It's official, Hocking and the AFL are dumb-arsed, half-baked clowns who are trying to stuff the game | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • 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.

It's official, Hocking and the AFL are dumb-arsed, half-baked clowns who are trying to stuff the game

waiting

Tiger Legend
Apr 15, 2007
9,699
4,189
melbourne, victoria
Thats the point. The umpire marks the spot, but the opposition don't have to stand the mark.
Therefore player's will stand a metre behind the mark doing exactly what they were doing this year.
Just a really stupid rule.
Real coaches will use it as a part of their game plan
Exactly go back 5 metres from the mark and move any direction they wish ( as before )...
 

artball

labels are for canned food
Jul 30, 2013
3,671
1,439
its an amazing photo. The 'Custodian' and The 'Dil' looking at the Tiges with different expressions but saying the same thing - 'How do they do it?' And there's the Tiges, blissfully unaware of the pair, doing their own thing. And maybe therein lies the answer the plonkers are looking for ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Tigers of Old

Proud of our Club.
Jul 26, 2004
66,979
7,522
www.redbubble.com
talk about half baked clown trying to stuff up the game,

anyone seen this uni-nostrilled GC DJ Fisher bloke who crashed our premiership party?

and put our cup upside down on his head?

I dont think we'll have to worry about him for too much longer,

I'm pretty sure his heart will give out at The Maroons Byron beach party either tonight or tommorow night.

either that, or one of the Maroons will mistake him for a schoolgirl and his stupid grin for consent.
Uni nostrilled..:mhihi
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
19,548
2,341
Can someone explain to me the point of reducing the number of interchanges if quarters are going to be shorter (likely 18 mins)? Doesn't that basically mean proportionally it's virtually the same?
Ooops.
Way to smart for the flogs in suits at H.Q. ToOheys.
 

Tigeronprowl

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Dec 30, 2002
345
98
If the AFL was serious about 1) reducing congestion 2) reducing list size and 3) reducing costs then the simple fix would have been to reduce on field team numbers to 16.

Just to clarify I am against all rule changes just saying the AFL is dodging the most realistic change that would help ease all the major problems
Dropping team numbers will ruin the fabric of the game. I would find it very hard to follow if done. Our game is built on tough contested football with great skills. Even if it is a low scoring game so long as it has these components it is really absorbing to watch. If you take a total of 4 players out of the game it becomes a game of keepings off, not combative and with very few contests. Scoring may increase but i would be bored shi$less watching it. Less big marks will be taken as packs wont form as often, for players to fly for the ball. Big no no from me for reduction to 16 players a side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Harry

Tiger Legend
Mar 2, 2003
21,124
4,232
So if the player taking the mark or free moves laterally more than 1 metre is it play on?
 

ninjahaha

Sponsored by Takeda Pharmaceutical
Feb 22, 2014
2,549
162
the shadows
Footy games in each era had shizen games and good games.

The game has evolved. Who are they trying to manufacture a style to appease? Most likely the vast block of disenfranchised fans from traditional Victorian clubs who haven't won flags or made finals for decades.

Had us long suffering Richmond supporters cried out for rule changes in our 37 year preparations for our present-day party they would have told us to Ghan.




the only rule changes interstate sides want is interstate GF's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
3,976
4,429
Melbourne
So if the player taking the mark or free moves laterally more than 1 metre is it play on?

As we have seen over the last few years, it depends. It depends on what the umpire dreams up at the time and no-one, not even Allah, can predict what they will decide in any given situation.

DS
 

davidc0055

Tiger Rookie
May 23, 2011
259
60
Dropping team numbers will ruin the fabric of the game. I would find it very hard to follow if done. Our game is built on tough contested football with great skills. Even if it is a low scoring game so long as it has these components it is really absorbing to watch. If you take a total of 4 players out of the game it becomes a game of keepings off, not combative and with very few contests. Scoring may increase but i would be bored shi$less watching it. Less big marks will be taken as packs wont form as often, for players to fly for the ball. Big no no from me for reduction to 16 players a side.

The old VFA had 16-a-side, and that was very combative and contested
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

YinnarTiger

Tiger Legend
May 2, 2007
7,022
333
71
Gippsland
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this in regard to the trial rules yet, but I can see there might be more opportunities for ad breaks at kick-ins and when the ball goes out of bounds. Our game could then emulate the NFL for the length of time slots the channels allocate to each game.

Better still, they could then allow each captain a call of a maximum two time-outs per quarter.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
3,976
4,429
Melbourne
The powers that be keep saying they want the game to flow and they want quick footy.

But just about every rule change they throw up (literally) is a rule restricting player movement.

They really are as stupid as they look.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

CarnTheTiges

This is a REAL tiger
Mar 8, 2004
19,902
2,603
Victoria
The eras that the ‘change the rules’ brigade keep hearkening back to evolved over many years and there weren’t many rule changes over those years. Certainly not like now when it seems there’s a raft of them every season, and all they ever seem to do is make the game harder to adjudicate and more confusing to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
1,795
1,936
The powers that be keep saying they want the game to flow and they want quick footy.

But just about every rule change they throw up (literally) is a rule restricting player movement.

They really are as stupid as they look.

DS
I may be biased due to us winning 3 cups in 4 years, but really, what is "wrong with the game"? Serious question.

So many commentators have praised Richmond's game style and talk about how good to watch we are.

I understand that few teams play like us (a couple have or are trying), but really, what is wrong with the game?
Is the game too slow? (Not from my perspective)
Are there more stoppages than ever?
Is scoring worse than ever or trending down?
Are higher scores the goal?

What are they trying to achieve?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
3,976
4,429
Melbourne
I may be biased due to us winning 3 cups in 4 years, but really, what is "wrong with the game"? Serious question.

So many commentators have praised Richmond's game style and talk about how good to watch we are.

I understand that few teams play like us (a couple have or are trying), but really, what is wrong with the game?
Is the game too slow? (Not from my perspective)
Are there more stoppages than ever?
Is scoring worse than ever or trending down?
Are higher scores the goal?

What are they trying to achieve?

The game has changed, but I think this is a more than fair question.

We can go a long way back too.

In the 1930s they had a last touch out of bounds rule for a while and there were complaints that the scoring was too high.

For a few decades the throw was allowed in the VFA, along with their 16 a side.

Watch the 1972 Grand Final (yeah, it does hurt) but 50 goals in a game does become a bit ridiculous.

I was watching the 2020 Grand Final the other day and was wondering what the fuss is about, the game flowed. Probably more stoppages than years ago, although it is hard to tell as the stoppages many years ago were dealt with very quickly so you barely notice it.

I have one question for all the idiots who keep insisting on changing the rules: what do you want the game to look like? There seems to be no answer to this - and without an answer as to what they hope to achieve, they end up flailing around making lots of changes which lead nowhere.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
19,548
2,341
What are they trying to achieve?
Rampant high scoring games like in the seventies, eighties or nineties where absolute floggings of crap teams was de rigueur. Without the elbows or smacks to the head of the good old days of course.
Pretty sure Sydaknee scored over 200 points a game for three games in a row way back when they were still known as Souf Smelbourne / Sydaknee to fans n played as the Broadcast game every Sunday.

There was stuff all in the way of defensive tactics n when a side brought the can opener out during games things got ugly and boring in a big hurry. At least with a defensive game crap sides can often still be within three or four goals for most of a game n a lucky bounce or streaky kick will keep the game on an edge right till the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users