Therein lies the real problem with the game.And then watch the best football minds in the land exploit it until the game is actually ******
Fix that, and the game will be fine.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Therein lies the real problem with the game.And then watch the best football minds in the land exploit it until the game is actually ******
Sure
Are you suggesting coaches should be coaching an entertaining style over a winning style? Please.Therein lies the real problem with the game.
Fix that, and the game will be fine.
Are you suggesting coaches should be coaching an entertaining style over a winning style? Please.
The only other way to fix that is to reduce the amount of rules that can be exploited, but I don’t think the whingers would agree with that.
The game is turning into Rugby Union, but not because of "density". There's already too many technical rules and free kicks no-one understands. Just like Rugby. Pile of blokes - whistle. No-one knows what for. Open flowing play - whistle. No-one knows what for.
Bring in more rules? Why?
Reckon we should get rid of a few rules.
I tend to agree.
I was watching the other day and saw Curnow juggle it over the boundary and the mark wasn't paid.
Seriously, he marked the pill, but because he juggled it slightly - it wasn't paid. It was highly debatable as to whether he juggled it or not anyway, but the commentators spent 5 minutes arguing about it whilst the players all stood around looking confused as to WTF happened.
Just pay the mark. Why complicate it?
There's plenty of these situations that for some reason, are just over complicated.
Yes.Because he hadn't completed the mark before it was out of play?
I was watching the other day and saw Curnow juggle it over the boundary and the mark wasn't paid.
Seriously, he marked the pill, but because he juggled it slightly - it wasn't paid. It was highly debatable as to whether he juggled it or not anyway, but the commentators spent 5 minutes arguing about it whilst the players all stood around looking confused as to WTF happened.
You are suggesting we remove the tactical side of the game. That’s simply ridiculous. By making it all about skill, you basically make it an individual sport. Win the most one on ones and you win the game. For me that’s missing something. There’s a lot of beauty in 22 players all completely synchronised, and it’s no easy feat like it’s suggested.I'm suggesting that the AFL should worry less about rules to alter play - and more about restricting the coaches ability to turn it into a clogged up defensive mess.
No matter what rules the AFL introduce, the coaches will spend every waking minute to turn it into a defensive, clogged up mess. That's how you win games of sport. So I don't blame them.
I've said this before, and I'll continue to say it:
- No runners
- No quarter time and 3 quarter time addresses
- Players to only have one rest each per half
Done.
Older, experienced players will be come invaluable and extend their careers. Hardcore defensive tactics will break down far quicker without the constant guidance and coaching from the box on game day. Therefore.....wait for it.....players will actually have to play football and think for themselves!
Old school football would return immediately, as coaches would then have to spend their time teaching players how to kick, how to kick goals, how to mark, and basically how to execute the fundamental skills of Australian rules football rather than spending all week teaching them where to stand and where to run to.
IMO, it's very simple. The coaches have hijacked the game, and the AFL has facilitated it.
The game is turning into Rugby Union, but not because of "density". There's already too many technical rules and free kicks no-one understands. Just like Rugby. Pile of blokes - whistle. No-one knows what for. Open flowing play - whistle. No-one knows what for.
Bring in more rules? Why?
Reckon we should get rid of a few rules.
Would have been tough for Buddy to do this if he started in the F50.. this goal still haunts me though!
But the committees and various AFL bureaucracies will have nothing to do over the summer.
Technically, because its a kick out not a stoppage, it could have happened (assuming "starting positions" won't be applied to kick ins)
I assumed it applied to kick ins - wouldn't make sense if it didn't. The whole thing is silly though.
But the committees and various AFL bureaucracies will have nothing to do over the summer.
I tend to agree.
I was watching the other day and saw Curnow juggle it over the boundary and the mark wasn't paid.
Seriously, he marked the pill, but because he juggled it slightly - it wasn't paid. It was highly debatable as to whether he juggled it or not anyway, but the commentators spent 5 minutes arguing about it whilst the players all stood around looking confused as to WTF happened.
Just pay the mark. Why complicate it?
There's plenty of these situations that for some reason, are just over complicated.
Yes.
Although it was so debatable as to whether or not he had in fact juggled it before or after the line, which even on replay couldn't really be determined, that you wonder why even bother?
Would it make everyone's life easier if it was simplified to something like 'if your first touch is within the boundary, then it's a Mark'?
I think the term is 'common sense'.How is that over-complicated? Either you took the mark within the field of play, or the ball crossed the boundary for a throw in: it's literally that straightforward. Your proposal adds far more complexity to it: if a defender gets a clean fist to the ball and it goes over the boundary in the air, for example, it can't be called out of bounds yet now, because he can still theoretically mark the ball until it lands somewhere. Beyond that, all you've done is substituted one grey for another - instead of "did he complete the mark before he went over?", you've made it "did he start the mark before he went over?". How exactly does that make "everyone's life easier"?
The last thing we need to be doing is junking rules (like this one) that make perfect sense. Frankly, with the amount of daft 'solutions' to imagined 'problems' I've seen lately, maybe the people peddling all these rule changes should apply an anti-density rule to themselves first...
Besides, that wasn't a solution for anything really as such.How is that over-complicated? Either you took the mark within the field of play, or the ball crossed the boundary for a throw in: it's literally that straightforward. Your proposal adds far more complexity to it: if a defender gets a clean fist to the ball and it goes over the boundary in the air, for example, it can't be called out of bounds yet now, because he can still theoretically mark the ball until it lands somewhere. Beyond that, all you've done is substituted one grey for another - instead of "did he complete the mark before he went over?", you've made it "did he start the mark before he went over?". How exactly does that make "everyone's life easier"?
The last thing we need to be doing is junking rules (like this one) that make perfect sense. Frankly, with the amount of daft 'solutions' to imagined 'problems' I've seen lately, maybe the people peddling all these rule changes should apply an anti-density rule to themselves first...
Besides, that wasn't a solution for anything really as such.
More of an observation of an unnecessary complication that takes resources away from actual important things.
It's simple - but incredibly hard to adjudicate.Is whether a mark was in the field of play or not really unimportant, unnecessary, or a complication? For a game with marking and a boundary line, that rule is about as simple as it can be. Of all the possible faults one could find with the present laws, it just seemed bizarre that you'd pick out something like this.