Ban the Bounce

[pazza]

Let's deal in reality for a minute.

Go down to your local footy match or junior footy match.

Do you see any umpire bouncing? Of course you bloody don't...except to show off maybe.

By the sheer fact that the bounce isn't coached or practiced in any significant numbers, should be a pointer to you. It's already on its way out.

 

[Allan Shorty]

Umpires don't want the bounce, players don't want the grand final draw (and Collingwood supporters don't want either).



Well no that's not the case, as explained by historian Col Hutchison in the latest video posted on the AFL website.

But that's moronic. Who cares what the players let alone the umpires think about the draw or the bounce. They are here for five minutes between jobs. We are here forever. The players view on both these is utterly irrelevant to me.

 

[Teen Wolf]

But that's moronic. Who cares what the players let alone the umpires think about the draw or the bounce. They are here for five minutes between jobs. We are here forever. The players view on both these is utterly irrelevant to me.

Shame on you. Stop acting like you're the Roman Emperor peering down his nose at gladiators fighting lions. If not for their love of the game, why else would an umpire put on a bright green shirt and cop 2 hours of abuse from idiots? The shitty pay? The glory and plaudits? And as for the players, they ARE football. Dedication to and sacrifice for this sport is their life. But your view matters more than these people because you're sitting on a cushioned seat? Walk a mile in their shoes, pal. How can we know the dancer from the dance?

You should apologise to me for writing that.

 

[DemonTim]

Shame on you. Stop acting like you're the Roman Emperor peering down his nose at gladiators fighting lions. If not for their love of the game, why else would an umpire put on a bright green shirt and cop 2 hours of abuse from idiots? The shitty pay? The glory and plaudits? And as for the players, they ARE football. Dedication to and sacrifice for this sport is their life. But your view matters more than these people because you're sitting on a cushioned seat? Walk a mile in their shoes, pal. How can we know the dancer from the dance?

You should apologise to me for writing that.

Aren't umpires paid pretty well?

 

[DemonTim]

Field up to 150k a year. Yeah. That's not shitty pay

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Let's deal in reality for a minute.

Go down to your local footy match or junior footy match.

Do you see any umpire bouncing? Of course you bloody don't...except to show off maybe.

By the sheer fact that the bounce isn't coached or practiced in any significant numbers, should be a pointer to you. It's already on its way out.

Don't worry, the afl machine and its media puppets will get rid of it as they have with everything else resembling Australian Rules football.
We are just not a few years away now from non contact, it will be great!

 

[yodellinhank]

I'm sick of the variation of depth in boundary throw ins. Surely we don't want the fittest, most keen-eyed boundary umps stymied by the fact they have to perform 1 act of skill?

While we're at it, some players have trouble kicking for goal. Couldn't we make it so you just have to get the ball right up one end to score?

 

[Apsaalooke]

Lets make a list

Against
Shoulder and neck injuries that shorten umpire careers
Limits umpire recruitment
Unfairness in ruck contests

For
Aesthetics (for some)

Hmm? Who's gonna win this?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Lets make a list

Against
Shoulder and neck injuries that shorten umpire careers
Limits umpire recruitment
Unfairness in ruck contests

For
Aesthetics (for some)

Hmm? Who's gonna win this?

And the data to back up all your against is?

 

[Teen Wolf]

Aren't umpires paid pretty well? Field up to 150k a year. Yeah. That's not shitty pay

Whaaat? Can it be... my argument is unraveling before my own eyes!

 

[DelRe]

I'm sick of the variation of depth in boundary throw ins. Surely we don't want the fittest, most keen-eyed boundary umps stymied by the fact they have to perform 1 act of skill?

While we're at it, some players have trouble kicking for goal. Couldn't we make it so you just have to get the ball right up one end to score?

I know you're taking the proverbial but it's not quite the same as the bounce v ball-up. In this argument you have two alternatives to achieve essentially the same outcome - a ball in the air for two players to contest to start/re-start the game. It's not really that dramatic a difference (unless you're particularly fond of random re-starts... until the day it costs you a clearance and match winning goal).

Not sure there's the same natural alternative to a throw-in (and even with a ball-up you'll still get variation in height). (And I don't want to open the can of worms about reverting to oob just becoming a turnover of possession.)

 

[Wallaby]

As soon as they went down the 'recall a bad baounce' idea, they had made the decision that the bounce wasn't important. Just get rid of it.

I'm trying to think of another sport where a random act of an OFFICIAL can have repercussions on the outcome of the game (other than incorrect decisions, and even there we are now reviewing with replays etc). It would be like a cricket umpire tossing the ball to the fielding team at the start of the game, and whoever it lands near has to open the bowling.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I like the bounce. When it goes high and relatively straight, it's better than throwing it up, because it gives the ruckmen more time, meaning they get a better run and jump at the ball, rather than the blind matador display we get when the umpires throw it up.

 

[jim boy]

I'm sick of the variation of depth in boundary throw ins. Surely we don't want the fittest, most keen-eyed boundary umps stymied by the fact they have to perform 1 act of skill?

For a while now, I've been thinking the boundary throw in is more bizarre than the bounce. If you writing the rules from scratch, you'd have the central umpire throwing the ball up ten metres inside line. But no, we get another official, who has to turn his back on the game and seemingly throw the ball in randomly, while at the same time throw it to a given spot - it makes no sense and is particularly poorly executed at the lower levels of the game

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

For a while now, I've been thinking the boundary throw in is more bizarre than the bounce. If you writing the rules from scratch, you'd have the central umpire throwing the ball up ten metres inside line. But no, we get another official, who has to turn his back on the game and seemingly throw the ball in randomly, while at the same time throw it to a given spot - it makes no sense and is particularly poorly executed at the lower levels of the game

An idea that I've been rolling around in my head regarding the over-correction on the deliberate out of bounds rule: why not have a line out-esque throw in for DOOB between the two arcs, where the defending team gets to pick someone to throw the ball in, either in the same style as the boundary umpires do now, like a goalkeeper in soccer or whatever.

If the defending team commits a DOOB inside its own 50m arc, it's still a free, but none of this nonsense of kicking the ball straight, it goes over the line because of the curve of the boundary, whistle, deliberate. It needs to be blatant: minimal pressure and/or there has been absolutely no effort to move the ball forward, it's just gone straight to the boundary. We're one step away from penalising players for running beside the ball as it meanders to the line, for failing to intervene and keep it in play

It's like penalising a player for holding the ball when he's been set upon as soon as he's received it and had the ball pinned to him by multiple opposition players. That just shows either a flaw in how umpires are being told to interpret the rule, or umpires not having the necessary feel for the game.

 

[DangerSloane]

"**** 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.

So everyone says who gives a shit, except the umpires and players....

So....why the hell wouldnt we change it?

Nobody, yes NOBODY has made a case to keep it. So i'm not really saying **** you im right, im saying **** you stop fighting a battle for nobody (including yourself who has already admitted you dont care)

 

[DangerSloane]

For a while now, I've been thinking the boundary throw in is more bizarre than the bounce. If you writing the rules from scratch, you'd have the central umpire throwing the ball up ten metres inside line. But no, we get another official, who has to turn his back on the game and seemingly throw the ball in randomly, while at the same time throw it to a given spot - it makes no sense and is particularly poorly executed at the lower levels of the game

Its a bit bizarre, but you still need the judge on the line...so may as well have them throw it in dont you think?
Its not like they always stuff it up like the bounce.

Lower levels of the game it would make more sense, when you've got little kids who cant throw the ball in at amateur level...

 

[DangerSloane]

I like the bounce. When it goes high and relatively straight, it's better than throwing it up, because it gives the ruckmen more time, meaning they get a better run and jump at the ball, rather than the blind matador display we get when the umpires throw it up.

Uh what?
The bounce a large proportion of the time goes lower than the throw up. Not to mention sideways.

The whole idea of a ruck contest is the two guys timing their leaps and getting to the ball at the same time, not one bloke standing there with his arm out blocking the other guy who has 15m of momentum to just jump over the top.

A throw up would mean better ruck contests.

 

[yodellinhank]

We could have a jump ball.

 

[jim boy]

Its a bit bizarre, but you still need the judge on the line...so may as well have them throw it in dont you think?

Well you could, but even if you were throwing it in facing forwards, it can still be a bit difficult, especially on a windy day, you could get the boundary umpire to throw it straight up instead of the central ump.

Its not like they always stuff it up like the bounce.

Lower levels of the game it would make more sense, when you've got little kids who cant throw the ball in at amateur level...

Its not even the 'Kids throwing it in' that stuff it up. The standards are that low that I've seen proper umpires in finals fail to get the ball past themselves. As a ruck in a junior comp, you really have no idea where the ball is going to go in a boundary throw in.

 

[Bokonon_]

An idea that I've been rolling around in my head regarding the over-correction on the deliberate out of bounds rule: why not have a line out-esque throw in for DOOB between the two arcs, where the defending team gets to pick someone to throw the ball in, either in the same style as the boundary umpires do now, like a goalkeeper in soccer or whatever.

If the defending team commits a DOOB inside its own 50m arc, it's still a free, but none of this nonsense of kicking the ball straight, it goes over the line because of the curve of the boundary, whistle, deliberate. It needs to be blatant: minimal pressure and/or there has been absolutely no effort to move the ball forward, it's just gone straight to the boundary. We're one step away from penalising players for running beside the ball as it meanders to the line, for failing to intervene and keep it in play

It's like penalising a player for holding the ball when he's been set upon as soon as he's received it and had the ball pinned to him by multiple opposition players. That just shows either a flaw in how umpires are being told to interpret the rule, or umpires not having the necessary feel for the game.

I was thinking maybe the boundary ump just doesn't turn their back on the play?

 

[yodellinhank]

I was thinking maybe the boundary ump just doesn't turn their back on the play?

But then he'd throw the ball over his head into the crowd?

 

[Bokonon_]

But then he'd throw the ball over his head into the crowd?

Well that would be the risk if it was introduced without comprehensive retraining for boundary umps I guess.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Uh what?
The bounce a large proportion of the time goes lower than the throw up. Not to mention sideways.

The whole idea of a ruck contest is the two guys timing their leaps and getting to the ball at the same time, not one bloke standing there with his arm out blocking the other guy who has 15m of momentum to just jump over the top.

A throw up would mean better ruck contests.

There's no reason why a bounce should go lower than a throw up, unless the ball is flat.

It's pretty simple. A bounce goes down, then up to (all other things being equal) the same height as a throw. Therefore, the rucks have significantly more time to get a perfect run-up and get the best possible jump at the ball.

 

[DangerSloane]

There's no reason why a bounce should go lower than a throw up, unless the ball is flat.

It's pretty simple. A bounce goes down, then up to (all other things being equal) the same height as a throw. Therefore, the rucks have significantly more time to get a perfect run-up and get the best possible jump at the ball.

but you can throw it as high as you like....you're not limited on the throw up.

That makes absolutely no sense.

The bounce down part takes less than half a second, they get essentially no more time in reality because they have to wait to see where it goes!!! Especially when the bounce goes somewhat sideways and one ruckman has to stand there anyway. Its not like they need a lot of time anyway now with the ruck circle.