 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | I actually disagree with Bucks on this.
I'm in favour of eradicating the interchange completely. Have 4 or even 6 on the bench, but when a player comes off, he can't come back on. This would significantly slow the game down and reduce the ability of masses of players continually running up and down. There would also be far less burst speed going on. It might even lead to a bit of a return to position football, since players would need to pace themselves to last the whole game. Then again wtfwik? |
Bucks’ point was that you’d get a team of long distance runners rather than footballers (the next Mason Cox would come from Kenya). He’s probably right about this, but I’d like to see it at least tried. It’s really noticeable that he best football happens in the second half after fatigue sets in and the game opens up.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
 |
Damien 
Me Noah & Flynn @ the G
Joined: 21 Jan 1999
Location: Croydon Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | You know the game has a problem when your team wins the ball, looks to stream forward and is held up because it has no one to kick to.
Does my head in and I just wish a coach, any coach would have the courage to anchor 1 or 2 players inside 50 when the ball is up the other end.
It might cost you a few contests, perhaps a few goals to begin with but slowly and surely the wheel will turn and it'll become a positive or a neutral move and be adopted competition wide.
Just last season when Geelong was forced to use Dangerfield inside 50 we saw how much damage can still be done in the modern game with this tactic and it would take a brave coach to leave a Moore, Sidebottom or Elliott all alone inside f50. |
Om with you on this. In the current state of the game we will never see another Tony Lockett. A guy who can outmark anyone, kick straight As a dye, but doesn’t have the tank to run up and down the ground all day. That’s sad. I’d love to see a recruiter and a coach try to buck the trend. If it worked, they’d all do it.
_________________
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930 |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
A bloke called Cox might yet do that.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Skids wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | Prior opportunity is one of those recently made up things that requires umpires to make yet another value judgement.
Rule changes I'd favour:
1. If you get tackled and the ball is dislodged, prior opportunity or not it's a free kick for incorrect disposal.
2. If you tackle someone to the ground and a player jumps on top, automatic free kick against the player who was 3rd in
3. 2 players from each team must be in the 50 metre arcs at all times, not just at stoppages. That reduces congestion from 36 players around the ball to 32 and makes them keep players off the pack to attack/defend against the ball coming out
4. the protected zone should include the man on the mark, You don't get to stand next to the player on the mark and hammer them as soon as the player with the ball plays on. Fck right off out of there |
I like them all, except the first one.
Getting the ball is what the game is about, give the bloke who's prepared to get it a bit of time (prior opportunity I guess).
I hate when someone gets the ball, gets nabbed instantly and the grounds frothing at the mouth calling "BALL". You have to have a decent shot at getting rid of it. Also, these blokes get buried and mauled sometimes, don't they have a back?!
For me, it's the blokes getting held without it and in marking contests that need to be looked after... and I don't mean negligible shit that Razor loves, but the obvious chops and grabs. |
I get your point. I put that together with the jump on the pack one.
If you grab it and just hold on, no pack on top of you so the umpires can clearly see what you're doing, you're gone.
If you grab it and drop it from a tackle, you're gone.
That should stop players laying off to someone under pressure while hopefully still providing protections for the player who actually goes and wins the ball. |
That's the bit, ... if it's punched or chopped from your possession though... I don't think you should be penalised.
If you dispose of it incorrectly, yes. Just give them a bit more time if they've gone in and got it.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | A bloke called Cox might yet do that. |
Has to be worth a shot, doesn't it?
Just stand the big fella down there... I wouldn't wanna be on him!
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | A bloke called Cox might yet do that. |
And that's where my 2 inside 50 comes from.
If Cox stays anchored to the 50 arc, he would demand someone stay with him, but a hail mary chaos ball into 50 isn't to his advantage, so you need a speedy small at his feet.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | A bloke called Cox might yet do that. |
Has to be worth a shot, doesn't it?
Just stand the big fella down there... I wouldn't wanna be on him! |
That happened in the first quarter. The Richmond fans were bricking it whenever it came down. Somehow we lost the capacity after that.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | I actually disagree with Bucks on this.
I'm in favour of eradicating the interchange completely. Have 4 or even 6 on the bench, but when a player comes off, he can't come back on. This would significantly slow the game down and reduce the ability of masses of players continually running up and down. There would also be far less burst speed going on. It might even lead to a bit of a return to position football, since players would need to pace themselves to last the whole game. Then again wtfwik? |
Bucks’ point was that you’d get a team of long distance runners rather than footballers (the next Mason Cox would come from Kenya). He’s probably right about this, but I’d like to see it at least tried. It’s really noticeable that he best football happens in the second half after fatigue sets in and the game opens up. |
Football was played like this, without flexible interchange, for over a hundred years. There were all sorts - fast, slow, tall, short, those with stamina, those without it. The point was everyone had to pace themselves. Instead of resting on the pine, great midfielders would 'rest' in the forward pocket. But I'm an old fart, so wtfwik?  |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I am not sure I see your point. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | You know the game has a problem when your team wins the ball, looks to stream forward and is held up because it has no one to kick to.
Does my head in and I just wish a coach, any coach would have the courage to anchor 1 or 2 players inside 50 when the ball is up the other end.
It might cost you a few contests, perhaps a few goals to begin with but slowly and surely the wheel will turn and it'll become a positive or a neutral move and be adopted competition wide.
Just last season when Geelong was forced to use Dangerfield inside 50 we saw how much damage can still be done in the modern game with this tactic and it would take a brave coach to leave a Moore, Sidebottom or Elliott all alone inside f50. |
Oh boy, you'd want a bloody good midfield if they are playing 16 on 18 up the ground. With the defensive schemes, you might find the ball ends up in the opposition forward line and just never comes out.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | ...
Football was played like this, without flexible interchange, for over a hundred years. There were all sorts - fast, slow, tall, short, those with stamina, those without it. The point was everyone had to pace themselves. Instead of resting on the pine, great midfielders would 'rest' in the forward pocket. But I'm an old fart, so wtfwik? |
Well, it didn't change because of rule changes. It changed because coaches realized they could get an advantage doing things differently. The question is whether to react with rule changes to counteract the coaching trends. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ...
Bucks’ point was that you’d get a team of long distance runners rather than footballers (the next Mason Cox would come from Kenya). ... |
Or, in Eddie-speak, you'd get a team of Lance Armstrongs. (I'm not sure if that's a reasonable risk. And who's to say the game is safe from Lance Armstrongs right now?) |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith 
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Silly is probably a nice way to put it, even the KB days on the rules committee never came up with anything as stupid as getting rid of prior opportunity.
The game is already getting to dangerous levels where we are almost discouraging a player from trying to win the football with a lot of the rules. The AFLs HTB rule is already too harsh imo, but then some days they let it go, others they ping the most bullshit ones. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What I'd like to see to limit congestion and the 'under 12's football' style is the following:
Limit rotations drastically via increasing the bench to 6 or even 8 players, limit rotations to 4 per quarter (during the breaks you can change personnel as you see fit, unrestricted) and making it that once you go off the ground in a quarter, you can't come back on until the next quarter - this should have the following effects 1. it reduces the risk of catastrophic injury losing you the game due to 2-4 extra players on the bench compared to rotations and 2. it will bring back positional play. Players would still have to be supremely fit but it would be impossible to constantly chase the ball with a huge pack of players ala under 12's
Some may not like this idea but imo it would stop the 'rugby scrum' and make our game a little more traditional and watchable.
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's a very emotive debate because changing the rule/s might change the fabric of the game.
I look at it differently. The congestion is caused by so many players around the ball applying pressure. If we only gave prior opportunity to the first winner of the ball whoever gets it next doesn't get the same opportunity he has to dispose of the ball immediately by either hand or foot or he's pinged for holding the ball and a free awarded against him.
It would mean clubs would have to hold there half forwards and forwards further up the ground for the hack kick forward. Players would spread wider looking for space to get the next touch.
By forcing the players to dispose of the ball quicker or be pinged its might mean the DE drops due to turn overs from rushed decisions but it would also reward players with higher skills under pressure and encourage players to take the game on more
If it doesn't have the desired effect then the only change temporarily would be increased free kicks but hasn't changed the fabric of the game |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
