New Rules

[waiting]

Just curious. If a player is on the bench as the sub (23rd man) and isn't required during the game, is he credited with having played the match?
I'm pretty sure that in the past the 19th & 20th man were credited with the game even if they didn't come on. Could ba an avenue to get Marlion to 100 games if we are getting close.

One other thought. Maybe they could bring in ANOTHER RULE that says if you use the sub, the player subbed off cannot play the next game. Might stop manipulation of the sub (if it is allowed to be used for more than concussion).

Quickdraw I hope it’s not manipulated by coaches if the ‘sub rule ‘ goes through but there will be a coach(s) pushing the boundary on this.

But I would warn against being the first player/club/coach to do this with all the cameras they have at the game. You know the TV stations will replay it to the enth degree to see if it is a legitimate concussion.

Maybe they will use satellite imagery too!

Have the sub for any injury I feel not for concussion or not at all.

In the GF we lost Vlaustin within minutes ( couldn’t come back on ) and we found out later Houli had done his calf.

Granted Gazza went into the game with a query on his shoulder, copped an early hit from Cotch but still kept coming on/off.

It’s a measure of a side through adversity to manage their players minutes, injuries ( unexpected) and the new interchange rotations (now down to 75). Didnt the Tigers have 60+ odd?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Well, the ironic thing is, if the standing the mark change is what's opened up play and scoring (still thinks its the interchange limits that are largely behind it but anyway), then that does not play to Geewhinge's advantage. They need the game played in a stop start and slow fashion. It's little wonder Salty Scott, Shrugwood and Clangerfield are all 'Geewhinging' about the changes.

Thanks Shocking !!!

I hope it has the opposite effect & our rapid play on style sees us go through the season undefeated.

 

[Ridley]

How about Mincey talking about the sub rule and trying to compare the Vlastuin and Ablett injuries. We lost Vlastuin (arguably a more important player to us than Ablett was to Geelong) for the whole game. Ablett played out the game albeit injured but still had a significant hand in at least two Geelong goals.

Yeah exactly the same Mincey you Geelong tosser and AFL sycophant

 

[seven]

Does this mean Dangerpoop can use the elbow more?

 

[Redford]

I hope it has the opposite effect & our rapid play on style sees us go through the season undefeated.

Well that's right ToO-ber. Given we've been one of the more attacking teams the last few years, it may play into our hands. Although I'm not sure what it may do to our defensive strategy and set up and roles.

Heh heh heh...the irony of Shocking introducing something to combat us when it could in fact help us, plus the fact he's doing it against one of the few teams that likes to score anyway. Such a dhead.

 

[Tigaman]

Player coming off for 23 man should have a mandatory fourteen day no play applied.

 

[Harry]

When Dimma was asked about the anti-Richmond rule last night on 360 he said that coaches will just push more players back to clog up the space. Blobbo just grunted and moaned a bit more.

 

[Quickdraw]

Quickdraw I hope it’s not manipulated by coaches if the ‘sub rule ‘ goes through but there will be a coach(s) pushing the boundary on this.

But I would warn against being the first player/club/coach to do this with all the cameras they have at the game. You know the TV stations will replay it to the enth degree to see if it is a legitimate concussion.

Maybe they will use satellite imagery too!

Have the sub for any injury I feel not for concussion or not at all.

In the GF we lost Vlaustin within minutes ( couldn’t come back on ) and we found out later Houli had done his calf.

Granted Gazza went into the game with a query on his shoulder, copped an early hit from Cotch but still kept coming on/off.

It’s a measure of a side through adversity to manage their players minutes, injuries ( unexpected) and the new interchange rotations (now down to 75). Didnt the Tigers have 60+ odd?

Cheers, waiting!

Sounds like the sub for all medical issues will be it. Then there needs to be a rule to say you have to miss x no. of days (probably one game).

Gazza was at least able to get a jab (or multiple jabs) and come back and have a crack. Nobody in the media was talking about his shoulder when he flicked out that terrific handball to Selwood and resulted in Hawkins' goal.

 

[Redford]

When Dimma was asked about the anti-Richmond rule last night on 360 he said that coaches will just push more players back to clog up the space. Blobbo just grunted and moaned a bit more.

I'm reasonably certain we won't see the level of scoring that we've seen this last two practice games once the season gets up and running proper. After a few weeks, it'll probably start to normalise.

 

[Ridley]

I'm reasonably certain we won't see the level of scoring that we've seen this last two practice games once the season gets up and running proper. After a few weeks, it'll probably start to normalise.

The media numpties really are getting desperate. Healy threw up graphics comparing stats from the entire 2020 season to one round of practice games in 2021 as definitive proof that the rule changes were working and would create more scoring

 

[Redford]

The media numpties really are getting desperate. Healy threw up graphics comparing stats from the entire 2020 season to one round of practice games in 2021 as definitive proof that the rule changes were working and would create more scoring

His brain is fried Chumpley. You can tell from the huge bald patch on top of his head. Like a UFO has landed on it and created a big crop circle.

 

[Tigermad2005]

If we are going to have a sub rule the only way to stop it from been taken advantage off is if the player that is sub off is not allowed to play next week. In doing that the clubs would not cheat the rule.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

The media numpties really are getting desperate. Healy threw up graphics comparing stats from the entire 2020 season to one round of practice games in 2021 as definitive proof that the rule changes were working and would create more scoring

I guess in the absence of any other data, it's OK to raise it as a discussion point. But it's only a rough guide at best, the grounds are hard and fast and the footy not representative of the grind after the first month. FWIW the forecast is for a damp autumn on the east coast.

 

[waiting]

You gentlemen are taking a few liberties with the summary there. Brown said that Richmond was first in free kicks against and suggested that it was a deliberate tactic of ours to give away a free kick so we could slow teams down on the mark and set up down back and Healy agreed.

Personally I think that it is a bizarre and illogical theory but I'd take it because it would mean everyone whinging about the umpires for the last few years has been wrong and it's entirely our own doing.

I agree there with Riddles Richo.

Heard the same thing on SEN earlier in the week, can’t remember who said it, but it specified that the AFL were ( can’t remember the exact word used ) but what pricked my ears was.... it was brought in to stop Richmond and how they ‘man’ the man on the mark.

I couldn’t reply to SEN as I was at an appointment waiting and forgot all about it.

So in the Hawks 3 peat no mention was made, queried or rule thought of on their tactics when ‘manning the mark or even when taking a kick????

 

[Tenacious]

If we are going to have a sub rule the only way to stop it from been taken advantage off is if the player that is sub off is not allowed to play next week. In doing that the clubs would not cheat the rule.

Article I was reading earlier in The Age suggested that is precisely what the rule will state

 

[wayne]

On 360, Robbo and Whateley pushed Gil on the man on the mark rule, said no-one is claiming it, and that someone had to have made the rule up.

Without hesitation, Gil said that it was SHocking that made the rule.

 

[Baloo]

The sub rule would still be open to abuse even if the subbed player can't play next week. Just need a borderline player, or someone who hasn't had a good run of games, and the coach can easily decide in the heat of the game he's in to sub him out and drop him for next week.

Unless the rule stretches to can't play in VFL either.

 

[percyms]

Genuinely concerned about the new Player on the mark rule. I just dont know how many more anti Tiger rules the club can overcome. This may be the proverbial straw. The way our club roles back in defence will be under imense pressure if the ball it turned over in our fwd and half fwd line as our backs push up so hard. Will they have time to get back and cover. IMHO this is going to be really tough and maybe change the way we play........... Thoughts??

 

[snags]

Genuinely concerned about the new Player on the mark rule. I just dont know how many more anti Tiger rules the club can overcome. This may be the proverbial straw. The way our club roles back in defence will be under imense pressure if the ball it turned over in our fwd and half fwd line as our backs push up so hard. Will they have time to get back and cover. IMHO this is going to be really tough and maybe change the way we play........... Thoughts??

You're right we'll likely need to defend deeper at times. On the other hand this rule also plays to our strengths. Our boys running forward and into space will be devastating to other team's defenses.

 

[davidc0055]

On 360, Robbo and Whateley pushed Gil on the man on the mark rule, said no-one is claiming it, and that someone had to have made the rule up.

Without hesitation, Gil said that it was SHocking that made the rule.

No, Gil said it came via the competition committee.