Praccie matches - The other games

[mrposhman]

This is fine..

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1365854995409629191

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1365741140004270150

What? The Freo guy moved BACK off the mark, how is that 50m? I can see us being royally screwed round 1.

 

[ToraToraTora]

I say again, why man the mark? If the whole point is to encourage blokes to play on from marks and free kicks simply abandon defensive marking. The game is not going to magically revert back to 1993. A high score now is around 100pts. If they want closer games that's probably a good thing.

 

[snags]

Why don't we get rid of the man on the mark and have a special umpire in a banana suit that comes on and stands the mark instead and the player has to kick over him.

Yes a bit like calling in a fluffer... bring out the banana suit sponsored by Sportsbet. The rule is obviously about taking the defender on the mark out of play. He's totally ineffectual and the rule makes sure a team can't decide to sag him on the mark or collapse back.

 

[zippadeee]

Geez good luck to the Kangas membership and sales department after this weekend I think they might hit 2021 with a decline in numbers.

I hope their coach can do the job.

They need someone with some experience but also the ability to sell the club and control the media twits.

Maybe they just didnt have the cash to attract that type.

Merge

 

[Ridley]

And yet it isn’t being used in the AFLW, because apparently according to Hocking, the ladies don’t move on the mark. Does this guy even listen to the garbage he says?

SHocking is the biggest *smile* idiot to hold a senior job at the AFL. It’s some achievement because it is a 1992 Cox Plate field.

 

[craig]

SHocking is the biggest *smile* idiot to hold a senior job at the AFL. It’s some achievement because it is a 1992 Cox Plate field.

Yep Every Administrator has found a way to make their mark by @^@@^%#%&@@ the game up.

And I thought Anderson was a First Class Muppet.

Hocking played 200 games in the 80s and 90s.

Seriously for a guy that has that on his CV he seemingly has no feel for the game or the peoples opinion.

Bowing to the Corporate s as they all do, same as counselors and Politicians all corrupt as #&#&%# bought and paid for.

 

[craig]

SHocking is the biggest *smile* idiot to hold a senior job at the AFL. It’s some achievement because it is a 1992 Cox Plate field.

I laughed but sadly its not funny you are dead on the mark Brother Riddler

 

[dmc]

Can you elect not to "man" the mark? I suspect that in certain situations teams will choose not to man the mark and zone yhrit players to the corridor to force the ball wide. By round 3 or 4 the coaches will have found a way to make this rule somewhat redundant I think.

 

[TigerFurious]

I say again, why man the mark? If the whole point is to encourage blokes to play on from marks and free kicks simply abandon defensive marking. The game is not going to magically revert back to 1993. A high score now is around 100pts. If they want closer games that's probably a good thing.

Yep and I’m betting come the season proper we’ll see plenty of clubs do exactly that. Could end up turning into a major farce.

On scoring. The problem with all the recent rule changes are that none of them actually incentivize scoring. They just encourage coaches to come up with new defensive tactics to overcome the new rules and further limit opposition scoring opportunities.

The AFL need to reconsider the 9pt rule if they are so set on increasing scoring. It will take time but eventually coaches will change their structures and tactics to try an dexploit the scoring bonus from kicking a goal outside 50. It will also open up scoring opportunities closer to goal as defenders will need to cover more territory and forwards will have more room to work in.

 

[ceehook2]

Can you elect not to "man" the mark? I suspect that in certain situations teams will choose not to man the mark and zone yhrit players to the corridor to force the ball wide. By round 3 or 4 the coaches will have found a way to make this rule somewhat redundant I think.

if we are playing Lambert more forward are we thinking as players who have taken a mark and play on more under the new rule
will be targets to run down from behind ?? (Rioli , George , Lambert , Aarts would be good in that dept. )

then they'll change the rules again

 

[mrposhman]

Yep and I’m betting come the season proper we’ll see plenty of clubs do exactly that. Could end up turning into a major farce.

On scoring. The problem with all the recent rule changes are that none of them actually incentivize scoring. They just encourage coaches to come up with new defensive tactics to overcome the new rules and further limit opposition scoring opportunities.

The AFL need to reconsider the 9pt rule if they are so set on increasing scoring. It will take time but eventually coaches will change their structures and tactics to try an dexploit the scoring bonus from kicking a goal outside 50. It will also open up scoring opportunities closer to goal as defenders will need to cover more territory and forwards will have more room to work in.

I just wish they'd leave it alone and realise that more scoring doesn't always lead to a better game.

I mean do people really want to see 100 point thrashings or is it better to see 2 scores in the 70's or 80's but a closer game.

 

[Baloo]

I just wish they'd leave it alone and realise that more scoring doesn't always lead to a better game.

I mean do people really want to see 100 point thrashings or is it better to see 2 scores in the 70's or 80's but a closer game.

I absolutely loved the 2019 Grand Final

 

[DavidSSS]

I absolutely loved the 2019 Grand Final

1980 was fun too.

DS

 

[spook]

The AFL need to reconsider the 9pt rule if they are so set on increasing scoring. It will take time but eventually coaches will change their structures and tactics to try an dexploit the scoring bonus from kicking a goal outside 50. It will also open up scoring opportunities closer to goal as defenders will need to cover more territory and forwards will have more room to work in.

No no no.

It would kill off the key forward. Every team would have six Matt Sucklings camped outside the 50. They'd chip it around until they got a clear shot. Look at the way the NBA has changed with everyone bombing from outside the arc. It's higher-scoring and less watchable than ever.

 

[TigerFlag2017]

I get the general intent of the rule, but you can see it will be a farce. Presumably Richmond will get paid 6 of them against us in the first game against Carlton to keep the match close, and then Gil will come out and say there should be some umpires discretion and six will get paid for the rest of the year.

 

[caesar]

I get the general intent of the rule, but you can see it will be a farce. Presumably Richmond will get paid 6 of them against us in the first game against Carlton to keep the match close, and then Gil will come out and say there should be some umpires discretion and six will get paid for the rest of the year.

If Richmond don't win the Premiership the rule will have been deemed to be a success

 

[MorrisMinor]

The rule is trivial - the penalty is the problem. A gifted goal is not entertaining football no matter which team benefits.

 

[zippadeee]

No one has said what teams will a have an open advantage with this rule.
They said the 6,6,6 rule would advantage the 'strong midfield' sides.
They said the kick in rule will be an advantage to the teams that will prefer going quick and long.

None of these rules have bent us over.
So i don't really care

 

[gutfull]

Port v Tigers preliminary 6 goals apiece tell me THAT game was poor ?????

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Port v Tigers preliminary 6 goals apiece tell me THAT game was poor ?????

That was a great game, and it proves that just because a game is low scoring doesn’t mean it’s a poor spectacle. It’s also true that some high scoring games can be quite boring.