Why did the game devolve into the current dog's breakfast?

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

And starngely enough if this round happened in the past there would have been extended highlights of Geelong v Melbourne on The Winners and we'd all be raving about how great the game is.
Look for more, `A few good games don't change anything` comments. Like, footy is really bad, if you exclude all of the good games.
 
And starngely enough if this round happened in the past there would have been extended highlights of Geelong v Melbourne on The Winners and we'd all be raving about how great the game is.
But...but...but..the game is broken.

Or as Barrett said "VERY BROKEN".
 
**** yeah. Does my ******* head in.
Sadly, there is actually a justifiable reason for ruck nominations, which was to head off gamesmanship by teams.

As a hypothetical, you have a throw up in the Eagles forward line, Vardy and Yeo are nearby. It looks like Vardy is going to take the tap, but when the ball is thrown up, he doesn't go for it, Yeo who has his direct opponent trying to block him from getting the tap from Vardy, goes for it instead, and then gets a free kick for interference in the ruck contest.

With no ruck nominations, a team can orchestrate free kicks for ruck infringement, by having unexpected players make out they were going to take the tap.

Opposition players cannot block out anyone near the contest in case the expected ruck steps back and their opponent then claims they were trying to compete in the ruck but got impeded.

The rule is not to stop the third man up, it's because rucks are protected in a rucking contest, therefore the umps and opposition players need to know who it is that cannot be blocked.



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

And starngely enough if this round happened in the past there would have been extended highlights of Geelong v Melbourne on The Winners and we'd all be raving about how great the game is.
Paul Roos many times has said it best in regards to this, "Trust me there were heaps of horrible games back when I was a player, heck I played in them! It's just they were rarely even on TV"
 
The discussion about the state of the game has become louder in the last year or 2. This coincides with the reduction in rotations.

Have coaches reacted to fewer rotations by trying to keep the ball in tight to reduce fatigue on their players. More rest might equal more run and spread and open football.

I am not saying don’t further reduce rotations, but might be a case of being careful what we wish for

I doubt the coaches would be thinking that way, but it’s an interesting point you raise. Has the introduction of reduced rotations actually increased congestion? Are tired players more likely to try and force a stoppage and get their breath back than try and force it out?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Are tired players more likely to try and force a stoppage and get their breath back than try and force it out?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Precisely why the rules need to be changed to make forcing a stoppage much more difficult. The relative ease of forcing a stoppage is at the heart of the congestion issue. Grab the ball as you're being tackled, easy stoppage.
 
far to many VFL teams - cut 4 and all will be better (that would leave 8 that live on charity or gambling)
watching hawks V carlton to half time congestion doesn't seem to be a problem
 
Last edited:
I doubt the coaches would be thinking that way, but it’s an interesting point you raise. Has the introduction of reduced rotations actually increased congestion? Are tired players more likely to try and force a stoppage and get their breath back than try and force it out?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I thought it pretty obvious that less rotations would increase congestion. What exactly was the reasoning behind thinking more tired players would make for a more free flowing game? That just seems completely nonsensical to me.
 
I thought it pretty obvious that less rotations would increase congestion. What exactly was the reasoning behind thinking more tired players would make for a more free flowing game? That just seems completely nonsensical to me.

I think part of the reasoning was that they would have less energy to get to the stoppages in the first place, thus less numbers. I agree though that coaches would just plant tired players as a loose defender or something along those lines. Or recruit more athletes who can run out a game but don't necessarily have the skills
 
Look for more, `A few good games don't change anything` comments. Like, footy is really bad, if you exclude all of the good games.
If you can find me one game from 10+ years ago that had everyone within 70 meters of the ball then I’ll agree with you

Till then, bring on the starting positions!!
 
If you can find me one game from 10+ years ago that had everyone within 70 meters of the ball then I’ll agree with you

Till then, bring on the starting positions!!
I laughed when BT complained about all the players in one section of the ground, saying it was a reason for having starting positions, and Bartel having to point out it wasn't a stoppage, and therefore starting positions would have no effect. Most of the time, your starting positions rule will have no affect on congestion at all. Also, I have seen brilliant footy with everyone withing 70m of the ball. Congestion isn't bad football, or even ugly football, its just congested. You can have bad ugly open footy, you can have good close attractive congested footy.
 
I laughed when BT complained about all the players in one section of the ground, saying it was a reason for having starting positions, and Bartel having to point out it wasn't a stoppage, and therefore starting positions would have no effect. Most of the time, your starting positions rule will have no affect on congestion at all. Also, I have seen brilliant footy with everyone withing 70m of the ball. Congestion isn't bad football, or even ugly football, its just congested. You can have bad ugly open footy, you can have good close attractive congested footy.

I remember that moment. It was a ball up or throw in about 20 meters from goal wasn’t it?? So a stoppage...

I disagree about good football with everyone around the ball. Yes it’s physical etc etc, but rugby union has that and that’s a horrendous sport

It stifles the true talents of the game and brings everyone down to a certain level.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Why did the game devolve into the current dog's breakfast?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top