Training Pre-Season 2024

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So you'd be OK with a layer being rubbed out for 1 or 2 matches after taking a screamer where his knee connects with an opponents head?

...and what if his knee connects with a teammates head? Get suspended for that as well. It's probably where this heading.

Maybe that's why we were happy to let McAdam go

 

[CromradeCromulent]

Were we happy to let McAdam go though?

I didn't think we had much choice did we?

Uncontracted after offers had been put and he wanted out unhappy with our expectations on his preparation/fitness/rehab according to Choco Williams who had obviously spoken to him in his role at the Dees?

He wanted to go and we weren't devastated about it, these two things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[cmndstab]

Fuxkn idiots..

All this will result in is players trying even harder to get hit head high..

You get a free kick and the opportunity to rub it into your opponent that he’s gonna be tribunal bound next week..
in an sly attempt to make him nervous about it and start thinking about that and not the task at hand..

Gillion has handed the reigns to another moron molded perfectly in his own form.. this s**t wont stop until it becomes a non contact sport..

I'm not sure about that. No benefit to the player or the team if an opposition player gets rubbed out next week. And it was always a free kick anyway. I don't think this will incentivise any more ducking or getting collected in the head.

That said, it always annoys me when the AFL does half-measures like this. If they're going to start penalising incidental head-high contact, why not just bite the bullet and say all head-high contact is banned regardless of circumstance? The answer is, they're cowards. They don't want players to bump anymore, but they don't want to be the administration to come out and say "no more bumps", and take that heat from the fans. So instead they just keep adding more and more scenarios - most of which are out of your control once you have elected to bump - to the list of incidents which can attract a ban, in the hopes that players/coaches will just decide themselves to stop doing it.

And the thing is, we all already know this will be inconsistently applied. As usual, the AFL will just decide whether they want to suspend a player or not and work backwards from there.

 

[Tex Danger]

I'm not sure about that. No benefit to the player or the team if an opposition player gets rubbed out next week. And it was always a free kick anyway. I don't think this will incentivise any more ducking or getting collected in the head.

Finals could be interesting.

Top 4 sides may play the same opponent again in a GF from 1st week finals, suddenly it matters- get a guy from the winning team rubbed out for 2 weeks in week 1 they miss the GF and improve your chances of a flag if you get there.

But get it wrong and end up concussed, your own season is over too

 

[Samcro24]

So you'd be OK with a layer being rubbed out for 1 or 2 matches after taking a screamer where his knee connects with an opponents head?

...and what if his knee connects with a teammates head? Get suspended for that as well. It's probably where this heading.

100%

Yeah we've got this fast, physical game with an element of danger and we don't ever want that to change.

That said, we'll rub you out if you're too fast and physical as that can be dangerous.

 

[Samcro24]

And the thing is, we all already know this will be inconsistently applied. As usual, the AFL will just decide whether they want to suspend a player or not and work backwards from there.

This is what kills the game for me.

 

[Carmo]

I'm not convinced that fatiguing players leads to reduced congestion and a better product.

Coaches have always prioritized defense. I think it's had the effect of deprioritizing highly skilled, athletic players who have poor endurance, and prioritized the more common lower skilled player with endurance. In an environment with forced fatiguing, coaches would rather a player that can get to their defensive position than one that can use skills in the open.

The flow on effect is that in choosing endurance over skill for all but the elite players that can do both, general gameplay is less skilled, less open and more congested because players aren't good enough to clear congestion or burst from packs.

What's compounded this is the umpires refusing to pay incorrect disposal as teams move to the "drop the ball when tackled and get a ball up" method of defense. In addition, the ruck nomination rule and removal of third man up has made it harder to clear the ball from a stoppage, it gives teams more time to get numbers to the contest and (surprise, surprise) increases congestion.

Here's my quick look at scoring and fatiguing players doesn't seem to have worked. The period with 4 on the interchange and no cap (with teams doing like 150 rotations a game) scored nearly 2 goals a game higher than the last few years with a cap.

Of course factors like other rule changes and the introduction of new teams probably influenced this as well

View attachment 1900079

FWIW the SANFL was the lowest scoring state comp and then it introduced the last touch out of bounds free kick rule and it went to the highest scoring comp. I suspect some of the reduction in scoring in AFL is attributable to a more safe gameplan that runs around the boundaries. If it goes out and the penalty is merely a boundary throw in which is a contest with congestion then its not much of a penalty but if it gives the oppo a free kick then it becomes quite a penalty, so then gameplans get adjusted to move the ball more centrally down the oval and further away from the boundary. Its kind of a win win for scoring, the bring in via kick and the more central movement both help boost scoring. The kick bring in also spreads congestion a fair bit relative to a boundary throw in which also helps.

 

[Scorpus]

FWIW the SANFL was the lowest scoring state comp and then it introduced the last touch out of bounds free kick rule and it went to the highest scoring comp. I suspect some of the reduction in scoring in AFL is attributable to a more safe gameplan that runs around the boundaries. If it goes out and the penalty is merely a boundary throw in which is a contest with congestion then its not much of a penalty but if it gives the oppo a free kick then it becomes quite a penalty, so then gameplans get adjusted to move the ball more centrally down the oval and further away from the boundary. Its kind of a win win for scoring, the bring in via kick and the more central movement both help boost scoring. The kick bring in also spreads congestion a fair bit relative to a boundary throw in which also helps.

I've got no idea why the AFL persists with the ambiguous "insufficient intent" rule versus last touch

 

[cmndstab]

I understand all the arguments for the last touch rule, getting rid of "insufficient intent" adjudications etc. But it still makes me gag every time I see it. It just feels wrong.

I know I'm being irrational but I just hate it. I've always felt that if the game is that difficult for umpires to adjucate, them pay them properly, and drop them when they make howlers. The umpires who can consistently make good calls get to stay umpiring at the top level and making the big bucks. Create an incentive for umpires to make those difficult calls correctly, rather than just changing the rules so the game is easier to umpire.

 

[rabidcrow]

I understand all the arguments for the last touch rule, getting rid of "insufficient intent" adjudications etc. But it still makes me gag every time I see it. It just feels wrong.

I know I'm being irrational but I just hate it. I've always felt that if the game is that difficult for umpires to adjucate, them pay them properly, and drop them when they make howlers. The umpires who can consistently make good calls get to stay umpiring at the top level and making the big bucks. Create an incentive for umpires to make those difficult calls correctly, rather than just changing the rules so the game is easier to umpire.

The insufficient intent rule is the worst of a bloody good field of poorly adjudicated rules in the game. The fact a player can just step out of bounds and not get called compared to a player who can be tackled in traffic, kick it 40 metres upfield and get done for insufficient intent suggests the last touch rule would greatly assist the game


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ham]

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[adelaidecrows]

The insufficient intent rule is the worst of a bloody good field of poorly adjudicated rules in the game. The fact a player can just step out of bounds and not get called compared to a player who can be tackled in traffic, kick it 40 metres upfield and get done for insufficient intent suggests the last touch rule would greatly assist the game


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

This is where the AFL are hypocritical. On one hand they want to look like they are encouraging players to keep the ball in play but then they allow the following.

1. Defenders are allowed to complete big haymaker punches to the ball to knock it ten rows back out of play, which is entirely deliberate but those same defenders can't rush kick a ball to space and it trickles out of bounds. Its technically the same result is it not?

2. All players can pick the ball up and walk it over the boundary with perceived pressure.

 

[Sanders]

Maybe, but it also means less tired skill errors, more speed of ball use, faster rebound from turnovers etc.

They limited the number of interchanges because they wanted to slow the game down

Now they’re upping the number on the bench

Make it make sense

 

[Jeffcrowe]

I understand all the arguments for the last touch rule, getting rid of "insufficient intent" adjudications etc. But it still makes me gag every time I see it. It just feels wrong.

I know I'm being irrational but I just hate it. I've always felt that if the game is that difficult for umpires to adjucate, them pay them properly, and drop them when they make howlers. The umpires who can consistently make good calls get to stay umpiring at the top level and making the big bucks. Create an incentive for umpires to make those difficult calls correctly, rather than just changing the rules so the game is easier to umpire.

Same , I’m with ya

 

[cmndstab]

This is where the AFL are hypocritical. On one hand they want to look like they are encouraging players to keep the ball in play but then they allow the following.

1. Defenders are allowed to complete big haymaker punches to the ball to knock it ten rows back out of play, which is entirely deliberate but those same defenders can't rush kick a ball to space and it trickles out of bounds. Its technically the same result is it not?

2. All players can pick the ball up and walk it over the boundary with perceived pressure.

The one that really shits me is how defenders are allowed to spoil the ball over the line (which I'm fine with) but if it's come off another player or bounced then they're not?

Seems silly to me. The contest is still alive, thr defender is often not in a position to take and dispose of the ball. What are they supposed to do? It's their job to neutralise the contest.

 

[cm_perfect]

I understand all the arguments for the last touch rule, getting rid of "insufficient intent" adjudications etc. But it still makes me gag every time I see it. It just feels wrong.

I know I'm being irrational but I just hate it. I've always felt that if the game is that difficult for umpires to adjucate, them pay them properly, and drop them when they make howlers. The umpires who can consistently make good calls get to stay umpiring at the top level and making the big bucks. Create an incentive for umpires to make those difficult calls correctly, rather than just changing the rules so the game is easier to umpire.

They should be like a 19th club, payed properly, full time, coach, assistant coaches, development coaches etc. the full gamut.
I can’t believe Australia’s biggest sport is officiated by part timers on game day.

 

[Scorpus]

I understand all the arguments for the last touch rule, getting rid of "insufficient intent" adjudications etc. But it still makes me gag every time I see it. It just feels wrong.

I know I'm being irrational but I just hate it. I've always felt that if the game is that difficult for umpires to adjucate, them pay them properly, and drop them when they make howlers. The umpires who can consistently make good calls get to stay umpiring at the top level and making the big bucks. Create an incentive for umpires to make those difficult calls correctly, rather than just changing the rules so the game is easier to umpire.

I agree in general but the AFL has far too many rules that are open to interpretation.

Of course lots of other sports have some rules which require interpretation but really the AFL is a big offender. They should be simplifying anything that requires the umpire to guess what the player's intent was

 

[cmndstab]

I agree in general but the AFL has far too many rules that are open to interpretation.

Of course lots of other sports have some rules which require interpretation but really the AFL is a big offender. They should be simplifying anything that requires the umpire to guess what the player's intent was

Sure, but simplifying doesn't have to mean eliminating the rule altogether.

I don't have an issue with players getting the ball over the line. That's part of football as far as I'm concerned. We specifically have a rule which says you can get the ball over the line and if it's not on the full, it's a throw-in. I don't think it makes sense that someone who clears the ball near the boundary ends up with a free kick against just because the ball landed on the wrong side and bounced out of bounds. Or that an opposition player should be rewarded for watching the ball dribble over the line. And as a fan, I can't think of anything more frustrating than a defender who could have neutralised the contest, but instead gives up a goal because they were worried about whether they were allowed to do it.

Reserve the rule for the blindingly obvious situations. Someone clearly kicking deliberately to the boundary line, playing for time. A ruckman just punching it straight towards the boundary line with nobody there. That kind of thing. If there is any doubt as to what their intention was, no decision, throw it back in. Easy.

 

[Firewalker]

Jeez the way Sloane just acts so flippantly to situations like not being able to see a player approaching him and “cleaning him up” and then just says “I’ll probably look into getting some goggles” .

I’ve always been convinced Collective Minds did a number on Rory, his boderline total foolhardiness belief in himself and how he always convinces himself no matter what the situation he will personally always beat anything always leaves you with a weird feeling of befuddled admiration, a slight concern for his safety and also a little bit convinced he’s part of a weird cult.

 

[GreyCrow]

Jeez the way Sloane just acts so flippantly to situations like not being able to see a player approaching him and “cleaning him up” and then just says “I’ll probably look into getting some goggles” .

I’ve always been convinced Collective Minds did a number on Rory, his boderline total foolhardiness belief in himself and how he always convinces himself no matter what the situation he will personally always beat anything always leaves you with a weird feeling of befuddled admiration, a slight concern for his safety and also a little bit convinced he’s part of a weird cult.

I think he has always had the belief and the mental toughness

But its the current mindset that needs some inner reflections

At the end of the day you cant be a better father, husband and eye patient if you need a white cane in one hand and a brown cane in the other to move around in 5 years time

 

[Tarasque36]

Sure, but simplifying doesn't have to mean eliminating the rule altogether.

I don't have an issue with players getting the ball over the line. That's part of football as far as I'm concerned. We specifically have a rule which says you can get the ball over the line and if it's not on the full, it's a throw-in. I don't think it makes sense that someone who clears the ball near the boundary ends up with a free kick against just because the ball landed on the wrong side and bounced out of bounds. Or that an opposition player should be rewarded for watching the ball dribble over the line. And as a fan, I can't think of anything more frustrating than a defender who could have neutralised the contest, but instead gives up a goal because they were worried about whether they were allowed to do it.

Reserve the rule for the blindingly obvious situations. Someone clearly kicking deliberately to the boundary line, playing for time. A ruckman just punching it straight towards the boundary line with nobody there. That kind of thing. If there is any doubt as to what their intention was, no decision, throw it back in. Easy.

Surprisingly seemingly naive post and opinion from you here.
Guess you haven't watched any sanfl over the past few years where they've had this rule.
Firstly... It's not last touch. It's last disposal.
Seriously, any game needs clear rules. Not a guess about intentions from the judges. Too often afl insufficient intent is a joke call. It needs to go.
If you watch sanfl you'll notice the rule is only utilised 4-5 times a game! Get it? Players adjust. It's clear. Simple turnover. Adjust they have, and there's no disputes, rule is clear.

On moto g84 5G using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Tex Danger]

Jeez the way Sloane just acts so flippantly to situations like not being able to see a player approaching him and “cleaning him up” and then just says “I’ll probably look into getting some goggles” .

I’ve always been convinced Collective Minds did a number on Rory, his boderline total foolhardiness belief in himself and how he always convinces himself no matter what the situation he will personally always beat anything always leaves you with a weird feeling of befuddled admiration, a slight concern for his safety and also a little bit convinced he’s part of a weird cult.

He was saying that was the reason he went and saw the specialist not an ongoing issue

losing some peripheral vision was a symptom of the detachment so it sounds like it’s fixed by the surgery

 

[Mostyn]

Jeez the way Sloane just acts so flippantly to situations like not being able to see a player approaching him and “cleaning him up” and then just says “I’ll probably look into getting some goggles” .

I’ve always been convinced Collective Minds did a number on Rory, his boderline total foolhardiness belief in himself and how he always convinces himself no matter what the situation he will personally always beat anything always leaves you with a weird feeling of befuddled admiration, a slight concern for his safety and also a little bit convinced he’s part of a weird cult.

Not sure about the cult thing - but he seems right at that point of life where your brain still thinks your body is capable of doing things that it can't do anymore.

Hell, I remember that moment pretty clearly myself.

 

[cmndstab]

Surprisingly seemingly naive post and opinion from you here.
Guess you haven't watched any sanfl over the past few years where they've had this rule.
Firstly... It's not last touch. It's last disposal.
Seriously, any game needs clear rules. Not a guess about intentions from the judges. Too often afl insufficient intent is a joke call. It needs to go.
If you watch sanfl you'll notice the rule is only utilised 4-5 times a game! Get it? Players adjust. It's clear. Simple turnover. Adjust they have, and there's no disputes, rule is clear.

On moto g84 5G using BigFooty.com mobile app

Not much SANFL but I've watched lots of AFLW where it's been a rule since 2018 when it applied all over the ground. Thankfully they changed it in 2019 so it doesn't apply inside 50 anymore, so we no longer see kicks to the lead that just slightly miss the target turning into a free kick.

Yes, I know it's last disposal.

Yes, the players adjust... by not taking advantage of the boundary line to kill the ball when they should and instead keeping it alive when they shouldn't, often costing them goals. Is that a good thing? Often, the only times it actually ends up being used is for unlucky bounces, or when opposition players could easily take the ball but opt to let it go out on purpose. Is that an improvement? A free kick because the ball bounced left instead of right? Is that better than one or two bad "deliberate" decisions each weekend, if that?

Again, I get the arguments for the rule, removing the need for interpretation. I just don't like it. It's a bit like the arguments for changing the scoring rules so if it hits the post and comes back in it's play on, while if it hits the post and goes through the goals you get a goal. It would make things simpler, remove ambiguities, and hell, we'd have played finals in 2023! But it would also make me shudder watching it because that's not how football is supposed to work, damn it.

I'm not saying it's a rational opinion. But it is my opinion, and to date the only reason I've ever heard someone give for the rule is that it makes the game easier to umpire and removes the howlers. Nobody has ever tried to argue that it's a better rule on the merits of the rule itself - only on the egregious examples of the previous rule being adjudicated poorly. The game is too difficult to umpire, they say. So we have to change the game itself to something nobody has even tried to argue is better on its merits, because otherwise how can we possibly expect umpires to make the right calls?

But this is a solved problem. You know what's more even difficult than umpiring? Playing football! And yet we manage to stick dozens of footballers on the ground every match, most of who play an entire game without a single howler of that magnitude. How do we achieve this amazing feat? By paying the good ones a truckload of cash, and demoting the ones who can't get it right often enough. And we have thousands of players all over the country competing like buggery to be the lucky few chosen to get on the field.

Nobody says "gee, footballers are struggling to get the ball between the big sticks often enough. We'd better widen them so it's easier for them to kick goals." No, they just pay millions of dollars to the special few who can do it regularly instead.

I know, I'm ranting. I just don't like it, simple as that.

 

[GreyCrow]

Not sure about the cult thing - but he seems right at that point of life where your brain still thinks your body is capable of doing things that it can't do anymore.

Hell, I remember that moment pretty clearly myself.

Mine was trying to fix a leaky pipe under a kitchen sink