Advanced  

Latest Result

Grand Final MCG
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 • 12:00 WST
West Coast Collingwood
11.13 (79) 11.8 (74)
Game Focus



The "state of the game"

Discuss the AFL, other clubs and the game in general

Moderators: Mr Q, DALBY

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Peter_Melesso_Fanclub on Tue May 22, 2018 8:48 am

Was that at least a free kick against Buddy? (I hope so!)
I can understand not wanting to suspend for something like that, but it's really on the edge. Bit of an uncommon one, and I suspect that's what got him off. If that was happening with any regularity I think we'd find it quickly being shifted into the one week suspension realm.
Peter_Melesso_Fanclub
Veteran
 
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:05 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby WCE Booka 89 on Tue May 22, 2018 9:54 am

What is everyones take on the sliding rule from the Adelaide game?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-21/talia-sliding-penalty-the-right-call-says-afl

Honestly I think it was the right decision. Talia went to ground willingly, in the same way a player ducks into a tackle to draw a high free kick, so it shouldn't have been an in the back free kick like Talia was crying for anyways. Had he slipped over in an attempt to get the ball it might have been a different story but the more you look at it, the more you see he went to ground to take out the player. More replays even show the Dogs knee going a very bad way and probably lucky the leg wasn't planted otherwise it could have been a big injury.
WCE Booka 89
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Mandurah WA

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Peter_Melesso_Fanclub on Tue May 22, 2018 10:49 am

I'm 100% ok with it being a free as well. For starters, they weren't going "the same way" as per the call. They were coming at an angle to each other, for what that is even worth. And I agree that Talia went to ground willingly and unnecessarily.
It looked to be like Webb was going to go for a soccer off the ground (based on the fact that he wasn't really slowing down or bending down), which is a perfectly legit thing for him to do in that situation.
How the hell does Ling come up with "and they're going in the same direction" immediately after viewing the replay from the final angle that shows Talia coming across Webb with a considerable lateral component to his velocity?? That could very easily have been an ankle/leg/knee-wrecking play, which is exactly what the rule is intended to prevent.
Peter_Melesso_Fanclub
Veteran
 
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:05 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby WCE Booka 89 on Tue May 22, 2018 11:04 am

Peter_Melesso_Fanclub wrote:I'm 100% ok with it being a free as well. For starters, they weren't going "the same way" as per the call. They were coming at an angle to each other, for what that is even worth. And I agree that Talia went to ground willingly and unnecessarily.
It looked to be like Webb was going to go for a soccer off the ground (based on the fact that he wasn't really slowing down or bending down), which is a perfectly legit thing for him to do in that situation.
How the hell does Ling come up with "and they're going in the same direction" immediately after viewing the replay from the final angle that shows Talia coming across Webb with a considerable lateral component to his velocity?? That could very easily have been an ankle/leg/knee-wrecking play, which is exactly what the rule is intended to prevent.


I dont understand how they keep saying that Webb initiated the contact?he maintains his running line, not gonna lie if I am running in a straight line to the ball at full speed, if I see a bloke cut in front and drop, i'm not going to be able to make a move in less than a second to not run them over... Talia has initiated it 110% by dropping in front of him
WCE Booka 89
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Mandurah WA

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Peter_Melesso_Fanclub on Tue May 22, 2018 11:15 am

One other thing I'll add. I'm just watching last night's "Talking Footy" at the moment (yes, I am that happy with things this week that I'm even willing to watch Talking Footy just to continue soaking up the footy conversation) and Luke Darcy says, regarding the rule: "Most overrated rule change we've had in the game. It happened once, we saw one injury, it was Gary Rohan - Lindsay Thomas, it hasn't happened again"

[Engage Dunstall rant-mode voice] YOU FLOG. WHY DO YOU THINK IT HASN'T HAPPENED AGAIN???!!!?!?! MORON!!!!
Peter_Melesso_Fanclub
Veteran
 
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:05 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Fat Side on Tue May 22, 2018 12:34 pm

The only response to a Subject title called 'State of the Game' is:.....Victoria!
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Voice of Reason on Sat May 26, 2018 6:49 pm

OK - I did deliberately hijack the thread at the beginning because I wanted a broader strategic assessment. The TV shows react week to week and I don't buy into it.

So I think that there is nothing wrong with the game; it remains a great game - when played well.

I saw some stats on the Eagles the other day - #1 for kicks, #18 for handballs, #1 for contested marks in the forward 50. Playing with two rucks - one impact, one solid. X-factor in Ryan, Rioli. Blooding youth, but keeping experience. Structures, tam spirit, work ethic, tactics. Superb to watch - every game at the Stadium this year has been marvellous.

Today I watched St Kilda fail to beat a winged, two-men down including their main forward target (Reiwoldt) Richmond, who had faced us the previous week. Couldn't kick over a jam tin. Eddie reckons Jack Steven was terrific - all I saw was a bloke gathering stats and handballing to stationery teammates who were under pressure. Jack Billings - "great talent" can only kick off one side of his body. Paddy McCartin - his judgment of an incoming ball was so bad, I don't think he could catch a bus. Hopeless kicking for goal. Same coach for five years and the skills were woeful.

All depends what game you're watching.
Modest in victory
Gracious in defeat
Voice of Reason
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: West Coast Eagles & West Perth

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Fat Side on Sat May 26, 2018 6:54 pm

Voice of Reason wrote:OK - I did deliberately hijack the thread at the beginning because I wanted a broader strategic assessment. The TV shows react week to week and I don't buy into it.

So I think that there is nothing wrong with the game; it remains a great game - when played well.

I saw some stats on the Eagles the other day - #1 for kicks, #18 for handballs, #1 for contested marks in the forward 50. Playing with two rucks - one impact, one solid. X-factor in Ryan, Rioli. Blooding youth, but keeping experience. Structures, tam spirit, work ethic, tactics. Superb to watch - every game at the Stadium this year has been marvellous.

Today I watched St Kilda fail to beat a winged, two-men down including their main forward target (Reiwoldt) Richmond, who had faced us the previous week. Couldn't kick over a jam tin. Eddie reckons Jack Steven was terrific - all I saw was a bloke gathering stats and handballing to stationery teammates who were under pressure. Jack Billings - "great talent" can only kick off one side of his body. Paddy McCartin - his judgment of an incoming ball was so bad, I don't think he could catch a bus. Hopeless kicking for goal. Same coach for five years and the skills were woeful.

All depends what game you're watching.


St Kilda are a team devoid of confidence. Any team near the bottom of the ladder will struggle with skill errors etc. With confidence comes skills, speed of ball movement and pace across the ground. St Kilda's players seemed to get sucked into or on the periphery of the contest. They got stuck inside and there were few options outside or forward of the ball. Very little spread from the contest.

Once they get their confidence they will be okay. Right now they need a spark from somewhere. I don't believe that dumping the coach will work.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Fat Side on Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:46 pm

Getting back to the question of the state of the game.

It's time to eradicate the bye rounds. I know it's even for every team and I also accept that players are demanding two byes per year. Having a bye round after R23 is nothing short of diabolical. I will also discuss the incessant tampering and tinkering with the game's rules. It appears all but certain that the AFL will introduce some kind of zone to ensure players do not gather around the ball. I address both points thus:

Each team should be given an extended list of a further 2 or 3 players (and the commensurate TPP adjustment). Each club should be required to ensure that every player on the list takes two weeks off (two byes) during the season. That is two weeks away from the club (to ensure clubs don't include injuries as breaks). That way the AFLPA is satisfied that each player has a break and the continuity of the qualifying rounds is not compromised. That way we fit 22 games in 22 weeks and the GF is played on the last Saturday in September. The entire concept becomes part of the game's strategy (like the substitute 22nd player). I can't see the AFL going with this due to the influence of betting agencies.

We don't need zoning because it places even more emphasis on umpires adjudicating it while the media remain fixated on every potential breach that was not picked up by the umpires at a critical time in a game. If we are that worried about the look of the game (I'm not as I think it continues to evolve) then bring teams back from 22 players to 20 players. 18 on the ground and two interchange players. Also restrict rotations by another 10 (making it 70 per game).

Better still the AFL could just leave the game alone and allow it to evolve.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby MrWoollie on Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:56 pm

Growing more into the 'leave it alone' camp.

One thing I really don't want to see is a reduction in game time. What we would end up with is what we saw in the opening 20-25 minutes of each quarter of Muppett games in 2013-15. Those games used to go...
Q1 - every Muppett gut running and strangling the play while trying to crawl the ball forward and eventually score. Repeat for 25 minutes of the worst football imaginable, then as they began to tire the game would open up and the opposition would get a few goals.
Q2 - see Q1.
Q3 - repeat except the tiring would happen earlier and the entertaining period would go on a bit longer.
Q4 - roughly a 50-50 time effort of slogfest followed by free flowing football.
It was always a question of could the Muppetts build up a big enough lead to defend for when they inevitably tired?

The last thing I want to see is games played entirely like the opening bits of those Muppett games. Talk about a dismal spectacle of low scoring, negative trash.
2017 sponsor of #6 - Elliot Yeo. 2017 B&F, 2017 EFH POTY.
User avatar
MrWoollie
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:53 am
Location: Peak District National Park

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Big_Davo on Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:23 pm

The decline in the "state of the game" can be traced back to WAFL Round 20 1976. For those too young to remember the game in those days was played by teams of 20 players (including 2 reserves) who predominantly played in designated positions. To do otherwise would mean running out of legs so the game was quite open with man on man contests all over the ground. The followers would rest in a forward or back pocket adding an extra dimension. Scores were high in contrast to today's lowly standards and the games were free flowing. Reserves would come on if someone had to go off permanently through injury, or they might get a run in the last quarter.

Round 20 1976 changed all that. At three quarter time Claremont coach Mal Brown took John Colreavy off the ground and replaced him with Ross Ditchburn. When another player got injured in the final quarter Brownie broke the rules by sending Colreavy back on.
In the wash-up from the game, Claremont's score was annulled and Brownie was sacked, but there was a groundswell of support for allowing replaced players to go back onto the ground so that teams didn't have to play with 17 men while there were still fit players on the bench.

The rule was changed nationally and worked well for several years until coaches started using it in a manner that was never intended. The eventual consequences as the game evolved were 36 players in one quarter of the ground and ugly scrums from which the ball would struggle to emerge.

I'm sure most of us hate the constant rule changes that are marring our unique game, but the one thing that is being overlooked is that simply going back to the original intent of the interchange rule would stop the game being flooded by free running athletes who follow the ball to all corners of the ground, and then take a spell on the bench to prepare them for more gut running. Once again the game could be a war of attrition played by 18 skilled footballers from each team largely playing man on man in their general positions.

We could go back to having centre half forwards, half back flankers, rovers and back pocket specialists instead of defenders, forwards and mids.

Call me old school if you like, but I've seen the best and worst of the game over many decades and I know what I'd prefer.
Big_Davo
Rookie
 
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:09 pm
Location: Perth Stadium Block 515

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Voice of Reason on Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:56 pm

Big_Davo wrote:The decline in the "state of the game" can be traced back to WAFL Round 20 1976. For those too young to remember the game in those days was played by teams of 20 players (including 2 reserves) who predominantly played in designated positions. To do otherwise would mean running out of legs so the game was quite open with man on man contests all over the ground. The followers would rest in a forward or back pocket adding an extra dimension. Scores were high in contrast to today's lowly standards and the games were free flowing. Reserves would come on if someone had to go off permanently through injury, or they might get a run in the last quarter.

Round 20 1976 changed all that. At three quarter time Claremont coach Mal Brown took John Colreavy off the ground and replaced him with Ross Ditchburn. When another player got injured in the final quarter Brownie broke the rules by sending Colreavy back on.
In the wash-up from the game, Claremont's score was annulled and Brownie was sacked, but there was a groundswell of support for allowing replaced players to go back onto the ground so that teams didn't have to play with 17 men while there were still fit players on the bench.

The rule was changed nationally and worked well for several years until coaches started using it in a manner that was never intended. The eventual consequences as the game evolved were 36 players in one quarter of the ground and ugly scrums from which the ball would struggle to emerge.

I'm sure most of us hate the constant rule changes that are marring our unique game, but the one thing that is being overlooked is that simply going back to the original intent of the interchange rule would stop the game being flooded by free running athletes who follow the ball to all corners of the ground, and then take a spell on the bench to prepare them for more gut running. Once again the game could be a war of attrition played by 18 skilled footballers from each team largely playing man on man in their general positions.

We could go back to having centre half forwards, half back flankers, rovers and back pocket specialists instead of defenders, forwards and mids.

Call me old school if you like, but I've seen the best and worst of the game over many decades and I know what I'd prefer.


Davo

You’re old school.

And I agree with you.
Modest in victory
Gracious in defeat
Voice of Reason
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: West Coast Eagles & West Perth

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby DALBY on Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:13 am

Walker was not looking at the ball at all when he collected Tuohy, you'd think he's get at least a week.
Do or do not!
There is no try.
User avatar
DALBY
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:33 pm
Location: WAIKIKI

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby WCE Booka 89 on Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:37 pm

DALBY wrote:Walker was not looking at the ball at all when he collected Tuohy, you'd think he's get at least a week.


Honestly, to get him that high when he is already pretty upright. Seeya, bye. Honestly if he gets a week Adelaide should challenge and ask for 3 weeks. Walker is an absolute muppet and they would be better off without his stupidity. They could have had the game in the bag by 3 qtr time against us had it not been for his muppetry.
WCE Booka 89
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Mandurah WA

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby WCE Booka 89 on Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:09 pm

Is Tom Mitchell not the front man for how the state of the game has changed? 10 years ago a bloke picks up 43 touches, his team had the game in the bag at 3 qtr time. Today Hawks go down by 30+ with Tommy picking up 43 disposals.
WCE Booka 89
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Mandurah WA

PreviousNext

Return to AFL Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest