Chris Scott calls Buckley's prior opportunity idea ‘silly’

[Damien]

On Whateley’s program on SEN today Bucks was asked about all this latest talk about changes to the rules of our game to remove congestion. His response was clear that we should leave it alone. When pressed by Gerard he said that they could look at removing prior opportunity. Not the silliest suggestion I’ve heard. Better than Zones if you ask me. Those two whinging twins were quick to pounce on our man. Chris Scott called it a silly idea and Brad Scott who is on this new AFL committee appointed dismissed it too. Not technically the forum for this discussion I know Mods but it’s the biggest discussion going round this week. If prior opportunity was got rid of, you’d kick instead of handballing to a guy under the pump right? Still reckon it’s one of the better ideas I’ve heard but I reckon just leave it be and umpire according to the rules more strictly. The hysteria going round this week is crap. The games still good to watch when you’re winning.

[K]

I'm aghast. Football has already gone too much in the direction of rewarding negative things rather than positive things. (I hope this is just a fluctuation, not a long-term trend.)

The obvious concern is that with a ball in dispute you'd be better of hanging back a fraction and then tackling the ball-getter rather than going in and getting it first.

And coaches in general are not the best people to ask about rule changes.

[Invigoration]

I heard Chris Scott on AFL 360 last night say he thought that idea was silly, not that 'our coach was silly'.

I tend to agree too, getting rid of prior opportunity is a silly, heavy handed idea to resolve the issue of congestion. Get rid of the wings and play with 16 if you want to do something dramatic to try and resolve it.

Blokes should be given an opportunity to get rid of the ball else it's just going to turn into hot potato.

[Damien]

[K]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/even-the-coaches-can-t-agree-on-prior-opportunity-20180502-p4zcyn.html

Maybe there's a SEN link somewhere too.

[K]

Eade's "solution" is to have fixed minimum numbers in different areas at each throw-in. As he pointed out, this is not "zoning" at all, because it's just at the start of a stoppage and everyone can go wherever they want once it does start. We already have some restrictions for centre bounces. I think the centre square was introduced only in something like 1970 (does anyone recall?), and its dimensions have changed since then.


Perhaps, though, there would be no supposed problem in need of a rule-change solution if the players weren't so unskilled. That's the real problem. They blame low scores, lack of free-flowing play, etc., on "congestion", when that is just the result of poor disposal skills.

[melliot]

I agree with bux. IMO we need to more strickly apply rules such as holding the ball, illegal disposal, and especially holding the man and in the back.

When a player is tackled to the gourd and they have the oponent lay on their back to lock the ball in, should be paid in the back.

When was the last time you saw a player "hailing a cab"?

It will releases the ball more often into open space and reduces stoppages and should mean better spread.

I personally don't think the game is that poor.

[stui magpie]

Prior opportunity is one of those recently made up things that requires umpires to make yet another value judgement.

Rule changes I'd favour:

1. If you get tackled and the ball is dislodged, prior opportunity or not it's a free kick for incorrect disposal.

2. If you tackle someone to the ground and a player jumps on top, automatic free kick against the player who was 3rd in

3. 2 players from each team must be in the 50 metre arcs at all times, not just at stoppages. That reduces congestion from 36 players around the ball to 32 and makes them keep players off the pack to attack/defend against the ball coming out

4. the protected zone should include the man on the mark, You don't get to stand next to the player on the mark and hammer them as soon as the player with the ball plays on. Fck right off out of there

[Pies2016]

I’m all for a tweak to the congestion but without changing the rules.
Personally I’m one of the ones who believes that to many poor footballers are getting a game of footy and they can’t play their part in keeping the ball moving. They either get caught, make mistakes in possession or miss easy targets ( usually cause they are forced onto their wrong sides )
My thoughts or considerations ( without implementing any ADDITIONAL rule changes ) would be -

Raise min draft age to nineteen and put additional resources into the pathways for feeder clubs. Young players need better preparation for the step up. Most ( bottom ) clubs are playing 4/5 kids under 20. They aren’t ready and they make more mistakes as a consequence.

- Umpires to get to stoppages and ball ups quicker and throw the ball up as quickly as possible without worrying about nominating ruckman or clearing their own pathway out of the traffic. Bring back third man up if he’s quick enough to get there.

- At least experiment with less interchanges. Everyone’s talking about it but no one knows what to expect. This should have been expanded upon two years ago and the results closely monitored.

- you could also EXPERIMENT with paying a free kick against the last team to have touched ball before it goes over boundary. The theory is that it encourages more corridor football and is likely to result in more scoring. That may not solve congestion issues though, particularly if you’re still playing kids who aren’t up to it.

Also, it only needs a slight shift in umpiring mentality to reward the tackler just a little more often ( it becomes a mindset change for the umps rather than a rule change ) At least a free kick opens the game up as opposed to another ball up because the play maker has been caught like they usually are.
I think supporters will adapt, as long as the umps are perceived as consistent on the day.

Something to ponder only, I’m not advocating these are the solutions ( although, being involved in TAC over the years, I have long been a fan of raising the draft age )

[Skids]

[Mugwump]

[swoop42]

You know the game has a problem when your team wins the ball, looks to stream forward and is held up because it has no one to kick to.

Does my head in and I just wish a coach, any coach would have the courage to anchor 1 or 2 players inside 50 when the ball is up the other end.

It might cost you a few contests, perhaps a few goals to begin with but slowly and surely the wheel will turn and it'll become a positive or a neutral move and be adopted competition wide.

Just last season when Geelong was forced to use Dangerfield inside 50 we saw how much damage can still be done in the modern game with this tactic and it would take a brave coach to leave a Moore, Sidebottom or Elliott all alone inside f50.

[Pies2016]

[RudeBoy]

I actually disagree with Bucks on this.

I'm in favour of eradicating the interchange completely. Have 4 or even 6 on the bench, but when a player comes off, he can't come back on. This would significantly slow the game down and reduce the ability of masses of players continually running up and down. There would also be far less burst speed going on. It might even lead to a bit of a return to position football, since players would need to pace themselves to last the whole game. Then again wtfwik?

[stui magpie]