![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/sydney.png)
I'm referring to your comment where you think it's better than 20 non calls. Tbh I'd rather 100 non calls over just 10 calls that shouldn't have been a callyou obviously didn't watch the game to which i referred. DH.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I'm referring to your comment where you think it's better than 20 non calls. Tbh I'd rather 100 non calls over just 10 calls that shouldn't have been a callyou obviously didn't watch the game to which i referred. DH.
I'm referring to your comment where you think it's better than 20 non calls. Tbh I'd rather 100 non calls over just 10 calls that shouldn't have been a call
Watched the Crows game today and there were a couple that I thought exceeded the tolerance, one caused a goal against the Hawks but I am liking the new interpretation, should have been brought in at the beginning of the season.
Interested to see if this becomes a weaker interpretation as the weeks go on
The umps can't get the obvious htb correct, what makes you think they're going to get the already difficult no prior ones correct by tightening it? Not going to happen, and it will always look stupid until they revert it. There was nothing wrong with the game last week except for the umps making howlers on the obvious htb scenarios. As poster above said all they have to do is blow he whistle for the obvious ones - that's the only thing people were complaining about, not the no prior ones.The quick whistle is needed and refreshing. Its how football was until the 1990s and the Execs meddled.
Getting the prior opportunity right over the next few weeks is vital.
The umps can't get the obvious htb correct, what makes you think they're going to get the already difficult no prior ones correct by tightening it? Not going to happen, and it will always look stupid until they revert it. There was nothing wrong with the game last week except for the umps making howlers on the obvious htb scenarios. As poster above said all they have to do is blow he whistle for the obvious ones - that's the only thing people were complaining about, not the no prior ones.
Yes I know you were hence why I chose my own random numbers. Questionable decisions might be reduced, but the incorrect ones under the new interpretations penalise the team completely undeservedly. Previously the errors were mostly missed decisions which would just result in the play continuing - that is better than penalizing and resetting the play unjustifiably.my comment wasn't based on theorycrafting. yes, i chose a random number to make my point (which could be accurate or not), but the comment overall was based on watching today's (HAW v ADE) game and whether the HTB change had a positive or negative impact on gameplay compared to recent years. in my view, it was a positive (despite a few decisions which were questionable). the questionable decisions overall were reduced in number, ergo an improvement.
Yep I'm genuinely gobsmacked that people would prefer undeserved freekicks compared to maybe missing a few touchy ones that at least allow the play to continue without artificial interference.If unsure ball it up.
Easily done. We dont have to have free kicks. Pay the ones you are 100% sure on.
And maybe stop calling 8m kicks marks.
Yep I'm genuinely gobsmacked that people would prefer undeserved freekicks compared to maybe missing a few touchy ones that at least allow the play to continue without artificial interference.
Define priorI don't understand how a player gets penalized with no prior and no way to legitimately dispose of the ball.
I understand the Walsh one from Thursday night. He has an arm free.
But I just saw one in the u/18 where two opposition players had gang tackled and had both arms pinned paid with no prior.
If a player cannot reasonably dispose of the ball with no prior, then it's ball up surely
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
HTB adjudication has always been contentious for as long as I've been following the game but right now it's utterly broken. The AFL so desperately wants to mould itself after US pro sport but ultimately it's still a backwater basketcase of a league.
The whole point of peoples complaints went flying over the heads of those at the AFL. All people wanted was less umpire error (aka paying the obvious htb, as per the standard interpretation), not stricter adjudication or quicker whistles.I managed to watch most games over the weekend, hoping to get a feel for the new interpretation.
I used to have a pretty good grasp on what was HTB and what wasn't. What was considered prior and what wasn't.
Now I have absolutely no idea.
They're always a bit more red hot on these new rules in the first game or two, but Carlton had 75 tackles for one HTB! Now I'm not saying that a tackle automatically means a free, but a lot of the Blues tackles that were deemed play on or a ball up, weren't any different from ones that Port got and that I saw paid in other games this weekend.
The rule is now murkier than ever. I like the faster whistle, especially when it's obvious that there's no chance of the ball coming out, but faster whistle doesn't mean right call.
I've also noticed around various social media platforms that a lot of neutrals were happy with the new interpretation after Thursday night's game, but that opinion has swung wildly since their own team has had to cop the strange and inconsistent calls.
That would be a good start .If unsure ball it up.
Easily done. We dont have to have free kicks. Pay the ones you are 100% sure on.
And maybe stop calling 8m kicks marks.
There is a fair amount of substance here, but I'm not in favour of rewarding those who try to barge through and fail.The entire bastardization of prior opportunity (originally perfect tackle rule) miscalculation/introduction from short sighted "experts", including Gerard Healy, that espouse the idea, went on to completely alter the game and resultant stoppages/ballups. It has gone on to force a myriad of rule changes since in attempts by the league to try and address all the extra stoppages and consequent congestion and time to set up defenses due to players not being pinged for holding the ball (no prior) and forcing resultant stoppage ball ups.
What is missed, is the reason bastardization of the prior opportunity notion was deemed necessary was because the league stopped paying high contact and in the back free kicks to ball players, It's that simple.
The real talent that could get the ball first stopped being rewarded when players second to the contest got them high, in the back, late etc trying to tackle them. A bunch of ex players and "experts" with the analysis depth of children in reality, kept pushing the "let it go umpire" barrow and the result was the genuine ball players getting it first where getting pinged all the time for holding the ball. The frees the ball players used to get when lesser players made high contact and pushed them in the back etc whilst tackling them, dried up.
So now that the ball players had been screwed over by the short sighted, it was decided to bring back some more protection for them. Rather than just going back to paying the frees they were short shortsightedly no longer paying, they bastardised the whole prior opportunity idea to give the ball players an extra incentive to purportedly keep going the ball first and not get pinged.
It's been the worst single rule screw up in AFL history IMHO. It's generated numerous massive further changes in attempts to try and reduce all the "unforseen" negative results and left the holding the ball rule the single biggest joke of the entire game for any new "fans" to grasp.
Mathews is right, 100 per cent right. You pay the frees to the ball winner, I don't care if they duck, charge, bend, stop and have a cigarette or attempt to run through. You get the ball first, you get the reward. If we do that, the entire prior opportunity nightmare becomes completely unnecessary. All the idiots who think that will see too many free kicks and resultant play interruption are just that; short-sighted idiots. As if we don't have all the stoppages and ball ups now because of prior opportunity. As if we don't see continual kicking backward and switching back and forth accross the ground already. The game will revert to rewarding ball players who get to the contest first, make the ball the object and take it on.
Edit: The other repercussion of this approach will see those second to the contest being pinged more often for screwing it up when they go high, late, in the back etc. This will in time see less head injury occurrences in these situations, as the second to the contest player gets pinged more often for screwing it up. The risk/reward changes and behaviour will adapt away from being careless when second to the contest and that's when head injuries happen in these situations.
There is also a basic reality the league and it's fans have still not grasped. If you intend on maintaining the game as a contact sport, whilst reducing head injuries, you must pay more frees. I know it's a difficult reality for many but nonetheless it is the reality. You have to pay more frees and or reduce the "contact" frequency by changing the contact nature of the sport.. There is no way around that reality.