State of the game - PRE voice

[BrisTiger24]

So there has been a lot of discussion about last nights game, the lack of attractiveness, the low score etc. Plenty of people saying the game is being ruined. I watched back the last 5 minutes this morning. Yes, it wasn't pretty but sheesh it was an edge of your seat wrestle.

I find it interesting that, in the NRL, V'Landys used the iso break to bring in some rules which most people agree has worked wonders to open the game up and make it a better spectacle (set restarts instead of stopping the game and calling a penalty and revert back to one referee). We seem to have gone the other way and slowed the game down some how.

My personal view is that last night's output is very much influenced by the restrictions that have existed. They are only allowed one full group training session a week and have only had three since coming back from iso. How can you work on ball movement and connection if you only do it for a few hours a week? The restriction is silly given the rigorous bubbles that have been created within clubs (as are the restrictions around high fives, handshakes, sitting apart on the bench etc). The AFL need to immediately release this restriction. That will help IMO.

Do we need to do anything else? I rate the voice of PRE has just as or more learned than the so-called footy commentators. Give us your thoughts in the poll (no limit on which options you select).

 

[Althom]

Just leave it alone.

 

[Ian4]

i chose to reduce rotations, but i would also look at short passes. I don't think changing it from 15m to 20m or 25m is necessary. you just need to change it so that its 15m from the man on the mark. It drives me crazy when a player marks the ball, runs back 10m, the kicks it to a player 5m in front of the man on the mark. that needs to be stopped.

 

[Tigertool]

I like KB’s idea to cut off the wings. Too many players on the field IMO.

 

[TT33]

i chose to reduce rotations, but i would also look at short passes. I don't think changing it from 15m to 20m or 25m is necessary. you just need to change it so that its 15m from the man on the mark. It drives me crazy when a player marks the ball, runs back 10m, the kicks it to a player 5m in front of the man on the mark. that needs to be stopped.

It's always been 15 Mtrs from where the ball is kicked, as it should be. If you make it from where the mark is it means that you can't kick it either side ways or backwards to a player in a better position.

 

[BrisTiger24]

Didn't hear many complaints when it was a 28 goal game with Carlton in round one.

Last night can be put down to two good sides playing which tends to dull the scoring, fatigue and rust from the break and limited preparation, and the dew which is akin to playing in wet conditions when you get a bad night at the MCG.

TBR, as someone involved in a footy club, do you see any basis for the restrictions around all training sessions being full group?

 

[Tenacious]

Rules have changed constantly over the years so no problem making changes if required.

Definitely reduced rotations
The distance for a legal mark is an issue so enforcing at least 20m would be OK - and I'm still open to a backward kick or at least a backward kick in D50 not being a mark.

 

[TT33]

Leave the bl00dy game alone, stop fiddling with the rules. The more rule changes that are made the more rule changes need to be made because the game is "not a good spectacle".

If the knuckleheads who made the latest set of changes had left things alone then we wouldn't need to do anything.

SHocking is a blight on the game & should be cauterised from his role.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

First-up after 12 weeks... reckon we’ll see a few *smile* games this weekend.

 

[Baloo]

Get rid of Hocking and Scott and roll back all their changes. Then play a season and see what happens. I can't in the history of the game, remember a time when changes made were so counter productive and having the opposite effect of what they tried to do.

 

[BrisTiger24]

I like KB’s idea to cut off the wings. Too many players on the field IMO.

Forgot to add this one. I will add it to the poll.

 

[Harry]

Didn't hear many complaints when it was a 28 goal game with Carlton in round one.

Last night can be put down to two good sides playing which tends to dull the scoring, fatigue and rust from the break and limited preparation, and the dew which is akin to playing in wet conditions when you get a bad night at the MCG.

correct. They played after a 3 month break with no proper training or practice matches. Rd 1 is usually scrappy and that's with months of full team training, practice matches and JLT matches. Also the dew contributed to the scrappy game.

 

[BrisTiger24]

No I don't, because I think the players are exposed enough to each other anyway that I can't see how the risk would be any greater.

I also think training is quite low risk anyway, we already disinfect all the gear and they have individual drink bottles and we do so little contact work in season it wouldn't be a big change to not do it.

But I also respect the fact that I am a laymen in virology and understand we have to trust the experts. Like a lot of the advice it does seem inconsistent with other areas of life however.

You may be a layman in virology but you are an expert in common sense. We need to balance out the advice from the virologists with practicalities of society, particularly in Aust/NZ where we have some very helpful natural protections as well as the international border closure etc.

Anyway, I think opening up full training is essential to us getting a better spectacle.

 

[Ian4]

It's always been 15 Mtrs from where the ball is kicked, as it should be. If you make it from where the mark is it means that you can't kick it either side ways or backwards to a player in a better position.

Yes you can. you just call play on. It should be 15m from where you mark the ball, not from where you kick the ball. This should always have been the rule. its pretty simple really.

 

[eZyT]

I reckon it was a pretty *smile* spectacle because players hadn't played for 3 months and it was greasy.

hate the 16min quarters but they are heaps better than 0 minute quarters

 

[The Mole]

i chose to reduce rotations, but i would also look at short passes. I don't think changing it from 15m to 20m or 25m is necessary. you just need to change it so that its 15m from the man on the mark. It drives me crazy when a player marks the ball, runs back 10m, the kicks it to a player 5m in front of the man on the mark. that needs to be stopped.

100% agree. The shorter quarters and high rotations don't allow players to get fatigued which keeps the contests close. DTLD said he was not tired after last night's game!
All games open up after half time e.g. "the premiership quarter". More fatigue will make coaches try to minimize it and therefore less running so the games will be more open. You know it makes sense!

 

[TT33]

Yes you can. you just call play on. It should be 15m from where you mark the ball, not from where you kick the ball. This should always have been the rule. its pretty simple really.

As soon as the ball is kicked it's automatically called "play on" by the Umpire. Always has been.
In your ruling the Mark should automatically be 10 Mtrs behind where the Mark is taken, but then you have the anomally of where a free kick is paid, should the Mark then be 10 mtrs behind that.
No it'd make the game far too difficult to adjudicate, umpires have enough trouble as it is.

Leavethegame alone please.

 

[DavidSSS]

Actually, if memory serves me correctly, the minimum kick to count as a mark used to be 10 metres (and 10 yards, slightly shorter, but really not much even earlier). The short kicking is irritating but that is evolving too. All that short kicking and keepings off didn't do GWS much good on 28 Sept 2019!

If any knobhead in the AFL decides to fiddle with the game as a result of last night they not only need to lose whatever position they hold in the AFL but be also deported immediately.

Last night's game was a weird one, there is no doubt about that. But I'm sure the players found it weird too. No crowd, a few months between rounds, the whole COVID19 situation we are all dealing with. I think Richmond and Collingwood will suffer a little from having the first game as other sides will have seen that and seen the problems caused by the break in the season and, although they have very little time to react, they have some time to react. It was obvious many players on both sides came back not match fit and out of touch.

They should allow normal training and there should be some sort of games for those not playing AFL, not just scratch matches but proper games even if they don't award a VFL Premiership in 2020 there needs to be organised reserves footy.

As for improving the game. If they really want to reduce the rotations, reduce the bench to 3. 18 on the ground has been the case in VFL/AFL since the VFL started, unless they want to revive the VFA they shouldn't reduce it to 16.

As the season progresses and players get more match fitness the game will improve. Not only was last night the first game back in a very weird world, it was also 2 contenders who could not afford to lose. A bit out of touch, fitness down, no matches to get back into the swing of things, both teams desperate to win but even more desperate not to lose - you end up with a very defensive and congested game. The context will change and football will get back to a more normal style of play. No-one should really be surprised by the congested nature of the first game back.

The AFL's rule changes tend to fail dismally anyway so just leave it alone and get back to normal length games in 2021.

DS

 

[Ian4]

As soon as the ball is kicked it's automatically called "play on" by the Umpire. Always has been.
In your ruling the Mark should automatically be 10 Mtrs behind where the Mark is taken, but then you have the anomally of where a free kick is paid, should the Mark then be 10 mtrs behind that.

does PRE have a shoulder shrug emoji? coz i'm not sure you understand what I am saying. All is am saying is that you measure the distance of the kick from where the mark was originally taken. thats it.

 

[Tenacious]

Yes you can. you just call play on. It should be 15m from where you mark the ball, not from where you kick the ball. This should always have been the rule. its pretty simple really.

Just being picky here but ....
If the kicker was standing 10m back from the bloke standing on the mark - does that mean he could kick it backwards 5m and it would be a mark because it was taken 15m from the point?
Why? Maybe to run down the clock?