Ban the Bounce

[shintemaster]

I like it (and the uncertainty / tradition) but wouldn't be devastated to see reduction or removal. I'd say at a minimum a bounce to begin each quarter. Personally I don't have a huge issue with the odd stuffed up bounce anyway and think it's a bit of fun for the crowd to be able to jeer the umps when it goes horribly wrong and is recalled. I do think the clock time shouldn't go though if the bounce is recalled. Perhaps something like clock starts from the ruck tap or add a few seconds back if recalled.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Only one umpire out of the three on field umps need to be able to bounce it

Not being able to bounce is not a disqualifying disability

 

[DangerSloane]

Only one umpire out of the three on field umps need to be able to bounce it

Not being able to bounce is not a disqualifying disability

So then that umpire gets the middle section of the game the whole time?

Start to get different umpires for different parts of the ground.

I still dont think they accept umpires that cant bounce well though...

What happens when the bouncy umpire gets hurt?

 

[DemonTim]

Absolutely isnt.
Bouncing a footy is a lot harder than kicking it 40m to a point on the ground.

I've done both.

Put it this way the average umpire could kick a 40m drop punt. The average footballer cant bounce the ball sufficiently and consistently enough to be an umpire. The skill is a pointless one. It adds nothing to the game, and is almost certainly keeping good umpires from the top level. As I said I dont have anything beyond anecdotal evidence for this, but it makes perfect sense. I dont know how you would even find evidence for something like that...

I've done both too. ****, we had an umpire in his 70s come out of retirement to help our league out last year since they were short, and he could still bounce it. It's really not harder than hitting a 40m pin point drop punt.

...yeah, but why should they need to?? They shouldn't be on show. Just because it 'makes our game different'? The players are the ones who should be showing the physical skills. Let the Umpires form their own 'ball-bouncing' competition/league.

So a bounce is on show, but throwing the ball up isn't? Boundary throw ins? What if a number of good decision makers are missing out because they can't throw a ball properly!

You give a shit enough to read through 7 pages of the thread.
That argument doesnt fly. If you didnt care you wouldnt be here.

Skimmed most of it as Bunk just posted the same thing over and over. 1.5 hour commute to work will mean you spend time reading garbage. Mostly just for a laugh from the extreme people from both sides (yes the traditionalists are just as stupid as your extreme views)

I like how you think reading and replying to a short (for a forum) thread is some sort of massive feat that only people who have extreme interest in would ever possibly do.

 

[benneth]

Love it. Best hearing that sound and watching it go up on 1st round, finals and gf

There would be some irony in a scenario where the bounce remained only in the above games!

 

[rumply]

In a perfect world the bounce would remain & be executed perfectly, but as it stands it's become an embarrassment to the game & it's only a matter of time until the opening bounce of the GF, broadcast to however many millions around the globe, is recalled because a umpire stuffs it up. Just envision for a second how deflating that would be.

So chuck it up, no one will give a shit anymore within a few rounds.

& while we are it, if the ball goes between the big sticks it's a goal & a point if between a big stick & a small stick so we can **** off the umpire review bs which as far as embarrassments goes, is about as bad as it gets.

 

[DangerSloane]

I've done both too. ****, we had an umpire in his 70s come out of retirement to help our league out last year since they were short, and he could still bounce it. It's really not harder than hitting a 40m pin point drop punt.


So a bounce is on show, but throwing the ball up isn't? Boundary throw ins? What if a number of good decision makers are missing out because they can't throw a ball properly!


Skimmed most of it as Bunk just posted the same thing over and over. 1.5 hour commute to work will mean you spend time reading garbage. Mostly just for a laugh from the extreme people from both sides (yes the traditionalists are just as stupid as your extreme views)

I like how you think reading and replying to a short (for a forum) thread is some sort of massive feat that only people who have extreme interest in would ever possibly do.

Decision makers? What in or out?
HAHAHA get real Tim, you've lost it.

Also you're the one that keeps posting the same thing. You havent presented an argument either way, you've admitted you dont care either way, so why are you responding.

And somehow having a fair game, and the possibility of higher class adjudicating is extreme lol

You're like a trump fan, thinking that people that just believe in general human rights are 'extreme leftists'

 

[DemonTim]

Decision makers? What in or out?
HAHAHA get real Tim, you've lost it.

Also you're the one that keeps posting the same thing. You havent presented an argument either way, you've admitted you dont care either way, so why are you responding.

And somehow having a fair game, and the possibility of higher class adjudicating is extreme lol

You're like a trump fan, thinking that people that just believe in general human rights are 'extreme leftists'

I was mocking your reasoning. Well done at not picking that up, and running with it, in turn mocking your own reasoning

Your view is extreme because of how you present it "**** YOU! **** THE BOUNCE! I'M RIGHT! I HAVE ANECDOTE! **** YOU ALL!". If you'd simply responded rationally without abusing every single person who disagreed (or didn't agree with you) you wouldn't be extreme.

You quoted me, so you don't want me to respond, but want to quote me?

I wouldn't be comparing others to trump fans, you've abused everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% and claimed some high ground despite admitting to not having evidence for claims.

 

[DangerSloane]

I was mocking your reasoning. Well done at not picking that up, and running with it, in turn mocking your own reasoning

Your view is extreme because of how you present it "**** YOU! **** THE BOUNCE! I'M RIGHT! I HAVE ANECDOTE! **** YOU ALL!". If you'd simply responded rationally without abusing every single person who disagreed (or didn't agree with you) you wouldn't be extreme.

You quoted me, so you don't want me to respond, but want to quote me?

I wouldn't be comparing others to trump fans, you've abused everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% and claimed some high ground despite admitting to not having evidence for claims.

LOL you're so stupid.
You were mocking my reason with a different example that doesnt even require the thing that is needed in the other.

You just compared apples and orange juice, congratulations.

I'm happy to listen to a reason why the bounce is needed. You have given none...
So far the reasoning is purely "i like it that way". Nobody has come up with any reason why the bounce being banned would make any difference, except for the obvious more fair ruck contests, no called back bounces and wasted seconds.

 

[DemonTim]

LOL you're so stupid.
You were mocking my reason with a different example that doesnt even require the thing that is needed in the other.

You just compared apples and orange juice, congratulations.

I'm happy to listen to a reason why the bounce is needed. You have given none...
So far the reasoning is purely "i like it that way". Nobody has come up with any reason why the bounce being banned would make any difference, except for the obvious more fair ruck contests, no called back bounces and wasted seconds.

I was applying your reasoning of "if x skill is required, then it may prevent people who are better decision makers from becoming umpires". It applies perfectly, it wasn't a comparison, it was an extension of reasoning. Please try and understand basic concepts of discussion before responding kid.

I haven't said it's needed, I just pointed out stupid logic.

More fair ruck contests? I'd think the boundary throw in has more bearing on ruckmans ability to compete fairly (that's from both watching and playing).

Although if some people "like it" isn't that enough of a reason for them? The entire sport is watched by spectators for it's entertainment purpose, something being likeable fits with the exact reason for why people watch football.

 

[DangerSloane]

I was applying your reasoning of "if x skill is required, then it may prevent people who are better decision makers from becoming umpires". It applies perfectly, it wasn't a comparison, it was an extension of reasoning. Please try and understand basic concepts of discussion before responding kid.

I haven't said it's needed, I just pointed out stupid logic.

More fair ruck contests? I'd think the boundary throw in has more bearing on ruckmans ability to compete fairly (that's from both watching and playing).

Although if some people "like it" isn't that enough of a reason for them? The entire sport is watched by spectators for it's entertainment purpose, something being likeable fits with the exact reason for why people watch football.

No it doesnt, because the skills required are not only less in number but less in importance to the game.
The same logic certainly does not apply. What a moronic statement.

Also one of their main jobs it to throw the ball in. I would argue that the field umpires main job is to adjudicate decisions and not to be able to bounce the ball. I dont think even you would argue with that. Once again, not the same.

Fair ruck contests because instead of the ball favouring one ruck a large proportion of the time at centre bounces, the ball will be thrown up and you'll get a proper ruck contest, not one guy standing there trying to defend the other ruck leaping over him with momentum.

Your last argument would have merit if the same people didnt keep saying 'stop changing the rules'. The rules are being changed so that the game is better to watch, and largely they are working. So if those people are for keeping the bounce for aesthetics, why are they not for the rule changes for aesthetics. Cant have it both ways.

 

[DemonTim]

No it doesnt, because the skills required are not only less in number but less in importance to the game.
The same logic certainly does not apply. What a moronic statement.

Also one of their main jobs it to throw the ball in. I would argue that the field umpires main job is to adjudicate decisions and not to be able to bounce the ball. I dont think even you would argue with that. Once again, not the same.

Fair ruck contests because instead of the ball favouring one ruck a large proportion of the time at centre bounces, the ball will be thrown up and you'll get a proper ruck contest, not one guy standing there trying to defend the other ruck leaping over him with momentum.

Your last argument would have merit if the same people didnt keep saying 'stop changing the rules'. The rules are being changed so that the game is better to watch, and largely they are working. So if those people are for keeping the bounce for aesthetics, why are they not for the rule changes for aesthetics. Cant have it both ways.

Importance to the game is based on the rules, if something is required of the umpires, then it is a required skill and thus of importance. Currently both throwing the ball, and bouncing the ball are required skills. So hold the same value of importance. Your logic was validly extended, and you mocked yourself by mocking it. Throwing in addendum to it doesn't change that. (or that fact that you missed that you were being mocked)

Field umpires throw the ball (you'll notice i specified throwing the ball, you've added in and assumed I'm only referring to boundary umpires), as you deem their main job as adjudicating decisions do you think it doesn't matter if they can't throw a ball straight up?

You've left out a part of my point on ruck contests and responded to half of it. It has made that segment of your response useless. Don't be disingenuous

The entire last segment is very subjective, plenty of supporters and the media think the rule changes are making the game look worse. Can you point out people who want to keep the bounce because it looks good, but are against other rule changes that would make the game look better? Seems like a very strange subjective view, and I can't say i've seen anyone make the claim. It's a valid view if they don't feel these rule changes improve aesthetics

 

[DangerSloane]

Importance to the game is based on the rules, if something is required of the umpires, then it is a required skill and thus of importance. Currently both throwing the ball, and bouncing the ball are required skills. So hold the same value of importance. Your logic was validly extended, and you mocked yourself by mocking it. Throwing in addendum to it doesn't change that. (or that fact that you missed that you were being mocked)

Field umpires throw the ball (you'll notice i specified throwing the ball, you've added in and assumed I'm only referring to boundary umpires), as you deem their main job as adjudicating decisions do you think it doesn't matter if they can't throw a ball straight up?

You've left out a part of my point on ruck contests and responded to half of it. It has made that segment of your response useless. Don't be disingenuous

The entire last segment is very subjective, plenty of supporters and the media think the rule changes are making the game look worse. Can you point out people who want to keep the bounce because it looks good, but are against other rule changes that would make the game look better? Seems like a very strange subjective view, and I can't say i've seen anyone make the claim. It's a valid view if they don't feel these rule changes improve aesthetics

Look I'm not going to bother with you, because quite frankly you're a raving lunatic. Any person can throw a ball straight up, very few people can bounce it straight. End of discussions.

Oh and here's an article where players and umpires have had their take. Funny that the only person who still wants to keep it in this article is old raving KB, who actually reminds me a lot of yourself.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/how...y/news-story/066a5b88b686ab9d8e1e4d93f925fdb7


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DemonTim]

Look I'm not going to bother with you, because quite frankly you're a raving lunatic. Any person can throw a ball straight up, very few people can bounce it straight. End of discussions.

Oh and here's an article where players and umpires have had their take. Funny that the only person who still wants to keep it in this article is old raving KB, who actually reminds me a lot of yourself.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/how...y/news-story/066a5b88b686ab9d8e1e4d93f925fdb7


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

"**** YOU IM RIGHT!"

Players want it? Great! Let's give them everything they want!

Although they were just discussing it on the radio, and everyone was saying "who gives a shit".

I look forward to your next 25 posts in a row, and the inevitable point when you mock yourself again.

 

[shaqsuns]

I think we should change the shape of the ball so it's round and then kick it into the back of a net without using any hands whilst 10 players run back into an impassable zone making very hard to score. Let's make AFL great again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I'd rather see the bounce brought back around the ground. That random elemant adds to the skills of ruckmen, without it hit outs are far too predictable.

 

[LordLucifer]

I'd rather see the bounce brought back around the ground. That random elemant adds to the skills of ruckmen, without it hit outs are far too predictable.

And for once I agree with KB on it as well :

"The bounce is unique to our game, a game like no other on the planet, an indigenous game. It gave ruck work a skill with the oval ball that sometimes went off centre and at different heights, for ruck work once was an art form of the game," Bartlett said on his SEN Radio program. "Now, they want a basketball tip-off to start our great game. Good god!"

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/afl-news/kevin-bartlett-backs-the-bounce-20170221-guiej4.html

This bit I just rolled my eyes at :

Umpires are concerned about back injuries, the fairness to competing ruckmen, and the continued difficulty of finding enough umpires to officiate at the elite level.

 

[DemonTim]

And for once I agree with KB on it as well :



http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/afl-news/kevin-bartlett-backs-the-bounce-20170221-guiej4.html

This bit I just rolled my eyes at :

He's not wrong about a bball tip off. Not sure if it's everywhere but our league pays a free against if a ruckman jumps with a knee up

 

[PerfectFooty]

It's a bad cop out by umpires to use the bounce as an excuse.

It's like saying player X got picked because he can mark good over Player Y who can do everything and slightly mark. And you know what? even if player Y wasn't picked he'd say "Well i need to do some improving in this area..." not throw in the towel and have a complain. Yes you can't compare umpires to players i know that, but something about umpiring is broken at it's core

 

[DemonTim]

It's a bad cop out by umpires to use the bounce as an excuse.

It's like saying player X got picked because he can mark good over Player Y who can do everything and slightly mark. And you know what? even if player Y wasn't picked he'd say "Well i need to do some improving in this area..." not throw in the towel and have a complain. Yes you can't compare umpires to players i know that, but something about umpiring is broken at it's core

It's just a deflection

Blokes and umpires out my way can bounce it. And I play divi 2

 

[PerfectFooty]

It's just a deflection

Blokes and umpires out my way can bounce it. And I play divi 2

Exactly, this attitude of 'get rid of it', quick fix solution trickles down from the AFL.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The AFL machine has rolled into action, all the media have been given a directive to write an article saying its time for the bounce to go, last few days all of a sudden a story about the bounce needing to go and of course agreeing with the umpires advisor and anyone else from AFL house.
It's like clockwork how the system works now, someone complains or whinges, the AFL jump behind it, the AFL instruct media to get behind it.
Change occurs. The sheep will put up with it so who cares.

The bounce is going.

 

[McOrist]

I'd rather see the bounce brought back around the ground. That random elemant adds to the skills of ruckmen, without it hit outs are far too predictable.

...yeah -the ruckman with the most skill would win the tap every time. We can't have that!

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I really don't see why this is an issue.

There is no real argument for the bounce being better than throwing it up, and yet it is something that is often inconsistent, can end up being unfair to one ruckman/team (and thus leads to more complaints from fans) and is apparently something that a lot of umpires are not happy doing (or don't have the skill/strength to do consistently at this level). Umpires should be chosen on their ability to umpire - bouncing the ball should be irrelevant.

If the Umpires are asking for it to go, and if throwing it up provides the exact same thing, but fairer - then just get rid of the bounce.

 

[McOrist]

I really don't see why this is an issue.

There is no real argument for the bounce being better than throwing it up, and yet it is something that is often inconsistent, can end up being unfair to one ruckman/team (and thus leads to more complaints from fans) and is apparently something that a lot of umpires are not happy doing (or don't have the skill/strength to do consistently at this level). Umpires should be chosen on their ability to umpire - bouncing the ball should be irrelevant.

If the Umpires are asking for it to go, and if throwing up provides the exact same thing, but fairer - then just get rid of the bounce.

Nail....head.