2016 Non Crows AFL Discussion thread Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed, the really difficult thing would be coming up with reasonable objective or at least semi-objective signs/prompts to replace the subjective interpretations. Even the word I just used - 'reasonable' - is subjective. A good rule to me could be a stupid rule in someone else's opinion. Indeed the idea of a last-touch rule for OOB makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.

Hence making the rules less subjective will inevitably remain in the too-hard basket.
If you were to use the black and white approach then it would become a non-contact sport. In the back would be in the back regardless of whether the player in front moved back into the elbows of the defender etc.

I watch NFL and the technicality of the game is amazing. Yet its also a game contained within the moment ie each play is separate from the last only connected by the distance required to cover.

Aussie Rules is truly one of the few multi-spacial games that has different rule interpretations based on where on the field an infringement occurs, or even time of the game or the importance of the game. NBA basketball also plays to this loose interpretation of rules v game-time.
 
Indeed, the really difficult thing would be coming up with reasonable objective or at least semi-objective signs/prompts to replace the subjective interpretations. Even the word I just used - 'reasonable' - is subjective. A good rule to me could be a stupid rule in someone else's opinion. Indeed the idea of a last-touch rule for OOB makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.

Hence making the rules less subjective will inevitably remain in the too-hard basket.
You'll never get around interpretive rules. If the AFL makes something black and white, someone will find a way to abuse it. So then the AFL will then have to add in "as long as player X isn't trying to abuse it" clauses which, by their nature, will be interpretive.
 
Banning the third man up is better than the current implementation.

But I agree with Sam Jacobs saying that the only change that actually needed to be made is allowing the blocking of third man ups. Giving away a free for blocking them is just dumb
Can you block someone trying to rove?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Essendon doped an entire squad, GWS willingly hid a player from testers because they were afraid he'd test positive and our whack with draft losses for one player contract was greater than the combined penalties for Essendon and GWS.

Just reminds me of why I dislike the AFL again.
FTFY
 
At Port, we are employing the services of Lorimer Moseley to assist with 'pain science':


Sounds like a subtle way of telling Charlie Dixon that he's soft and to get on the park
 
Second action - to illegally dispose of the ball by not hand balling.
Has there been any mention of the legality of handballs?

A shovel, flick hybrid has crept in over the last few years as the game has got faster.
 
Has there been any mention of the legality of handballs?

A shovel, flick hybrid has crept in over the last few years as the game has got faster.

I'd love to get a slow mo shot of Liberatore and Wallis handballs. I reckon more than 50% of their handballs are throws
 
Completely irrelevant to any AFL discussion, but I thought it was worth mentioning here as it seems to be the "go to" thread. There was an arrest made last night in the Claremont Serial Killer Case. Information in relation to this has been made available throughout the day, and makes for some interesting reading. The man charged with the crime, Bradley Robert Edwards, bears an uncanny resemblance to our good friend Michaelangelo Rucci. Make of that what you will.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I would respectfully disagree. At least about the game being less skillful.

The game only appeared to peak in that era because it was those years where the players drafted came into a system that was fully professional. However, the game itself was still tactically amateur. Every sport in the world starts off with a man on man defensive structure, because it's the easiest to understand. "Beat your man." But as the players became faster and stronger, coaches had to adapt. It started with Rodney Eade and his flooding tactics, which were designed to negate the lack of speed that his Sydney side had in transition. Then Roos came in and refined it even more, rolling the flood up and down the field. Lyon and Malthouse added the idea of forward defensive pressure.

That's why the skills appear to be worse. Players are asked to do more defensively, which adds to fatigue, both mentally and physically. When a high amount of players are drafted from the TAC cup premiership team, that's because teams know that those players understand the defensive requirements needed to perform at AFL level. Another reason why hardly any South Australian players get drafted - we have a system based on archaic methodologies.

It's often been said that if you want to get good at something, it takes 10 years (or 10,000 hours) to go from amateur to professional, and then another 10 to go from professional to master. I would say the dawn of the AFL becoming professional tactically started in 2005 with Roos winning the flag, and progressed to master level with Clarkson in 2015.

So the tactics are now at master level, but the professionalism and fitness of the players is still at professional level. That's why you're now seeing a lot of clubs like Adelaide pushing the envelope on things like sleep recovery etc. At Port, we are employing the services of Lorimer Moseley to assist with 'pain science':



I'm expecting this is so your team can withstand the world of pain that 2017 will be.

Sorry but it was there for the taking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top