Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
11
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Lods on
I'm not averse to giving the removing the prior opportunity a go.
But I think we need to see it trialled before we make the change to determine how much of a difference it would make.
Just for a bit of fun I watched a quarter  a few weeks ago and tried to 'umpire' it on the basis of get the ball and if tackled release it virtually immediately in a proper manner...no prior.
Of course it may very well  have been my interpretation, but I only counted 4 occasions when it would have made a difference...when a free might have been paid.
I'm guessing it was probably a lot greater on the weekend
I wonder how much difference it would make to the game, but we won't know unless we trial it...with umpires a bit more accomplished than my good self :))

4 occasions in a quarter.
16 occassions in a match.

....and that'd be conservative numbers.

There was 131 tackles in our last match.

There was 105 ruck contests.
30 of them are from goals and starts of quarter - 75 remaining.
Lets say half of them was from throw ins (IMO a lot less, but keep it simple - 37)
Thats essentially 37 times there was a ball up as a result of a tackle that wasn't rewarded....but could be as many as 75.

37 times in a match. Removing prior opportunity would remove 37 stoppages from a game. This is conservative estimates too.

Players are taking the ball, knowing they will get tackled straight away and not attempting to dispose of it at all, instead, just waiting for the umpire to get it and throw it up.
I saw it at times on the weekend, largely as a smart tactic by our defenders to force the ballup in a dangerous position.

But....take away that tactic, they are forced to either, hit it on, and try and get a disposal out. Either way, play keeps moving instead of having a stoppage. Either way, the chance of a turnover is high. Either way, the chance of a goal resulting is a lot higher than going through a 50-50 stoppage. This is how it will increase scoring as well as speed the game up.

I've done the same exercise with mates who i've explained this too and they all seem to agree that its the way to go. Nobody has come up with any kind of downside to it either. LPs possessions/not possession is his only objection, but the same thing happens now with holding/not holding and will sort itself out pretty quickly as its basically an existing rule that isn't umpired correctly as it is.

The trial that the afl did was a half-ar$ed attempt and was designed to rig the outcome....like the old republic vote in the 90's.
It showed nothing because it only kicked into effect on the 2nd handball. So first players to the ball was just hatching it like they do now, and that was ok. If they handballed it to someone who then tried to hatch it, they were penalised......but that occurs in maybe 5% of scenarios, so it was a pointless exercise that 'solved' a problem that didn't exist.
13
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by Lods -
Inconsistency is the big issue at the moment.
It's all over the shop.

The time of the game is another huge factor.
With all these close games there is a definite reluctance by the umpires to blow the whistle.
Some might consider that a good thing, maybe it is, but blatant infringements are being ignored and in effect the rules aren't determining the game, it's the umpires lack of action...or sometimes the decision to act.
When they do occasionally pay them it stands out and legitimate decisions are labelled trivial and not in the spirit of the game.
Players are urged to play out the game, the umpires shouldn't get to clock off with ten minutes to go.
14
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by ElwoodBlues1 -
Quote from: DJC on
If the ball is knocked free in the tackle it is holding the ball if there was prior opportunity and play on if there wasn’t.

Similarly, a player must dispose of the ball immediately when tackled if he had prior opportunity.  If there was no prior opportunity, the player must be given a reasonable time to dispose of the ball.

That’s where the confusion lies; identical tackles can have different outcomes depending on whether there was prior opportunity.

Get rid of prior opportunity, adjudicate every tackle on its merits but don’t disadvantage players who take on the tackler.  Ping them if they don’t make an attempt, but give them a reasonable time to dispose of the ball.
Grey area is reasonable...for name players its reasonable,  for joe average in a crucial time of the game and in a crucial situation then it becomes inconsistently unreasonable. eg If Pendlebury or Nick Daicos get tackled in front of our goal it will be seen as no prior but if its Lachie Young or Lachie Cowan down the other end and its Nick Daicos doing the tackling then i know who my money is on to get the call...
15
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by DJC -
Quote from: kruddler on
I was at the game, and things may have looked different on TV, but i cannot agree with this statement.

Me and 40k of my closest mates seemed to see some very obvious ones being missed.
Most of it was based on the holding the ball decisions.....that were not paid.

A lot of the frustration would be taken away, and the decision making of the umpires made easier, if we ditched the prior opportunity rule.

Right now a player takes on a tackler (which gives up his right to prior opportunity) is correctly tackled and doesn't dispose of it correctly, and the umpire doesn't pay anything because they say there was no prior opportunity. So the mistake came when judging if/when a player decided to take on the tackler.
Removing prior opportunity removes that decision making error.

There's a similar problem when the ball comes out in the tackle.
Is that supposed to be play on?
Does the player with the ball get done for incorrect disposal?
This seems to change depending on how long the player had the ball for as well......or....if he had prior opportunity. TBH, i'm not sure which way that rule is supposed to go, but thats how its umpired and thats where another grey area is introduced where it shouldn't be.

I keep banging on about it, but removing prior fixes so many of these errors.
The main issue seems to be that people don't want to penalise the player making the play.....which is a reasonable stance.
However, currently, we do not reward the tackler enough. It NEEDS to be fairer in that regard.

If the ball is knocked free in the tackle it is holding the ball if there was prior opportunity and play on if there wasn’t.

Similarly, a player must dispose of the ball immediately when tackled if he had prior opportunity.  If there was no prior opportunity, the player must be given a reasonable time to dispose of the ball.

That’s where the confusion lies; identical tackles can have different outcomes depending on whether there was prior opportunity.

Get rid of prior opportunity, adjudicate every tackle on its merits but don’t disadvantage players who take on the tackler.  Ping them if they don’t make an attempt, but give them a reasonable time to dispose of the ball.
16
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by Lods -
I'm not averse to giving the removing the prior opportunity a go.
But I think we need to see it trialled before we make the change to determine how much of a difference it would make.
Just for a bit of fun I watched a quarter  a few weeks ago and tried to 'umpire' it on the basis of get the ball and if tackled release it virtually immediately in a proper manner...no prior.
Of course it may very well  have been my interpretation, but I only counted 4 occasions when it would have made a difference...when a free might have been paid.
I'm guessing it was probably a lot greater on the weekend
I wonder how much difference it would make to the game, but we won't know unless we trial it...with umpires a bit more accomplished than my good self :))
17
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: LP on
Despite an out of the box low free kick count there wasn't much obvious stuff missed, and I suspect the main complaint will be that all the subtle / borderline frees went GC's direction in the 1st half, but I didn't see any major clangers by the umpires for either side.

I was at the game, and things may have looked different on TV, but i cannot agree with this statement.

Me and 40k of my closest mates seemed to see some very obvious ones being missed.
Most of it was based on the holding the ball decisions.....that were not paid.

A lot of the frustration would be taken away, and the decision making of the umpires made easier, if we ditched the prior opportunity rule.

Right now a player takes on a tackler (which gives up his right to prior opportunity) is correctly tackled and doesn't dispose of it correctly, and the umpire doesn't pay anything because they say there was no prior opportunity. So the mistake came when judging if/when a player decided to take on the tackler.
Removing prior opportunity removes that decision making error.

There's a similar problem when the ball comes out in the tackle.
Is that supposed to be play on?
Does the player with the ball get done for incorrect disposal?
This seems to change depending on how long the player had the ball for as well......or....if he had prior opportunity. TBH, i'm not sure which way that rule is supposed to go, but thats how its umpired and thats where another grey area is introduced where it shouldn't be.

I keep banging on about it, but removing prior fixes so many of these errors.
The main issue seems to be that people don't want to penalise the player making the play.....which is a reasonable stance.
However, currently, we do not reward the tackler enough. It NEEDS to be fairer in that regard.
18
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by DJC -
Quote from: PaulP on
Is it possible this is by instruction ? I find it hard to believe that the coaches don't notice this, and if they're unhappy with it, would they not issue a corrective ? I've heard a number of coaches criticize too many players getting sucked in to the contest, and state some players need to be stationed outside the contest to receive the footy.

That’s the key Paul; Fantasia is getting games because he’s following instructions.

He’s not supposed to get sucked into contests, we’ve got the big bodies to do that.  He’s supposed to provide an outlet and make good use of the ball when it does come his way.

He also spends a lot of time talking to his teammates and I suspect that part of his role is to ensure that players stick to their roles.

I’d still like to see him more involved in the game and making the most of opportunities around goal.
19
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by PaulP -
Quote from: LP on
I thought it was his best game for us so far, but off a low base.

Still very worried about his lack of physical contesting, for me it's not a game style that stands up in finals, you often see him lurking in the background at stoppages, rarely moves forward into the traffic, even when the ball spills in his direction he seems to back off waiting for it to be delivered...............................................................................................

Is it possible this is by instruction ? I find it hard to believe that the coaches don't notice this, and if they're unhappy with it, would they not issue a corrective ? I've heard a number of coaches criticize too many players getting sucked in to the contest, and state some players need to be stationed outside the contest to receive the footy.
20
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by LP -
Quote from: DJC on
Fantasia was pretty good on Saturday.  He had some critical possessions deep in defence and his pass to Harry for a goal was outstanding.  He's still not hitting the scoreboard himself though.
I thought it was his best game for us so far, but off a low base.

Still very worried about his lack of physical contesting, for me it's not a game style that stands up in finals, you often see him lurking in the background at stoppages, rarely moves forward into the traffic, even when the ball spills in his direction he seems to back off waiting for it to be delivered.

I much prefer the likes of Acres, Cottrell even Owies, because even if they aren't able to break through at the stoppage they still have a go when they have to.