Today's Hun - a couple of points

[Blues2001]

In the Herald Sun today two issues caught my eye, just wondering what you guys reckon.

1) Mick Malthouse wants six on the bench.

Whilst I can understand where Mick is coming from, on the whole I disagree. I think four is plenty really. Already many youngsters sit on the bench for most of a game, as opposed to them playing a full reserves game. With six on the bench, I reckon it'd be even worse. I dunno, I just think that six on the bench is just too many.

2) Mike Sheahan asks why players can hold on to their opppnent's jumper when they have just taken a mark, stopping them from playing on.

I don't really like Mike, but I agree with him on this point. He says that all it does is wastes time and holds up the game, allowing more players to flood back. I think this is true, and I think that they should just make the rule so that absolutely NO jumper scragging/hold up tactics is allowed. At the moment Gieshcen says that a 'momentary grab of the jumper is ok'. That's just dumb.....there's no need for the umps to have to decide what's momentary and what's not. Besides, players get away with a lot more than that anyway.

Why not just say that its a 50m penalty for ANY pulling of the jumper that holds up a player from playing on after a mark. The man on the mark should just stick his hands up in the air or whatever, but shouldn't be allowed any license to hold on to the opponents jumper and prevent him from playing on. Once the players know that by doing that they will give away a 50m penalty, they will stop it and our game will be free from it.

What do you guys think?

 

[GOALden Hawk]

1. Agree - Malthouse makes the point there will be less injuries. What is he basing this on? Instead players will run harder in shorter bursts, resulting in an even quicker game with the liklihood of more injuries. It would be the same as shorter quarters.

Also, it just means a side that already has existing injuries has to play 2 more young kids. St. Kilda had a list of 28 players a couple of weeks ago, that means with 6 on the bench only 4 players aren't playing!

2. Gieschen is an absolute moron...how he got the job is beyond me. I lost all respect for him when he said it was solely the players job to get out of the way of the maggots, when half the time the maggots were in the wrong spot.

Anyway, I thought the whole idea of the 50m penalty was to stop players deliberately holding up an opponent to allow his teammates to get back? It was a favourite trick of Essendon and Hawthorn in the 80's, drag a guy down, give away 15m, allows everyone to get back.

So long as they are consistent on it for a couple of weeks it will stop in a hurry. But if they pay some and not others, it will look ridiculous and some 50m penalties will seem incredibly soft in relation to others.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

I agree with Malthouse

It should have been six on the bench right from where the League first decided to increase it.

It makes sense - and I agree with Malthouse, something has to done about the injury toll, increasing the bench will help, a little, methinks.

cheers

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
1. Agree - Malthouse makes the point there will be less injuries. What is he basing this on? Instead players will run harder in shorter bursts, resulting in an even quicker game with the liklihood of more injuries. It would be the same as shorter quarters.

Also, it just means a side that already has existing injuries has to play 2 more young kids. St. Kilda had a list of 28 players a couple of weeks ago, that means with 6 on the bench only 4 players aren't playing!

2. Gieschen is an absolute moron...how he got the job is beyond me. I lost all respect for him when he said it was solely the players job to get out of the way of the maggots, when half the time the maggots were in the wrong spot.

Anyway, I thought the whole idea of the 50m penalty was to stop players deliberately holding up an opponent to allow his teammates to get back? It was a favourite trick of Essendon and Hawthorn in the 80's, drag a guy down, give away 15m, allows everyone to get back.

So long as they are consistent on it for a couple of weeks it will stop in a hurry. But if they pay some and not others, it will look ridiculous and some 50m penalties will seem incredibly soft in relation to others.

That's right...and that's why they need a consistent rule for it. No "momentary hold of the jumper is ok" bullsh!t. It should be clear cut - ANY hold of jumper = 50m penalty.

 

[1AD]

Originally posted by Blues2001
In the Herald Sun today two issues caught my eye, just wondering what you guys reckon.

12) Mike Sheahan asks why players can hold on to their opppnent's jumper when they have just taken a mark, stopping them from playing on.

Why not just say that its a 50m penalty for ANY pulling of the jumper that holds up a player from playing on after a mark.
What do you guys think?

Everbody would want to play on SOS

 

[RacerX]

1) Mick Malthouse wants six on the bench.

Disagree
6 on the bench will increase a teams ability to maintain flooding tactics.
Coaches will risk playing injured players knowing they can afford to have them sit out the game on the bench. This would increase repeat injury risks and lengthen recovery time.
As somone already stated, fresh players coming onto the field quicken the game and increase injury risks.
Players can carry more bulk and hit harder as they can count on more recovery time (look at grid iron as an extreme example)
Lastly, if you take rugby as an analogy, more exciting plays develop when players start to tire and can't maintain a tight defense.

2) Mike Sheahan asks why players can hold on to their opponent's jumper when they have just taken a mark, stopping them from playing on.

Agree
But the current rules are sufficient get minimize this tactic. The umpires should be coming down harder on players-on-the-mark slowing play. Unfortunately you can see that this leaves the rule in a grey area where its up to the particular umpire to form an opinion.

 

[Smokin]

sos does most of his holding before the mark, not after.

This is a tricky situation regarding 6 on the bench. Let me clarify:

Firstly, the reason for increasing the bench from 2 upwards was due to injuries. Its obvious that if an injured player must continue to play this will be detrimental to his injury.

However, at the same time club lists have been shrinking, why? Because clubs have found it harder and harder to meet player payments. (Essendon cant even fill a list this year due to the salary cap). This means that if we were to increase the size of the list, which some people in footy are calling for, it means that the salary cap must also be increased. Thats fine for the interstate and bigger Vic clubs, but some Vic clubs are at the point where this could be seriously detrimental to their survival!

In a perfect world, all clubs would have money, they size of the list would be increased and so would the number on the bench. However, the AFL is trying to ensure the survival of the Vic teams where possible.

As an Essendon fan, yes, an increased list would be fanatastic, as long as the salary cap increases with the increased list. However, as a footy fan I dont want to see some clubs really struggle to stay in this competition.

However, I am 100% behind Sheehan tho in regards to holding the player who takes a mark/free kick.

 

[topdon]

Originally posted by Blues2001
2) Mike Sheahan asks why players can hold on to their opppnent's jumper when they have just taken a mark, stopping them from playing on.

I don't really like Mike, but I agree with him on this point. He says that all it does is wastes time and holds up the game, allowing more players to flood back. I think this is true, and I think that they should just make the rule so that absolutely NO jumper scragging/hold up tactics is allowed. At the moment Gieshcen says that a 'momentary grab of the jumper is ok'. That's just dumb.....there's no need for the umps to have to decide what's momentary and what's not. Besides, players get away with a lot more than that anyway.

So you want to create more grey areas than there currently is? You'll then find plays trying to not only milk free kicks...but milk 50-metre penalties. And don't say that this rule that you propose will be cut-and-dry...cos it wont!

I'm happy with the current situation. If a player is excessively held up, the a 50-metre penalty should be awarded. A '50' is a quite a harsh penalty for just a minor tug of the jumper after a mark. I also think you will find it hard implimenting such a rule as players have been doing this (holding up play for a frection) for decades. You'll change the way in which Aussie Rules has always been played, and in the short-term...you will find 50's handed out left-right-and-centre. This cannot be good for the game.

You might say "...well, the players will adapt", but that is rubbish. You cannot tell me that a player's first instinct after his opponent has taken a mark is to hold on to him (as a mark 'might not' have been paid). I'd hate to see that cost a team a premiership.

You'll be opening a whole new can of worms.

 

[Smokin]

I disagree topdon - it would be most of the ambiguity OUT of the current situation.

The rule should read that AS SOON AS the ump as paid the mark, ie the whistle has blown, the defender must let go of the player. If the player is to hold on, 50 meters!

Its disgusting that ALL players slow up the game like that, but at current its up to the umpire to decided when too long is too long. Now thats ambiguos and grey!

 

[Blues2001]

Agree Smokin

Topdon, how am I creating a grey area? I'm trying to get rid of it. Gieschen saying that a 'momentary' grab of the jumper is ok IS creating a grey area. Me saying that ANY pull of the jumper = 50m penalty is NOT creating a grey area. What part of it is grey???

Of course if it was to be trialled it should start off in the Ansett Cup first. Players already stage for 50m penalties anyway, if it was done this way I can't see how staging would happen more than it already does. If the man on the mark puts his hands in the air then he has nothing to worry about at all - its pretty difficult to pretend that your opponent is holding your jumper when he has his hands in the air, well away from your jumper. In fact, you'd look ridiculous trying to pretend such a thing was happening.

You say that 50m is too big a penatly. But the thing is it has to be a big penalty. You need to give away the 50m every time so that the players learn and don't do it any more. No doubt they will learn because they will cost their team big time every time they muck up. If it was any less severe (say 15m penalty) then players would have little incentive not to hold on, and we'd see professional 15m penalties given away all the time, just like the 80's. 50m is a big enough disadvantage for this not to happen.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Re: Re: Today's Hun - a couple of points

Originally posted by 1AD



Everbody would want to play on SOS

You're not calling SOS a jumper tugger are you???

 

[1AD]

Re: Re: Re: Today's Hun - a couple of points

Originally posted by Rooboy 96


You're not calling SOS a jumper tugger are you???

Is he? I don't think anyone has noticed.

 

[FIGJAM]

Ironic that Mickey is calling for that, given he has benched many of our players for massive periods, including leaving Presti on the bench for two games running!

I think he has an alterior motive, given our very fast running game plan. Six on the bench could make it even quicker through rotations!

And given our power-running game plan, I agree that there is nothing worse than some cheating bastard from a team which floods, grabbing on to your jumper when you want to move the ball quickly to a running player.

The game is potentially at its most exciting, but is clogged up by these type of scrappy "admissable offences".

The two teams this year which rarely flood and produce a clean brand of footy which would shut up all of these stuffy old pricks and their "the game ain't what it used to be" drivell are Port and Collingwood. They produced one of the closest, fastest paced, highest scoring and entertaining games of the year. Now can anyone say this about any Swans games?????

 

[Joel]

I agree FIGJAM!!

 

[Captain Random]

Originally posted by Blues2001

2) Mike Sheahan asks why players can hold on to their opppnent's jumper when they have just taken a mark, stopping them from playing on.

Stamp it out. Give an umpire some lip and bang, 50m. But hang on to your opponent until Tuesday lunchtime, no penalty. Why?

 

[PiesPremiers]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk


Also, it just means a side that already has existing injuries has to play 2 more young kids. St. Kilda had a list of 28 players a couple of weeks ago, that means with 6 on the bench only 4 players aren't playing!

increase the list from 38 to 40 players... back to where it was... ??

or more.. does it matter??

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by PiesPremiers


increase the list from 38 to 40 players... back to where it was... ??

or more.. does it matter??

I guess the argument against increasing player lists is the salary cap issue.