| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
23 YIPPEE!!!
YIPPEE 23!!!
Joined: 24 Jul 2019
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| So just a step to the side or behind of the mark and its a 50m penalty wow lots of 50m penaltys then will be given then which will end in gifted goals too terrible rule get rid of it. |
|
|
|
 |
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If you can find it, have a look at the clip of the Lions/Suns match last weekend where the man on the mark had to stay where he was whilst Joe Daniher ran around him and kicked a goal. The umpire called play on after he had gone metres wide and past him!
If that rule persists there will need to be an umpire positioned directly behind the man on the mark as every player with the ball will play on and it will have to be called very quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Redcraze 
Joined: 19 Jun 2016
Location: Port Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | I've been saying for years that we should abolish rotations off the bench. We should return to how footy was, before we became obsessed with trying to speed it up. Have 4 or 6 on the bench, but once a player goes off, they stay off. This would change the way the game was played. We would return to more positional type one on one football, because players would not be able to constantly run all over the ground as they do now. It would also lead to star players being on the ground for the full 100 minutes, with star on ballers 'resting' in the forward pockets.
I've seen the nature of our once great game slowly deteriorate over the past 30 yrs or so, and I am convinced that having bench rotations has been the main cause of it. Still, I'm obviously an old fart, so wtfwik? |
Absolutely correct.
_________________
The future is hidden from all men, and the greatest football matches hang on the smallest chances. - Demosthenes |
|
|
|
|
23 YIPPEE!!!
YIPPEE 23!!!
Joined: 24 Jul 2019
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Yep easy to kick a goal now all you do i run around the man on the mark easy as and if the man on the mark moves to the player that runs around them then is a 50m penalty anyway. Memo afl: please get rid of this rule. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm almost less bothered by the idea of players on the mark having to become human witches' hats (although, like others, I don't understand why it's necessary) than the penalty. One of the most annoying things about soccer is how easily a match can be decided by, say, a debatable referee decision in the penalty box, because a penalty shot is about 75% likely to be a goal. The same is going to happen for pretty much any 50m penalty forward of centre, and it's hard to imagine that the outcome of games won't be decided by such penalties. It just seems like totally unnecessary meddling.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Knee jerk reaction in response to a very low scoring season. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It would be just like them to forget that they, uh, reduced the quarters by 20%. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Uncle Jack
Joined: 17 Apr 2019
Location: Canberra
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I'm almost less bothered by the idea of players on the mark having to become human witches' hats (although, like others, I don't understand why it's necessary) than the penalty. One of the most annoying things about soccer is how easily a match can be decided by, say, a debatable referee decision in the penalty box, because a penalty shot is about 75% likely to be a goal. The same is going to happen for pretty much any 50m penalty forward of centre, and it's hard to imagine that the outcome of games won't be decided by such penalties. It just seems like totally unnecessary meddling. |
I've always felt the 50m is disproportionate when considering field position, Any indiscretion in the back line given a 50 is an inconvenience, any given forward of the centre is basically a gifted goal.
I'd reckon a back line '50' should be 50m, between the arcs 30m, and inside the 50, 15m. It would still be a strong enough deterrent, and if anything a stronger deterrent from the backline. |
|
|
|
|
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You watch players move off the mark 5m outside the protected zone ( when they can say if a player is going to take an uncontested mark) and inside to block the corridor, effectively having no one on the mark and letting them play on down the line.
_________________
Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Have to remember, if you use one player 5 meters back to protect the 'run on or whatever' it means your zone defense is comprimised and therefore making more space..
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It looks like you have a little time to decide what to do. Protected zone is 10m to side and 5m behind. You must stand the mark when umpire holds his hand out and tells you to stand. Having a look tonight a couple of times the aints have run off to protect the corridor ball when the scum have come out of D50 out wide. Obviously there will be times when it won’t be constructive to use but it looks like teams would be prepared to play on more.
I think it will just create a bigger gap between the skillful teams and the crappy turnover kings, not sure how we will go defending against teams with good disposal.
_________________
Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
