for every stoppage will be too much.

If interpreted to the letter, the change in ruling on the mark will significantly help teams like Geelong who short kick out of defence. However, if they go down that avenue there will be x20 50m penalties every match just because the defender took a step sideways after the player with the ball came off the mark, but the umpire hadn't yet called play on... Therefore, I see it becoming yet another of those rules that exist but get "softened" in interpretation over time, only for it to infuriate us when it is actually paid as written once every round.

As a result I don't see it impacting negatively upon pressure tactics to any great extent, those teams will likely just focus more on the prevention of opponent marks from occurring in certain areas that could benefit from this rule change.

I can foresee 6-6-6 eventually coming in at kick-ins, but the logistics of enforcing it for stoppages elsewhere will cause far too much time delay for any practical purpose and likely precipitate another wave of negative coaching as a defensive means of preventing opponents from exploiting space forward of the stoppage. Personally, I hate 6-6-6 zoning as it limits the available options for coaches and thus limits the growth of the sport.

The constant fixation with kick-ins sums up the current situation - each year we see change after change around the kick-ins as a means of opening up play etc, yet those making these changes also fail to realise that kick-ins result in just 1% of all scoring outcomes in matches.

 

[Cuzz09]

make all the rule changes in the world but we aren't getting close to winning it unless we get some mungrel and hunger back.

until then we tiptoe through the tulips happy making zillions and coming 5th