"Tackling might go from IR"

[drew_j]

As far as I see it the Irish have the two biggest advantages here.

1. The round ball

2. The ground shape.

All Australia has is the tackling. I'm a fan of IR, but if the tackling goes, so do I. Won't watch it, and I hope the rest of IR supporters in Australia do the same thing.

 

[TigerCraig]

As some of our Irish friends have said, you can't underestimate the effect of the mark too.

Gaelic players are used to delivering the ball to their forwards on the bounce - not on the full, and those receiving it to playing on quickly. The mark, stop, reset, wait for a lead, deliver thing buggers them up.

(But having said that, if the tackle goes so should the game - unless maybe a Sherrin is used)

 

[frankc]

As per usual those that scream like pansies may get their way.

Mabye the Irish coach will want the series stopped if we look at them in a harsh way.

At the end of the day, I'm not really sure what the AFL is trying to achieve with the IR concept.

 

[flanktwo]

Why not just take on the American at girdiron? Or the Canadians at Ice Hockey?

Bring it on! We might be able to see some real fights then

 

[D Mitchell]

... The Irish team lost and , surprise, surprise, they want to change the rules again in their favour ...

Let's not get too hysterical. Andrew Demetriou isn't "they". There's nothing coming out of Ireland about rule changes. I think the Irish would be perfectly happy with the current rules as long as the Australians abided by them and the umpires enforced them.

 

[D Mitchell]

Bring it on! We might be able to see some real fights then

Aaron Davies and Ryan O'Keefe would't be as keen against a 300 pounder who can run evens. None of the coaches would allow their players anywhere near the ground.

 

[Mr Lizard]

How about an AFL/ultimate fighting hybrid?


I think our ball-skills would be superior, but we would struglgle to last 4 quarters

 

[cavanmaniac]

Let's not get too hysterical. Andrew Demetriou isn't "they". There's nothing coming out of Ireland about rule changes. I think the Irish would be perfectly happy with the current rules as long as the Australians abided by them and the umpires enforced them.

Fair play DMitchell, I was wondering how long it would take the resident Oik Brigade on here to turn what basically is DEMETRIOU flying a kite about dropping tackles into the WHINGING IRISH CRYING FOR RULE CHANGES.

 

[cos789]

Gaelic players are used to delivering the ball to their forwards on the bounce - not on the full, and those receiving it to playing on quickly.

There is nothing to prevent them from continuing to play that way .
It should only be an advantage to the Aussies with big long kicks and strategic marks . However the round ball's difficulty prevents this type of play . Both teams are trying to run the ball as fast as possible as the preferred option .

What's the point of banning the tackle . A player was yellow carded for a legitimate bump . Nextplayers will be yellow carded for over exhuberent "steals" when they try and slap the ball away .

Unfortunately the "athletic" faction have removed tackling from the irish game and are still in control of the GAA . However most fans are paying good money to see a physical encounter not an exhibition style game .

.

 

[D Mitchell]

What's the point of banning the tackle . A player was yellow carded for a legitimate bump . Nextplayers will be yellow carded for over exhuberent "steals" when they try and slap the ball away .

If you are referring to the Selwood on Coulter incident, it was legitimate in neither International Rules nor Australian rules. The bump is only permitted shoulder to shoulder in IR and it was too high for legitimacy in Australian rules. Selwood rightly received the yellow card. Had it occurred in Australian Rules, he would have been cited on video for unduly rough play if not reported but he would have got off because the tribunal lets everybody off.

 

[premier]

And didn't various people say before the I R series began that this was a "tough" Irish side that would take it up to the Aussies ? Look what happened !

Yes ?

They did put it up to you physically, they didn't match you skillwise.

The Irish team lost and , surprise, surprise, they want to change the rules again in their favour !

No they don't. Most of the Irish players have said they would love to play next year and not one of them mentioned any rule changes. The only things mentioned about the rules were that the referees didn't implement them properly which was true.

As a matter of fact i don't think the GAA even mentioned a rule change. It was your AFL guy who mentioned it.

The International Rules are ALREADY very much in favour of the Gaelic footballers,and seem to generate nothing but controversy every time Australia wins. We should just give up, reintroduce State Of Origin to Australian Rules ,and let the Irish continue to play with themselves at their own game !

In favour of Ireland, yes. But not by much. I'd say IR at the moment is 55% Gaelic Football, 45% Aussie Rules.

 

[premier]

As far as I see it the Irish have the two biggest advantages here.

1. The round ball

2. The ground shape.

Please explain how the tackle is less of an advantage then the shape of the pitch ? Because thats gonna take some explaining.

All Australia has is the tackling. I'm a fan of IR, but if the tackling goes, so do I. Won't watch it, and I hope the rest of IR supporters in Australia do the same thing.

Imagine a compromise rules game between soccer and rugby. The rugby lads had the tackle and the soccer guys had the ball/shape of field and the goal.

Fairly obviously the Rugby lads would put the starting soccer 11 and the substitutes in hospital but not before destroying them on the scoreboard.

Why would this happen ? Because the Rugby lads can use their tackle and the soccer guys haven't ever experienced anything like it. It completely changes the game.

Put Australia vs America in a compromise rules between Basketball and AR. The basketballers get the court and hoop, the Aussie Rules guys get the tackle. Chris Judd vs Michael Jordan in International Basketfooty.

Gaelic Football and Aussie Rules are very similiar but also very different games. The two biggest advantages are the round ball for us and the tackle for you. Both of those are huge advantages to the respective codes players.

But no they should most definately not get rid of the tackle.

 

[sydney eagle]

Yes ?

They did put it up to you physically, they didn't match you skillwise.



No they don't. Most of the Irish players have said they would love to play next year and not one of them mentioned any rule changes. The only things mentioned about the rules were that the referees didn't implement them properly which was true.

As a matter of fact i don't think the GAA even mentioned a rule change. It was your AFL guy who mentioned it.



In favour of Ireland, yes. But not by much. I'd say IR at the moment is 55% Gaelic Football, 45% Aussie Rules.

If that is the Irish "putting it to us physically" then maybe we should send in the Aussie netballl team next time ! Plenty of posters on here seem to think that the rules need to be changed in favour of the Irish. Weren't there two referees, one of them Irish ? I think that "I R" should be abandoned altogether and just leave both sports to get on with their own agendas and stop trying to create a hybrid game that no-one takes seriously !

 

[D Mitchell]

.... no-one takes seriously !

Front and back pages in two countries and a number of the longest threads in bigfooty. Someone is taking it seriously.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

As for the shape of the ground, that's drawing a long bow IMO. the rectangular grounds are not much different to playing on a ground with deep pockets.

 

[Milkman]

If you are referring to the Selwood on Coulter incident, it was legitimate in neither International Rules nor Australian rules. The bump is only permitted shoulder to shoulder in IR and it was too high for legitimacy in Australian rules. Selwood rightly received the yellow card. Had it occurred in Australian Rules, he would have been cited on video for unduly rough play if not reported but he would have got off because the tribunal lets everybody off.

I don't know the rules in IR as far as the bump goes, but it looked like a perfectly legal AR bump to me. Selwood didn't appear to get him high, and had the elbow tucked in. What was wrong with it?

And how can you say the tribunal lets everybody off?

Players get suspended for brushing up against eachother these days. Selwood being suspended for a bump like that would only be further indication of what a farce the tribunal is.

 

[Horsebox]

It could be a potentially devastating tactic. If caught in possession, kick the ball into a corner of the rectangular pitch. The australian players, having no previous experience of right angles will be too bewildered to successfully retrieve the ball. They will instead charge towards the corner, only to veer away in a curving fashion at the last second crying in frustration, leaving the way clear for the irish to get the ball.

 

[D Mitchell]

.... but it looked like a perfectly legal AR bump to me. Selwood didn't appear to get him high, and had the elbow tucked in. ....

Coulter was hit on the nose, it was bleeding. Sean Cavanagh reckoned the elbow was up, Selwood said it was down. The vision is from 2 angles, one behind Coulter, the other behind Selwood. Both obscure the point of contact but you see Coulter's head flung back. In AFL, if you strike anyone in the face, shoulder or elbow, it's reportable.

 

[Milkman]

Coulter was hit on the nose, it was bleeding. Sean Cavanagh reckoned the elbow was up, Selwood said it was down. The vision is from 2 angles, one behind Coulter, the other behind Selwood. Both obscure the point of contact but you see Coulter's head flung back. In AFL, if you strike anyone in the face, shoulder or elbow, it's reportable.

Now i've only seen the game once, but it seemed pretty clear that there was no contact made with Coulter's face by Selwood. I also recall seeing Selwoods elbow tucked in, as did the commentators. I would suggest the blood nose came from Coulter hitting the deck.

It would be very out of character for Selwood to take a cheap shot like that.

 

[D Mitchell]

.... I would suggest the blood nose came from Coulter hitting the deck.

It would be very out of character for Selwood to take a cheap shot like that.

He went down twisting as he fell with his arms raised to his face in a protective manner. The blood nose came from the tackle. I've had the advantage of watching the incident several times in slow motion. It's out of character for Gilbee to attack another player from behind then to threaten retaliation in the press, for O'Keefe to throw punches at blokes on the ground, for Davey to get into fights with opposition players but they all do it.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

It could be a potentially devastating tactic. If caught in possession, kick the ball into a corner of the rectangular pitch. The australian players, having no previous experience of right angles will be too bewildered to successfully retrieve the ball. They will instead charge towards the corner, only to veer away in a curving fashion at the last second crying in frustration, leaving the way clear for the irish to get the ball.

Funny

 

[Milkman]

He went down twisting as he fell with his arms raised to his face in a protective manner. The blood nose came from the tackle. I've had the advantage of watching the incident several times in slow motion. It's out of character for Gilbee to attack another player from behind then to threaten retaliation in the press, for O'Keefe to throw punches at blokes on the ground, for Davey to get into fights with opposition players but they all do it.

Well like I said, I've only seen it once, so don't have much else to add. But at the time, I couldn't believe that Selwood was yellow carded for it, and nor could the commentators (one being Irish), or Selwood himself, going by the look on his face.

 

[Borry]

Please, do not let this pathetic excuse for an alternative to Australian Rules football replace the current oval ball shaped version. Ever.

 

[D Mitchell]

Well like I said, I've only seen it once, so don't have much else to add. But at the time, I couldn't believe that Selwood was yellow carded for it, and nor could the commentators (one being Irish), or Selwood himself, going by the look on his face.

Quartermain's commentary was pretty ordinary. He claimed it was a fair bump but he also initially called Pearce's tackle on Geraghty fair only later to change his mind and complained that a free kick wasn't given. The Irish commentator, Ger (can't recall his surname), didn't comment on the bump but reported the card as a fact i.e. that it had been given. Have you ever known a player not to look surprised at being penalised ? Selwood's defence consisted of pointing at his shoulder, ignoring the facts that it was
(a) high; and
(b) forbidden in International Rules.

 

[Milkman]

Have you ever known a player not to look surprised at being penalised ?

It wasn't the initial look of surprise. It was him laughing and shaking his head as he jogged off the ground, as if to say "this is a complete joke".

Selwood's defence consisted of pointing at his shoulder, ignoring the facts that it was
(a) high; and
(b) forbidden in International Rules.

How can you say it is "fact" that Selwood got him high, when you yourself claimed there is no conclusive footage?

Coulter's head may have flown back, and he may have copped a blood nose. But he also received a hard unexpected bump, then hit the deck.