2015/16 Pre-Season Thread

[GROTTO]

Fox costs $300 a year? What package is that?

You can get Foxtel packages where you pay $50 a month for footy and drama. Free installation is possible but the timing is important to grab this. As a new customer ring up and ask them. They will say no at first, but leave them your details so that they can call you back as very often they do. Before a footy season may be tough because a lot of new customers will be signing up now.

$300 is for the footy season, ie 6 months. After this you can cancel your sports package and pay only $25 per month. You can also suspend your Foxtel package for 3 months paying only $10 a month in total to do this.

With fox footy you also get a variety of AFL programs like afl360 which is Arguably the best footy show going around.

If you follow soccer and cricket, Foxtel is great value. If you only watch the Crows and nothing else, Foxtel is a waste of money. As I am a punter, I need Foxtel.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...8fe9b88d4?sv=d604192b6dfb5a2e24e9fa7ebb5c53fa

Interesting....

Collingwood getting a "leg up" again...

clubs have recieves correspondence on the rule changes and their is nothing preventing the AFC from being pro-active by getting the local based AFL umpires out to training to officiate match simulation or internal trials

We don't have to sit and do nothing until the suits turn up and provide the official briefing

 

[Mego Red]

It's not necessarily game plan related. It could be training technique related, or even equipment related. The sports scientists and fitness teams at AFL clubs are now on big bucks and their intellectual property is what helps them make a name for themselves. Keeping training locked down allows the staff to also keep their intellectual property hidden from competitors. For example say they worked out the players can gain an extra 20% fitness if they train for 20mins then do a handstand, or if they coat the balls in vaseline it improves the players skill when they get a non-vas ball. They want to keep the technique that gives them an advantage secret for as long as possible, otherwise it's not an advantage. It doesn't have to be related to game day strategy.

I don't care how much improvement I'd get, I'm not coating my balls in Vaseline.

 

[MRB37]

I don't care how much improvement I'd get, I'm not coating my balls in Vaseline.

Not even on Valentines Day?

 

[mattymac]

clubs have recieves correspondence on the rule changes and their is nothing preventing the AFC from being pro-active by getting the local based AFL umpires out to training to officiate match simulation or internal trials

We don't have to sit and do nothing until the suits turn up and provide the official briefing

How many 'local based AFL umpires' are there?

 

[displacedaussie]

Were there not some AFL umpires at the trial game? I'm pretty sure I glimpsed them in a couple of pictures of the match.

 

[40porpoise]

I'm not keen on this stricter interpretation of deliberate out of bounds, it was already a farce this year..

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I'm not keen on this stricter interpretation of deliberate out of bounds, it was already a farce this year..

It's totally bullshit when a defender clears the ball 30-40m only to have it called deliberate out of bounds. A defender should be allowed to do anything in his power to get the ball out of there. It's a legitimate tactic especially if you play in team with a strong ruck.

I don't mind the stricter interpretation if it's a situation where the player deliberately tries to walk the ball out of play. I'd also like to see more players get pinged for rush behinds.

 

[1970crow]

It's totally bullshit when a defender clears the ball 30-40m only to have it called deliberate out of bounds. A defender should be allowed to do anything in his power to get the ball out of there. It's a legitimate tactic especially if you play in team with a strong ruck.

I don't mind the stricter interpretation if it's a situation where the player deliberately tries to walk the ball out of play. I'd also like to see more players get pinged for rush behinds.

I would have tought deliberately getting the ball OOB to maximise your ruck advantage is the definition of breaking the rule. It's always been a touch area to get right and I'm not sure it can ever be gotten 100% spot on. All I want pinged is the disposals where the ball going out of bounds is clearly the most important factor of the disposal. If you make 30-40m in ground, then I'd argue that is more important. But where to draw the line, it's a difficult rule to apply.

 

[Pdub]

I'm not keen on this stricter interpretation of deliberate out of bounds, it was already a farce this year..

I think the deliberate OOB rule is one of the worst rules in the game, just because it's not clear and upto the umpires interpretation of the players intentions. I'd say 90% of the time when the ball goes out, the player with the ball is deliberately taking it out, but it's only called 1% of the time. It means the rule has pretty much become "not disguising it well enough" or "not good enough acting". The rules comity should be looking to get rid of interpretational rules and replacing them for black and white rules.

I think a kick for every OOB is too harsh of a penalty, but would love to see either a soccer/rugby union like throw in, where instead of the umpire throwing the ball in, the team who didn't put it OOB gets to throw the ball in over their head, allowing them to bring in strategy. Or to make it more fitting with the AFL rules, allow them to handball the ball back into play, immediately to keep pace on the game. Imagine a defender under pressure managing a hurried 50m kick down the ground going out, but the opposition get to the ball just after it goes out, so he handballs the ball back into play, straight to the ground (since there is no one to pass it to), picks it up, has a short run and kicks the ball back into the attacking 50 to keep the defenders under pressure.

 

[anonymous Derik]

The chopping of the arm rule is easily the worst rule in the game,it's bloody week as piss!!

 

[Mismatched]

I'm actually in favor of tightening up the out of bounds rule and I'm quite interested to see how the SANFL's trial of a free kick for any direct OOB from a kick/handball goes. I agree with the train of thought that we need to be looking at ways to reduce the number of stoppages that have crept into our game. What happens with 1 boundary throw in is it often leads to multiple repeat stoppages as the vast majority of players converge into the one area of the ground creating extreme congestion around the footy. Personally I'd much prefer a tightening of the deliberate OOB rule, than the continual messing around with the HTB rule, which they've previously used to attempt to reduce congestion.

The issue I have with the AFL's change is it still leaves a lot still up to the interpretation of the umpires, which means there's inevitably going to be issues with consistency. What I like about the SANFL's take on this is that it removes one of the many areas that rely on umpire interpretation.

Ultimately, I think such rules with have a positive effect on the game in that they will reduce the number of stoppages, making the game more free flowing and put an increased importance on ball skills.

 

[skins62]

It's totally bullshit when a defender clears the ball 30-40m only to have it called deliberate out of bounds. A defender should be allowed to do anything in his power to get the ball out of there. It's a legitimate tactic especially if you play in team with a strong ruck.

I don't mind the stricter interpretation if it's a situation where the player deliberately tries to walk the ball out of play. I'd also like to see more players get pinged for rush behinds.

What say if you can kick the ball 40m (can't be on the full) and get it out of bounds you get it back again to kick in. If it goes less than 40m and out of bounds then the opposition gets the ball. This would put the onus on the opposition have to defend the line 40m plus away and put pressure on the ball carrier.

 

[1970crow]

I'm actually in favor of tightening up the out of bounds rule and I'm quite interested to see how the SANFL's trial of a free kick for any direct OOB from a kick/handball goes. I agree with the train of thought that we need to be looking at ways to reduce the number of stoppages that have crept into our game. What happens with 1 boundary throw in is it often leads to multiple repeat stoppages as the vast majority of players converge into the one area of the ground creating extreme congestion around the footy. Personally I'd much prefer a tightening of the deliberate OOB rule, than the continual messing around with the HTB rule, which they've previously used to attempt to reduce congestion.

The issue I have with the AFL's change is it still leaves a lot still up to the interpretation of the umpires, which means there's inevitably going to be issues with consistency. What I like about the SANFL's take on this is that it removes one of the many areas that rely on umpire interpretation.

Ultimately, I think such rules with have a positive effect on the game in that they will reduce the number of stoppages, making the game more free flowing and put an increased importance on ball skills.

To that I'd say why don't we just leave it alone and see if rotation caps have the impact we want over the next couple of years. This will be a debacle.

 

[jackster83]

If you follow soccer and cricket, Foxtel is great value. If you only watch the Crows and nothing else, Foxtel is a waste of money. As I am a punter, I need Foxtel.

I scored 3 months free Foxtel on the top package when I bought a new phone a week or so ago.

 

[DD#23]

To that I'd say why don't we just leave it alone and see if rotation caps have the impact we want over the next couple of years. This will be a debacle.

exactly, changing the rules every five minutes exactly how you create opportunities for unfair exploitation of said rules.

its an absolute ****ing farce the way the AFL screws wit the game in my opinion.

 

[GROTTO]

I scored 3 months free Foxtel on the top package when I bought a new phone a week or so ago.

Awesome. There is plenty of deals out there to get Foxtel a lot cheaper if you look around, I understand and appreciate that some may have financial constraints about Foxtel, with that said given my love of AFL, soccer and cricket its awesome value for me.

If a poster is really desperate to watch the games but cant afford to get Foxtel, find a mate that may give you his account details whereby you can watch Foxtel for "free" on your apple or android device.

 

[Wright Away]

I think players should be able to push players in the back and chop the arms, it is a physical contest, if you position yourself wrong or you are too weak, you lose, that is fair.

 

[GROTTO]

I think players should be able to push players in the back and chop the arms, it is a physical contest, if you position yourself wrong or you are too weak, you lose, that is fair.

If you were able to do this though, you would basically be removing the ability for a player to take a contested mark.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

exactly, changing the rules every five minutes exactly how you create opportunities for unfair exploitation of said rules.

its an absolute ******* farce the way the AFL screws wit the game in my opinion.

The problem is the existence of a rules committee.

If you have a committee... they can't do nothing. Gotta do some tinkering otherwise what's the point of having a committee?

 

[DD#23]

The problem is the existence of a rules committee.

If you have a committee... they can't do nothing. Gotta do some tinkering otherwise what's the point of having a committee?

I wonder how many thousands of committees all across Australia suffer from the same ailment.

 

[beartoo]

Just watched a replay of our game against the Pies early last season. They were desperate to keep the ball wide--Buckley taking over Mick's playbook. The ball spent more time out of bounds than in the field of play. The new rule may result in a tweak of their bloody awful gameplan.

 

[Deaneus!]

did we ever find out which parts of SA we could have academies in?

 

[whitey_1975]

I would love to see the in the back in a tackle situation and hands in the back in a marking contest removed. To much conjecture and why be penalised for the guy being tackled diving forward or dropping the knees, if you make a tackle above the knees and under the shoulder then that's good enough for me. Hands in the back in marking situations are all about reading the play and getting into better positions, let it go.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

I would love to see the in the back in a tackle situation and hands in the back in a marking contest removed. To much conjecture and why be penalised for the guy being tackled diving forward or dropping the knees, if you make a tackle above the knees and under the shoulder then that's good enough for me. Hands in the back in marking situations are all about reading the play and getting into better positions, let it go.

You'll see a lot more concussions as guys have both arms pinned and are driven face first into the ground.