Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2021/2022

[James1970]

No idea what you're getting at, but I'll happily spend all night trying.

 

[Kitcat]

Are you talking about an oppo player just standing and watching it roll OOB? Because if you kicked it down the line and you don't have players close enough to contend for possession of it then that's likely a free against under either rule set.

But the better question is why kick it there in the first place? Under AFL rules you might get away with it, you might not, who knows. Under SANFL rules if no one gets a touch on that ball before it goes out your getting pinged regardless so it promotes a bit more corridor use and dare.

I recommend watching some sanfl because the main thing I take away from it is how unobtrusive and naturally the rule is adjudicated. You don't really notice it, and you notice the umpires a bit less because you don't even have to wait for the whistle to know what's next. That's the main thing. If you want less umpire interference then this is the rule for you.

I swear the AFL has just been persevering with a s*** rule just because they don't want to admit the SANFL came up with a better one

What happens if you spoil a mark by punching and the ball rolls 20 metres to the line?

 

[Kitcat]

One rule we don't have but IMHO should have , is play on anytime there is a backwards kick.

How can an umpire decide that on close calls without having lines on the ground? It would make their job even harder.

 

[Vdubs]

How can an umpire decide that on close calls without having lines on the ground? It would make their job even harder.

Backwards kicks are pretty clear cut. Play on is the norm for teams like Essendon and Carlton anyway. I does not need to be onerous.

 

[Vdubs]

Try to take the emotion out of it. Apply Bayesian thinking.

I am more into emotions than stats though. But thanks for that.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

How?

If I need to explain it ..

 

[Lana]

I am more into emotions than stats though. But thanks for that.

Who needs that, I'm learning R so I can finally follow football the way it was always meant to be.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

What a thoroughly disappointing game from the Saints. The mid-year grind has really gotten to them.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

What happens if you spoil a mark by punching and the ball rolls 20 metres to the line?

Throw in

 

[CatToTheFuture]

If I need to explain it ..

You kind of do because I don't understand how ruck contests are different at sanfl to afl. They look the same

 

[dazbroncos]

I think as much as Carlton being too cute (at times), Richmond just handled it better and didn't fumble as much. They were too good whether it was the first 10 minutes or the last 10.

And the Tuggers gor 2 goals from the luckiest smother deflections ive seen in those conditions.

Blues player smothers, deflection in the wet would be 50/50 contest in the dry if tis between 2 players.... but it goes right to the Tigers player on the full and they transition to a goal ...twice.

Agreed - Tigers handled it better but they got some good bounces of the ball.

GO Catters

 

[dazbroncos]

How does it work with teams being crafty and letting a ball go out of bounds simply to gain a free possession?

exactly - each rule change takes a little out of play the ball first.

Dont like it IMO.

GO Catters

 

[CatToTheFuture]

exactly - each rule change takes a little out of play the ball first.

Dont like it IMO.

GO Catters

It doesn't though, any hack kicks forward end up favouring the corridor more for that reason and you get people playing the ball more not less. It's a theoretical problem that you don't really see in reality much at sanfl level where they've been following this rule for 5+ years.

Pick a point in last year's SANFL grand final and just watch some passages and tell me what you think. Bonus: you get to see Stengle, Tsitas, and Menzel win a flag.

I get that people's overall experience of rule changes is negative but the rule they want to get rid of is a prime example of bad rule change and this an opportunity to get rid of it.

Every time we remove a vague interpretation rule we make umpiring better

 

[CatToTheFuture]

How can an umpire decide that on close calls without having lines on the ground? It would make their job even harder.

You could kinda use the grass with the mowed patches but it wouldn't translate to lower levels and would be a bit of a cluster probably

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Edit: 3 disposals from 91 minutes TOG last week. What?

 

[Vdubs]

I know the feeling, my mother, a diehard supporter of Essendon for over 40 years told me just now that Essendon would have a pretty good chance against us with their current team. The season has been so rough for her, I've just let it slide

She is probably right though, but we won't find out this year.

 

[catempire]

View attachment 1426682

Edit: 3 disposals from 91 minutes TOG last week. What?

I have a soft spot for Motlop. He gave us three more years of Gazza.

 

[Kitcat]

You could kinda use the grass with the mowed patches but it wouldn't translate to lower levels and would be a bit of a cluster probably

An easier and almost as effective rule would be to make kicks from defenders going back into the defensive arc be play on if marked by a defender. Easy for the umpire to judge. The kick wouldn’t necessarily go backwards, only back into the arc. Would make for the occasional turnover due to the added pressure.

 

[Phipppppa]

I have a soft spot for Motlop. He gave us three more years of Gazza.

I also don’t mind him.

I liked him in his early years at Geelong.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I have a soft spot for Motlop. He gave us three more years of Gazza.

Straight line from him leaving to GAJ, TK, Stephens, Cameron, Willis, and 70% of Knevitt.

We need to send him a thank you note and life membership

 

[CatToTheFuture]

An easier and almost as effective rule would be to make kicks from defenders going back into the defensive arc be play on if marked by a defender. Easy for the umpire to judge. The kick wouldn’t necessarily go backwards, only back into the arc. Would make for the occasional turnover due to the added pressure.

Maybe could work but we're starting to get a bit theoretical. Would want to see it played out a bit in practice matches. Could be a bit dramatic

 

[standupand]

Maybe could work but we're starting to get a bit theoretical. Would want to see it played out a bit in practice matches. Could be a bit dramatic

The thing is, keepings off in the back half works these days almost irrespective of whether players are paid the mark or not. Teams that have control of the ball are in constant motion anyway in order to find a way forward. Time-wasting is a different story imo. Teams can easily eat up minutes by kick-mark and using up their full allocation. And one thing that really sh*ts me is when a player marks 60 out, goes back like they're taking a shot at goal, use up the full allocation and then decide they'll pass it off, often backwards or sideways and that player then gets another 25 seconds or whatever.

 

[standupand]

I'd like the player to have to say that they're taking a shot at goal. Then they get the extra seconds but the resulting kick cannot be marked by a teammate.

 

[dazbroncos]

It doesn't though, any hack kicks forward end up favouring the corridor more for that reason and you get people playing the ball more not less. It's a theoretical problem that you don't really see in reality much at sanfl level where they've been following this rule for 5+ years.

Pick a point in last year's SANFL grand final and just watch some passages and tell me what you think. Bonus: you get to see Stengle, Tsitas, and Menzel win a flag.

I get that people's overall experience of rule changes is negative but the rule they want to get rid of is a prime example of bad rule change and this an opportunity to get rid of it.

Every time we remove a vague interpretation rule we make umpiring better

I respect the point about the SANFL but ive seen about as much of that as Jennifer Lawrence has of me close up.

NONE.

I still think players will let a ball roll OOB more to gain a free kick and clear possession than take it themselves - and that IMO goes against the grain of the game as I follow it.

If we are talking about the DOOB rule.. and removing that interpretation aspect - IMO the Umps need to have a clearer understanding of decent intent...

A ball bouncing to the line after 2-6 bounces on a kick is not insufficient intent - but the rule needs to be clarified for them.

Go Catters

 

[Kitcat]

Maybe could work but we're starting to get a bit theoretical. Would want to see it played out a bit in practice matches. Could be a bit dramatic

But it is a clear simple rule. It also adds an element of risk to the practice of running down the clock when ahead in the last quarter by kicking back into the arc.