What to do with no footy to watch

[dejavoodoo44]

Just finished watching it. Most enjoyable. How good was Mills on debut!

Yes, and Papley, and Hewett had his moments. Talia's one game Swans career was less distinguished, though. And until I watched that, I'd forgotten that Franklin came into 2016 under a bit of a cloud, after missing the end of 2015 with mental health issues. I thought that the Buddy special on the stroke of half time, put an end to any doubts. Around 55 metres out, on the left half forward flank, the ball made a sound that let everyone know that it had been struck beautifully, before sailing straight through the middle.

[Markwebbos]

Yes, a better round one game is the 2016 match against Collingwood. It features the debuts of Mills, Papley and Hewett. Not sure what the full time score was, but the first half was impressive.

R01 Collingwood at Sydney 1H 2016 - YouTube

I remember that game. Given how poor we’ve been in general at the start of the year it was like my wildest dreams came true.

Everything went right!

Sad that Hanners and Mitchell are no longer running around in red and white.

Sad too that was Dane Swans last game of AFL.

[dejavoodoo44]

I remember that game. Given how poor we’ve been in general at the start of the year it was like my wildest dreams came true.

Everything went right!

Sad that Hanners and Mitchell are no longer running around in red and white.

Sad too that was Dane Swans last game of AFL.

I've also rewatched our couple of winning finals from 2016. In both games, our starts were great to watch. Seven first quarter goals against Adelaide; which was a record for Swans in finals. We then matched that the next week against Geelong. Definitely looked like a premiership winning side. Just a shame about the last game of the season.

And watching those finals, I also felt it was such a shame, that Ben McGlynn never became a premiership player for us. He was excellent in those two finals, with manic effort backed up by high level skills. His brief partnership with Papley was also something to behold.

[Blood Fever]

I've also rewatched our couple of winning finals from 2016. In both games, our starts were great to watch. Seven first quarter goals against Adelaide; which was a record for Swans in finals. We then matched that the next week against Geelong. Definitely looked like a premiership winning side. Just a shame about the last game of the season.

And watching those finals, I also felt it was such a shame, that Ben McGlynn never became a premiership player for us. He was excellent in those two finals, with manic effort backed up by high level skills. His brief partnership with Papley was also something to behold.

That game against Geelong was as well as our side has ever played in a final against a pretty handy team - Parker, Tippet, Buddy, McGlynn, Mitchell, Heeney, Papley, Jones, Naismith, Rohan etc. We peaked a week too early. And the umpires were different!

[Ruck'n'Roll]

And the umpires were different!

Thanks for reminding me about the men in white BF, that's the other thing I noticed about those old games I was watching. Not only were they more free flowing (and more goals) with less ugly scrums, the umpires behaved very differently to the way they do now.

1) The umpire made decisions more decisively.
They saw an infraction, they paid it, and the game moved on. Statistically twice as many frees were payed per game in 1970 compared to last year.

2) Far less vacillation and far fewer can't-make-my-mind-up-non-decision ball-ups.
Statistically speaking 50% less non-goal-related-stoppages in 1970 compared to last season, despite defenders being able to go for the boundary line back then.

Basically the solution to creating a free flowing game was established decades ago, and no amount of AFL tinkering will compensate for the sort of ineffectual officiating that today's umpires engage in.

[Blood Fever]

Thanks for reminding me about the men in white BF, that's the other thing I noticed about those old games I was watching. Not only were they more free flowing (and more goals) with less ugly scrums, the umpires behaved very differently to the way they do now.

1) The umpire made decisions more decisively.
They saw an infraction, they paid it, and the game moved on. Statistically twice as many frees were payed per game in 1970 compared to last year.

2) Far less vacillation and far fewer can't-make-my-mind-up-non-decision ball-ups.
Statistically speaking 50% less non-goal-related-stoppages in 1970 compared to last season, despite defenders being able to go for the boundary line back then.

Basically the solution to creating a free flowing game was established decades ago, and no amount of AFL tinkering will compensate for the sort of ineffectual officiating that today's umpires engage in.

Largely agree but some of the marks paid in the old days were farcical. Watched Rich v Cwood 1980 GF. Some marks were held for a split second. Also, a lot of posing was rewarded in Holding The Man decisions.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Largely agree but some of the marks paid in the old days were farcical. Watched Rich v Cwood 1980 GF. Some marks were held for a split second. Also, a lot of posing was rewarded in Holding The Man decisions.

I hadn't mentioned marking, and it is an interesting one.

I certainly assumed that I had to have a good solid hold of the thing when I was playing. However, when I actually had to read the rule book/folder (I did a brief stint as an umpire, it was horrible btw) it simply said that the player must control the ball, no specific time limit was mentioned, just control.
Which surprise me at the time, but I suppose it means a split second could be enough?
Either way the umpires are going to err. I think I'd prefer they erred on the side of the payer trying to take a high mark - if only because it's unique to our game.

I can't stand stagers either, whether for holding the man, or todays ducking for high contact - it's really just professional cheating and should be classed as "bringing the game into disrepute"?

[Blood Fever]

I hadn't mentioned marking, and it is an interesting one.

I certainly assumed that I had to have a good solid hold of the thing when I was playing. However, when I actually had to read the rule book/folder (I did a brief stint as an umpire, it was horrible btw) it simply said that the player must control the ball, no specific time limit was mentioned, just control.
Which surprise me at the time, but I suppose it means a split second could be enough?
Either way the umpires are going to err. I think I'd prefer they erred on the side of the payer trying to take a high mark - if only because it's unique to our game.

I can't stand stagers either, whether for holding the man, or todays ducking for high contact - it's really just professional cheating and should be classed as "bringing the game into disrepute"?

Interesting about controlling the ball - very subjective- didn't know it was worded like that.

[barry]

I watched the last quarter of the 2005 Geelong semi final, and while Davis was good, Buchanon played a blinder!

[barry]

I also watched a few 2016 games. While we finished 1st, we had a lot of holes in that side. Xavier Richards was not an AFL quality player and he was our full forward. We relied on buddy so much.

[KTigers]

I am finding I am barely missing footy at all. The part I think I like the best is not having to "worry" about how we are going to go.
Doing very little work as well so don't have to worry about that much either. As I said to a mate yesterday as long as the record
collection and a fully stocked beer fridge is nearby we can live as if we were 22 again. It was pretty good.

[Blood Fever]

Played brilliantly in every final in 2005

[AnnieH]

I have about 300 pot plants.
Every single one of them needs something done to it.
One pot at a time.

[bloodspirit]

I think the changes in the way the game is played is more to do with the coaching and the increased fitness of players than the AFL or the umpires. The increase in levels of science and planning and coaching and strategy and statistics and looking at other sporting codes etc etc. since, say, 1970, is astronomical. Chalk and cheese. It's hard to keep the final product the same in those circumstances. That's why the AFL keeps neverendingly tweaking the rules and why there are serious conversations about whether the game should have zones introduced or a reduced number of players per side. Both of these solutions are unpalatable but the point is to get back to a game that more resembles the way the game was played last century, not do 'innovate' or 'improve' it. I don't have any answers but I think it's too easy and simplistic to just blame the AFL.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I have about 300 pot plants.
Every single one of them needs something done to it.
One pot at a time.

300 sounds more than "Personal use" Annie