Training Alright, alright, alright! Its the 2022 Pre-season training thread.

[SPower]

Hopefully we are well tuned by match sim. and the new interpretation is seamless.

 

[Whoyagot]

It's just a couple people. Let them have it they flogged us in a grandfinal in a very strange way. Par for the course.

That one dude thats still obsessed with all things bulldogs is a bit of an oddball

Changing the subject how much do you think this holding the ball rule will effect our team? We tend to flick it around a bit. Bont is probably the main guy that will try to break a tackle.

There’ll be some cooked calls in the preseason and for the first month of games before it reverts to normal. Bont in an interview said the umpires are keen to try and distinguish between a proper tackle and just holding on to a player who’s trying to break through. Just sounds like more grey area which will make the game even more of a shut show to umpire.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

It's just a couple people. Let them have it they flogged us in a grandfinal in a very strange way. Par for the course.

That one dude thats still obsessed with all things bulldogs is a bit of an oddball

Changing the subject how much do you think this holding the ball rule will effect our team? We tend to flick it around a bit. Bont is probably the main guy that will try to break a tackle.

Couple of

Bont gets caught a lot. Maybe a lot of this year's preseason will be about addressing new rules (as will all clubs no doubt) and finding ways of minimising potential disadvantage. As our friends at Sydney and Melbourne well know, Bevo coaches our team to give away as few frees as possible

 

[CarnTheScray]

Hi everyone!

Sorry for the intrusion, I only just found out a Bulldogs supporter is using a quote of mine as their signature. I couldn't believe it, it was so hard to believe, I had to drop by and see if it's true... and it is! Whoo hooo!

(Ok look in all honesty I'm a bit disappointed it wasn't any number of other LEGENDS on the Dogs board but I'll take it!)

Thank you for spamming my name CarnTheScray, good luck in Round 1!
Love you Scraggers!

(also lol outta all the crap I posted that's what you chose? I done heaps more stupid than that!)

Always happy to see my fans so pleased.

 

[BEaston]

It's just a couple people. Let them have it they flogged us in a grandfinal in a very strange way. Par for the course.

That one dude thats still obsessed with all things bulldogs is a bit of an oddball

Changing the subject how much do you think this holding the ball rule will effect our team? We tend to flick it around a bit. Bont is probably the main guy that will try to break a tackle.

Bont does probably try to break tackles more than others in our side (or the league generally). We may take a short term hit with the new interpretation, but after adjusting I think we'll be better off than other teams. Our midfield have some of the quickest and best hands in the league, especially working in close. Once we adjust to the "immediate" release, I don't think our disposal efficiency will be hindered. On the defensive side, we are also one of the best tackling teams so I think you'll see us ping a lot more teams for HTB with the new ruling as well.

There’ll be some cooked calls in the preseason and for the first month of games before it reverts to normal. Bont in an interview said the umpires are keen to try and distinguish between a proper tackle and just holding on to a player who’s trying to break through. Just sounds like more grey area which will make the game even more of a shut show to umpire.

It's a really good point Bont raises. AFL should have probably strengthened the definition of what constitutes a tackle in line with the new interpretation to reduce the gray areas.

 

[TiAn_]

When you go to hardly any games during the season, don't go to any finals, don't go to GF week training, don't go to the GF parade, don't go to the GF itself and can't even go anywhere to celebrate the win with anyone after, all that's left is being an online edge boy. Let him have that.

 

[ScragCity]

Bont in an interview said the umpires are keen to try and distinguish between a proper tackle and just holding on to a player who’s trying to break through.

This was exactly my first concern when the new rule was announced. Prior to this, tackles needed to be effective to achieve anything. Your tackle needed to prevent your opponent from disposing of the ball easily, to either win a HTB free or to just stop the ball from getting to his teammates. This was done through various techniques such as pinning an arm, getting them to ground etc. Now with the new rule the tackle itself doesn't need to be effective to achieve the same result. All you need to do is to put a tackle onto someone and they are now forced to dispose of the ball immediately (which might not allow them a good option) or they hold it and you win a free kick. The rule itself now does all the work and the quality of the tackle matters much less. That isn't a good result for the game when you mitigate skill advantages.

 

[BEaston]

This was exactly my first concern when the new rule was announced. Prior to this, tackles needed to be effective to achieve anything. Your tackle needed to prevent your opponent from disposing of the ball easily, to either win a HTB free or to just stop the ball from getting to his teammates. This was done through various techniques such as pinning an arm, getting them to ground etc. Now with the new rule the tackle itself doesn't need to be effective to achieve the same result. All you need to do is to put a tackle onto someone and they are now forced to dispose of the ball immediately (which might not allow them a good option) or they hold it and you win a free kick. The rule itself now does all the work and the quality of the tackle matters much less. That isn't a good result for the game when you mitigate skill advantages.

How does it mitigate skill advantages? The players/teams that are quick thinking, have good vision, spatial awareness and disposal skills will be advantaged as they'll be disposing of the ball prior to contact or not long after. It will also increase the importance of spatial tactics of teams around the ball. If anything it places a higher premium on skill IMO. It also opens up the game which is a good result for the spectacle of the game.

Btw, definition of tackle:
Legal Tackle or Legally Tackled: a tackle by a Player where: (a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and (b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees. For the avoidance of doubt, a Legal Tackle may be executed by holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back.

I think this definition could definitely have been strengthened or tweaked in light of the new interpretation. The grey area will be what constitutes a "hold" of the body. As it's written I believe there is still scope for someone like Bont to break a lot of "tackles".

 

[flipper83]

Bont does probably try to break tackles more than others in our side (or the league generally). We may take a short term hit with the new interpretation, but after adjusting I think we'll be better off than other teams. Our midfield have some of the quickest and best hands in the league, especially working in close. Once we adjust to the "immediate" release, I don't think our disposal efficiency will be hindered. On the defensive side, we are also one of the best tackling teams so I think you'll see us ping a lot more teams for HTB with the new ruling as well.



It's a really good point Bont raises. AFL should have probably strengthened the definition of what constitutes a tackle in line with the new interpretation to reduce the gray areas.

I feel like the umpires already sweat on Bont for holding the ball. Because he always gets his hands free it's more obvious when he doesn't get a handball away. The umpires are far more lenient with players that try to barge through packs then drop the ball.

Personally I think the umpires should give more time to the players who win the ball to try to get a clear disposal out. That way there is more chance of the ball getting into an open forward line.

The collective geniuses that run the AFL and AFL media don't seem to realise that when you pay a free kick it gives 30 players time to flood forward and by the time the player get the ball back for a kick there is nobody to kick to.

 

[Libbaaaa]

This was exactly my first concern when the new rule was announced. Prior to this, tackles needed to be effective to achieve anything. Your tackle needed to prevent your opponent from disposing of the ball easily, to either win a HTB free or to just stop the ball from getting to his teammates. This was done through various techniques such as pinning an arm, getting them to ground etc. Now with the new rule the tackle itself doesn't need to be effective to achieve the same result. All you need to do is to put a tackle onto someone and they are now forced to dispose of the ball immediately (which might not allow them a good option) or they hold it and you win a free kick. The rule itself now does all the work and the quality of the tackle matters much less. That isn't a good result for the game when you mitigate skill advantages.

But if you have had prior this point should be moot. If you have baulked/tried to dance around someone, take a step and somebody wraps you up, blow the whistle immediately.

 

[BEaston]

I feel like the umpires already sweat on Bont for holding the ball. Because he always gets his hands free it's more obvious when he doesn't get a handball away. The umpires are far more lenient with players that try to barge through packs then drop the ball.

Personally I think the umpires should give more time to the players who win the ball to try to get a clear disposal out. That way there is more chance of the ball getting into an open forward line.

The collective geniuses that run the AFL and AFL media don't seem to realise that when you pay a free kick it gives 30 players time to flood forward and by the time the player get the ball back for a kick there is nobody to kick to.

Disagree.

I think Bont gets a pretty good run with the umps, HTB or otherwise.

A clean possession from a free kick is way less likely to be delivered into a clogged forward line than scrappy possession from contested ball. Especially with the rule change brought in last year for the man on the mark. Remember they are tightening up the rules about giving the ball back to the person that receives the free kick also.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Disagree.

I think Bont gets a pretty good run with the umps, HTB or otherwise.

A clean possession from a free kick is way less likely to be delivered into a clogged forward line than scrappy possession from contested ball. Especially with the rule change brought in last year for the man on the mark. Remember they are tightening up the rules about giving the ball back to the person that receives the free kick also.

This is what I want actioned the most, unless you are knocked out and can't get off the ball give it back or 50.

 

[bobs head soup]

My understanding is that this year umps will also view more harshly players who lower their hips as they are being tackled.

The player of ours I can see being the most challenged by the new interpretations will be Lachie Hunter.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

My understanding is that this year umps will also view more harshly players who lower their hips as they are being tackled.

The player of ours I can see being the most challenged by the new interpretations will be Lachie Hunter.

But not Joel Selwood though

 

[BallaratBulldog]

But not Joel Selwood though

He’s just brave and a good bloke.

 

[doggies ftw]

I feel like the umpires already sweat on Bont for holding the ball. Because he always gets his hands free it's more obvious when he doesn't get a handball away. The umpires are far more lenient with players that try to barge through packs then drop the ball.

Personally I think the umpires should give more time to the players who win the ball to try to get a clear disposal out. That way there is more chance of the ball getting into an open forward line.

The collective geniuses that run the AFL and AFL media don't seem to realise that when you pay a free kick it gives 30 players time to flood forward and by the time the player get the ball back for a kick there is nobody to kick to.

This this this this. Bloody nailed it. Free kicks do not open up a game I really don’t see how they can’t recognise this

 

[BEaston]

This this this this. Bloody nailed it. Free kicks do not open up a game I really don’t see how they can’t recognise this

I disagree (I don't think free kicks slow the game up).... but it's not actually the free kick they're after . It's about the action that teams will employ to avoid getting pinged for a free. It's not that AFL thinks more frees = faster game. Quicker disposal does though, which will be the the outcome from this interpretation change.

In any case, I think that's actually irrelevant when talking about AFL objectives because I don't think game speed has anything to do with why the AFL are doing it.

They are simply doing it to reduce injures IMO.

 

[flipper83]

Disagree.

I think Bont gets a pretty good run with the umps, HTB or otherwise.

A clean possession from a free kick is way less likely to be delivered into a clogged forward line than scrappy possession from contested ball. Especially with the rule change brought in last year for the man on the mark. Remember they are tightening up the rules about giving the ball back to the person that receives the free kick also.

But I think giving more time for the ball winner to dispose of the ball will lead to clean clearances where more free kicks will lead to rushed scrappy clearances.

As it stands the player who gets the ball has to dispose almost immediately so basically a blind kick forward in hope or a handpass through congestion. With zone defences these forays forward or often cut off.

If the player has more time they have more chance of getting a handball to a team mate in space or kicking to advantage.
This should lead to better clearances and more scoring opportunities.

With a free kick, even if you can get the ball to the kicker in 5 seconds, that's long enough for all the players around the clearance to run back 40m and fill the kickers space.

With the changes I almost think the player who is first to the ball is disadvantaged and we might see players hesitant to go for the ball. The other thing I think we'll see is more players trying to draw free kicks so the umpires job is only going to get more difficult.

Also if players are given more leniency around clearances then we might see more power athletes given a chance instead of the endurance athletes which dominate the game currently.

Less free kicks might mean more repeat clearances and less inside 50s but I think it would mean more goals. I guess it depends on what people think is more entertaining.

The only thing I really want to see less of is free kicks.

 

[Testekill]

If they wanted to clear up congestion then they could bring back the third man up but no teams weren't picking up shit talls just to have another ruck.

 

[BEaston]

But I think giving more time for the ball winner to dispose of the ball will lead to clean clearances where more free kicks will lead to rushed scrappy clearances.

As it stands the player who gets the ball has to dispose almost immediately so basically a blind kick forward in hope or a handpass through congestion. With zone defences these forays forward or often cut off.

If the player has more time they have more chance of getting a handball to a team mate in space or kicking to advantage.
This should lead to better clearances and more scoring opportunities.

With a free kick, even if you can get the ball to the kicker in 5 seconds, that's long enough for all the players around the clearance to run back 40m and fill the kickers space.

With the changes I almost think the player who is first to the ball is disadvantaged and we might see players hesitant to go for the ball. The other thing I think we'll see is more players trying to draw free kicks so the umpires job is only going to get more difficult.

Also if players are given more leniency around clearances then we might see more power athletes given a chance instead of the endurance athletes which dominate the game currently.

Less free kicks might mean more repeat clearances and less inside 50s but I think it would mean more goals. I guess it depends on what people think is more entertaining.

The only thing I really want to see less of is free kicks.

That is a fair point in bold.

Remember though, this is only if they have had prior opportunity. It's not in heavy congestion and a player is tackled as soon as they possess the ball. I think some of your points made did not take that into consideration.

I take your point about likelihood of cleaner possession, but I think it's offset by more repeat stoppages. To me if the ball is moving quicker out of congestion that's a good thing.

I agree with you on the free kicks. I don't want to see more free kicks... I'm hoping teams adjust pretty quickly.

Anyway, I guess time will tell. If it results in a quicker, more skillful game with less stoppages I'll be stoked.

 

[CarnTheScray]

When you go to hardly any games during the season, don't go to any finals, don't go to GF week training, don't go to the GF parade, don't go to the GF itself and can't even go anywhere to celebrate the win with anyone after, all that's left is being an online edge boy. Let him have that.

The salt will come in truckloads when they don’t win the flag next year.

 

[Libbaaaa]

If they wanted to clear up congestion then they could bring back the third man up but no teams weren't picking up sh*t talls just to have another ruck.

This, nominating is a blight on the game. Also throw ins are getting worse and worse by the year. Only so many times you can watch lumbering ruckman run forward 10 metres to try get to the call before it hits the turf.

 

[flipper83]

That is a fair point in bold.

Remember though, this is only if they have had prior opportunity. It's not in heavy congestion and a player is tackled as soon as they possess the ball. I think some of your points made did not take that into consideration.

I take your point about likelihood of cleaner possession, but I think it's offset by more repeat stoppages. To me if the ball is moving quicker out of congestion that's a good thing.

I agree with you on the free kicks. I don't want to see more free kicks... I'm hoping teams adjust pretty quickly.

Anyway, I guess time will tell. If it results in a quicker, more skillful game with less stoppages I'll be stoked.

I guess we'll see this year, or for however long the interpretations last, what the overall effect on the game is. I guess my view is perhaps tainted by occurrences of incorrect adjudication of the rule over the last few years.

My only wish is that we make the game simpler to officiate and reduce the interference by umpires.

 

[flipper83]

This, nominating is a blight on the game. Also throw ins are getting worse and worse by the year. Only so many times you can watch lumbering ruckman run forward 10 metres to try get to the call before it hits the turf.

It's such an unnecessary and unsightly aspect of the game that seems to have less and less point. I'd like the boundary umpires to carry a spare ball around and piff it in as soon as a ball goes out. Then let whoever is there go after the ball.

 

[Some Idiot]

Disagree.

I think Bont gets a pretty good run with the umps, HTB or otherwise.

A clean possession from a free kick is way less likely to be delivered into a clogged forward line than scrappy possession from contested ball. Especially with the rule change brought in last year for the man on the mark. Remember they are tightening up the rules about giving the ball back to the person that receives the free kick also.

He does get a good run at times but HTB against him is pretty common. The umps know he likes to take the game on and some of them are lenient and give him a chance to break tackles and others are red hot on him. Depends on the umpire.