What? The Freo guy moved BACK off the mark, how is that 50m? I can see us being royally screwed round 1.
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.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.
MergeGeez 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.
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.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?
Yep Every Administrator has found a way to make their mark by @^@@^%#%&@@ the game up.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 RiddlerSHocking 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 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.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.
if we are playing Lambert more forward are we thinking as players who have taken a mark and play on more under the new ruleCan 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.
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.
No no no.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.
If Richmond don't win the Premiership the rule will have been deemed to be a successI 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.
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.Port v Tigers preliminary 6 goals apiece tell me THAT game was poor ?????