Tweet
I had a chance to see the NAB Cup coverage on Ten yesterday and am baffled at the stupidity (or should that be hypocrisy) of the AFL. One new trial rule is that the last player who touches the ball before it goes out forfeits a free to the other side. There are a couple of exceptions, and it seems a confusing rule to apply, but the thing that particularly struck me is the way it speeds up the game. It's having a similar effect to not having to wait for the goal ump to wave the flag before you kick in after a behind: no quick breather while the line ump gets the ball and gets organized, instead most times the nearest player grabs the ball and kicks. Even before he gets the ball away other players are running for position. IMO it's worth persisting with, but how does the AFL square this with the new interchange rules? Which, by the way, I detest. It'll be interesting to see what sort of judgement they make about it.
-
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball) -
This is actually an old rule resurrected. I thinkl it was in either the 50's or 60's that the boundary umpire and throw ins were introduced.
One thing it would do is take away the inconsistencies of OOB deliberately rule.Does God believe in Atheists? -
I disagree. The rule creates another grey area between a clean possession and a scramble. They've tried to reintroduce a very old rule but with a modern adaptation that accepts that congested play exists near the boundary, but it hasn't worked. Already we've seen players attempt to get away with deflecting the ball off their opponent to exploit it, and that's without any real practice at bending the rule to advantage.
Let's face it, this rule is being trialled to create more 'corridor' play and stop teams (including Collingwood) from hugging the boundary. What people seem to forget is that this strategy is both beneficial and exploitable. Outside of Sydney games the second most exciting game for me in the last two years (the drawn GF being #1) was ANZAC Day 2009, where Collingwood played the boundary and Essendon played the corridor all day, and the teams were equally matched in an enthralling contest. I liken this rule change to one in tennis which would state that after serving a player must move into the court (the idea being to enforce a serve/volley game). The fact is the boundary line is a legitimate strategy used by teams and by no means a hole-proof one (just like the baseline strategy in tennis). Other teams use the corridor more which is equally imperfect and it's entirely up to the coaches and players as to which one serves their interests better, not the AFL to dictate how to play the game.10100111001 ;-)Comment
-
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
IMO should have trailled a free kick for kicking the ball OOB, rather than last touch. Last touch, as we have seen is open to exploitation and has players not wanting to take possession of the ball when its near the boundary.Comment
-
Martin Blake's take on it:
As part of an interesting article about countering Collingwood's tactics: Pressing issueThe AFL's trial with the last-touch out-of-bounds rule, in particular, caused a lot of angst. Last-touch works in soccer and basketball, but it doesn't fit for Australian football with its odd bounces and high level of physical contact. At the weekend, umpires struggled to pick the player ''guilty'' of having the last touch. Then there was the complication of whether it was part of a contest, or a spoil, or a smother.He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)Comment
-
If I deliberately move the ball (typically but not limited to handpassing) onto my opponents foot and it bounces off his foot/shin into his team's goal, they get 6 points (the ball has been moved across the goal line by the lower leg of one of that team). Players are definitely going to exploit this if last-kick is brought in to the boundary line, unless you ammend the rules on scoring: "What is a deliberate kick?"
I appreciate your idea that teams shouldn't be able to punt for the boundary line under the guise of having a player 'near' their target, but again I see it as difficult to implement without creating more grey areas.10100111001 ;-)Comment
-
This is happening now with the OOB on the full rule. My main reason for wanting it limited to when it is kicked over the line, is it would eliminate uncertainty with what is and what isn't deliberate OOB and the only requirement for determining if it was a free kick is has it gone OOB directly from a kick. If its touched off the players boot then its a throw in. Not sure why you think it would be difficult to implement. The ball has either been kicked over the line or it hasn't. The definition of what is and what isn't a kick is fully understood by all I would have thought.
The trial rule in its current state brings so many more interpretations into the umpires task. Why do that? Just confuses everyone.
Or we could agree with Martin Blake, and leave the rules as they are. Now there is a novel idea.Comment
-
They'll never leave the rules as they are DocJ. It's not in their DNA.Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
Yep the trial rule just adds complexity. The game's complicated enough as it is. Only one of last weekend's coaches was happy with it so I doubt it will last.
I don't see a problem with a player kicking OOB. Usually they're kicking away from a hotspot rather than for the line. If they can do it and not go OOTF and not get dragged for allowing a turnover, good luck to them.The man who laughs has not yet heard the terrible newsComment
Comment