 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| K wrote: | Toby, KB, Lloyd: Who else has forced a rule change?
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-12-13/toby-kb-lloyd-which-other-players-have-forced-rule-changes
Toby Greene – 2018 – Karate kicks
Ryan Burton – 2018 – Head high bumps
Mason Wood – 2016 – Shot clock on the scoreboard
Mark Blicavs – 2015 – 'Third man up' rule
Bryce Gibbs – 2015 – Dangerous tackles
Lindsay Thomas/Joel Selwood – 2013/2016 – Shrugging a high tackle
Lindsay Thomas – 2012 – Sliding rule
Joel Bowden / Hawthorn – 2008 – Rushing behinds
Matthew Lloyd – 2006 – 30 seconds for set shots
Michael Gardiner/Beau McDonald – 2004 – 10m circle for centre bounces
Kevin Bartlett – 1970s – Bouncing while tackled |
You are obviously too young to know about the Mick Gayfer Rule (early 90s) and Steve McKee rule (early 00s).
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
 |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: |
You are obviously too young to know about the Mick Gayfer Rule (early 90s) and Steve McKee rule (early 00s). |
"You"?? I don't think the author of that article reads Nick's BB... |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | E wrote: |
You are obviously too young to know about the Mick Gayfer Rule (early 90s) and Steve McKee rule (early 00s). |
"You"?? I don't think the author of that article reads Nick's BB... |
when you retweet a falsehood you are giving it a seal of approval. The AFL doesn t admit to the Mick Gayfer rule, even to this day. Keeping them honest, this has to be in any list since he went from being one of the best back pocket players in the league to out of a job.
The Steve McKee Rule is probably one they admit to. The reason you cant simply block a ruckman from running at the ball by standing under the contest is directly attributable to Steve McKee. Put him out of a job as well.
While we are are at it, lets not forget the Dane Swan rule from 2011 where they introduced limits on rotations in direct response to the way collingwood combatted elite midfields by rotating a midfield that simply ran better players off their legs!
These are the anti-collingwood rules. League likes to create them, it just feels a little dirty when it comes to acknowledging them.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ Your footy examples have merit. (Whether they are really anti-Collingwood is another question.) Your claim that drawing attention to a media article is giving it a seal of approval does not have merit: I'm not the journo's copy-editor. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lynden Dunn thinks kick-in changes will give game a kick along
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/lynden-dunn-thinks-kick-in-changes-will-give-game-a-kick-along-20181212-p50ltw.html
'The AFL told at least one club during a recent club visit to run through the new rules that they didn't want players to stand inside the square and handball but a player would be able to handball as well as kick once they leave the square, increasing the likelihood of more dynamic passages of play after a behind.'
Didn't want?? It's either legal or illegal... and if it's legal it doesn't matter what they want or don't want.
'"You will probably find less and less full-backs are actually kicking the ball in and the mids might be popping down," Dunn said.' |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| qldmagpie67 wrote: | I have been reading up on this [6-6-6] rule and reading opinions of the so called experts and I think this rule will really favour us
1 - Grundy is a dominate ruckman and can give our mid's first use of the ball. A tap down to Adams or Beams with the ball fed out to Pendles Treloar Sidey running forward to hit a Cox or mobile JDG or Stevo
Those defences with under sized backman will look to have a player run directly back from the back end of the square to try to shore up there weakness but that allows his direct opponent a free get 60 from goal
Quick ball movement will be key
Cox getting a run and jump at the ball unimpeded will be near impossible to stop
Clear the run way he could be anything this year
2 - If we lose the bounce our defenders aren't to bad in the 1 on 1 stakes
Other than Langdon all of our full time defenders (who played more than 10 games) went at over 60% win in the 1 on 1 contest and a couple were in the 70% range
Moore is going to be a beast in this with his athletism and speed he can get to a contest and jump on anyones head
Also Dunn Howe Scharenberg are very good in the 1 on 1 contests
We also have our running mids who can get back in a hurry if we get the ball to ground to start moving it out quickly and counter attack
This IMO makes us a more dangerous side than ever before
I see it also as a advantage to West Coast and maybe Melbounre
... |
J. Selwood thinks it'll prevent teams from playing players who aren't fully fit. Will we ever have 22 players who are fully fit?? |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E, are you too young to know about the Moore/Dempsey rule? |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
New rules will mean more 'hammerings', says Scott
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-19/new-rules-will-mean-more-hammerings-says-scott
' "Struggling teams are going to get hammered, and they'll get hammered more often, I've got little doubt about that," Scott said.
"I think when a side is down by 10 goals at three-quarter time, that could easily blow out to 15 goals in the next five minutes, and from there you're staring down a 100-point-plus loss.
"It's going to be daunting as a coach because there are fewer weapons in your arsenal to stop a run-on, and the weapons that you used to have – if they're still there – have been blunted to a certain degree."
...
"Things can change so quickly when one team gets the momentum and as the coach on the other side there's not a whole lot you can do about it," Scott said.' |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Why 6-6-6 rule could force Tigers into a radical shake-up
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-19/why-666-rule-could-force-tigers-into-a-radical-shakeup
"... no team will need to adapt more to the compulsory 6-6-6 centre-bounce set-up than the Tigers, who used that formation just 3.4 per cent of the time last year.
Richmond's 2017 Grand Final opponent, Adelaide (4.4 per cent), was the only other club below 10 per cent.
Brisbane (67.9 per cent), Collingwood (64.9), Gold Coast (64.9), Western Bulldogs (64.8 ) and Essendon (60.5) led the way in using 6-6-6, with the Pies the sole finalist among them."
How did your club set up at centre bounces in 2018?
Collingwood
8-6-4; 7-6-5; 6-7-5; 6-6-6; OTHER
0.6%; 27.6 %; 2.1%; 64.9%; 4.9% |
|
|
|
|
WhyPhilWhy?
WhyPhilWhy?
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Location: Location: Location:
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This thread now has nothing to do with the original premise.
<click> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
