#AFL Round 12 Weekly Discussion Thread

[MattW]

It?s hurting me watching Collingwood play so well.

Kind of makes the competition more interesting, though.

[Meg]

Meg raised the point that you would need a team that people from both Hobart and Launceston could support and so where would you play home games - which was the point I was referring to. Then MattW made the sensible proposal that the home games could be shared which was my immediate thought also. There's still the sensitive issue of where would the team be based and train etc. Maybe they'd have to go with a political, 'Canberra' type halfway solution like Campbell Town.

I take it for granted that ?home? matches would be shared between the two major Tas cities (similar to Hawthorn & Nth Melbourne having ?home? matches in Tas now). But the club would have to be based in one or the other (plonking it in middle of Tassie not practical). And that is what I?ve been told is the ?issue?.

Bit weird that 520,000 people can?t get along but a small isolated population does often become very parochial.

[aardvark]

I'd be interested to hear what Gary Rohan thinks of the sliding in rule.

[Untamed Snark]

Could they split the home games between Launceston and Hobart; call the team 'Tasmania'?

I always figured they'd split between the two cities, potentially having a couple of other teams having 'home games' in either city so they can allocate 7 or so games to both

[liz]

How the AFL can see some of the 'sliding in' decisions and sit back and think, "That's a great rule that's in the spirit of the game"......is beyond me. A Collingwood player, running in the same direction as his opponent, does what his coach, in fact, any coach would applaud only to see the player second to the ball do a pathetic flop over the top of the player first to the ball and get rewarded for his 'patheticness'.....it is a complete utter joke. This rule and the 'protected zone' rule are the two most stupid rules in AFL footy and most resulting frees are completely against 'the spirit of the game'. Any rule that results in the 'undeserved' getting rewarded makes NO sense. GET RID OF THEM BOTH NOW!!!!!!!

I don't see why a coach would applaud a playing going to ground to win the ball and taking out an opponent's legs because it is a clear free kick against under the rules of the game. It's not against the spirit of the game. It's against causing completely avoidable serious injuries to players. Players have a clear choice in these circumstances - to keep their feet.

The understanding of this rule isn't helped by the fact that pretty much every C7 and Fox commentator refuses to understand how the rule works and why it was introduced.

[liz]

I'd be interested to hear what Gary Rohan thinks of the sliding in rule.

Or Hannebery.

[aguy]

Welcome to the top 3 Sydney Swans.

The season is building pretty nicely to be honest. Just need to keep the momentum going. Friday night is a big game yes. Even if we don?t win what we need is a competitive game the maintain the momentum going into the bye so we can come out the other side firing and continue to ramp up

[stevoswan]

I don't see why a coach would applaud a playing going to ground to win the ball and taking out an opponent's legs because it is a clear free kick against under the rules of the game. It's not against the spirit of the game. It's against causing completely avoidable serious injuries to players. Players have a clear choice in these circumstances - to keep their feet.

The understanding of this rule isn't helped by the fact that pretty much every C7 and Fox commentator refuses to understand how the rule works and why it was introduced.

Please Liz, you need to open your eyes on this one. We all and dare I say it, the Ch 7 commentators, know why it was introduced but if you can look at the example from today's game that I pointed out above and genuinely and honestly say the Collingwood player, in that situation, did the wrong thing, even 'under the rules of the game', you maybe would have to also agree that maybe, just maybe, the way the rule is being adjudicated is WRONG. I understand your point that players must 'play to the current rules' but does that mean we, as fans, have to accept judgements that MAKE NO SENSE?

In regard to Rohan and Hannerbury, I think they would agree with me when I say, as I have in the past, that the rule should be paid only when the sliding player is coming from the opposite direction, pretty much the only direction where damage is actually possible, a la Rohan/Hannerbury and that the offending player is ACTUALLY 'sliding', which the Magpie player today was not. If the players have a clear choice to 'keep their feet', we'd better penalise the leaping smother that everyone applauds, as it is just as likely to cause injury as today's example.....

If we are going to have dubious rules, all I ask is that they are at least adjudicated sensibly. IMO, it's not too much to ask......and I am also a bit puzzled as to why you are so accepting of 'the current rules', when some of them clearly either don't make sense or are being adjudicated clearly wrongly. We all want a 'fair' game don't we, where the punishment actually fits the "crime"?

[aguy]

The Melbourne player today would easily have been able to jump over Taylor Adams so yes I agree in this situation it shouldn?t be a free kick but that is the rule as we have it at the moment.

[barry]

9 clubs in Melbourne reflects the population and level of support for footy there. None of them are in really serious financial trouble.

Several have been bailed out and get by by sharing stadiums and AFL handouts disguised as equalisation.
None have much growth potential. Saturated market.

A few are struggling but a bit of success and good management will turn that around very quickly.

Same could be said for the sun's.

As for the number of Suns players who would move to Tassie, that's not really the issue.

It's an issue if you are using player retention as a measure.

There would certainly be a period of adjustment, and they would be crap for a few years, but if it was well managed, there is no reason to suppose it wouldn't work in the medium term. The Gold Coast is a graveyard for sporting teams. It is an ephemeral, rootless place and the performance of its sporting teams reflects that.

The gold coast is double the population it had when the bears were playing there, and now they have a significant infrastructure asset in metricon. Saying GC is a graveyard is like saying Sydney is a graveyard.

[Beerman]

It?s hurting me watching Collingwood play so well.

Surprisingly, I'm not minding it. I'm slowly coming to the realisation that it's mostly Eddie that I hate, rather than Collingwood, and he's been relatively quiet lately. Of course, my opinions are subject to change without notice :-)

For a team that has been winning big, Melbourne don't look that great. A bit slow and being hugely outworked by the Pies. Did everyone get a bit sucked in by Melbourne's big win over Adelaide, thinking Adelaide were better than they are? Adelaide lost to Freo on the weekend, for crying out loud!

[Bloods05]

Saying GC is a graveyard is like saying Sydney is a graveyard.

How so? They're totally unalike.

[Hotpotato]

I don?t mind if The Pies help us to consolidate our ladder position, other than that my hatred is perfectly intact even if Buckley?s slide rated
No 1.

[Meg]

In regard to Rohan and Hannerbury, I think they would agree with me when I say, as I have in the past, that the rule should be paid only when the sliding player is coming from the opposite direction, pretty much the only direction where damage is actually possible, a la Rohan/Hannerbury and that the offending player is ACTUALLY 'sliding', which the Magpie player today was not.

While the rule is colloquially referred to as the ?sliding rule? there is actually no mention of sliding. It is a ?below the knees? rule.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury below the knees.

[liz]

The Melbourne player today would easily have been able to jump over Taylor Adams so yes I agree in this situation it shouldn?t be a free kick but that is the rule as we have it at the moment.

As indeed they did, in this case. But they were forced to take action as a result of the Collingwood player choosing to go to ground.

Kieren Jack was forced to take similar evasive action in the second quarter of the 2016 GF when a Bulldogs player went to ground but he was able to almost jump to avoid contact. Except that the umpire pinged him for making high contact with the grounded Bulldog (and then penalised the team 50m). Players who keep their feet in contests shouldn't be obliged to take such evasive action to avoid injury just because an opponent can only "get to the ball first" by choosing to go to ground.