The numpty questions thread

[weevil]

...Back in 2001 I noticed that we were playing the huddle once out of the blue every coupe of games. Whereas we played a normal kick out structure all the rest of the time. Thought it was bizarre and could not see the sense in doing it.

Cut to the 2001 grand final and all of a sudden we played the huddle on the Bombers the whole day.

We had been very discreetly practicing the huddle all year in preparation to surprise the opposition with it in the big one.

The instant I saw us doing it the whole rest of the year made sense. Pure genius.

 

[Propagandhi]

Can someone explain to me the "in the back" rule? What's the difference between tackling from behind and "in the back"? This is something that has confused me for years

 

[Grimreepah]

Can someone explain to me the "in the back" rule? What's the difference between tackling from behind and "in the back"? This is something that has confused me for years

When you tackle from behind you're not supposed to 'propel them forward' which can be bloody hard if both people are already moving in that direction.

That and the head high rule piss me off no end. It's just creates a plethora of soft free kicks over and over again in every game for these absolutely minor incidents that don't even matter.

 

[Propagandhi]

ahh, is that it. Interesting. Cheers Reepah

 

[POBT]

When you tackle from behind you're not supposed to 'propel them forward' which can be bloody hard if both people are already moving in that direction.

That and the head high rule piss me off no end. It's just creates a plethora of soft free kicks over and over again in every game for these absolutely minor incidents that don't even matter.

I have a major problem with the "in the back" rule. Not so much for a "push" in the back but when a player makes a great tackle and the opponent collapses forward at the merest contact, a free kick should not be awarded. One of the best things about footy is that it is a 360° game - by over-zealously policing "in the back", you make it difficult to defend from the "rear quarter" of the play. I just don't understand the logic of having such a pedantic interpretation of the rule.

 

[GabbaGirl]

I remembered my other numpty question for this week ...

Key Positional Players - please explain? Does this refer to certain positions or is it more about the players?

 

[POBT]

I would equate it to being players who are capable of playing in a key position (ie fullback, centre half back, centre half forward and full forward). That is, even though you traditionally only have 4 key positions, you might have 6 "KPPs" on the ground at any one time - eg if the Lions had Brown, Bradshaw and Clark in the forward line and Merrett, Roe and Patfull in defence. It is probably more about size and weight than anything else.

 

[brisbanelioness]

On whether the Club is looking for a big win this weekend against Melbourne:

"I certainly hope not. That is the greatest trap. I hope our players are mature enough not to fall into it."

Well I would certainly fall into that trap because I don't understand what Lethal means. Why wouldn't we want to win by a big margin? Isn't that good for our percentages and ultimately our ladder position?

 

[NANX]

I thought he meant the players are mature enough not to already have it locked in as a win. The trap is going into the game with it already won in their head and therefore underperforming.

 

[acuguy]

I remembered my other numpty question for this week ...

Key Positional Players - please explain? Does this refer to certain positions or is it more about the players?

Fullback, Centre Half Back,Centre, Centre Half Forward, Full Forward and Ruckman are your key position footballers in the traditonal sense of the term. Another term is your teams spine

 

[mish33]

Got a few for ya'll...

What, in BF terms, is a troll?

Also, is there a good page of lions links out there? Seems like there's a whole bunch of resources that the guys on here are using, besides the papers and the official website. like afqtube for the ressies. Call me obsessive, but I like to keep up with whats going down...

 

[weevil]

Got a few for ya'll...

What, in BF terms, is a troll?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Also, is there a good page of lions links out there? Seems like there's a whole bunch of resources that the guys on here are using, besides the papers and the official website. like afqtube for the ressies. Call me obsessive, but I like to keep up with whats going down...

We are working on something that should be able to help out with this sort of thing.

Will be good to go with it when Chief gets his shit together.

...So it might be a while yet...

 

[danielcan]

If we had four TALL forwards inside 50, can one of them still crumb?

 

[awesome_assassin]

Ok guys i got a numpty question.
If player A kicks it to player B and it falls say 5 metres short of him, but nobody within 30 metres of him, so he gathers possesion of the ball.
Is that first kick classed as an Effective Disposal, i mean it didn't hit Player B on the chest, but he still maintained possesion?

 

[acuguy]

That is not a numpty question, that is one for the ages!

 

[chopperduck]

Ok guys i got a numpty question.
If player A kicks it to player B and it falls say 5 metres short of him, but nobody within 30 metres of him, so he gathers possesion of the ball.
Is that first kick classed as an Effective Disposal, i mean it didn't hit Player B on the chest, but he still maintained possesion?

thats a fair call, cos there are times where a player under pressure will just clear it towards another player, i guess if its contested its ineffective, but if player b gathers the ball uncontested it would be effective. thats what i make of it anyway

 

[chopperduck]

I have a major problem with the "in the back" rule. Not so much for a "push" in the back but when a player makes a great tackle and the opponent collapses forward at the merest contact, a free kick should not be awarded. One of the best things about footy is that it is a 360° game - by over-zealously policing "in the back", you make it difficult to defend from the "rear quarter" of the play. I just don't understand the logic of having such a pedantic interpretation of the rule.

yeah, especially when the ball carrier has been stuffing around with it and deserved to get done for holding the ball and instead they get a free for in the back.

we all know the biggest mystery of mankind is why brown doesn't get any frees for push outs, jumper pulling or in the back in the marking contest. if someone could explain that one id shake his/her hand and buy them a beer

 

[dlanod]

Ok guys i got a numpty question.
If player A kicks it to player B and it falls say 5 metres short of him, but nobody within 30 metres of him, so he gathers possesion of the ball.
Is that first kick classed as an Effective Disposal, i mean it didn't hit Player B on the chest, but he still maintained possesion?

From what I've seen on the AFL website where they maintain the flow of the game through their little applet, something like that is usually an ineffective disposal followed by an uncontested possession to the teammate. It also depends whether it's a kick to advantage, where the teammate can run on to it going forward, versus a simple stuff-up.

 

[Caraboo]

Ok nearly put this on the end of this bumped old thread

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179869

but then thought, no this is probably a numpty question.

What is a bicycle kick?

 

[campbell]

Ok nearly put this on the end of this bumped old thread

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179869

but then thought, no this is probably a numpty question.

What is a bicycle kick?

body horizontal, in air, kicks over head to goal. u know the one.

freakish stuff.

 

[Grimreepah]

Ok nearly put this on the end of this bumped old thread

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179869

but then thought, no this is probably a numpty question.

What is a bicycle kick?

[YOUTUBE]I38Fln4ULo8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Old Den]

I have a major problem with the "in the back" rule. Not so much for a "push" in the back but when a player makes a great tackle and the opponent collapses forward at the merest contact, a free kick should not be awarded. One of the best things about footy is that it is a 360° game - by over-zealously policing "in the back", you make it difficult to defend from the "rear quarter" of the play. I just don't understand the logic of having such a pedantic interpretation of the rule.

"In the back" decisions are so inconsistent that it is a good idea not to get upset about the shockers - just hope that what is lost on the roundabouts is made up on the swings - hard to do near the end of a close game

The same could be said about holding the ball as well - strict interpretation would slow the game down more than somewhat

 

[dlanod]

Thought Notting was great, especially with his pressure on the opposition, a spoil in the first Q (first or 2nd) to punch it OOB when it looked a likely uncontested mark to the enemy was a good example of this.

I grabbed this from the votes thread. It made me think... does anyone know if there's a stat that captures "opposition handballs intercepted"? I swear Notting does that at least once or twice a match, and it can make a hell of a difference because it instantly puts us back on the offensive against teams where they run in waves ahead of the ball.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I grabbed this from the votes thread. It made me think... does anyone know if there's a stat that captures "opposition handballs intercepted"? I swear Notting does that at least once or twice a match, and it can make a hell of a difference because it instantly puts us back on the offensive against teams where they run in waves ahead of the ball.

Not sure if this is counted as a one-percenter or not.

You are right though, Notting is the king of doing that.

 

[acuguy]

Notting would also lead the surprise spoiling stat, so many times he just appears and spoils.