An Ode to Ugly Footy

[rastus]

One thing I would like to point out that concerns me is the new rule re being able to kick in before the flags are waved. I know it will make the game faster but it will take out the defensive and offensive skills that have developed on kick ins. I am talking about the defences (zone etc) and the pin point kick put skills. Each team has their own tactics where kick ins are concerned. It has been interesting over the years to see these tactics develop.

With the quick kick in I can't see there will be time to set up defenses which have been a big part of the game for years.

[NMWBloods]

May be a big plus for us though, as I think it is one of the weakest aspects of our game.

[j s]

Originally posted by rastus
With the quick kick in I can't see there will be time to set up defenses which have been a big part of the game for years.

Which is exactly the stated reason for implementing the new rule.

I'm not sure I agree though - I guess time will tell.

It raises an interesting scenario though - a player (let's say Tadhg) runs across the goal line defensively with the ball in his hands. Can he immediately turn around back into the goal square and do his kick in. The goals square could still be quite crowded. What would happen if someone got in his way or even tackled him not realising he had crossed the line and come back.

Surely he would have to wait at least until the 'all clear' and the goal ump had pointed his finger down the field?

[sharpie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
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".

I think you have all missed the point of what Hinds was trying to say. He was not commenting on how easy, or otherwise, it is to get the ball in the hoop once the ball is in or around the 3 point arc.

He was commenting on how monotonously and easily the ball is transferred from one end of the court to the other, essentially nullifying the importance of the middle of the court. How often in the average basketball game would there be defensive pressure in the middle or defensive end of the court that creates a turnover?

On the other hand in AFL, following one team kicking a behind (the equivalent of a restart in basketball once a basket is scored), how often would the other team take it the length of the field into their F50?

Hinds is commenting that the flow of basketball from end to end is boring because it is done with such ease. He does not want to see AFL become like this where each team basically just takes turn trying to score a goal from the 50m arc. And I agree with him.

[Legs Akimbo]

Originally posted by sharpie
I think you have all missed the point of what Hinds was trying to say.

...I got it

...watching skinny guys endlessly running up one wing and running down the other and a blown out scoreline

I just wonder how much weight Roos and co. gave the new rules when they drafted three new mid-field recruits with 'big motors'. The phrase 'this seems to be where the game is going' is oddly familiar. Surely the club has done an exhaustive analysis of the implications? Actually, I just ran my own computer simulation of the new rules and the results suggest the game will be @@@@ ing boring 75% of the time.

[timr]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
Here's an alternative theory. Folks with a rugby background find a close and physical contest more gratifying than watching skinny guys endlessly running up one wing and running down the other and a blown out scoreline. I don't have a rugby background, being a Victorian, but I really hate this style of footy. It's like 'fast food footy' gives you a initial thrill, but after a while it all tastes the same. That's what worries me most - the unstated intention to homogenise the way the game is played. At least there is now variation in style - witness West Coast vs. Sydney.

This is a good point. Has anyone else based here in Sydney had the same sort of discussions as me where non-AFL people have mentioned they loved the grand final because it was such a great contest rather than "just basketball on grass", "aerial ping-pong", etc? The Swans have won huge respect here not only for winning the flag but also for how they did it - tough, gutsy, never-die-wondering kind of contested football - with September's games all being stand-outs in this regard. If the AFL administration think turning the game back into the 25 goal sprees of the Edelstein era will appeal more to people in Sydney and Brisbane then they are wrong.

[Tuesday]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I hate it when people who know nothing about basketball attempt to make informed comments on it...

Ahhh, if only this fine piece of writing was penned by the one, the only, Mr Morrissey. Basketball is the only sport he should be allowed to comment on.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by j s
It raises an interesting scenario though - a player (let's say Tadhg) runs across the goal line defensively with the ball in his hands. Can he immediately turn around back into the goal square and do his kick in. The goals square could still be quite crowded. What would happen if someone got in his way or even tackled him not realising he had crossed the line and come back.

Surely he would have to wait at least until the 'all clear' and the goal ump had pointed his finger down the field?

What about if the kick in was intercepted and a shot at goal was taken on the run, but the goal umpire can't rule on it because he is still waving the flag...does this look like the time to introduce two goal umpires

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sharpie
Hinds is commenting that the flow of basketball from end to end is boring because it is done with such ease. He does not want to see AFL become like this where each team basically just takes turn trying to score a goal from the 50m arc. And I agree with him.

Sure, but taking the minor rules changes and extending their impact to produce this effect is stretching things.

[Sanecow]

I'm assuming that the kick in can't be taken while there is an opposition player in the goal square? Perhaps one with a cramp?

[SheppSwanFan]

Even now you cant take your kick in till the all clear is given. That's unlikely to change.

So in the scenario when someone rushes a point then turns back around and tries to immediately play on... You'd have to say that the Umpire would stop him and order him to wait for the all clear.

[dimelb]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
None of the three rule changes are really increased umpiring and I don't see how they will be negative.

* Kick-in after a behind can be taken immediately, before goal umpire waves flag.
* Mark or free kick in the goal square to be taken directly in front of goal.
* Time immediately stopped when umpire crosses his arms for a bounce and resumed when ball is bounced.

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).

Am I being naive? I suspect these changes may work in our favour. They will benefit especially fit, hard-running teams. Granted, we don't always do quick delivery, often preferring to settle things down, but with the way we use the bench ('the battle of long pine' according to the Hun) we may be better prepared than most other teams.
And how many more frees will Baz get if defenders are penalised for scragging? The most potent forward line in the comp will only benefit from these changes - if they are implemented consistently.
The only one I'd be concerned about is LRT who's been taught by the master scragger himself. I think that on a one-on-one basis we'd come out of the contest pretty well.

[giant]

Originally posted by dimelb

And how many more frees will Baz get if defenders are penalised for scragging?

What do you mean by "more frees"? This implies he gets some now.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by giant
What do you mean by "more frees"? This implies he gets some now.

He got 1 in the PF and 1 in the GF

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by sharpie
I think you have all missed the point of what Hinds was trying to say. He was not commenting on how easy, or otherwise, it is to get the ball in the hoop once the ball is in or around the 3 point arc.

He was commenting on how monotonously and easily the ball is transferred from one end of the court to the other, essentially nullifying the importance of the middle of the court. How often in the average basketball game would there be defensive pressure in the middle or defensive end of the court that creates a turnover?

On the other hand in AFL, following one team kicking a behind (the equivalent of a restart in basketball once a basket is scored), how often would the other team take it the length of the field into their F50?

Hinds is commenting that the flow of basketball from end to end is boring because it is done with such ease. He does not want to see AFL become like this where each team basically just takes turn trying to score a goal from the 50m arc. And I agree with him.

That is EXACTLY what Hinds is saying, and I agree with him too.