Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
You're an idiot and deserve a ban.
Why start another thread ********?
You're an idiot and deserve a ban.
Why start another thread ********?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Bowden's tactics
- Thread starter kosifantutti
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Heisenberg_
17🏆19🏆20🏆
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
The funniest thing was the look on the bomber "cheer" squad right behind him.
If any of your players had half a clue they would have forced the issue and made a 50metre penalty out of it.
You would already know this if you read one of many threads on this exact same topic
Their is a 16 page thread about this topic, nothing but trying to get attention from an obviously sore loser.
The funniest thing was the look on the bomber "cheer" squad right behind him.
If any of your players had half a clue they would have forced the issue and made a 50metre penalty out of it.
You would already know this if you read one of many threads on this exact same topic
- Banned
- #253
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Which Club started the icing of the clock???? ESSENDON
Does Mal Michael do the same thing????? YES
Are essendon a bunch of sooks?????? YES
so just STFU
we whinge when the afl brings in new rules and all you numbats want rule changes........
go back to grade 4
Which Club started the icing of the clock???? ESSENDON
Does Mal Michael do the same thing????? YES
Are essendon a bunch of sooks?????? YES
so just STFU
we whinge when the afl brings in new rules and all you numbats want rule changes........
go back to grade 4
catters05
Norm Smith Medallist
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Essendon should of been smart and given away a 50m penatly.
Essendon should of been smart and given away a 50m penatly.
- Banned
- #255
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Two words MAL MICHAEL
Two words MAL MICHAEL
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Yes, Spudley..and the opposition get's awarded a point....one of a few reasons why those bits between the goalposts are not counted as "out of bounds"...
Yes, Spudley..and the opposition get's awarded a point....one of a few reasons why those bits between the goalposts are not counted as "out of bounds"...
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Hey boys what if had repeated this 5 times would,t that have been good TV viewing.Imagine a granny with a world wide audience watching ! they would reckon we are mad?Yes, Spudley..and the opposition get's awarded a point....one of a few reasons why those bits between the goalposts are not counted as "out of bounds"...
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
No madder than American football where if there's less than a minute to go and the team leading has the ball they all just walk off.
I really hope they don't **** with the scoring system because of this.
IF there is a need to do something (and I'm not convinced there is), then make it a requirement that the kick-in is a legal kick i.e. minimum 15 metres.
No madder than American football where if there's less than a minute to go and the team leading has the ball they all just walk off.
I really hope they don't **** with the scoring system because of this.
IF there is a need to do something (and I'm not convinced there is), then make it a requirement that the kick-in is a legal kick i.e. minimum 15 metres.
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Would that mean players can't kick to themselves and play on?
Would that mean players can't kick to themselves and play on?
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Joel displayed true humanity in letting the Essendon hordes down gently. If he wanted to be a ****, he could've passed the ball to Laycock so he could miss after the siren.
Joel displayed true humanity in letting the Essendon hordes down gently. If he wanted to be a ****, he could've passed the ball to Laycock so he could miss after the siren.
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Not without kicking it at least 15 metres.
Not without kicking it at least 15 metres.
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Could be worse, imagine if it was collingwood and they won the flag!
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
He played within the Rules
He played within the Rules
mickeyjuice
Cancelled
- Nov 13, 2004
- 11,375
- 7
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Aussie Cricket Team, Roy, Punter.
- Banned
- #267
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Once again, you fail to argue the point, instead you divert attention.
Im not saying Richmond didnt deserve the win. Im just saying that the AFL should change the rule. Why?
I would have thought it pretty obvious why.
People are so blinded by their team that they cant see logic. Does it benefit the game to have a team rushing behinds instead of playing football. NO
It is no different to tactics which have been made illegal such as timewasting, kicking the ball into the crowd after it crosses the goal post, and most recently, taking half an hour to have a shot at goal. It is a smart yet cowardly tactic, sure if the Lions won a premiership with the tactic i'd be happy. How could you not.
What i want is the AFL to step in and ensure that the temptation to use this tactic is removed. There is a fair chance we will see it again before the end of the season, now that it has been highlighted. So lets bookmark this thread, and see if the people so against it change their tune when the tide turns.
Once again, you fail to argue the point, instead you divert attention.
Im not saying Richmond didnt deserve the win. Im just saying that the AFL should change the rule. Why?
I would have thought it pretty obvious why.
People are so blinded by their team that they cant see logic. Does it benefit the game to have a team rushing behinds instead of playing football. NO
It is no different to tactics which have been made illegal such as timewasting, kicking the ball into the crowd after it crosses the goal post, and most recently, taking half an hour to have a shot at goal. It is a smart yet cowardly tactic, sure if the Lions won a premiership with the tactic i'd be happy. How could you not.
What i want is the AFL to step in and ensure that the temptation to use this tactic is removed. There is a fair chance we will see it again before the end of the season, now that it has been highlighted. So lets bookmark this thread, and see if the people so against it change their tune when the tide turns.
- Nov 13, 2004
- 11,375
- 7
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Aussie Cricket Team, Roy, Punter.
- Banned
- #268
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Does that automatically make it right?
Were you angry when the bounce went sideways to give the Roos the win against your mob?
Does that automatically make it right?
Were you angry when the bounce went sideways to give the Roos the win against your mob?
- Nov 13, 2004
- 11,375
- 7
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Aussie Cricket Team, Roy, Punter.
- Banned
- #269
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Why don't we imagine your team was in the place of Essendon.
Would you not be a bit angry?
Don't bring goal-kicking into it.
As a smart, fair spectator would you not be a bit disappointed that a great game had come down to one side intentionally rushing behinds to ice the clock?
Do you think that is a good advertisement for the game?
Why don't we imagine your team was in the place of Essendon.
Would you not be a bit angry?
Don't bring goal-kicking into it.
As a smart, fair spectator would you not be a bit disappointed that a great game had come down to one side intentionally rushing behinds to ice the clock?
Do you think that is a good advertisement for the game?
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
It's not the players' job to advertise the game.
- Mar 15, 2006
- 8,415
- 6,530
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
So, you don't think the ball is out of play when it goes through for a score? If it isn't out of bounds, it must be still in play then huh? Other than 'you get awarded points for the ball going through here', could you tell me what are the "few reasons" the bits between the goalposts (I would have used 'point posts' myself) are not counted as "out of bounds"?
If you think somehow I am bagging Bowden and Richmond (and I can only assume this since you barrack for the Tiges and felt need to call me Spudley) then you are wrong. Bowden played it smart and within the rules. Well done and good luck to him. I just think the rules are a little incongruous when you have no real penalty for what amounts to blatant time-wasting (which there is rules against).
I think a rushed behind should be a ball-up at the top of the square. And no, not a fist in a marking contest, an actual rushed behind where the player chooses to take the ball out of play. I suppose this would lead to interpretation nightmares though, and we already have enough of those.
Yes, Spudley..and the opposition get's awarded a point....one of a few reasons why those bits between the goalposts are not counted as "out of bounds"...
So, you don't think the ball is out of play when it goes through for a score? If it isn't out of bounds, it must be still in play then huh? Other than 'you get awarded points for the ball going through here', could you tell me what are the "few reasons" the bits between the goalposts (I would have used 'point posts' myself) are not counted as "out of bounds"?
If you think somehow I am bagging Bowden and Richmond (and I can only assume this since you barrack for the Tiges and felt need to call me Spudley) then you are wrong. Bowden played it smart and within the rules. Well done and good luck to him. I just think the rules are a little incongruous when you have no real penalty for what amounts to blatant time-wasting (which there is rules against).
I think a rushed behind should be a ball-up at the top of the square. And no, not a fist in a marking contest, an actual rushed behind where the player chooses to take the ball out of play. I suppose this would lead to interpretation nightmares though, and we already have enough of those.
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Did you watch the game. Did you see Bowden kick out to McMahon about 10 seconds before the siren and McMahon start running? They didn't know there was only a few seconds left. There could have easily been another 30 seconds. Time for someone to come at McMahon and force him to kick to a contest.
Bowden didn't just stand there and keep putting it through for a behind until time expired. He could have and it would have been legal. But he didn't. The only reason he rushed the behinds was because he had no better alternative. When one was presented, he took it.
This is such a non-issue.
Did you watch the game. Did you see Bowden kick out to McMahon about 10 seconds before the siren and McMahon start running? They didn't know there was only a few seconds left. There could have easily been another 30 seconds. Time for someone to come at McMahon and force him to kick to a contest.
Bowden didn't just stand there and keep putting it through for a behind until time expired. He could have and it would have been legal. But he didn't. The only reason he rushed the behinds was because he had no better alternative. When one was presented, he took it.
This is such a non-issue.
- Nov 13, 2004
- 11,375
- 7
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Aussie Cricket Team, Roy, Punter.
- Banned
- #273
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
Then reward the team who has zoned up well. Id expect the Lions to do the same thing, lets get that straight, as the rules allow it, but id hope the AFL would change the rule to make it a free kick in the goal square. In the situation where a team decides to rush a behind to ice the clock their main aim is to close down time. They are not concerned about the points given away. They are obviously in front by more then 1 or 2 points. The tactic is basically time wasting, in that they play on then wait for a player to come to them and then walk the ball over the line. It is an obvious time wasting tactic no different to deliberate out of bounds. As such, it should be penalised with a free kick in the goal square to the opposition team.
Surely people can understand that while it is within the rules currently, it is a shocking way to end a game for the spectator. The very nature of the tactic means that its only going to be used during tight games, now that the tactic has been highlighted we could well see an increase in its use.
Then reward the team who has zoned up well. Id expect the Lions to do the same thing, lets get that straight, as the rules allow it, but id hope the AFL would change the rule to make it a free kick in the goal square. In the situation where a team decides to rush a behind to ice the clock their main aim is to close down time. They are not concerned about the points given away. They are obviously in front by more then 1 or 2 points. The tactic is basically time wasting, in that they play on then wait for a player to come to them and then walk the ball over the line. It is an obvious time wasting tactic no different to deliberate out of bounds. As such, it should be penalised with a free kick in the goal square to the opposition team.
Surely people can understand that while it is within the rules currently, it is a shocking way to end a game for the spectator. The very nature of the tactic means that its only going to be used during tight games, now that the tactic has been highlighted we could well see an increase in its use.
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
you open up a whole can of worms
1stly what constitutes "icing the clock"...what happens if it happened before 1/2 or 3/4 time? Is there a minute left mark where it is "icing"?
Also why make up a rule to close a loophole that has only been used once?
you open up a whole can of worms
1stly what constitutes "icing the clock"...what happens if it happened before 1/2 or 3/4 time? Is there a minute left mark where it is "icing"?
Also why make up a rule to close a loophole that has only been used once?
- Nov 13, 2004
- 11,375
- 7
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Aussie Cricket Team, Roy, Punter.
- Banned
- #275
Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.
You close a loophole to a rule to stop it being used again. Often it comes to attention the first time the rule is exploited.
Secondly, it is not opening up a can of worms at all. It is a simple rulechange. Pay a free kick to the opposing team when the team kicking in registers a behind when the opposing team doesn't touch the ball.
Basically, it will be the same as kicking the ball out without the other team touching it which is currently in play.
Simple rule change.
you open up a whole can of worms
1stly what constitutes "icing the clock"...what happens if it happened before 1/2 or 3/4 time? Is there a minute left mark where it is "icing"?
Also why make up a rule to close a loophole that has only been used once?
You close a loophole to a rule to stop it being used again. Often it comes to attention the first time the rule is exploited.
Secondly, it is not opening up a can of worms at all. It is a simple rulechange. Pay a free kick to the opposing team when the team kicking in registers a behind when the opposing team doesn't touch the ball.
Basically, it will be the same as kicking the ball out without the other team touching it which is currently in play.
Simple rule change.
