Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
3
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by bobby -
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 :))

I'm open to trying it as well. I think when the ball is live we may see some kicking off the ground and fisting/paddling the ball forward. Shepherding may come back into the game (its not what it was these days) to give the guy trying to take possession a chop out.
4
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by Lods -
Quote from: kruddler on
The downside of using it in the VFL is the overall standard is lower. The conditions and the grounds are worse.
As a result, it would be 'uglier' than it would be at AFL level.


No doubt there would be a few issues, but it's  better to trial it properly and see how it goes than to introduce it at senior level and then have to abandon it because of unforeseen problems.
5
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Lods on
Yep
I thought about the VFL.
I'd be quite happy to see it trialled there first for a season or two.
Senior coaches would get an opportunity to see it in action and work out strategies to cope with the new approach.
We'd all be able to see the benefits,  and any problems.
It would also probably give the second tier competition a bit of a boost as folks tuned in to see the new rules in action.

The downside of using it in the VFL is the overall standard is lower. The conditions and the grounds are worse.
As a result, it would be 'uglier' than it would be at AFL level.
6
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by Lods -
Yep
I thought about the VFL.
I'd be quite happy to see it trialled there first for a season or two.
Senior coaches would get an opportunity to see it in action and work out strategies to cope with the new approach.
We'd all be able to see the benefits,  and any problems.
It would also probably give the second tier competition a bit of a boost as folks tuned in to see the new rules in action.
8
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Lods on
The unknown though...is the 'unknown'.
We can visualise it, we can run our own scenarios looking at games and how things might go, but they'll come with a bit of bias either way.

Until you run a proper trial, the problems and the tactics used to nullify the rule won't be apparent.
And you can almost guarantee there will be unforseen consequences to such a change.
I think it's probably a fair guess to assume that initially it may result in more stoppages as players get pinged and both ball-players and tacklers delay and dwell on the contest and contact.

So any trial would require a bit of time before any benefits are realised and it becomes a fixed rule.
Not sure how you accomplish that.

You do it by introducing it to the VFL, or U18s comp or something. Give it a couple of seasons before you make a call on it.
Initially, there will be some confusion and adjusting.
Halfway through the season players will be used to it.
By the time finals come round, there will be some new tactics to take advantage of it.
You need the off-season to work out new tactics.
You need the next season before there is a new kind of normal with tactics and countertactics in place.

Anything shorter than that and you won't get a true indication of it.

Certainly won't get an idea from a couple of practice games which the afl attempted with its previous half-ar$ed trial.
9
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 11 2024 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Gold Coast
Last post by Lods -
The unknown though...is the 'unknown'.
We can visualise it, we can run our own scenarios looking at games and how things might go, but they'll come with a bit of bias either way.

Until you run a proper trial, the problems and the tactics used to nullify the rule won't be apparent.
And you can almost guarantee there will be unforseen consequences to such a change.
I think it's probably a fair guess to assume that initially it may result in more stoppages as players get pinged and both ball-players and tacklers delay and dwell on the contest and contact.

So any trial would require a bit of time before any benefits are realised and it becomes a fixed rule.
Not sure how you accomplish that.

10
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.