An Ode to Ugly Footy

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You don't get many "boring" lay ups. The players may score a lot, but it's not the case that most of the shots are "easy". Given he thinks that basketball is boring except for the "most spectacular shots" it tends to indicate that he doesn't follow basketball closely.

I just re-read the article. At no point does he call basketball boring, he does comment on the monotony of the game at times. I love basketball, played it for years, but it can be monotonous at times. Others would say the same about footy, horses for courses.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
what's the problem with these rules?

...

* Reduced tolerance on holding players up after mark or free kick (punished by 50-metre penalty).

Because there will always be a line, it will always be a thin one, and especially if the opposition has a loose man forward of the play or is on the break, the man on the mark will be obliged to walk it.

"Reduced tolerance" doesn't fix the problem. It merely means that, in theory, 1.9 seconds will be okay and 2 seconds will be forbidden; whereas now 4.9 seconds is theoretically okay and 5 seconds is a 50 metre penalty. In reality, the difference between penalty and no penalty will be dictated by the preferences of the individual umpire, the quality of acting of the person being held, the noise the home crowd is making (or the lack of it) etc, with the result that identical behaviour will produce a penalty in one case and no penalty in another.

I think we've agreed in a thread months ago, that unless you bring in 25 metre penalties (which some leagues already have) for minor infringements, reserving 50 metre penalties for major ones, you will inevitably produce the result that umpires, in deciding to 'push the button' in marginal cases, will be seen to have a disproportionate effect on the result of a match.

Imagine if in the GF Adam Goodes had nailed a goal from his 50 metre penalty, WCE scored a goal after the restart, and that was the last score of the match. The deafening cries from the west (with some justification) would have been "soft 50 metre hands Sydney the premiership", and a compilation tape would have been put together of 50 examples of more serious post-marking infringements through the year, that didn't result in a penalty.

Of course it's a necessary prerequisite for a classic match, in any sport, that it's close. But even if Sydney or WCE had got a quick run-on in the last quarter and won by 3 or 4 goals, it still would have been a terrific GF. Anyone who thinks it was 'ugly football', with 20 players around an endless series of ball-ups, each team playing 3 players loose in the backline, the team in possession being forced to chip it around trying to find a way around the flood, and/or riddled with a disproportionate number of unforced errors, wasn't watching the match I saw. I thought it was a wonderful demonstration of all the AFL skills, from the most spectacular to the most underappreciated.

[NMWBloods]

He says "Witness basketball, where the ball goes from hoop to hoop with such ease that only the most spectacular score breaks the monotony" which implies to me that when the scoring isn't "the most spectacular" it's rather monotonous/boring. Given that spectacular scoring doesn't occur all the time, it suggests that the rest of the time is boring.

Also, to say that in quality professional basketball "the ball goes from hoop to hoop with such ease" really undermines any case that he follows basketball regularly. Look at the recent NBA finals series - 7 games (14 scorelines) and only one game broke 100 points. IIRC, shooting averages have averaged less than 50% for most of the 90s and since, so hardly reflecting "easy baskets".

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by SimonH
Because there will always be a line, it will always be a thin one, and especially if the opposition has a loose man forward of the play or is on the break, the man on the mark will be obliged to walk it.

"Reduced tolerance" doesn't fix the problem. It merely means that, in theory, 1.9 seconds will be okay and 2 seconds will be forbidden; whereas now 4.9 seconds is theoretically okay and 5 seconds is a 50 metre penalty. In reality, the difference between penalty and no penalty will be dictated by the preferences of the individual umpire, the quality of acting of the person being held, the noise the home crowd is making (or the lack of it) etc, with the result that identical behaviour will produce a penalty in one case and no penalty in another.

Yes, so it's no different from now in terms of decision making, however it may make players less likely to hold on for as long.

I think we've agreed in a thread months ago, that unless you bring in 25 metre penalties (which some leagues already have) for minor infringements, reserving 50 metre penalties for major ones, you will inevitably produce the result that umpires, in deciding to 'push the button' in marginal cases, will be seen to have a disproportionate effect on the result of a match.

Yes, definitely should bring back 15m or use 25m as the punishment is often too harsh for the crime.

[DST]

Hands up who thought our game against Hawthorn at the MCG in the last round was the most boring game of the year?

I for one was bored @@@@less right from the start, Hawthorn put absolutely no pressure on us, we moved the ball like training drills and in the end our intensity dropped off as well which made for a very bland game.

We may not have kicked big scores in the finals games, but what you got was contested footy where every single peice of play during the game was approached as if it was our last. Edge of your seat, nail biting, butt clenching intensity.

Some may say that the rules changes have been implemented to break up our current style of play, but I beg to differ. If you look at them, none of them will stop us from getting numbers back to help out our undersized defence or stop us from pushing up to stoppages to close down the space of the opposition. As long as we play within the interpretations of the stricter holding, scragging and blocking rules (which I beleive we do anyway) and continue to do the hard gut busting team orientated running to get to the contest then the new rules may just benefit us when we are going the other way.

DST

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

Also, what's the problem with these rules?

* Stricter interpretation on players kicking the ball deliberately out of bounds.

* Crackdown on players scragging opponents going for the ball.

* Fifty-metre penalty to be awarded more quickly.

* Ball to be thrown in from the boundary more quickly.

* Stricter policing of holding or blocking in marking contests.

* Reduced tolerance on holding players up after mark or free kick (punished by 50-metre penalty).

As I said, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong in any of these changes in isolation (tho I don't partic see the need for quicker throw-ins or 50ms). But the Law of Unintended Consequences suggests that the impact of all of these changes being implemented in toto is something massively different to considering them in isolation.

As I've said elsewhere, take the 30 sec shot rule + the quicker play-on after a point rule. This effectively means that from the moment when your forward marks the ball, the other forwards have 30+ secs to go from losing their man to picking a man up or adopting a zone defence. It could put a massive price on inaccuracy - which in turn could mean that no one wants to shoot from 50+m out or difficult angles - which means those skills are lost to the game.

Now, I've no idea if this will happen - point is neither do the AFL. And you get the feeling they've put about as much thought into this as they did into their vaunted new tribunal system.

I expect the disastrous after-effects of these rule changes to make the tribunal fiasco look relatively well thought through.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by DST
Hands up who thought our game against Hawthorn at the MCG in the last round was the most boring game of the year?

Yep - I thought it was one of the most boring games I have seen. However moving from one extreme to the other doesn't really prove the point.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by giant
I expect the disastrous after-effects of these rule changes to make the tribunal fiasco look relatively well thought through.

I'm not defending the AFL or its decisions to make rule changes the way they do, as I think they're a bunch of idiots, however I have no problem with the concept of tweaking the rules. After all the rules have been changing for over 100 years.

[Sanecow]

Also, what's the problem with these rules?

* Stricter interpretation on players kicking the ball deliberately out of bounds.

The problem with this rule is that it's still based on the umpire's mood. It's not an improvement, it's just a change.

[NMWBloods]

"Consistent" interpretation is what I'd like to see.

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I'm not defending the AFL or its decisions to make rule changes the way they do, as I think they're a bunch of idiots, however I have no problem with the concept of tweaking the rules. After all the rules have been changing for over 100 years.

I too have no problem with "tweaking" - my suspicion tho is that all these changes in their entirety comprise something much more than a "tweaking".

[NMWBloods]

Unfortunately you are possibly correct, if recent years' efforts by the monkeys in charge of the AFL is anything to go by!

[rastus]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Basic shots and lay ups may not make the highlight reel, but that doesn't make them monotonous. A comment like his makes it pretty clear he doesn't follow basketball particularly closely.

It doesn't make them monotonous?? Excuse me but the sight of a 7 foot bean dropping the ball into a hoop with ease and time after time is exactly my definition of monotonous. I think Hinds is spot and is entitled to his opinion without it being so haughtily dismissed as ignorant.

[floppinab]

I've found the hoohah surrounding the Swans style of play and now these rule changes quite interesting.

As a South Aussie during the 50's and 60's and maybe also into the 70's the "general" perception was that South Aussie's played a game more based around skill and ball delivery, whereas the Vics played a game based around toughness, endurance and ball winning ability.

I found it interesting now that it seems these aspects of the Victorian style are being ruled out of the game.

Also I think there is a danger in basing interpretations of the impact of these rules on the Wizard Cup, a very different beast to the Season Proper, only there will we see the true impact.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by rastus
Excuse me but the sight of a 7 foot bean dropping the ball into a hoop with ease and time after time is exactly my definition of monotonous.

If it happened that way it might be, but it doesn't.

I think Hinds is spot and is entitled to his opinion without it being so haughtily dismissed as ignorant.

He's entitled to make analysis of sport and people, and equally people are entitled to analyse his comments.