No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs only - Part 4

[footscray1973]

I actually think the chokehold would be a welcome introduction to the game and a fine tactic.

Imagine a bloke who can’t get a kick, say Bruce, running down a private school campaigner, say Fritsch and choking him out in front of our cheer squad. Doesn’t get any better.

While I take your point, Bruce actually attended not one, but two private schools. But your differentiation of Fritz (sic) as a campaigner and Bruce as a good bloke is correct.

I'd also like to see Naughton simultaneously choke Fritz with one forearm and Oliver with the other - and due to the complexity of the manoeuvre, have that adjudicated as a free hit for Naughton 30m out, directly in front.

I think you're onto something with this chokehold, perhaps turnbuckles in the pockets so Naughton/Bruce/Keath (and hopefully Lobb) can perform a "flying clothesline" on Melbo um, random opposing campaigners.

 

[Sentinel]

So the AFL have now decided that legitimately trying to avoid a tackle by going low is now grounds to have your head ripped off.

I understand that they're trying to stamp out players attempting to win free kicks by dropping their head, but as usual they solve one problem by creating a bunch of others.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Exactly. Redman shouldn't have been penalised for the initial high tackle. But the subsequent chokehold...I don't think that was necessary and/or something we want in our game. Fair enough that if you drop at the knees you don't get awarded with a high tackle free, but that shouldn't give the tackler permission to do whatever he wants to you. It was a weird/unanticipated scenario, so I can understand why the ump was a bit discombobulated by it. It's a great case study to learn from.

An unanticipated scenario, who could have anticipated that?

 

[ScragCity]

I actually think the chokehold would be a welcome introduction to the game and a fine tactic.

Imagine a bloke who can’t get a kick, say Bruce, running down a private school campaigner, say Fritsch and choking him out in front of our cheer squad. Doesn’t get any better.

I don't think Fritsch is the stereotypical private schoolboy that many assume he is based on his appearance. He actually left high school to do a plumbing apprenticeship and play local footy. From there he got a spot on a VFL list (Casey?) and eventually got into the AFL. It's a very blue-collar background story.

 

[Sentinel]

Exactly. Redman shouldn't have been penalised for the initial high tackle. But the subsequent chokehold...I don't think that was necessary and/or something we want in our game. Fair enough that if you drop at the knees you don't get awarded with a high tackle free, but that shouldn't give the tackler permission to do whatever he wants to you. It was a weird/unanticipated scenario, so I can understand why the ump was a bit discombobulated by it. It's a great case study to learn from.

Where does the umpire draw the line with that though? Ginnivan initially had his head ripped, which then lingered. How long does Redman get to release it before the umpire calls it a high tackle?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

How is there zero responsibility on the player with the ball to avoid high contact when they're being told not to do certain actions on the field?

I disagree it's impossible... Look at our tackling technique as a team. We are elite and very rarely give high contact frees away. Other teams are just s**t at it.

No we are cheats and duck and dive at will and the umps have been instructed to ignore it

 

[ScragCity]

Where does the umpire draw the line with that though? Ginnivan initially had his head ripped, which then lingered. How long does Redman get to release it before the umpire calls it a high tackle?

I don't think a reasonable person would have a hard time drawing a line that most people could agree on. It doesn't have to be millisecond precision. Some time between when the action looked like a standard tackle and when it turned into some kind of Brazilian jujitsu chokehold. Umpires are asked to use discretion.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't think a reasonable person would have a hard time drawing a line that most people could agree on. It doesn't have to be millisecond precision. Some time between when the action looked like a standard tackle and when it turned into some kind of Brazilian jujitsu chokehold.

Just what we need, more grey.

 

[glenashley]

I feel for the player with the ball. If you're about to be tackled, the first act of evasion is to drop the knees a little lower to allow for a big push off in a different direction.

Only way you don't lower your body to move is if you keep running straight, likely into a player or caught by a player.

I disagreed with most of the calls made under the new rule this weekend.

Plus it doesn't sit right with my 'let the ball winner get the reward, not the seagull' mantra

Tacklers meet to improve technique and go for the hips. They'll never catch someone high that way.

 

[Sentinel]

If a player who collects the ball stumbles slightly and needs to push off the ground to straighten up, do we get to coathanger them also? Sweet.

 

[ScragCity]

Just what we need, more grey.

That's the reality of life. That's why we have Judges to interpret legislation. You can't write perfect rules to categorise every event that could happen in any possible context. Rules and laws are guiding principles and humans are tasked with using discretion and making judgements. It's not an unreasonable ask.

 

[Sentinel]

That's the reality of life. That's why we have Judges to interpret legislation. You can't write perfect rules to categorise every event that could happen in any possible context. Rules and laws are guiding principles and humans are tasked with using discretion and making judgements. It's not an unreasonable ask.

I obviously understand that laws are rarely black and white. In this instance the AFL has opened up a huge new grey area, in my opinion unnecessarily. Now we get to howl at umpires for a whole new reason

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

That's the reality of life. That's why we have Judges to interpret legislation. You can't write perfect rules to categorise every event that could happen in any possible context. Rules and laws are guiding principles and humans are tasked with using discretion and making judgements. It's not an unreasonable ask.

It’s the speed at which the action then the judgement then the interpretation has to happen - all in a split second. No one’s going to court over it, and no one’s allowed to argue.

 

[Libbaaaa]

I don't think Fritsch is the stereotypical private schoolboy that many assume he is based on his appearance. He actually left high school to do a plumbing apprenticeship and play local footy. From there he got a spot on a VFL list (Casey?) and eventually got into the AFL. It's a very blue-collar background story.

Pretty sure Fritsch is full rat bogan, the flowing locks deceive.

 

[BEaston]

That's the reality of life. That's why we have Judges to interpret legislation. You can't write perfect rules to categorise every event that could happen in any possible context. Rules and laws are guiding principles and humans are tasked with using discretion and making judgements. It's not an unreasonable ask.

You can't write perfect rules but it's not unreasonable to think that the game should be roughly adjudicated in accordance with how they're written.

How many unwritten 'interpretations' are we up to now? Mostly released mid-season at the whim of some AFL exec.

 

[ScragCity]

It’s the speed at which the action then the judgement then the interpretation has to happen - all in a split second.

That's no different any other rule umpires are tasked with enforcing. That's the nature of the game. It's a fast-paced environment and decisions have to be made in real-time. That's not unique to this one rule.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

That's no different any other rule umpires are tasked with enforcing. That's the nature of the game. It's a fast-paced environment and decisions have to be made in real-time. That's not unique to this one rule.

They’ve just made this rule multifaceted, as they always do.

 

[maddog37]

If players don’t get a free kick for ducking they will stop ducking.


Those hand slips over the shoulder for a split second with no head impact are not worth a free kick.

 

[ScragCity]

For the record, I don't like the new high-contact rules. I also agree that the rules are changed far too frequently and the umpires are generally asked to make too many difficult decisions. Players have learned how to draw a high tackle quite effectively and that is obviously something most of us don't enjoy seeing. It's against the spirit of the game and it's dangerous. So what do we do about it? I can see two options:

A) Adjust the rules to create a disincentive for tackled players to initiate high-contact.

B) Do nothing.

I'm actually of the opinion that doing nothing could be the right way to go. That's because I tend to think of it from an evolutionary perspective. Players adapt to whatever the rules are and learn to exploit them. Players develop a technique to draw high tackles. If it continues to happen then naturally players will also be forced to adapt to that new technique. Which is to say that they will becoming better at tackling in a way that doesn't so easily get forced high. Gazelle gradually become quicker and more agile to escape the Lion; the Lion then becomes quicker and more cunning to catch the Gazelle, so on and so forth. The AFL, like Governments, tend to take a heavy hand in trying to direct behaviour. The problem is that they aren't able to anticipate the results of the new incentives the second and third order effects.

However, we all know how myopic the AFL is. Do they have time to sit on their hands and wait for the natural evolution of the game to play out, given how much pressure they are under to mitigate concussion? I don't think there's an easy or clear-cut answer and I can understand the AFL's course of action, even though I don't necessarily think it was the right one.

 

[doggies ftw]

How is there zero responsibility on the player with the ball to avoid high contact when they're being told not to do certain actions on the field?

I disagree it's impossible... Look at our tackling technique as a team. We are elite and very rarely give high contact frees away. Other teams are just s**t at it.

Don’t do actions which put your head in the position to draw a high tackle, ie don’t do unnatural actions that are simply being done to win frees. Simple.

We are terrible tacklers, constantly get broken - would rather give away the odd free than have teams run straight through us. If we go so low to avoid high tackles it’s probably apart of the reason they just stand up in the tackle and release a handball for the most part

 

[doggies ftw]

‘It’s a great way to kick a goal’: Polarising Pie on playing for free kicks

Young gun also reveals he practices the technique at training.

7news.com.au

Watch the video (half way through after the Baz stuff)

Tell me you wanna see that in the game? Lmao get ****ed. You’ve got this little swine telling you he’s kicked 10 goals from the high tackle this year laughing about it and practising it at training.

And you guys don’t think we need to disincentivise this? It’s a blight on the game.

If this means he gets his head ripped off a couple of times without a free because of his reputation so be it, he’s brought it on himself. Maybe a nice little concussion (which let’s be honest are rare from a high tackle, extremely rare) will serve him right and he’ll start playing the footy on its merits.

Great rule change, let’s hope it stays now the media are kicking up a stink (even though they’re the ones that kicked up a stink to get it changed)

 

[footscray1973]

For the record, I don't like the new high-contact rules. I also agree that the rules are changed far too frequently and the umpires are generally asked to make too many difficult decisions. Players have learned how to draw a high tackle quite effectively and that is obviously something most of us don't enjoy seeing. It's against the spirit of the game and it's dangerous. So what do we do about it? I can see two options:

A) Adjust the rules to create a disincentive for tackled players to initiate high-contact.

B) Do nothing.

I'm actually of the opinion that doing nothing could be the right way to go. That's because I tend to think of it from an evolutionary perspective. Players adapt to whatever the rules are and learn to exploit them. Players develop a technique to draw high tackles. If it continues to happen then naturally players will also be forced to adapt to that new technique. Which is to say that they will becoming better at tackling in a way that doesn't so easily get forced high. Gazelle gradually become quicker and more agile to escape the Lion; the Lion then becomes quicker and more cunning to catch the Gazelle, so on and so forth.

However, we all know how myopic the AFL is. Do they have time to sit on their hands and wait the natural evolution of the game to play out, given how much pressure they are under to mitigate concussion? I don't think there's an easy or clear-cut answer and I can understand the AFLs course of action, even though I don't necessarily think it was the right one.

Agree, but the AFL have now spent decades adopting knee jerk reactions and/or tweaking existing rules, rather than allowing the game to evolve naturally. I can recall as far back as the diamond then the square (and the 10year rule that lasted all of 6 months or so before it was dropped!). At least they let Robert Walls and his kick out huddle evolve, but since then it seems any tactic where a coach has been smart enough to develop an edge - remember Damian Drum coaching the Allies and interchanging beside the goals, some bloke using third man up, etc?

The one change they have allowed to evolve as it quickens the game is far more freedom with the handball technique. Thanks to our 2016 handball club, players are now allowed to handball back over their head - for decades was considered a throw even if they used a closed fist. But that one suits the AFL's narrative to "speed up the game" to make it more entertaining. Older posters would recall a past Bulldogs coach used a handballing (?) technique to speed up the game, back in 1961, which helped our physically smaller team outrun larger lumbering opposition all the way to a grand final. Then the other (disadvantaged/larger/unable to adapt to the technique) clubs complained so the VFL outlawed it.

There were also many tweaks to ruck rules over the years, then briefly a push in a marking contest using hands was allowed (again going against decades of being an infringement), was eventually howled down and slightly adjusted back again.

Some evolution makes sense (even if the application doesn't), especially where it protects players from deliberate or reckless injury inflicted by opponents (e.g. MRP, sliding, protecting the head), but the AFL appears hell-bent on modifying its product on a whim, and with a frequency that adds complexity and increases the quantity of rules an umpire must consider in each split second contest.

Myopic is a good word to describe the concussion mitigation, but it doesn't cover the endless tinkering with rules across the board.

So I don't think it's just mitigating concussion Scrag, the AFL seem hell-bent on an evolving product, and any attempt to create advantageous outcomes by a coach by pushing rule boundaries flies against the HO directives of "entertainment for the masses" and "all teams should be competitive as far as possible all the time , and if they aren't we will make it so".

 

[ScragCity]

So I don't think it's just mitigating concussion Scrag, the AFL seem hell-bent on an evolving product

I don't believe this is true. I think the opposite is true, actually. The AFL are actively trying to stifle any kind of evolution. The third man up rule and the recent rule to allow rucks to take possession in a ruck contest. The game was evolving beyond the traditional, big lumbering ruckman, and the AFL didn't like that. So they bring in rules to create more advantages for the ruck, similar to a protectionist Government imposing tariffs. The result is the ******ation of evolution within the game. The 6/6/6 rule is another example. The game starts to become quite defensive so the AFL bring in more rules. Why not just let the game evolve into whatever it will be? If it becomes too defensive then teams will come up with a new offensive strategy to exploit it. Let the game evolve through natural cycles and appreciate that the product can change.

 

[footscray1973]

I don't believe this is true. I think the opposite is true, actually. The AFL are actively trying to stifle any kind of evolution. The third man up rule and the recent rule to allow rucks to take possession in a ruck contest. The game was evolving beyond the traditional, big lumbering ruckman, and the AFL didn't like that. So they bring in rules to create more advantages for the ruck, similar to a protectionist Government imposing tariffs. The result is the ******ation of evolution within the game. The 6/6/6 rule is another example. The game starts to become quite defensive so the AFL bring in more rules. Why not just let the game evolve into whatever it will be? If it becomes too defensive then teams will come up with a new offensive strategy to exploit it. Let the game evolve through natural cycles and appreciate that the product can change.

Yeah, re-reading that not sure I meant to type "evolving" in that sentence, or at least qualify it. Unfortunately I was rudely interrupted by work as I was finishing up that post, and lost my train of thought!

 

[doggies ftw]

I don't believe this is true. I think the opposite is true, actually. The AFL are actively trying to stifle any kind of evolution. The third man up rule and the recent rule to allow rucks to take possession in a ruck contest. The game was evolving beyond the traditional, big lumbering ruckman, and the AFL didn't like that. So they bring in rules to create more advantages for the ruck, similar to a protectionist Government imposing tariffs. The result is the ******ation of evolution within the game. The 6/6/6 rule is another example. The game starts to become quite defensive so the AFL bring in more rules. Why not just let the game evolve into whatever it will be? If it becomes too defensive then teams will come up with a new offensive strategy to exploit it. Let the game evolve through natural cycles and appreciate that the product can change.

The ruck rule is a bloody stinker, they did it because they thought it’d help clear congestion having dominant ruckmen but it means you just get a big lump taking possession and doing **** all with it every time.

I can sort of agree if they moved away from the old rule being if you took possession and got touched, even if you got a disposal away it’s holding the ball. But what people (melb supporters after last week) don’t understand is that doesn’t mean you can take possession and it doesn’t matter what you do with it, you can still get pinged holding the ball if you take possession and don’t dispose of it.

But the umps went the same way and let ruckmen get away with murder if they took possession out of the ruck, that’s why it was sooo good to see it paid against Gawn (who was doing it all night mind you) on the weekend.

Again the 3rd man up rule they shot themselves in the foot again, that was actually creating less congestion by allowing teams to clear it more easily - yet they scrap it? And then complain about the rolling maul.

That one’s a head scratcher