| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
I'm not at all worried about Phillips. Haven't liked this rule from the first I heard of it. A 100m penalty for anything is a joke. Just adds to the influence of umpires on a game. 50m penalties are already huge and for infractions that are too minor. A good move would be to reduce these, not add to them.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
 |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | ...
I've been saying for ages, bring back the 15m penalty and only award a 50m penalty for something serious ... |
Blame the coaches. They brought that on to the game. They realized that 15m was a cheap price to pay for slowing down the oppo's forward movement. |
|
|
|
|
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | The players all know a teammate downfield has to take the marking duties. What Flip did was a bit daft. |
He was silly but Cunningham was zig zagging at him so flip should have pulled out at that point. Treloar and Langdon were both oblivious to the 50m both having their backs to the play, either of these boys should have taken the mark.
_________________
Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy. |
|
|
|
|
Uncle Jack 
Joined: 17 Apr 2019
Location: Canberra
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Skids wrote: | ...
I've been saying for ages, bring back the 15m penalty and only award a 50m penalty for something serious ... |
Blame the coaches. They brought that on to the game. They realized that 15m was a cheap price to pay for slowing down the oppo's forward movement. |
50m is too arbitrary and damaging up forward. A little like how forwards and backs are often penalised differently for the same actions. I've always thought it should be area dependent. Infractions in the defensive 50 should be a 50m, between the arcs 30m and in the forward line 15m. No-one in the backline is going to want to give away 50. No-one in the forward line is going to want to give away 15m |
|
|
|
|
bally12 
Joined: 30 Sep 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I actually questiont the first 50 more than the 2nd 50 that was given.
So are you not allowed to swap the player on the mark with someone else if he comes from behind the player with the ball? We've been doing this A LOT over the last few weeks, and suddenly they ping us on it? So is it allowed or not? The players are certainly confused on this one. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | I'm not at all worried about Phillips. Haven't liked this rule from the first I heard of it. A 100m penalty for anything is a joke. Just adds to the influence of umpires on a game. 50m penalties are already huge and for infractions that are too minor. A good move would be to reduce these, not add to them. |
Completely agree with this. These cheap double 50s are a total blight on the game.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
so who doesnt love the new Gablett rule? apparently its ok to jump off the ground and elbow someone in the head!!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | I'm not at all worried about Phillips. Haven't liked this rule from the first I heard of it. A 100m penalty for anything is a joke. Just adds to the influence of umpires on a game. 50m penalties are already huge and for infractions that are too minor. A good move would be to reduce these, not add to them. |
Completely agree with this. These cheap double 50s are a total blight on the game. |
Even if you accept that a player cannot run over the line of a player who is running to his new mark, if the rule is to be properly enforced and the player is allowed to be considered IN PLAY, if the player benefiting from the 50m penalty runs off his line WHY THE F$CK isnt it "play-on". If you are comparing the entire 50 meters as part of his line to the mark that can be impeded, surely he is only allowed that line.
Why does he suddenly get control of an arc as wide as he likes to run from side to side to draw a player into his line. JOKE. But then all new rules are implemented by idiots so it takes a lot of stupid interpretations until they get it right. But that Carlton player should have been called to play on when he ran 5 metres to his right and then 5 metres to his left to draw the additional 50 meter penalty.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: |
... if the rule is to be properly enforced and the player is allowed to be considered IN PLAY, if the player benefiting from the 50m penalty runs off his line WHY THE F$CK isnt it "play-on". If you are comparing the entire 50 meters as part of his line to the mark that can be impeded, surely he is only allowed that line.
Why does he suddenly get control of an arc as wide as he likes to run from side to side to draw a player into his line. JOKE. .... |
Yes, I agree with that. The new laws allow the player receiving the 50m penalty to play on. If he does play on, it should be called play on. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | The rule changes have been a definite failure so far. Their purpose was to increase scoring and "look" of the game. They've not done the former and I don't think the latter either.
... |
Leigh Matthews disagrees.
| bally12 wrote: | ... What kind of professioinial sport is this, where you get "warnings" for breaking the rules.
Farcical, AFL. |
Warnings were supposed to be a temporary thing. |
If you're interested in Leigh's thoughts, here's a recent pearler: maybe we should consider giving teams who score over 100 an extra Premiership point 
Absolutely crazy. I think the whole concern over points scored is silly anyway. The best games have never really been the shootouts, just like in cricket a middle ground is best. Games where the ball is moving but there is still a strong defensive element and only moderate scoring are much better than loose, free-wheeling goals everywhere games. I'm quite sure that ad revenue has a part to play here.
Misguided goals like "increase scoring" can lead to poor changes. The 6-6-6 looks to be an example. It's impact was always going to be marginal, and I think it was meant as a first step, the next steps could be the concern. If the AFL does want to get real about congestion the only surefire way to improve it is permanent zones - plus possibly drastically reduced interchange but I'm against that, it'll shift us even further to a league where elite runners only need apply.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
