An Ode to Ugly Footy

[Nico]

The one about throwing the ball in quicker is interesting. If you watch Fox Footy Vault you will notice 20-30 years ago the ball was thrown back very quickly and the game was much slower then. It just means that the rucks will need to be at the throw in a tad quicker, and this wasn't a problem in the past.

It seems to have been more of an umpires rule that they balance, wiggle the bum, show the crowd to the ball and then toss it back after 3 seemingly practice swings.

I listened to the mob on the run home on SEN today and it was almost pandamonium about these rule changes. They seemed to think this kick in thing will revolutionise the game. Then they got put back in their boxes by a few thoughtful and knowledgable callers.

As far as they are concerned we are gone for 2006. Dont you love it.

After listening to their hysteria I came to the conclusion that the rules will suit us because we are a fast running, hard at it side that can cause the turnovers by sheer pressure on the ball carrier.

The sides that will suffer are those who lack stamina like the Bombers and the slow coaches like the Pies. When I watch replays from 2005 I notice that sides such as Hawthorn, Carlton and Collingwood are very static, non creative seem to have no game plan. Probably reasons why they are the cellar dwellers.

Our game is far more exciting that a lot of the sides because there is always action at the contests.

The fact is the AFL can make these rules but coaches always come up with solutions and are always smarter than the rule makers.

[liz]

Originally posted by Nico

After listening to their hysteria I came to the conclusion that the rules will suit us because we are a fast running, hard at it side that can cause the turnovers by sheer pressure on the ball carrier.

There are a lot of non-Swans supporters who seem to have a very limited understanding of how the Swans actually play. On one level that is fair enough, in that I couldn't describe the game style of other teams with anything like as much confidence as I can the Swans. You know what you watch (and rewatch, and rewatch).

It does become amusing, though, when fans of other teams try to tell you that they know the Swans game plan and tell you you are wrong when you point out the limitations in their knowledge of the Swans approach.

One discussion I had centred around why the Swans have an ordinary record in the wet. People seem to think that because the Swans "just play Scrumby" they should be suited to the wet. Those of us who know and love the Swans realise that this isn't backed up by results.

When I suggested that part of the reason was that the Swans' game plan involved lots of rapid, close-in handballs while coming out of defence and that this can often lead to over-use of the ball and is not conduicive to slippery conditions, I was firmly put back in my box and told that the Swans do not run much at all and just rely on stoppages.

There is also a perception that the Swans midfield is one of the slowest going around. It may not compare to the Wiggles' midfield for speed, but there are very few slugs in there (Kirk and Bolton aren't quick but they're not overly slow either). I certainly think there is sufficient pace to effect quick breaks away from packs and I'd say that they are at least mid-table as far as overall leg speed in the middle goes, maybe slightly better.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by liz
There is also a perception that the Swans midfield is one of the slowest going around. It may not compare to the Wiggles' midfield for speed, but there are very few slugs in there (Kirk and Bolton aren't quick but they're not overly slow either). I certainly think there is sufficient pace to effect quick breaks away from packs and I'd say that they are at least mid-table as far as overall leg speed in the middle goes, maybe slightly better.

And here in lies the pinch.

Will the numerous new ways in which umpires can stop the game with a whistle acutally benefit a really fast team like the Weagles or not? It seems to me that their greatest weapon is Judd's ability to break away from a pack. So if you know that holding him, even illegally, only means a whistle and free kick, and a chance to get back and man up, are you worse off? I'm not so sure.

Would you prefer a Judd streaking away from a large pack into acres of space, or a Judd standing undecided with ball in hand, waiting as every player he sees is manned up?

Add to that the fact that all of the rule changes simply equal extra whistles in each game. And I get bored when what is an intriguing and potentially free flowing contest is continually held up by the men in white for seemingly trivial (but technically correct) frees. Maybe the rule changes really needed for the game are the ones that encourage the ball to be moved quickly. For example, extend the advantage rule to more like a 5-10sec period. Put your hands up and yell "advantage Home/Away" (or something) and then see what happens up to a maximum of 5-10sec. Then call it back if the infringed team dont gain an ascendancy anyway. Or forget this 'come back and take the free from the exact millimetre' crap, just let the infringed team have the leeway the bounce of the ball has afforded them. If anything it would make teams think twice about infringing.

[SheppSwanFan]

Given the one thing Chris Judd doesn't do all that well (comparatively, anyway) is hit targets, seeing him standing still with a ball in hand doesn't scare me that much. So I'd grab him and stop the ball moving as quick.

Which gives even more stoppages, and slows the game down more. Doesn't really help a quick hitting team like the Weagles much, I'd have thought.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Maybe the rule changes really needed for the game are the ones that encourage the ball to be moved quickly. For example, extend the advantage rule to more like a 5-10sec period. Put your hands up and yell "advantage Home/Away" (or something) and then see what happens up to a maximum of 5-10sec. Then call it back if the infringed team dont gain an ascendancy anyway. Or forget this 'come back and take the free from the exact millimetre' crap, just let the infringed team have the leeway the bounce of the ball has afforded them. If anything it would make teams think twice about infringing.

The way the advantage rule works in AFL is absolute rubbish.

As a junior in any sport, you are told to play the game and not look at the umpire for frees unless he actually blows the whistle.

In AFL, he can blow the whistle and still call advantage completely arbitrarily sometimes, even when one or both sides have come to a stop. And if the defensive team continues to try to tackle instead of stopping, they can easily give away a 50m penalty.

The advantage rule should be used like in Rugby, where if there is an infringement, the umpire puts his arm out as if to award the free, but does not yet blow the whistle. Play continues, and only if the resulting play does not advantage the attacking team does the umpire blow the whistle to bring it back to the original infringement.

Therefore the players should only stop when they hear the whistle. It may even reduce the number of penalties paid in a game, resulting in less stoppages, and less uncertainty.

[NMWBloods]

Yep - good points. Advantage really doesn't work well in AFL.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Yep - good points. Advantage really doesn't work well in AFL.

I think it can, but while the "Fat Controller" is in charge, he hasn't got the brains to work out how to get it to work properly.

[Legs Akimbo]

Article

Umpire Article

I think this article says it all. The umpiring next year is going to be a fiasco. Four umpires on the ground plus 36 players plus god knows how many runners plus boundary umpires and goal umpires. How about they include the man in a giant hoola hoop from Circue de Soleil rotating around the boundary, just for extra entertainment value. How about the umpires erect a podium in centre square from they can direct play and control the game?

These quotes are particularly lucid and telling about the implications of profound but unscrutinised and undebated decisions being made behind closed doors in Jolimont.

Geishen...

"When you consider that basketball, with a 30-metre court, uses three umpires, and Federer versus Agassi in a game of tennis play in front of something like 12 umpires, you have to wonder when Aussie Rules is played on an oval 180 metres long and 150 metres wide..blah blah blah"

ANSWER: Because fans don't like too many umpires interfering with the flow of the game!

Anderson...

"We will trial some things in the NAB Cup with umpires, to try to help them detect infringements at stoppages..."There are often a large number of players (crowding stoppages), and we think there are infringements that go undetected. "

As the HUN says (no doubt ripped from an AFL press release)

The league's new rules and interpretations, released last week, will require more umpiring scrutiny due to the crackdown on tagging, as well as holding and blocking in marking contests.

[Xie Shan]

On the subject of ugly footy, I found this banner on a website for "Before The Game" (the show we don't get in Sydney any more) ages ago, and thought it was quite apt ...

[Big Al]

Originally posted by sydfan83
On the subject of ugly footy, I found this banner on a website for "Before The Game" (the show we don't get in Sydney any more) ages ago, and thought it was quite apt ...

Thats GOLD

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by sydfan83
On the subject of ugly footy, I found this banner on a website for "Before The Game" (the show we don't get in Sydney any more) ages ago, and thought it was quite apt ...

Good to see Kenny is in the photo