Proposed Rule changes

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
They trialled that in the pre-season one year but it didn't work.

The suggestion of throw-in for kicking it, otherwise free kick, wouldn't work either as then you could quite easily just drop it on your boot quite deliberately and dribble it over the line.

I didn't give a detailed account....but this allows players to put the ball out without having to test their acting skill. The reason I suggested it this way is that if someone was close to the line and under pressure they could easily kick it OOF resulting in a free kick.

[giant]

Re: Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by Layby
Chicks hit on Mal was a classic, and nearly turned the game, that would be gone if this rule comes in by stealth.

It was a late cheap shot on a bloke left exposed after kicking the ball - difficult to see what was "classic" about it other than "classic Chick thuggery".

That said, it was worth a FK and no more.

[AnnieH]

Re: Re: Possible rule changes

Originally posted by j s
What impact would this have had on the GF? I can recall only two blatantly deliberate behinds - one each way, Embley(?) and Kennelly - were there any more?

Wouldn't have made any difference.
There were four "rushed" behinds a piece.
One of each that could have been deemed "deliberate" and three that were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Agent 86]

Re: Re: Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by giant
It was a late cheap shot on a bloke left exposed after kicking the ball - difficult to see what was "classic" about it other than "classic Chick thuggery".

That said, it was worth a FK and no more.

Absolutely. No class at all. Cheap Chick. Probably not worth suspension in hindsight - but I think those sort of hits at least need looking at.

[laughingnome]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by Agent 86
I think those sort of hits at least need looking at.

I disagree. For memory we scored a goal from that clearance and thats a double blow for WCE and Chick. Had he played the ball he might have effected a turnover on the 50m line and possibly scored. No doubt he was trying to rough up the Swans but he did so at his peril. If the gamble had come off it would've been great, but it didn't so we just take it as a part of football.

It's sort of like the "flying the flag" thing. Umpires don't stop the game for a brawl anymore (maybe why Collingwood sucks now, oh yeah, cheap shot) and so players who want to take a swing end up costing their team goals. Leave it be. I think it was rough but fair. At the most the umpire would have given a downfield free but no more.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I didn't think the bump was unfair, but it was definitely a cheap shot. Chick isn't in the same class as Cousins or Kerr, probably not as good a kick as Malceski is now, so roughing people up is his way of showing Woosha he has some value in the side.

[giant]

Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
...roughing people up is his way of showing Woosha he has some value in the side.

That, and winning the premiership for them with 3 one-percenters in the same play.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
I didn't think the bump was unfair, but it was definitely a cheap shot.

How can it be both fair & a cheap shot?

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by Agent 86
How can it be both fair & a cheap shot?

I think he means legal but cheap...sounds like a girl I met the other night....