What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 3

[Dogsman16]

Bont firming for the Chaz.

Surprised to see dusty so high. Apart from round 1 I can't recall any other BOG games?View attachment 1124803

30 and 3 against eagles.
32 and 3 against the suns.
best on against carlton.

Bont's on at least 9. Might pinch a vote against GWS or Collingwood. Wasn't great against North, Tigers or Lions.

Dunkley did get 38d and 2g against the suns so that may mean bont gets 2.

Macrae would be close to 10 votes as well. 2votes vs Collingwood, 3 vs GWS, 3 vs Lions with probably 1-2 more as well.

 

[Fossie 32]

How can you not love Adz, he has surpassed any expectations I had, in terms of fitting into a smaller club and also just being an overall really nice guy and a classy footballer ❤

Great to watch the way he weaves through traffic and uses the ball so well

 

[Northernsoul74]

Bont firming for the Chaz.

Surprised to see dusty so high. Apart from round 1 I can't recall any other BOG games?View attachment 1124803

Petracca hasn’t been that great either apart from the Richmond game.

 

[Unorth]

The real power move would be to throw some money on Bont AND Macrae winning the Brownlow.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

The real power move would be to throw some money on Bont AND Macrae winning the Brownlow.

That would be something wouldnt it, joint winners from one club. Very nearly impossible surely.

 

[Some Idiot]

Why not have the rule that's been used for kickouts from a behind but apply it all over the ground?

If the ball is kicked out of bounds (OOB) but is first touched by any player, it is not paid as deliberate OOB (unless the player who last touched it deliberately took the ball/hit the ball over the line.) You could then also adjudicate that a ball that is made to ricochet off an opposition player's boot is not a kick OOB and therefore not deliberate kick OOB but is a ricochet.

In effect...if you kick the ball OOB and it is not touched, then it is a free kick against.

Seen it adjudicated like this in local footy and it works a charm.

 

[Sentinel]

That would be something wouldnt it, joint winners from one club. Very nearly impossible surely.

Cousins and Kerr nearly did it in 2005 when they rounded out the quinella with 20 and 19 votes respectively. Otherwise yeah, never really been close.

 

[dogwatch]

While I'm dead against the AFL's compulsive rule-tinkering of the last decade or so, the comment that an OOB rule change was "coming" or "inevitable" has caused me to think about what the best option might be if it did change.

As Scrag said if we are going to tinker with the rules we need to remove the "intent" part of the interpretation and base it on observable evidence not try to impute a motive.

Some options, with comments:

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE
1. Only if it's from a clear kick - but then players just handball it out and you still need to decide whether or not the handball was deliberately out or not, so there's still an "intent" interpretation to be made. No.
2. Only if it's from a clear kick or a clear handball - but then players become expert at paddling the ball that just happens to take a leg break and go OOB. Again you have the problem of deciding what the player's intent was. No again.
3. Last touch but only when it happens between the arcs - but what have we gained by doing this? We'd still have to adjudicate on intent if it happens within one of the arcs. So the problem is not fixed.
4. Last touch no matter how it happened - as others have commented players will work out ways to get a free kick by deflecting the ball off their opponents as they do in soccer, and there will be quite a few grey areas where a contested ball goes out and it won't be clear who had last touch. I hope we don't see the video camera being called on to adjudicate who touched it last. Also what happens when a player is taken over the line in the tackle? Presumably it's the player in possession who is penalised. But will we then start to see the same unsightly dragging of players over the line that we see in NRL etc, just to get a free? Or do we penalise the tackler to prevent that? That has its own set of downstream problems. We will also no doubt see players not picking up the ball (knowing they will be tackled) and instead shepherding the ball until it goes out. Ugly. Nevertheless soccer lives with these things so I guess the AFL could too, except for the disproportionate benefit of having a kick in AFL instead of soccer's throw-in.

None of them are terribly attractive but #4 looks the best if I had to choose one. However it's a disproportionate penalty especially as most of the OOBs will be unintended. So you could maybe address that by ...

CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE PENALTY
5. You can only handball it, not kick it. This would be too limiting and opponents would just crowd in to cover the outlets or block the handpass. No.
6. You are allowed to throw it in soccer style or rugby lineout style. Naah, too whacky and too radical a change to the skills and tactics of the game.
7. You can handball in any direction but if you kick, you can only kick backwards. Also it must be touched by another player before you can touch it again, i.e you can't kick it to yourself Gaelic Football style. This would reduce the severity of the penalty a little. However it introduces the notion of an illegal forward pass which our game has been happily free of for the last 150 years. I don't want to see that creeping into the laws of the game.

The whole thing is fraught and we come back to the underlying problem that the AFL tends to introduce speculative changes without enough thought or trial, and then within months the coaches and tacticians have figured out a way to manipulate the rule to their advantage that was never intended. Then they have to tinker further and that has downstream effects as well.

I reckon leave it as is. Not perfect but it's better than any alternative suggestion I've seen so far.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Bont firming for the Chaz.

Surprised to see dusty so high. Apart from round 1 I can't recall any other BOG games?View attachment 1124803

Hopefully Bont and Mccrae don’t take too many off each other.

 

[ScragCity]

While I'm dead against the AFL's compulsive rule-tinkering of the last decade or so, the comment that an OOB rule change was "coming" or "inevitable" has caused me to think about what the best option might be if it did change.

As Scrag said if we are going to tinker with the rules we need to remove the "intent" part of the interpretation and base it on observable evidence not try to impute a motive.

Some options, with comments:

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE
1. Only if it's from a clear kick - but then players just handball it out and you still need to decide whether or not the handball was deliberately out or not, so there's still an "intent" interpretation to be made. No.
2. Only if it's from a clear kick or a clear handball - but then players become expert at paddling the ball that just happens to take a leg break and go OOB. Again you have the problem of deciding what the player's intent was. No again.
3. Last touch but only when it happens between the arcs - but what have we gained by doing this? We'd still have to adjudicate on intent if it happens within one of the arcs. So the problem is not fixed.
4. Last touch no matter how it happened - as others have commented players will work out ways to get a free kick by deflecting the ball off their opponents as they do in soccer, and there will be quite a few grey areas where a contested ball goes out and it won't be clear who had last touch. I hope we don't see the video camera being called on to adjudicate who touched it last. Also what happens when a player is taken over the line in the tackle? Presumably it's the player in possession who is penalised. But will we then start to see the same unsightly dragging of players over the line that we see in NRL etc, just to get a free? Or do we penalise the tackler to prevent that? That has its own set of downstream problems. We will also no doubt see players not picking up the ball (knowing they will be tackled) and instead shepherding the ball until it goes out. Ugly. Nevertheless soccer lives with these things so I guess the AFL could too, except for the disproportionate benefit of having a kick in AFL instead of soccer's throw-in.

None of them are terribly attractive but #4 looks the best if I had to choose one. However it's a disproportionate penalty especially as most of the OOBs will be unintended. So you could maybe address that by ...

CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE PENALTY
5. You can only handball it, not kick it. This would be too limiting and opponents would just crowd in to cover the outlets or block the handpass. No.
6. You are allowed to throw it in soccer style or rugby lineout style. Naah, too whacky and too radical a change to the skills and tactics of the game.
7. You can handball in any direction but if you kick, you can only kick backwards. Also it must be touched by another player before you can touch it again, i.e you can't kick it to yourself Gaelic Football style. This would reduce the severity of the penalty a little. However it introduces the notion of an illegal forward pass which our game has been happily free of for the last 150 years. I don't want to see that creeping into the laws of the game.

The whole thing is fraught and we come back to the underlying problem that the AFL tends to introduce speculative changes without enough thought or trial, and then within months the coaches and tacticians have figured out a way to manipulate the rule to their advantage that was never intended. Then they have to tinker further and that has downstream effects as well.

I reckon leave it as is. Not perfect but it's better than any alternative suggestion I've seen so far.

Just in regard to the last touch rule:

I think the idea of players intentionally kicking the ball into opposition players and have it deflect out of bounds is being massively overstated. It would almost never happen. In the off chance that it does occasionally happen it would require a lot of skill and confidence by the player attempting it and therefore would be good for the spectacle of the game. It's much harder to do in Aussie rules than in soccer for a few reasons.

In the case of a contested ball being put out without it being clear who touched it last, the answer is simple: it's a throw in. This is how it functions in AFLW. No need to overcomplicate it.

For a player being taken over the line in a tackle its a free against the tackled players. This is a good thing because it incentivises players to avoid the line when in possession. As the rule currently works a player will sometimes allow themselves to be tackled over the line because a neutral result suits them. As a result I've noticed umpires more keen to pay HTB against players allowing themselves to be tackled over the line lately. I'd rather see players fighting harder to keep the ball in play.

Shepherding the ball out might be the biggest con with the last touch rule. I don't see how you can legislate against that and it isn't how we want the game to be played. Do we see this occuring in AFLW much?

 

[BEaston]

Just in regard to the last touch rule:

I think the idea of players intentionally kicking the ball into opposition players and have it deflect out of bounds is being massively overstated. It would almost never happen. In the off chance that it does occasionally happen it would require a lot of skill and confidence by the player attempting it and therefore would be good for the spectacle of the game. It's much harder to do in Aussie rules than in soccer for a few reasons.

In the case of a contested ball being put out without it being clear who touched it last, the answer is simple: it's a throw in. This is how it functions in AFLW. No need to overcomplicate it.

For a player being taken over the line in a tackle its a free against the tackled players. This is a good thing because it incentivises players to avoid the line when in possession. As the rule currently works a player will sometimes allow themselves to be tackled over the line because a neutral result suits them. As a result I've noticed umpires more keen to pay HTB against players allowing themselves to be tackled over the line lately. I'd rather see players fighting harder to keep the ball in play.

Shepherding the ball out might be the biggest con with the last touch rule. I don't see how you can legislate against that and it isn't how we want the game to be played. Do we see this occuring in AFLW much?

spot on

 

[NBates]

SEN news this morning.

Lauchie Hunter has put his hand up to play this weekend

 

[glenashley]

Bont and Lippa to bombers confirmed.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Wot

 

[NBates]

Bont and Lippa to bombers confirmed.View attachment 1125370

Desecration

 

[glenashley]

Junior clubs day. Unfortunate for the team colours.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

Because.This.

 

[Dog 36]

Where did Libba do an interview recently?

Channel 7 sports section of their News hour I think

 

[ScottyDogg]

How come no one is talking about our game getting impacted by Covid? Seems to be some escalating finger pointing going on between SA and Victoria.

 

[FROGGR]

 

[Munnez]

As someone posted a few days ago, McAsey re-signing doesn't mean he's locked in either emotionally or as part of Adelaide's long term plans.

It may just be a bit of mutually agreed manoeuvering to strengthen their respective hands come the trade season. There are precedents.

That said, I'm just an onlooker as the McAsey bandwagon rolls by. Not at all convinced yet.

Happy to look at Chol, a state-leaguer or a superannuant ... whoever looks a reasonable bet for the next 2-3 years. In the meantime we should be looking to draft and develop some of our own over the next draft or two (recognising we are a bit short on picks this year) so that we are well-stocked with KPD options over the 3-8 year time frame.

Young Darcy looks like he could be a KPD in this years draft too I think

 

[Dog 36]

They forgot to mention about he’s debut for Vietnam Swans and his century at the G

 

[D Mitchell]

Panton Hill Football Club, eh. Memories of the Panton Hill Umbrella Cmeh, Friday nights at the Royal, Punt Road, Richmond Ace in the Hole, Road to Colleraine, Outlaw Blues and my favourite memory, the lead singer, skinny, wiry bloke with a full beard, winding up at end of the night "You have been listening to, or, indeed, have just missed, the Panton Hill Umbrella Cmeh. We would like to thank you all for coming...or however else you showed your appreciation..."

boom boom

 

[NBates]

The newsreader on SEN in the afternoons has a very annoying voice. All her sentences have the same inflection. Doesn’t matter if she’s informing us of a 10 car pile-up or the results of Lower Plenty’s Annual Fluffiest Dog Contest, it’s all delivered with the same sentence pattern.

It’s irritating.

That is all.

You may have ruined someone's career. Advert for new one. Yell out if you want the link to apply:

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Beveridge puts arm around son of the West

Luke Beveridge and Lindsay Gilbee have commented on Dogs legend Scott West's passionate defence of son Rhylee.

www.sen.com.au