The worst football in a generation

[mxett]

Isn’t ball knocked free in a tackle holding the ball?

15.2.3 Holding the football - Prior Opportunity/No Prior Opportunity

• (a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:
  • (i) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Correctly Tackled;

I think many arent paid because the umpire believes the ball is knocked out during a body clash but prior to a correct tackle being laid

 

[mxett]

I agree totally.

They want to speed the game up, and open it up; and then they reduce interchanges, which has the complete opposite effect.

I've got no problem with unlimited interchange - the guys can run their arses off and then take a break - slowing them down and making them more exhausted doesn't open the game up, as the players are too knackered to keep running and creating space.

unlimited interchanges provides unlimited rests which provides improved endurance so players are able to run longer.

It depends what the coaches use this improved endurance for. If they use it to attack it may result in a higher scoring game, depending on the tactics of the opposition. If coaches use it to continually set up behind the ball and congest the play it WILL result in a low scoring slog.

 

[mxett]

Quote someone other th@n Gill for this, this is an administration which will lie if it suits their agenda, the tv ratings in the last Nielsen survey didn’t exactly set the world on fire so I take the AFL version of supporter interest with a grain of salt

OZTAM ratings show they are up on last year. However, closer games, no competing commonwealth games, and better scheduling probably explains most of this

 

[brutus76]

Need to revert it back.

Push in the back rule OUT
Sliding in rule OUT - first to the ball is the AIM OF THE CONTEST to encourage them to pick it up (even in Auskick FFS)
No 6-6-6 BS - If you wanna flood let them. If you want to play a spare let them. If you want 2 on each wing let them.
25 metre penalty not 50
5 metre exclusion zone not 10
Kick out rules KEEP
Reward the tackler MORE
Ruckman can take possession straight away KEEP



Heck the 9 umpires i look after who do Under 8's 9's and 10's know their rules and do a better job than these clowns.

If they want ppl to watch the game ask us and the players what they want visually and for the game itself.

 

[King Elvis]

15.2.3 Holding the football - Prior Opportunity/No Prior Opportunity

• (a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:
  • (i) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Correctly Tackled;

I think many arent paid because the umpire believes the ball is knocked out during a body clash but prior to a correct tackle being laid

It's clearly a directive over the last few years; let teams knock/lose it forward in the tackle.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Hocking, McLachlan and the AFL Board should all resign. Their arrogance in changing the games has resulted in the most congestion, the lowest scoring and the most boring football in a generation.

For me expansion has diluted the on field product

 

[RookiePick]

It's a clear directive to interpret a correct tackle as a concluded action ie everyone on the floor.

The correctly applied tackle has commenced as soon as contact begins and its not illegal - too high or too low.

It's massaging the way terms are applied to officiate to a theory of what will "improve" the game.

Penalising blokes for holding the man a s**t load more wouldn't go astray either. A lot of guys are getting tackled before they take possession too.

It all feeds into congestion. If the tackler has to ascertain possession before applying the tackle the ball carrier has much more often had prior opportunity when or if the tackle arrives.

The rules are there. It's just s**t house direction from the AFL ivory tower.

 

[mxett]

It's a clear directive to interpret a correct tackle as a concluded action ie everyone on the floor.

The correctly applied tackle has commenced as soon as contact begins and its not illegal - too high or too low.

It's massaging the way terms are applied to officiate to a theory of what will "improve" the game.

Penalising blokes for holding the man a **** load more wouldn't go astray either. A lot of guys are getting tackled before they take possession too.

It all feeds into congestion. If the tackler has to ascertain possession before applying the tackle the ball carrier has much more often had prior opportunity when or if the tackle arrives.

The rules are there. It's just **** house direction from the AFL ivory tower.

it's the whole "reward the player making the play" excuse. I think they should trial penalising players who are tackled and do not dispose of the ball legally, irrespective of prior opportunity. It may reduce congestion overnight

 

[Deathray]

Pay holding the man, pay in the back, pay dropping the ball regardless of prior and blow the whistle as soon as it’s locked up and throw it up real quick without this ‘nominating’ crap.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

If they want ppl to watch the game ask us and the players what they want visually and for the game itself.

It seems way too many people on this forum think the AFL could give a damn about what people want. That's the very least thing on their agenda. You see, they've worked out the general football public is pretty stupid and still attend games out of habit, even though they don't like the game as much as they used to, and newer markets really don't care because it's all they know. It's all about how much money can be generated through corporate sponsorship and TV rights. People paying memberships and attending matches used to be the life blood of football, but that was years ago. They are sacrificial pawns in the Chess game known as AFL.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

it's the whole "reward the player making the play" excuse. I think they should trial penalising players who are tackled and do not dispose of the ball legally, irrespective of prior opportunity. It may reduce congestion overnight

I see it totally different, I think we are penalising the player with the ball or being first to the ball, or wanting the ball.
I have said it before about head high contact being rife in the AFL now, yet these muppets have sold it to the public that the bloke with the ball is at fault which is so very very wrong.
I agree with you they are getting way to long to dispose of the ball, and the incorrect disposal. You are dead right there.
But the below the knee contact rule is penalising the ball getter, very very wrong again.
Umpires need to throw the ball up quicker instead of waiting fir it to come out which causes the congestion.
Every real natural footy instinct is wrong in our game and hence we are all talking about it instead of do you think we will win this weekend.

 

[demondavey]

unlimited interchanges provides unlimited rests which provides improved endurance so players are able to run longer.

It depends what the coaches use this improved endurance for. If they use it to attack it may result in a higher scoring game, depending on the tactics of the opposition. If coaches use it to continually set up behind the ball and congest the play it WILL result in a low scoring slog.

That’s how I feel

 

[mxett]

I see it totally different, I think we are penalising the player with the ball or being first to the ball, or wanting the ball.
I have said it before about head high contact being rife in the AFL now, yet these muppets have sold it to the public that the bloke with the ball is at fault which is so very very wrong.
I agree with you they are getting way to long to dispose of the ball, and the incorrect disposal. You are dead right there.
But the below the knee contact rule is penalising the ball getter, very very wrong again.
Umpires need to throw the ball up quicker instead of waiting fir it to come out which causes the congestion.
Every real natural footy instinct is wrong in our game and hence we are all talking about it instead of do you think we will win this weekend.

I think the below the knees rule has merit if adjudicated correctly. You shouldnt be allowed to take other players off their feet by sliding into the ball. It's basically tripping, which should be illegal irrespective of your intent to gain possession of the ball.

There also must be a penalty for players who merely grab the ball with no intention of disposing of it just to deny the opposition possession. This clogs up the game causing stoppages and more congestion.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think the below the knees rule has merit if adjudicated correctly. You shouldnt be allowed to take other players off their feet by sliding into the ball. It's basically tripping, which should be illegal irrespective of your intent to gain possession of the ball.

There also must be a penalty for players who merely grab the ball with no intention of disposing of it just to deny the opposition possession. This clogs up the game causing stoppages and more congestion.

There has been one incident.If two blokes are chasing after a ball and onebloke decides to jump and dive on it to get it first then he should not be penalised for wanting it more than his opponent unless he doesn’t then move the ball on. If the other player trips over him then bad luck.

What about all the head high contact not be awarded free kicks?

 

[mxett]

There has been one incident.If two blokes are chasing after a ball and onebloke decides to jump and dive on it to get it first then he should not be penalised for wanting it more than his opponent unless he doesn’t then move the ball on. If the other player trips over him then bad luck.

What about all the head high contact not be awarded free kicks?

but tripping is still illegal, therefore if you take someones legs away from under them you should be penalised. Same as a player who has the ball cannot fend off another player by striking them high.

I agree with the rule that states if a player contributes to their own high contact by dropping their head or forcing their arms up such as J Selwood, they should not be rewarded for high contact. Rewarding these actions with a freekick only encourages players to cause high contact, such as J Selwood who has suffered numerous concussions and may regret it later in life. Take away the reward and players will stop putting their health at risk by using their head to gain freekicks.

However, the umpires are yet to adjudicate this rule change correctly, causing much frustration

 

[greatwhiteshark]

but tripping is still illegal, therefore if you take someones legs away from under them you should be penalised. Same as a player who has the ball cannot fend off another player by striking them high.

I agree with the rule that states if a player contributes to their own high contact by dropping their head or forcing their arms up such as J Selwood, they should not be rewarded for high contact. Rewarding these actions with a freekick only encourages players to cause high contact, such as J Selwood who has suffered numerous concussions and may regret it later in life. Take away the reward and players will stop putting their health at risk by using their head to gain freekicks.

But for every 20 times Selwood is tackled 17 of them stick and the other 3 he can raise his arms by weak tackling. He has the ball, he can do as he wants just don’t tackle him high or anyone high. Make the coaches and players tackle lower.
Ducking the head is the only action that should not be rewarded. All other head high contact should be a free kick as it was forever.

It is not tripping if I get to the ball first, tripping and falling over a player are two different things.

 

[Fadge]

Got nothing to do with the AFL it's the coaches. They are the biggest blight on the game.

All they care about in Winning, so they use the safest way to do that, by focusing on defense.

How exactly is the AFL responsible for 30+ players around the ball at all times?

Coaches, how dare they work the rules of the day to find the best possible way to win?!?

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

Or your phone didn't have access to the crazy amount of distractions that it does now?

Post of the year. Very relevant, everything is getting more boring when we have such instant distraction on our phones.

The competition is extremely even too, so teams will defend better, resulting in less scoring, but closer games.

 

[domus]

Quote someone other th@n Gill for this, this is an administration which will lie if it suits their agenda, the tv ratings in the last Nielsen survey didn’t exactly set the world on fire so I take the AFL version of supporter interest with a grain of salt

Just check the stats on crowd attendances through the decades. They are at record highs the past few years.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Does anyone think that one of the unintended consequences of limited runners is that it's making the coaches coach conservatively as they're afraid of blow-outs if the opposition gets a run on and they have little control over their team?

I haven't thought it through as yet but a possibility?

 

[sobrave]

I don't watch football anymore, I play bigfooty instead. It's more enjoyable to read the melts of a teams supporters who are struggling than it is to watch the game

 

[swingdog]

OZTAM ratings show they are up on last year. However, closer games, no competing commonwealth games, and better scheduling probably explains most of this

No Carlton on Friday nights helps.

 

[Gaborone]

Just check the stats on crowd attendances through the decades. They are at record highs the past few years.

Might have something to do with new stadiums especially Adelaide and Perth and a national rather than local competition. What this post is about is what has happened to the standard of football this year and why.

 

[Captain Morgan]

I think the problem here is we are so focused on short term day to day issues we don’t give the competition time to work itself out. The dull and dour Sydney gameplan that was successful in the early noughties was overtaken by fast ball movement and high scoring by hawthorn and Geelong in the late noughties is the simplest example i can provide. The AFL doesn’t have to intervene, they need to let coaches come up with new tactics to deal with challenges. This is how a free market works. Stop messing with it AFL.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Does anyone think that one of the unintended consequences of limited runners is that it's making the coaches coach conservatively as they're afraid of blow-outs if the opposition gets a run on and they have little control over their team?

I haven't thought it through as yet but a possibility?

Of course it has.