Roast State of the modern game; Clarkson

[Bone71]

Whilst I quite like reducing rotations and even removing a couple of players per side on the ground surely the first step is to protect the ball winner.

Ping holding the man and high first foremost - make sure the tackler gets it right otherwise they cough up the free. Once the ball winner has sufficient protection then the onus is on them to dispose of it correctly if the tackle is legal.

Yes it will result in soft frees and players will attempt to draw high (ducking should never be accepted but lowering at the knees and rolling the shoulders shouldnt give the tackler a free pass) & in the back but since they are the ball winner then they should be afforded every chance to clear the area. Rewarding tackling can only come after it is done correctly and the player with the ball fails to legally dispose of it.

Once the ball winner has that extra split second most will succeed in moving the ball out of the immediate area.

 

[Laphroaig]

Ping holding the man and high first foremost - make sure the tackler gets it right otherwise they cough up the free. Once the ball winner has sufficient protection then the onus is on them to dispose of it correctly if the tackle is legal.

Hand that man a cigar. But add in the back to the list.

If we want freer flowing football then giving the ball player / playmaker a fair shake is the essential starting point.

Once we reach the point where we insist that tackles must be made fairly and in accordance with the rules (and at this time we are miles away from that) then it becomes so much simpler knowing when to ping him for not disposing of it fairly and in accordance with the rules.

It is my opinion that there is an observable progression. Over a period of time the liberties tacklers have been allowed has increased at a steady rate. The reward the tackler shouters are to blame.

Over the same time there has been a constant undercurrent of opinion that too many free kicks is an evil thing. So through no conscious decision, to avoid too many free kicks it has gradually become normal that ball knocked free in the tackle also means just chuck it away.

Once we have both the tackler and the ball winner forced to play by the rules (the actual rules not ever changing "interpretations"), let's add one more refinement.

Example. How many times do we see a player pinned over the ball and deemed in possession mange to squirt it out, only to have an opponent drag it back under? Why on earth would we not award a free kick AGAINST the bloke who shoved it back in?

 

[Bjo187]

The only way you spread the field is to have starting points but at every stoppage is too much and too hard to police, it's too restrictive.

I have always thought it should only be when the ball is outside the field of play, being boundary throw ins and after points are scored. There are about 10 throw ins per quarter and 5 behinds (spreading the field about 15x during 30 min quarters) it takes 15 seconds or more from the time the ball goes out till a throw in occurs. This allows players to get back in their area but also fatigues them to the point they'll be reluctant to leave that end of the ground for fear of not getting back in time. It's the easiest and most long term solution to spread the field naturally without impacting on the players being able to move around the ground freely during normal play and heavily disrupts zone set up ups by not being able to constantly have all players within 50m of the ball.

 

[RookiePick]

Every suggestion with zoning as its core principle I strongly disagree with.

 

[Accepted 04]

So you have no idea what the game was pre 2005, therefore how could you possible know that it was boring.

Because I’ve watched old ‘classic’ games and they are boring...

 

[Bjo187]

Every suggestion with zoning as its core principle I strongly disagree with.

Zoning is what all modern teams do to defend, or do you mean starting points when the ball is out of the field of play?

 

[RookiePick]

Zoning is what all modern teams do to defend, or do you mean starting points when the ball is out of the field of play?

Starting positions. Minimum numbers of players i50 at all times. Anything that looks to restrict player movement.

It's unnecessary and it fundamentally changes the game. In my opinion.

 

[footyfan1978]

 

[footyfan1978]

Mutation for a good 15 years.

 

[2Knights]

Because I’ve watched old ‘classic’ games and they are boring...

Then watch the 1984 WA vs Victoria State of Origin game. Great football display by the best players of the day, including 8 goals by Gary Sr. Long kicks, great marking, 1 on 1 contests. No rolling mauls, no stop-start short passing, no backwards kicking, very little throwing. You won't see anything better in today's AFL, not even close.

 

[Power Raid]

The game is definitely less attractive than 15 to 30 years ago

The AFL have to work hard to repeal the rules that have lead to this outcome.

 

[Topkent]

Because I’ve watched old ‘classic’ games and they are boring...

The last 15 years of this sport they've turned the world's greatest game into something so boring i can barely watch my own team anymore.

You have no idea what you missed out on

 

[Back One Out]

The game is already heavily weighted in favour of the tackler.

Absolute rubbish.

The vast majority of free kicks are for in the back, high tackles and holding the man paid against the tackler to the ball player/stager.
The other 30% of frees are for rucking & marking interference: holding the man, blocks, etc.

As Clarkson pointed out in his press conference last week:

Haw: 69 tackles, 12 free kicks, 0 free kicks for holding the ball
NM: 47 tackles, 21 free kicks, maybe 1 free kick for HTB??? No more than that...

Tot. free kicks: 33
Tot. HTB frees: 0 or 1
Tot. tackles: 116


Laphroaig: "The game is already heavily weighted in favour of the tackler"

Yeah, sure...

And we are going to achieve a cleaner more open game, and highlight the skills of the "non hack" inside player by giving the tackler a leg up. Good luck with that.

For the past 5 years, the AFL have directed umpires to let the game flow and to protect the ball player at all costs & given them leeway for incorrect disposal. (Don't over umpire... Fewer bounces... Fewer free kicks... ) Games have become more congested and the AFL have fiddled about with silly new rules and silly new interpretations (I listed a few earlier in the thread---> Link.)

Instead of making more stupid new rules (like '15-a-side') maybe now it's time to start applying the actual written laws of the game. LOL at anyone who disputes Clarko for pointing out the HTB rules have been incorrectly adjudicated. Even the AFL admits they got it wrong and have tried to correct things for this round!


Read the HTB rules...

17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
(a) Where a player has had Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the ball immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
(b) Where a Player has not had Prior Opportunity, the field Umpire will call for a ball up when the tackler holds the ball to the body of the Player or the ball is otherwise pinned to the ground.

17.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player has had No Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the ball when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the ball when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession

17.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player is able but makes no genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the ball when tackled, a Free Kick shall be awarded.

17.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who dives on top of or drags the ball underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the ball when tackled

 

[Laphroaig]

Then watch the 1984 WA vs Victoria State of Origin game. Great football display by the best players of the day, including 8 goals by Gary Sr. Long kicks, great marking, 1 on 1 contests. No rolling mauls, no stop-start short passing, no backwards kicking, very little throwing. You won't see anything better in today's AFL, not even close.

I would point a few qualifiers out.

• You are talking about 36 of the best 50 players in the game
• At a time when the drop in quality outside the elite, particularly in quality of disposal by hand and foot, was far steeper than it is today
• In State of Origin which was, by unspoken agreement, always played in a super attacking, open attacking manner by both teams
• And was also by unspoken agreement nowhere near the physical aggression of a final or important Club game.

So hardly a compelling argument.

 

[Laphroaig]

Absolute rubbish.

The vast majority of free kicks are for in the back, high tackles and holding the man paid against the tackler to the ball player/stager.
The other 40% of frees are for rucking & marking interference, holding the man, blocks, etc.

Asd Clarko pointed out in his press conference last week,

Hawthorn: 69 tackles, 12 free kicks, 0 free kicks for holding the ball
North Melb: 47 tackles, 21 free kicks, maybe 1 free kick for HTB??? No more than that...

Total free kicks: 33
Total HTB frees: 0 or 1
Total tackles: 116


"The game is already heavily weighted in favour of the tackler"

For the past 5 years, the AFL have directed umpires to let the game flow and to protect the ball player at all costs & given them leeway for incorrect disposal. (Don't over umpire... Fewer bounces... Fewer free kicks... )

Meanwhile they've watched most games become more and more congested and they've fiddled about with all sorts of silly new rules and new interpretations (which I listed earlier in the thread. Link.)

So instead of making more new rules (like '15-a-side') maybe now it's time to start applying the actual written laws of the game.
LOL at anyone who disputes this, or questions Clarko for pointing out the HTB rules have been incorrectly adjudicated.
The AFL have even admitted they got it wrong!



Read the HTB rules...

17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
(a) Where a player has had Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the ball immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
(b) Where a Player has not had Prior Opportunity, the field Umpire will call for a ball up when the tackler holds the ball to the body of the Player or the ball is otherwise pinned to the ground.

17.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player has had No Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the ball when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the ball when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession

17.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player is able but makes no genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football when tackled, a Free Kick shall be awarded.

17.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when tackled

TLDR.

I might bother to, if the point of the whole thing was not to say but but Clarko is right.

Is the ball carrier permitted to push players in the back, sit on them and put them in a headlock without penalty once the tackle is applied?

No. And for as long as tackling players ARE permitted to do that, the game is heavily weighted in favor of the tackler.

But but Clarko or not.

 

[Back One Out]

TLDR.

At least just read the rules, for god's sake.

That way you'll be better informed and you won't be arguing from a position of complete ignorance.


17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
(a) Where a player has had Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the ball immediately when they are legally tackled.
(b) Where a Player has not had Prior Opportunity, the field Umpire will call for a ball up when the tackler holds the ball to the body of the Player or the ball is otherwise pinned to the ground.

17.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player has had No Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the ball when legally tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the ball when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession

17.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player is able but makes no genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football when tackled, a Free Kick shall be awarded.

17.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when tackled

 

[Back One Out]

But but Clarko or not.

The thread is about Clarko's comments last week and the AFL's comical attempts to "fix the game"
[the clue is in the thread title]

If you don't like the topic, then don't post here.

Why don't you go back to Bay 13 and post some more of those infantile anti-Clarkson diatribes you were infamous for.
You're clearly not here to have honest genuine discussion about incorrect disposal and congestion in the game

 

[Laphroaig]

At least just read the rules, for god's sake.

That way you'll be better informed and you won't be arguing from a position of complete ignorance.


17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
(a) Where a player has had Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the ball immediately when they are legally tackled.
(b) Where a Player has not had Prior Opportunity, the field Umpire will call for a ball up when the tackler holds the ball to the body of the Player or the ball is otherwise pinned to the ground.

17.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player has had No Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the ball when legally tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the ball when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession

17.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player is able but makes no genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football when tackled, a Free Kick shall be awarded.

17.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when tackled

It's a snide tactic to do that once, in the attempt to suggest I don't know what the rules say.

To do it again, with no accompanying content, is utterly juvenile.

 

[Back One Out]

It's a snide tactic to do that once, in the attempt to suggest I don't know what the rules say.

To do it again, with no accompanying content, is utterly juvenile.

Laphroaig: "The game is already heavily weighted in favour of the tackler"


Haw: 69 tackles, 12 free kicks, 0 free kicks for holding the ball
NM: 47 tackles, 21 free kicks, maybe 1 free kick for HTB??? No more than that...

Tot. free kicks: 33
Tot. HTB frees: 0 or 1
Tot. tackles: 116

 

[JT_the_Man]

This isn’t what needed changing.

They needed to start paying incorrect disposal, the ball is thrown out of every third tackle.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Amazing how the ball keeps moving when players know they will get pinged. Almost every game this weekend Has had less scrimmages. Wonder why that is.

pretty simple really.

 

[hk89]

It's a snide tactic to do that once, in the attempt to suggest I don't know what the rules say.

To do it again, with no accompanying content, is utterly juvenile.

Perhaps he decided providing you with logical content was a waste of time. The last time he tried to do that you responded with TLDR. ADHD is a curse.

 

[Laphroaig]

The thread is about Clarko's comments last week and the AFL's comical attempts to "fix the game"
[the clue is in the thread title]

If you don't like the topic, then don't post here.

Why don't you go back to Bay 13 and post some more of those infantile anti-Clarkson diatribes you were infamous for.
You're clearly not here to have honest genuine discussion about incorrect disposal and congestion in the game

Oh. He turns to abuse and denigration? Play the man. Wotasurprise.

Have a scroll through this thread, and note the wide variety of club supporters represented. I challenge you to find more than one team where there is any consistency of opinion among supporters. In fact you'll struggle to find even two supporters of any one of those other clubs who voice the same opinion.

And yet the supporters of one club have hurtled into these threads like a herd of Wilderbeast, to emphatically voice their opinion. And strangely, unlike all other clubs, every single one of them singing the same song, in the same key, to the same backing music.

That's called groupthink, in fact I couldn't think of a better way to describe what groupthink is than to describe this example. It's much more illustrative of the phenomenon than the formal definition is.

Its a credibility killer. As a groupthinker, you have no right to question the basis or motive of anybody else's opinion.

 

[iameviljez]

Every suggestion with zoning as its core principle I strongly disagree with.

So do I, completely, and the fact that I am even considering it as being plausible is something which highlights how dire the state of our game has become over the last five years in particular.

 

[Laphroaig]

Perhaps he decided providing you with logical content was a waste of time. The last time he tried to do that you responded with TLDR. ADHD is a curse.

Ahh right on cue. Another wilderbeast crosses the river.

ADHD may be a curse, but blind groupthink is worse.