Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 27

[Holden Hillbilly]

Just kill off Tasmania lol. Bloody stupid idea

North to Tassie. 11 home games + 7 in Victoria. Priority picks from Tassie for 5 years.

 

[malcheski]

Just kill off Tasmania lol. Bloody stupid idea

Nah Tasmania deserve a team. They've been propping up Norf and Hawthorn long enough. If the by-product is Norf fold im even more for it.

 

[malcheski]

North to Tassie. 11 home games + 7 in Victoria. Priority picks from Tassie for 5 years.

Or - just kill of North

 

[TazD]

North to Tassie. 11 home games + 7 in Victoria. Priority picks from Tassie for 5 years.

No one wants second hand Norf

 

[TeeKray]

Nobody is getting killed off. We're getting 19 teams and then 20 teams. Talent pool will be further diluted and your team's odds of ever winning a premiership further blow out. It's going to be amazing.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

A bit of click bait… But….View attachment 1974746

Writing is on the wall

 

[JimmyBC]

Nobody is getting killed off. We're getting 19 teams and then 20 teams. Talent pool will be further diluted and your team's odds of ever winning a premiership further blow out. It's going to be amazing.

We were lucky to get rid of Fitzroy

 

[DaTBird187]

We were lucky to get rid of Fitzroy

Imagine if they were still in the league. Barristas instead of bars, Fixie bike stands everywhere and a beard ratio unheard of anywhere else in the league.

 

[malcheski]

Imagine if they were still in the league. Barristas instead of bars, Fixie bike stands everywhere and a beard ratio unheard of anywhere else in the league.

'I barracked for Fitzroy before it was cool' & 'Player X is really good but you've probably never heard of him'

 

[Pappagallo]

Nobody is getting killed off. We're getting 19 teams and then 20 teams. Talent pool will be further diluted and your team's odds of ever winning a premiership further blow out. It's going to be amazing.

15-a-side will help. Reduce playing lists by 4 players and you have enough for two full teams without diluting the standard. In fact it’ll probably increase the standard because players will actually have some time and space to use their skills instead of negotiating the rolling maul with rushed hack kicks.

 

[DaTBird187]

'I barracked for Fitzroy before it was cool' & 'Player X is really good but you've probably never heard of him'

'Isn't it so nice to be able to buy merchandise, now that they're using ethically sourced organic cotton. Oh, and how good is this skin contact Pinot Gris'

 

[Pappagallo]

'Isn't it so nice to be able to buy merchandise, now that they're using ethically sourced organic cotton. Oh, and how good is this skin contact Pinot Gris'

“Are these balls vegan?”

 

[DaTBird187]

“Are these balls vegan?”

Yes, I believe they're using a soy based Sherrin.

 

[Pappagallo]

Yes, I believe they're using a soy based Sherrin.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

So how long til Rory starts running camps?

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Grave Danger]

So how long til Rory starts running camps?

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Did he marry an Adelaidienne? He might be headed home as soon as. Dumpster watch.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[Doctor Feel]

I remember enjoying losing to Carlton all the time at AAMI during their absolute quagmire years. Go us.

 

[philthy05]

15-a-side will help. Reduce playing lists by 4 players and you have enough for two full teams without diluting the standard. In fact it’ll probably increase the standard because players will actually have some time and space to use their skills instead of negotiating the rolling maul with rushed hack kicks.

I can the reason why you and others would believe this would work, but I disagree.

The assumption you’re making is that the 3 less players are removed from the centre of the ground / around the contest.


I think that is somewhat incorrect.

Everything we’ve seen says that coaches want numbers around the ball more than anything else.

The 3 less players in all likelihood will mean 3 less players presenting in the forward half.

We will keep the rolling scrum, just with less players forward to kick to.


I’ll concede it means maybe 1-2 less player around contests sometimes, I doubt that is hugely significant influential. The downside of having leas forwards to kick to probably negates that positive.

Reckon the whole league would move to a Kenny “move the ball forward then lock it in for a stoppage” type gameplan.

 

[chiwigi]

I can the reason why you and others would believe this would work, but I disagree.

The assumption you’re making is that the 3 less players are removed from the centre of the ground / around the contest.


I think that is somewhat incorrect.

Everything we’ve seen says that coaches want numbers around the ball more than anything else.

The 3 less players in all likelihood will mean 3 less players presenting in the forward half.

We will keep the rolling scrum, just with less players forward to kick to.


I’ll concede it means maybe 1-2 less player around contests sometimes, I doubt that is hugely significant influential. The downside of having leas forwards to kick to probably negates that positive.

Reckon the whole league would move to a Kenny “move the ball forward then lock it in for a stoppage” type gameplan.

Maye to begin with, but the rugbys are a good example of what happens when you take some players out. The sports were almost identical but for the two fewer players in league and one game is a lot more attacking and expansive than the other.

 

[Pappagallo]

I can the reason why you and others would believe this would work, but I disagree.

The assumption you’re making is that the 3 less players are removed from the centre of the ground / around the contest.


I think that is somewhat incorrect.

Everything we’ve seen says that coaches want numbers around the ball more than anything else.

The 3 less players in all likelihood will mean 3 less players presenting in the forward half.

We will keep the rolling scrum, just with less players forward to kick to.


I’ll concede it means maybe 1-2 less player around contests sometimes, I doubt that is hugely significant influential. The downside of having leas forwards to kick to probably negates that positive.

Reckon the whole league would move to a Kenny “move the ball forward then lock it in for a stoppage” type gameplan.

That’s good. Less players to kick to means forwards will actually have some space to lead into. In fact it doesn’t really matter where coaches choose to remove players from, there’s too much grass to guard and there will be more space created somewhere.

 

[philthy05]

That’s good. Less players to kick to means forwards will actually have some space to lead into. In fact it doesn’t really matter where coaches choose to remove players from, there’s too much grass to guard and there will be more space created somewhere.

I said they’ll play less players forward, not less defenders.

There won’t be space to kick to, cause it will be taken up either by defenders, or the same rolling scrum once it moves into that zone of the field, which happens quickly.


I just don’t think removing players takes that many players away from the contest. Teams imo will lose forwards first.


I don’t think it’s a horrible idea to try, I just think there wouldn’t be as much benefit as believed as coaches will still stick to what they want, which is numbers at the ball.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

That system’s been superseded.

The risk now is losing $10,000 if your appeal is unsuccessful (which also counts against the soft-cap).

The player also cops the original sanction.

Nobody pays $10,000 to reject an MRO sanction and take it to the Tribunal.

Edit not sure if you meant appeal MRO decision or appeal the Tribunal decision.

That would be unjust just as it would be to pay a court fee after the police have charged you.

I have no idea why this didnt go straight to the Tribunal. The MRO applied a discretion to give 3 games and not send it to the tribunal directly for a Severe impact offence. Every Severe impact ruling I have seen since the big changes to the system in 2018, have gone straight to the tribunal. The MRO is gun shy and wouldn't punish why he used his discretion in this case.

You have to pay $10k if you appeal a Tribunal decision and take it to the Appeal Board. Win your appeal and you get the $10k refunded.

 

[Pappagallo]

I said they’ll play less players forward, not less defenders.

There won’t be space to kick to, cause it will be taken up either by defenders, or the same rolling scrum once it moves into that zone of the field, which happens quickly.


I just don’t think removing players takes that many players away from the contest. Teams imo will lose forwards first.


I don’t think it’s a horrible idea to try, I just think there wouldn’t be as much benefit as believed as coaches will still stick to what they want, which is numbers at the ball.

So both teams will be +3 in defence? I highly doubt it.

Coaches will immediately recognise that they’re wasting resources here and redeploy.

 

[ElectricG]

People who want a tassie team are the same people who demand a 90s snack food from their childhood is brought back into production. Then one day it actually happens and they buy it once and never think about it again.