Far from eliminating it they've double down by bringing it into the AFLW. Typical AFL House. Stubborn to the end. It's not going anywhere until Gil does.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Steve Hocking
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
Great point. Holding the ball rule is essentially gone.
This has far bigger impact than the stand rule.
The stand rule had zero impact once the heat came on during the finals. Think it is a little overrated actually. When it counts at least.
The bigger one as you say is the holding the ball rule going out the window.
We play (like Hawthorn did in it's reign) second to the ball. Sweat on your opponent - then either win it on outside or rebound off dump kick.
It's why Clarkson and Dimma have been vocal about the lack of HTB frees.
It's also why clearance beasts that have wheels out of a stoppage are gold. Petracca, Oliver. A superstar ruck also doesn't hurt.
We can change, we have to..
Far too many broken tackles this year. We were used to shorter tackles that coughed the ball out, but this year the top teams were holding before a deliberate release.
Rucks who Dominate help.
But we can nullify that aspect. First touch is essential.
The stand rule is an ass.
The difference in the finals was that they just didn't pay any 50s for players breaching it. They didn't have to. No RFC players played. I was at the GF, it was largely forgotten about and if they wanted to use it they could have on at least 4 occasions.
Rest assured that they will penalise us next year with the rule because that is what it was designed for.
The difference in the finals was that they just didn't pay any 50s for players breaching it. They didn't have to. No RFC players played. I was at the GF, it was largely forgotten about and if they wanted to use it they could have on at least 4 occasions.
Rest assured that they will penalise us next year with the rule because that is what it was designed for.
While I'm at it, the rule that used to be for deliberate out of bounds is an ass too. It's just a tool to penalise defenders now. Never gets paid in attack.
The kick in rule is a joke. Bypasses the rule about how far a player can maintain possession without bouncing it.
Nominations for rucks.
Etc etc etc......
Thank @#$% this @#$%head has gone to Geelong.
The kick in rule is a joke. Bypasses the rule about how far a player can maintain possession without bouncing it.
Nominations for rucks.
Etc etc etc......
Thank @#$% this @#$%head has gone to Geelong.
Thats not that bad.
It only lasts 4-5 seconds after the ball is bounced.
That rule helps us
Hate all these new rules, this is Australian Rules Football, where players are not restricted in where they are on the ground. The only exception should be the centre square.
Get rid of the scarecrow on the mark.
Bring the player on the mark at kick ins back to 5m away.
Get rid of 6-6-6.
What do the AFL want next - off side?
They can f*** off.
DS
Get rid of the scarecrow on the mark.
Bring the player on the mark at kick ins back to 5m away.
Get rid of 6-6-6.
What do the AFL want next - off side?
They can f*** off.
DS
For the rule to have helped us, we would need to be clearance kings - we got pummelled from the centre square this year.
Castagna needs a big preseason
He can match Petrecca and Boak
I quite like the 666 rule, without it those electric breaks from the centre bounce become too hard as they just park a 7th defender in the way.
Stand rule is horrible, a blight on our game and embarassing
Ruck nomination. Just make it so teams can only have one player contesting ruck, whoever they like.
No problem with deliberate OOBs but it has to be blatant, too much interpretation of intent now under the insufficient intent.
And please can we go back to kick in from the goal square !!!
Stand rule is horrible, a blight on our game and embarassing
Ruck nomination. Just make it so teams can only have one player contesting ruck, whoever they like.
No problem with deliberate OOBs but it has to be blatant, too much interpretation of intent now under the insufficient intent.
And please can we go back to kick in from the goal square !!!
666 was a good idea, and took footy back to where it was meant to be.
Teams have always scored straight from centre bounces, remember Mundy against us. No 6-6-6 back then, or for all the other goals scored straight from CBs in the 100 years before it was introduced.
the worst part of the rule i reckon is that it takes away runners coming off the back of the square. Port loaded up with 2 extras in the prelim in '15(?). they werent being defensive, they were there to charge through. we did the same with Lambert etc. Our 7th "defender" at CBs wasnt necessarily to stop the other team scoring, their job was to run through.
it is not just how long players have to dispose. the rules dont penalise the player who seeks out the tackle to force a ball up. Defenders do it a lot, and so do the Dogs mids. they also try to draw high frees. they either get the free or a ball up.
It happened but not as much imo.
For example bevo would have loved to have been able to park a 7th defender on the centre square line late in the 3rd
6-6-6 does not take footy back to where it was or meant to be, look at the number around the centre bounce in the 1967 grand final. The centre square was necessary because of congestion but no more than that.
One of the unique features of Australian Rules Football has always been no off-side and, until the early 1970s no restrictions on where players could be on the ground. Limiting this in the middle at a bounce is plenty of restriction, more than enough.
6-6-6 is less of a priority for me than allowing the player on the mark to move and bringing the player on the mark at kick outs back to a position where they can actually influence the kick out (5m away, not miles away like now). The dinky little play on kick from a behind was getting silly as they were so good at it there was little point, don't mind that rule.
The insufficient intent to keep the ball in rule is not the right balance. The bar should be set higher for giving a way a free kick for that which is why I would favour deliberate out of bounds. Yes, it still requires some judgement by umpires (shudder!) but it is a more balanced rule whereby you would need to see some intent to get the ball out of bounds to concede a free kick. I still can't see the problem with having more throw ins, and I know players will exploit this to some extent, but that argument is bullsh1t because players exploit any rule, including insufficient intent.
DS
One of the unique features of Australian Rules Football has always been no off-side and, until the early 1970s no restrictions on where players could be on the ground. Limiting this in the middle at a bounce is plenty of restriction, more than enough.
6-6-6 is less of a priority for me than allowing the player on the mark to move and bringing the player on the mark at kick outs back to a position where they can actually influence the kick out (5m away, not miles away like now). The dinky little play on kick from a behind was getting silly as they were so good at it there was little point, don't mind that rule.
The insufficient intent to keep the ball in rule is not the right balance. The bar should be set higher for giving a way a free kick for that which is why I would favour deliberate out of bounds. Yes, it still requires some judgement by umpires (shudder!) but it is a more balanced rule whereby you would need to see some intent to get the ball out of bounds to concede a free kick. I still can't see the problem with having more throw ins, and I know players will exploit this to some extent, but that argument is bullsh1t because players exploit any rule, including insufficient intent.
DS
