Strategy STAND rule

[CaptchaProofBot]

‘No point’: Coach says matter of time before ‘unnatural’ AFL rule change is broken

A major flaw has been discovered in the ‘netball-like’ rule - and coaches are already plotting its downfall.

7news.com.au

 

[VB_longneck]

 

[SplintWhisky]

Absolutely stupid rule. A game will be decided because the Umpire calls a 50m penalty for a player who was not on the mark but 2m behind it moving and then the rule will be scrapped.

 

[VB_longneck]

Absolutely stupid rule. A game will be decided because the Umpire calls a 50m penalty for a player who was not on the mark but 2m behind it moving and then the rule will be scrapped.

hopefully they bin it after the nob cup

 

[juss]

Regardless of how it effects us, it's a completely stupid rule for the game.

We'll see multiple gift goals across the league because a player nudges to the right or left. The punishment is WAY over the top for something that's barely even an infraction.

Secondly, defenders will get caught on the mark and not be able to rotate out and get back, which significantly impacts the strong intercept marking sides in the comp, think us, West Coast, Geelong, Collingwood as some examples.

I hope they see it absolutely abused in the NAB cup resulting in multiple bullshit goals a match and they rightly scrap it.

 

[Serenity_Now]

Remember when they used to trial rules in the pre-season comp? Now sHocking just brings in whatever they like out of the blue.

 

[Ceehook]

……………...

We'll see multiple gift goals across the league because a player nudges to the right or left. ………………………...

correct and that's probably why they are bringing it in ?

footage from games for teams they would like to punish will be shown to the umpires
the smart ones will get the subliminal messaging and take it further

 

[juss]

correct and that's probably why they are bringing it in ?

footage from games for teams they would like to punish will be shown to the umpires
the smart ones will get the subliminal messaging and take it further

They're bringing it in because they want higher scores and more free flowing football, which on the surface looks like a good aim, but the way its being done is diminishing the product. It will lead to more goals off the back of terrible 50m penalties, and the scores will increase but the spectacle will be poor.

 

[VB_longneck]

Remember when they used to trial rules in the pre-season comp? Now sHocking just brings in whatever they like out of the blue.

how does this muppet still have a gig ?

 

[VB_longneck]

there will be a seperate rule for richmond players who are not allowed to even move a finger to the side

richmond players will pretty much be full body duc taped in the one spot and cant move or else a 50m penalty will be awarded.

other clubs players can move a bit without a 50 being given


shocking will send out this image to the umps with *for richmond players only

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Nothing but disaster, game is getting harder and harder to watch because of these idiotic rules .

 

[Dr Tigris]

They're bringing it in because they want higher scores and more free flowing football, which on the surface looks like a good aim, but the way its being done is diminishing the product. It will lead to more goals off the back of terrible 50m penalties, and the scores will increase but the spectacle will be poor.

Up front it'll increase 50m penalties. the players will adjust. But it gives guys like Shai much more room to use his evasion to break lines. I reckon over time this will suit us.

 

[juss]

Up front it'll increase 50m penalties. the players will adjust. But it gives guys like Shai much more room to use his evasion to break lines. I reckon over time this will suit us.

I dont. I reckon we'll lose a lot of advantage with our intercept defensive style when guys like Grimes, Astbury, Balta or Vlastuin get stuck on the mark upfield.

 

[Dr Tigris]

I dont. I reckon we'll lose a lot of advantage with our intercept defensive style when guys like Grimes, Astbury, Balta or Vlastuin get stuck on the mark upfield.

I don't know. Yes it'll do that, but we have so many good intercept marks I suspect it won't make a lot of difference. And the assumption is that it means a lot of ground will open up. Which is irrelevant if players aren't there and open. So unless teams beat our defensive running and structures they'll be free to kick it to .... grass.

It only opens up kicks straight down the line, so what?

It does allow your more evasive and smarter players opportunities to move it on quick. But only to someone that's already there. We play that way. Teams that do the kick mark rinse repeat, don't tend to do that. They need time to set up forward of the ball. This rule change doesn't help them much IMO. It's your run and gun, kick it to the grass or a contest sides that will be advantaged.

Or put it another way, this allows quick play on and that only helps you if you have someone deep already who can take advantage of that. We back Tom, Jack or Dusty to at least half a contest. This then brings in our smalls and forward defensive structures. teams like Geelong like it one on one deep with marking forwards who aren't awesome on the ground.

Overall I don't see it will make much difference except increase umpiring silliness. But in terms of game style this is already what we do, and the AFL love children don't do. we'll see, but I reckon it'll help us.

 

[juss]

I don't know. Yes it'll do that, but we have so many good intercept marks I suspect it won't make a lot of difference. And the assumption is that it means a lot of ground will open up. Which is irrelevant if players aren't there and open. So unless teams beat our defensive running and structures they'll be free to kick it to .... grass.

It only opens up kicks straight down the line, so what?

It does allow your more evasive and smarter players opportunities to move it on quick. But only to someone that's already there. We play that way. Teams that do the kick mark rinse repeat, don't tend to do that. They need time to set up forward of the ball. This rule change doesn't help them much IMO. It's your run and gun, kick it to the grass or a contest sides that will be advantaged.

Or put it another way, this allows quick play on and that only helps you if you have someone deep already who can take advantage of that. We back Tom, Jack or Dusty to at least half a contest. This then brings in our smalls and forward defensive structures. teams like Geelong like it one on one deep with marking forwards who aren't awesome on the ground.

Overall I don't see it will make much difference except increase umpiring silliness. But in terms of game style this is already what we do, and the AFL love children don't do. we'll see, but I reckon it'll help us.

Yeh, regardless of the which team it helps/hinders, overall I think it's a detriment to the game. We are going to see a lot of silly 50m penalties and goals. It's a rule that might have a reasonable intention, but poor a idea on how to realise that.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Yeh, regardless of the which team it helps/hinders, overall I think it's a detriment to the game. We are going to see a lot of silly 50m penalties and goals. It's a rule that might have a reasonable intention, but poor a idea on how to realise that.

SHocking wants us to play AFLX. Gil supports that.

Their problem is that fans don't want to watch it. So they keep introducing rule changes to head toward that objective. the coaches and players then don't do what they were supposed to and footy goes on.

Just enforce the rules that we've had forever clearly and consistently and I'm happy. e.g. I get so angry when players get tackled, go to the ground and dispose of the ball legally. Sorry they got tackled tot eh ground, it's holding the ball. I don't care if it's a tiger or not. Clear, clean and simple. Award those frees and watch players move it on faster. Similar sort of things where the interpretation has moved causing grey areas and frustration.

 

[Soberian Tiger]

This is the anti-Kamdyn rule.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Absolutely stupid rule. A game will be decided because the Umpire calls a 50m penalty for a player who was not on the mark but 2m behind it moving and then the rule will be scrapped.

You'd expect bolton edwards Rioli etc. Go nuts

 

[Vassp]

Another F@@@ed up rule to award a cheap 50 mtr penalty, seriously treat us like sheep.

How about they fix existing rules before they introduce new ones.

 

[biaseddustyfan]

Another F@@@ed up rule to award a cheap 50 mtr penalty, seriously treat us like sheep.

How about they fix existing rules before they introduce new ones.

nothing more boring in the game than scores from 50m penalties

 

[CaptchaProofBot]

nothing more boring in the game than scores from 50m penalties

it's all an advertising ploy......oh here's another 50m brought to you by HockingStuart...oh there's another 50m brought to you by Castran Gilbert

 

[Vassp]

nothing more boring in the game than scores from 50m penalties

you know how they think.... lets give the sheep more goals - yeah, ohhh, ahh, = more is better right?

Soon it will be like heading towards the high scoring basketball, when a goal is scored and it's like, ok, yeah another goal.....

AFLX was a bore fest. pretty easy fix.

Soccer, most popular sport in the world and has fewer goals but you got to work hard for them.

 

[Nostradumbass]

What a bunch of ******* idiots. This rule will disappear after round 1.

 

[tigs2010]

When you think they can’t make worse rules they outdo themselves.
Has there been a bigger ********** in world sport than Simon Hocking?

the 18 best coaches in the country will find away to use this to advantage in the completely opposite way these ******s in suits intended it

 

[k31th]

I don't think the "no sideways" will affect our gameplay style that much, realistically, other than a few over-zealous umpiring decisions in R1 for sure.

The big effect across the league will come from the "no replacing the man on the mark" as this gives the team in possession a huge advantage of being able to run through the mark and gain 10+ metres of advantage on your man who has to run around the mark (10m otherwise protected zone free) and then try and get back into a position to get back to your man, which in a lot of cases will be impossible to do before this man can be used in a linking play up-field.

On top of this the person stuck on the mark will almost always be a defender who's been dragged up the field so mids and half-forwards will be forced to run hard back to defence otherwise we'll have nobody and when we do have somebody it'll be a non-specialist defender... If any rule change was likely to increase scoring legitimately (rather than hopefully), this one is it.