Ban the Bounce

[DazalenkoUBewty]

The bounce stays. I like it. It's part of the game.

I also get why some peeps wouldn't mind seeing the ass end of it.

But nah, keeps for me.

 

[Xtreme]

Ban the bounce.....

What next ? Night time gf just to have a few fizz bang fire works displays?

 

[HTT]

It's a cool, dramatic way to start the game. Bounce it at the start of each quarter, then give umpires the option after that. If you get rid of it, the game loses some charm. Even when the umpire stuffs it up it's good. See 2015 elim.

 

[DelRe]

Ever seen a line-out in rugby? What do soccer players do when the ball goes out? Why couldn't the boundary umpires do that and save their back and get more power and accuracy to actually reach the ruckmen. The ball-up is as logical as an alternative as the above. It's actually a simpler alternative to the bounce, it's a little bit ridiculous to think that those who came before us didn't think to throw the ball up. Surely there were reasons they went for the more complicated bounce, I've stated my views on those reasons.

I would never argue on the basis of tradition, besides where does tradition start and end. I think its extremely stupid bordering on brain dead to look at the original laws of the game and compare that to the laws of the game that have stood for 70++ years. I think the AFL do make good rule changes but what good is it having 1 good rule change for 3 bad ones? Worst of all they will not revert rules that fail, they just add more rules on top of it its preposterous, reactive and arrogant.

In fairness though, both those examples are re-starts by players and in soccer they can throw to their advantage (in rugby it has to go straight but is still timed/distance/arc to advantage) and necessarily needs to be front on. I agree an umpire could do it front on, I was just speculating that the reason for doing it with their back to the players was for it to have less (perceived) bias / more neutrality rather than achieving a random outcome. The reason for doing it from outside the field of play rather than a ball-up was presumably just to return it from the point it left. Most sports take that approach rather than re-start infield. A ball-up though is quite different to a throw-in as well so I wouldn't call it the natural alternative to a throw-in in the same way that it is to a bounce - although it is an interesting idea to have it instead. Similarly the reference to how football started, apart from perhaps de-bunking tradition, was that it showed the ball-up was thought of first and so probably the objective was just for neutral re-starts not random ones. I don't know why they adopted the bounce later on though. It would be interesting to know why.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Easy to take the bounce for granted. Getting rid of it would make the game that little bit more generic, which is something to be avoided.

Would've thought aspiring umpires would practice bouncing the ball endlessly in the same way as most normal kids practice kicking the ball to themselves in the backyard.

 

[DrEvil_]

Ban OP from starting shit threads would be a better idea.

 

[yodellinhank]

Ban OP from starting shit threads would be a better idea.

Pretty topical discussion, not sure your problem?

 

[DangerSloane]

They don't regularly stats for either (the umpires association released the bounce stats). Boundary throw ins are recalled by a field umpire, not the boundary but play on can also be called for a throw in that is not deemed acceptable

It's easier to be glued to the ground. All you need to do is raise an arm and firm your position.

So now we've shown your 10/15/4 recalls to be false, it seems pretty clear you're coming from a side of emotion. Not logic

You haven't because you haven't shown how many throw ins have been recalled. I seriously can't even remember a time when this has occurred. Also given the nature of the throw in, both rucks generally have the same chance even if it's an average throw in. This simply doesn't occur with the bounce. There are a lot more bounces thst should be recalled too


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DangerSloane]

once every 10 rounds?

So now it's gone from 10 times a game to 15 times a game to 3 or 4 times a game? Probably best if you're going to make a point, to stick with one set of stats

Wait, so now you're referring to stats, but saying the stats don't exist and you're saying we should watch a game.

Can tell the kid who never played footy, and never rucked in his life

Maybe best if you learn to read. The bounce is only completed after goals and starting quarters, so there's around what 30 a game? And they're stuffing up how many according to your stats? Not to mention the numerous times that one ruckman has absolutely no chance to contest the ruck yet the bounce isn't recalled. You're like arguing with a child, you don't know what you're talking about and you actually have no point to make but you'll stamp your feet up and down anyhow. So when your doctor gives you the blood test results that you have absolutely no idea how to interpret, you're then going to go and tell them exactly what it all means yeah? So when he says we need to do surgery you say nah I don't think so, I disagree. I interpreted the results how I wanted to even though I have no ****ing idea what it all means.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DemonTim]

You haven't because you haven't shown how many throw ins have been recalled. I seriously can't even remember a time when this has occurred. Also given the nature of the throw in, both rucks generally have the same chance even if it's an average throw in. This simply doesn't occur with the bounce. There are a lot more bounces thst should be recalled too


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Me showing that you were false in stating that (initially) 10 bounces are recalled a game (it was my original point against you, that you felt the need to use extreme hyperbole, which you cracked the sads about), then said 15 are recalled a game. Then changed it to 3 or 4 are recalled a game. Statistically that is a lie, that has nothing to do with the amount of throw ins recalled (which has completely different rules around it, with play on generally being called for short/inaccurate throw ins, as per the rules)

Maybe best if you learn to read. The bounce is only completed after goals and starting quarters, so there's around what 30 a game? And they're stuffing up how many according to your stats? Not to mention the numerous times that one ruckman has absolutely no chance to contest the ruck yet the bounce isn't recalled. You're like arguing with a child, you don't know what you're talking about and you actually have no point to make but you'll stamp your feet up and down anyhow. So when your doctor gives you the blood test results that you have absolutely no idea how to interpret, you're then going to go and tell them exactly what it all means yeah? So when he says we need to do surgery you say nah I don't think so, I disagree. I interpreted the results how I wanted to even though I have no ******* idea what it all means.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I was the one who gave the 30 figure. 1 a game is recalled, thats's one in thirty. Apparently you can't even admit to being wrong (10 are recalled every game!) when stats show you are wrong. Here are your posts referring to how many are recalled:

Except guess what, they still **** it up 2 or 3 times out of 10.

Or the umpire went oops.... 6 times a game.

The throw in?
Gets stuffed up what like once every 10 rounds and is done what 30 times a game?

The bounce is stuffed up at least three to 4 times a game, and is done what maximum 30 times in a game? Even some more of them should be recalled because realistically the other ruck hasnt had a chance.
.

There are not guys at lower levels doing it 9/10.
Thats garbage. Half the time the bounces dont go the required height.

If you can't even admit you're wrong when factual evidence shows you are, there is really no reason for anyone to interact with you.

Again, you ignore the point. Blood tests are evidence, child. The umpires have not given evidence, they've just said "umpires miss out because they can't do it". That isn't comparable to giving test results or data to a patient. It is the equivalent of a doctor saying "Hey, you've got cancer" and not elaborating. I made it clear if evidence is provided with an opinion from an expert it has weight, without evidence it is useless. You do realise that's how science/medicine/logic works, yes? You need to present evidence to external parties, not just make a claim and expect people to believe you because "I work in the field!"

Your projection is just getting funny. You've been stamping your feet for 5 pages now, admitted you have no evidence, lied, and changed the point over and over. Tell us more about the SANFL comp you entered to bounce a ball or how you played at a high level and noone could bounce the ball

 

[DangerSloane]

Me showing that you were false in stating that (initially) 10 bounces are recalled a game (it was my original point against you, that you felt the need to use extreme hyperbole, which you cracked the sads about), then said 15 are recalled a game. Then changed it to 3 or 4 are recalled a game. Statistically that is a lie, that has nothing to do with the amount of throw ins recalled (which has completely different rules around it, with play on generally being called for short/inaccurate throw ins, as per the rules)


I was the one who gave the 30 figure. 1 a game is recalled, thats's one in thirty. Apparently you can't even admit to being wrong (10 are recalled every game!) when stats show you are wrong. Here are your posts referring to how many are recalled:






If you can't even admit you're wrong when factual evidence shows you are, there is really no reason for anyone to interact with you.

Again, you ignore the point. Blood tests are evidence, child. The umpires have not given evidence, they've just said "umpires miss out because they can't do it". That isn't comparable to giving test results or data to a patient. It is the equivalent of a doctor saying "Hey, you've got cancer" and not elaborating. I made it clear if evidence is provided with an opinion from an expert it has weight, without evidence it is useless. You do realise that's how science/medicine/logic works, yes? You need to present evidence to external parties, not just make a claim and expect people to believe you because "I work in the field!"

Your projection is just getting funny. You've been stamping your feet for 5 pages now, admitted you have no evidence, lied, and changed the point over and over. Tell us more about the SANFL comp you entered to bounce a ball or how you played at a high level and noone could bounce the ball

Sorry, but considering your hefty use of the multi-quote tool, you'd think you could find one where I actually said what you're claiming.

But alas, like everything else, you've come up short.

You also might need a comprehension lesson. I said they stuff up the bounce, not that its recalled. The two are not mutually exclusive.

So the bounce is recalled once a game by your own stats (actually slightly higher than that), however you arent counting the times when one ruckman is favoured heavily by the bounce. In the past this wasnt an issue because the ruckmen had as much run up as they wanted and coult therefore still have a decent crack at jumping at the footy, but given the circle these days, any time the bounce goes one way more than about a metre its unfair to the other ruckman. So in reality most of the ruck contests arent really ruck contests at all... Point being the bounce is unfair more often than not. You want a spectacle, but you want the bounce to remain so at the majority of centre ruck contests one ruckman is standing on the ground. May as well just make it netball and hand the ball to one ruckman each time.

Oh but wheres the evidence I hear you bleating. Well watch a ****ing game, theres the evidence.

Anyway you've made 30 posts now and still havent made a point.

Should we keep the bounce? If so, why?

Now lets see you actually put forward something of substance not just crying that theres no evidence about something that is opinion based and therefore can never have supporting evidence.

 

[Wallaby]

I think they should consider getting rid of the centre line as well. Ruckmen should stand where they want to (still only have 2 ruckmen going for the ball - no 3rd man up). Ruckmen should be able to body each other. The around the ground ball-ups are more entertaining (except for the pack around the ball). At centre bounces (or throw-ups), with the restriction of only 4 players per side in the square, I think it could be more interesting than what we have now.

The centre line only came in during the late 70s (blame Ron Barassi).

 

[DangerSloane]

I think they should consider getting rid of the centre line as well. Ruckmen should stand where they want to (still only have 2 ruckmen going for the ball - no 3rd man up). Ruckmen should be able to body each other. The around the ground ball-ups are more entertaining (except for the pack around the ball). At centre bounces (or throw-ups), with the restriction of only 4 players per side in the square, I think it could be more interesting than what we have now.

The centre line only came in during the late 70s (blame Ron Barassi).

The circle is what causes more problems.
Means the bounce has to be closer to the centre to get a fair contest.

Wouldnt matter with a throw up, both players get a fair jump at the footy

 

[DangerSloane]

Easy to take the bounce for granted. Getting rid of it would make the game that little bit more generic, which is something to be avoided.

Would've thought aspiring umpires would practice bouncing the ball endlessly in the same way as most normal kids practice kicking the ball to themselves in the backyard.

Can you explain to me how it makes it generic?
No other sport in the world has a throw up with two players running and jumping at each other to contest the ball.
The bounce changes nothing in relation to the games uniqueness

 

[DangerSloane]

It's a cool, dramatic way to start the game. Bounce it at the start of each quarter, then give umpires the option after that. If you get rid of it, the game loses some charm. Even when the umpire stuffs it up it's good. See 2015 elim.

What happens when they stuff it up, the clock goes for 8 seconds, it gets rebounced, and then Cyril running into the open goal for the grand final and the siren goes.

All it does is detract from the game.
Adds absolutely nothing.

Ruins ruck contests, often takes time off the clock, even when not recalled rarely gives a fair contest.

 

[DemonTim]

Sorry, but considering your hefty use of the multi-quote tool, you'd think you could find one where I actually said what you're claiming.

But alas, like everything else, you've come up short.

You also might need a comprehension lesson. I said they stuff up the bounce, not that its recalled. The two are not mutually exclusive.

So the bounce is recalled once a game by your own stats (actually slightly higher than that), however you arent counting the times when one ruckman is favoured heavily by the bounce. In the past this wasnt an issue because the ruckmen had as much run up as they wanted and coult therefore still have a decent crack at jumping at the footy, but given the circle these days, any time the bounce goes one way more than about a metre its unfair to the other ruckman. So in reality most of the ruck contests arent really ruck contests at all... Point being the bounce is unfair more often than not. You want a spectacle, but you want the bounce to remain so at the majority of centre ruck contests one ruckman is standing on the ground. May as well just make it netball and hand the ball to one ruckman each time.

Oh but wheres the evidence I hear you bleating. Well watch a ******* game, theres the evidence.

Anyway you've made 30 posts now and still havent made a point.

Should we keep the bounce? If so, why?

Now lets see you actually put forward something of substance not just crying that theres no evidence about something that is opinion based and therefore can never have supporting evidence.

Wait, recalling a bounce 2 or 3 times out of 10, would be 6-9 times out of 30 (both our figure for bounces per game). Surely, you're not cracking it over a discrepancy of 1? You also said half don't go required height, thats 15/30. You also explicitly changed it to 3 or 4. I'm not sure why you would even attempt to lie when what you've explicitly stated is written just above.

So they're stuffing it, but not recalling it? Didn't you say in a post that they should either just never recall it (so it's random as people want) or ban it?

Unfair completely depends on the ruck, some are adept at standing their ground, so the ball going their way is good for them, others need a run, so the ball going their way is bad for them. Ruckman who are stronger in the contest, and weaker at the jump, will generally struggle with a straight up bounce, the speed and leap is their weakness (although they're generally stronger at throw ins/ups where a run up isn't required as much as gaining the 'good ground')

I watch most games, and am heavily involved in local footy and VFL, i haven't seen anything to suggest an 'epidemic' or even close to what you're suggesting. So no, that's not evidence, it's an opinion, and since it seems the unpopular one in this thread, i'd say that's it's a sure sign it's not evidence. Stats (which were actually provided) are evidence. Although these contradictory statements are a bit amusing:
Oh but wheres the evidence I hear you bleating. Well watch a ******* game, theres the evidence.

that is opinion based and therefore can never have supporting evidence.

I've made a point, that your logic is shit. You don't like the point, so you try to shout as loud as you can, and throw around some weird aggressive (or attempted) attitude.

You've just argued against yourself, it's based on opinion. So you are no more right than the opposing side, both are just arguing for what they "like" (which you sooked about endlessly)

 

[Ron The Bear]

Can you explain to me how it makes it generic?
No other sport in the world has a throw up with two players running and jumping at each other to contest the ball.
The bounce changes nothing in relation to the games uniqueness

Predictability. The game is already suffering badly from it. The centre circle has a larger centre circle around it to cater for minor deviations from the perfect bounce. Quality ruckmen and rovers adapt to such deviations.

Throwing the ball up resembles a basketball tip-off. Sure, the players would still run at each other (or at least have the option of doing so). But all it means is that the player with the greater combination of height + leap will win the tap more often. Predictable.

 

[DelRe]

Predictability. The game is already suffering badly from it. The centre circle has a larger centre circle around it to cater for minor deviations from the perfect bounce. Quality ruckmen and rovers adapt to such deviations.

Throwing the ball up resembles a basketball tip-off. Sure, the players would still run at each other (or at least have the option of doing so). But all it means is that the player with the greater combination of height + leap will win the tap more often. Predictable.

I understand the argument that there's a bit more theatre in the action of a bounce but don't think it's a great argument that it's better because it provides unpredictability that benefits a lesser skilled ruckman. A bounce or ball-up should be predictable within reason (both will inevitably vary in height) to provide a fair and neutral start/re-start.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I understand the argument that there's a bit more theatre in the action of a bounce but don't think it's a great argument that it's better because it provides unpredictability that benefits a lesser skilled ruckman. A bounce or ball-up should be predictable within reason (both will inevitably vary in height) to provide a fair and neutral start/re-start.

Fair enough. I acknowledge some facets of the opposing argument but disagree that there is a strong case for change and believe quirky, unique aspects of the game should be preserved. Put it down to my deplorable conservative nature.

 

[DangerSloane]

Predictability. The game is already suffering badly from it. The centre circle has a larger centre circle around it to cater for minor deviations from the perfect bounce. Quality ruckmen and rovers adapt to such deviations.

Throwing the ball up resembles a basketball tip-off. Sure, the players would still run at each other (or at least have the option of doing so). But all it means is that the player with the greater combination of height + leap will win the tap more often. Predictable.

When it comes to entering the ball back into play after a goal, isn't the idea that the contest is as fair as possible, though? Its meant to be a 50-50.
The throw up actually gives both rucks the ability to jump at it, and puts more of a focus on rucking ability, rather than whoever wins the tap being determined by which way the bounce goes.

No rucks (quality or not) can possibly adapt to a bounce that sits on their head. They are stuck standing still, while the other ruck jumps over them, no matter what ability he has. Happens to even the most athletic or tall guys.

We already have plenty of variability in the game. If random is what you want, then why ever recall the bounce? If it goes sideways along the ground, play it on?

Put it this way, the best bounces are considered to be the ones that go straight up and have the two rucks contest in the air.
Isnt that the end game? If so, then the throw up gets this far more often...theoretically every single time.

 

[DangerSloane]

Wait, recalling a bounce 2 or 3 times out of 10, would be 6-9 times out of 30 (both our figure for bounces per game). Surely, you're not cracking it over a discrepancy of 1? You also said half don't go required height, thats 15/30. You also explicitly changed it to 3 or 4. I'm not sure why you would even attempt to lie when what you've explicitly stated is written just above.

So they're stuffing it, but not recalling it? Didn't you say in a post that they should either just never recall it (so it's random as people want) or ban it?

Unfair completely depends on the ruck, some are adept at standing their ground, so the ball going their way is good for them, others need a run, so the ball going their way is bad for them. Ruckman who are stronger in the contest, and weaker at the jump, will generally struggle with a straight up bounce, the speed and leap is their weakness (although they're generally stronger at throw ins/ups where a run up isn't required as much as gaining the 'good ground')

I watch most games, and am heavily involved in local footy and VFL, i haven't seen anything to suggest an 'epidemic' or even close to what you're suggesting. So no, that's not evidence, it's an opinion, and since it seems the unpopular one in this thread, i'd say that's it's a sure sign it's not evidence. Stats (which were actually provided) are evidence. Although these contradictory statements are a bit amusing:
Oh but wheres the evidence I hear you bleating. Well watch a ******* game, theres the evidence.

that is opinion based and therefore can never have supporting evidence.

I've made a point, that your logic is shit. You don't like the point, so you try to shout as loud as you can, and throw around some weird aggressive (or attempted) attitude.

You've just argued against yourself, it's based on opinion. So you are no more right than the opposing side, both are just arguing for what they "like" (which you sooked about endlessly)

Finally you've actually quoted me correctly.


yeah. There is no arguement for keeping it, if u want to recall some of them.

If you want random, keep it random. If you want a fair contest throw it up.

Recalling the odd bounce makes no sense, especially given almost all the ruck contests when bounces are used aren't fair anyway

Also FYI never mentioned half of them not reaching the height, although thats the reason they brought in the circle, and the plate that they had in the 90s.

No you see you think ive argued against myself, but im actually arguing against someone who doesnt have an opinion or argument. After 5 pages you still cant give me a good reason for keeping the bounce? You havent refuted any of my opinions about the bounce being unfair on almost all occasions, especially with the use of the ruck circle. You have somehow tried to refute however that a bounce is a harder skill than throwing the ball up, and also throwing the ball back into play.

 

[DemonTim]

Finally you've actually quoted me correctly.


yeah. There is no arguement for keeping it, if u want to recall some of them.

If you want random, keep it random. If you want a fair contest throw it up.

Recalling the odd bounce makes no sense, especially given almost all the ruck contests when bounces are used aren't fair anyway

Also FYI never mentioned half of them not reaching the height, although thats the reason they brought in the circle, and the plate that they had in the 90s.

I didn't even quote you in that post, i explained the quotes, and why they weren't false. The only change I made was instead of 10/30, it was 8or9/30. The rest were all exact quotes.

So your issue isn't with the bounce, it's with recalling 1 a game?

You've never played ruck, have you?

Your exact words:
Thats garbage. Half the time the bounces dont go the required height.

I think you just need to argue and vent aggression online, weird.

 

[DemonTim]

When it comes to entering the ball back into play after a goal, isn't the idea that the contest is as fair as possible, though? Its meant to be a 50-50.
The throw up actually gives both rucks the ability to jump at it, and puts more of a focus on rucking ability, rather than whoever wins the tap being determined by which way the bounce goes.

No rucks (quality or not) cannot possibly adapt to a bounce that sits on their head. They are stuck standing still, while the other ruck jumps over them, no matter what ability he has. Happens to even the most athletic or tall guys.

We already have plenty of variability in the game. If random is what you want, then why ever recall the bounce? If it goes sideways along the ground, play it on?

Put it this way, the best bounces are considered to be the ones that go straight up and have the two rucks contest in the air.
Isnt that the end game? If so, then the throw up gets this far more often...theoretically every single time.

Again, it's easier for bigger rucks to hold their ground and have someone attempt to jump over them, it's very very easy to negate (hence why getting the good ground at throw ups/ins around the ground is so important, otherwise you'd start further away and just jump over the bloke defending the ground).

 

[DangerSloane]

I didn't even quote you in that post, i explained the quotes, and why they weren't false. The only change I made was instead of 10/30, it was 8or9/30. The rest were all exact quotes.

So your issue isn't with the bounce, it's with recalling 1 a game?

You've never played ruck, have you?

Your exact words:
Thats garbage. Half the time the bounces dont go the required height.

I think you just need to argue and vent aggression online, weird.

The bolded part, you finally stated I said something that I actually did say

My issue is the bounce adds nothing except for certain unfair contests, and should be removed.

 

[DemonTim]

The bolded part, you finally stated I said something that I actually did say

My issue is the bounce adds nothing except for certain unfair contests, and should be removed.

I quoted four of your posts. Direct quotes. I'm not even sure what you're arguing now. That your quotes somehow aren't your quotes.

So why will you accept removing the recalls? And why did you spend such a huge amount of time complaining about how prevalent recalls are and how they ruin games?