Best and Worst of 2016

[therisingblues]

I've seen a couple of them paid in the SANFL, as you note by the book, for a ball that has bounced sideways after being disposed of by a player being tackled. I hope that wasn't the intent of the rule makers to have these paid as free kicks, for me it just goes right against how our game has and should be umpired.

I still think the intent of the AFL rule is better, the interpretation is clearly not so.

And the ones that shit me is when a player on the run has a shot for goal and the ball goes out of bounds. That's not a free kick for me

Booney, I think what you have written actually justifies the SANFL's rule. I highlighted the pertinent part.
Jim, you're still thinking with the AFL interpretation it seems. In the SANFL, if a player is so crap with his disposal that the ball ends up oob when he's shouting for goal... It's clear cut, the question of whether he meant to do it or not is irrelevant. It's a rule which rewards skill, rather than the umpire's mind reading skills.

[Dogwatcher]

But a player kicking into the forward line shouldn't be penalised for kicking at goals.
I'd be happy to see the rule abandoned for attacking sides inside 50.

[bennymacca]

One of the best things for me has been going to watch Eddie Betts play.

Some of you dont like him but it is genuinely exciting whenever he goes near the ball. The hill erupts whenever he goes near the ball, and it makes for a great atmosphere.

His enthusiasm is infectious and it is players like him that make kids want to play footy - almost every 7 year old crows fan would list eddie in their top couple of favourite players.

His football has gone to another level too - leading our goal kicking, and if he can hold off jenkins will win it for the third year in a row - and will almost certainly get his second all australian in a row too. Even the most wildly optimistic crows fan wouldnt have expected that.

The worst thing for me is as old as the game itself, and that is inconsistency with umpiring.

I really liked both the deliberate out of bounds rule and the 10m protected area rule at the start of the season. The umpires were hot on it and it made the game free flowing and exciting.

As the season drags on, it seems the umpires start to forget the rules, because one week they will pay zero 50m for the protected zone, and then the next (like last) week, they are so hot on it that it becomes a farce.

[MatteeG]

Likes:
Somehow my mob is 2 games clear despite dishing up a hell of a lot of ordinary through the year.

Dislikes:
Deliberate (out of bounds). I dont see why the game 'needs' the ball consistently moving. If a bloke is under pressure in the backline and mongrels a ball 40m forward to get a throw in that is good play in my book. Only the blatantly obvious (eg player bee-lines for the boundary) should be paid. The boundary throw in is another unique part of our game which we seem hell bent on getting rid of.

Deliberate (points)- Are we the only code that penalises a team scoring for the opposition? If we wish to 'stop' it, maybe increase the score of a deliberately rushed point. We seem to simply be penalising teams who are able to better able to kick in from full back.

Holding the ball (where the bloke on the bottom 'drags it in'). Been a bug bear of mine for a while now. If 3 or more blokes stack on it should automatically be a ball up (if they are all from the same team then they should get pinged for time wasting ). If someone drags it in then the opposition need to simply hold the guernsey and stand above (remember when players used to do that). This will force yet enable the player with ball to dispose or get pinged.

50m penalty. Way too harsh for minor infringements. Bring in the SANFL 25.

Thursday night football- destroys footy tips, fantasy football and kids sleeping patterns. Piss it off.

Bye before finals- piss it off. Stupid.

3 'bye' weeks. Piss it off. Have 5 games one week and 4 the next half way through. Easy.

Rookie lists etc- piss them off. Have a squad of 45-50. All eligible to play at any time.

Centre bounce- piss it off. Love the Romanticism of the big centre bounce but as so few umpires can do it, its time for a throw up in the Centre.

Fixture. Please do not allow clubs to 'request' games/match ups etc. Wheel out the draw based on performance if you have to, but please dont further compromise if by 'having' to fit 2x Ess v Coll, a Rich v Carl season opener, 2 x derbys etc. A good match up will draw regardless. And please stop trying to guess what a 'high rating' Friday night game might be. If someone had said a GWS v Adelaide match up would be a ball burster at the start of the season you may have been laughed at- but low and behold....

Can I keep going?

[woodublieve12]

Likes
Form of the swans considering how young our squad is.
Great to see the saints play some good footy


Dislikes
Sam Lloyd
Rioli
Bett's push in the back and no free

Adelaide media

[therisingblues]

But a player kicking into the forward line shouldn't be penalised for kicking at goals.
I'd be happy to see the rule abandoned for attacking sides inside 50.

Well what's your take on the OOB on the full rule? How many times have players missed the whole lot while kicking at goals?
You are still thinking intent, which is based on guesswork, making the umpire's job harder and pissing off everyone watching and participating in the game. I maintain that a rule based on the effective execution of a skill is much better. It shouldn't just be that "he's kicking at goals, give him a break", it should be "sucked in buddy, learn to kick!".
Under the present rules a player shooting at goal, whose kick turns out shit, and it dribbles OOB, obviously didn't put it out intentionally. I won't argue with that. I am saying it is a much better system when the question of intent is bypassed, then we can say goodbye to inconsistencies and won't need to employ psychics to umpire games.

[bennymacca]

100% agree. If any legal disposal goes out of bounds it should be a free to the opposition. Including the times where the player takes possession and runs out.

For spoils etc throw it in

[Booney]

100% agree. If any legal disposal goes out of bounds it should be a free to the opposition. Including the times where the player takes possession and runs out.

For spoils etc throw it in

Player under pressure,tackled on the kick, ball lands 8m from the boundary and the ball does what it can do in our game, goes sideways and OOB?

I think it's a rule for round ball games and non-contact sports.

[bennymacca]

Yep I'm happy with that. Would rather that than the lottery that the current system is sometimes.

It would do more to speed up the game than a lot of other measures they have tried.

Seems like it has worked OK in the SANFL but people who have watched a lot more than me are better placed to comment on that

[Booney]

Yep I'm happy with that. Would rather that than the lottery that the current system is sometimes.

It would do more to speed up the game than a lot of other measures they have tried.

Seems like it has worked OK in the SANFL but people who have watched a lot more than me are better placed to comment on that

You want to speed the game up more? Please, can't we just leave it alone for a while?

[MatteeG]

Yep I'm happy with that. Would rather that than the lottery that the current system is sometimes.

It would do more to speed up the game than a lot of other measures they have tried.

Seems like it has worked OK in the SANFL but people who have watched a lot more than me are better placed to comment on that

Just throw the thing in. FFS.

[Spargo]

Yep I'm happy with that. Would rather that than the lottery that the current system is sometimes.

It would do more to speed up the game than a lot of other measures they have tried.

Seems like it has worked OK in the SANFL but people who have watched a lot more than me are better placed to comment on that

It hasn't worked well in the SANFL.
Apart from Wedgie, I don't know another SANFL fan who likes it. Fans, players & coaches that I know of, hate it.

[Jim05]

Yep I'm happy with that. Would rather that than the lottery that the current system is sometimes.

It would do more to speed up the game than a lot of other measures they have tried.

Seems like it has worked OK in the SANFL but people who have watched a lot more than me are better placed to comment on that

It hasn't worked well in the SANFL.
Apart from Wedgie, I don't know another SANFL fan who likes it. Fans, players & coaches that I know of, hate it.

Spot on.
Has been a disaster IMO

[Grenville]

Yep I'm happy with that. Would rather that than the lottery that the current system is sometimes.

It would do more to speed up the game than a lot of other measures they have tried.

Seems like it has worked OK in the SANFL but people who have watched a lot more than me are better placed to comment on that

It hasn't worked well in the SANFL.
Apart from Wedgie, I don't know another SANFL fan who likes it. Fans, players & coaches that I know of, hate it.

Spot on.
Has been a disaster IMO

X2, it's absolute crap. The quicker they get rid of this rubbish the better.

[therisingblues]

Yep I'm happy with that. Would rather that than the lottery that the current system is sometimes.

It would do more to speed up the game than a lot of other measures they have tried.

Seems like it has worked OK in the SANFL but people who have watched a lot more than me are better placed to comment on that

It hasn't worked well in the SANFL.
Apart from Wedgie, I don't know another SANFL fan who likes it. Fans, players & coaches that I know of, hate it.

You obviously haven't looked very far.
I went in with an open mind and I'm now of the opinion that it enhances the game. Those that stand around me have never complained about it. It blends in with the game, you tend to accept it as just another rule.
On the few occasions I watch the AFL.... What an abortion of a rule they have! Entirely up to the umpire and from what I can tell, he's often influenced by player antics. I guess if people like disputes they should stick with that rule. As I said, in the SANFL I never even hear it discussed at games.

[Dogwatcher]

But a player kicking into the forward line shouldn't be penalised for kicking at goals.
I'd be happy to see the rule abandoned for attacking sides inside 50.

Well what's your take on the OOB on the full rule? How many times have players missed the whole lot while kicking at goals?
You are still thinking intent, which is based on guesswork, making the umpire's job harder and pissing off everyone watching and participating in the game. I maintain that a rule based on the effective execution of a skill is much better. It shouldn't just be that "he's kicking at goals, give him a break", it should be "sucked in buddy, learn to kick!".
Under the present rules a player shooting at goal, whose kick turns out shit, and it dribbles OOB, obviously didn't put it out intentionally. I won't argue with that. I am saying it is a much better system when the question of intent is bypassed, then we can say goodbye to inconsistencies and won't need to employ psychics to umpire games.

I agree with your point. But the ball being kicked out on the full in attack, always is pretty much a result of the kick, not the way the ball lands and bounces, as Booney said earlier, 'the way it does in our game'. And that's where I think the ruling can be different. The other factor is that, the intent of this rule is about increasing attacking play and scoring, from forwards and defenders. It is therefore, a little unfair to encourage attacking play and then penalise a side for attacking and driving the ball forward with intent to increase the scoring in our game.

[whufc]

Stupid out there couple of beers thinking

Rather than have the deliberate rule as it is or last touch out.

Could the rule be similar to rugby union

If a player kicks the ball and it bounces out its a throw in as per usual

If a player kicks it out of bounds on the full it's then a free kick to the opposition from where the ball was kicked

Would this then put more pressure on a player who chooses to kick the ball along the boundary line with a much harsher penalty

Would this encourage teams to player the corridor more meaning less likely players would be kicking towards the boundary

[therisingblues]

Well reasoned Dogwatcher.
I would counter though that the principle idea of the rule is to reduce stoppages. Naturally it would follow in most discussions that this would lead to an increase in scoring, as I see it that would be a by-product rather than the main objective. Personally I am not too fussed about that aspect, as it sits well with me having seen how it plays out. But my understanding is that you object to the rule as it is applied within the attacking 50 meter zone? That could be a future refinement, if it turned out that most people were happy with how it is applied elsewhere on the ground.
Booney's raised the odd shaped ball dimension of our game a couple of times. I would argue that it is not that hard to kick a ball so that it bounces as you'd like it. A regular, well executed drop punt will bounce straight, with the momentum of the kick. Then, there have been many proponents of what was once considered "the miracle kick" for goal. I think it is funny that both you and Booney (Collingwood and Power supporters respectively) should raise this concern, considering that IIRC it was Peter Daicos that pioneered the intentional weighting of a kick, so that it bounced at a trick angle through goals. I am sure you would not hesitate to agree with that. I also recall Port Power players actually practicing such kicks every goal shooting session, back about 15 years ago (not sure what happened after that, as I went overseas for a long time, and earned myself a welcome break from the Adelaide media waffling on about what Port did in their training sessions). I think it might have been Burgoyne (?) became a bit of a master at bouncing his kicks in to goals from ridiculous angles. On the other hand, a mongrel punt which has been executed under pressure could bounce in any direction and this rewards the man applying the pressure. The ball may not be round, it just requires more skill to kick it, so that it bounces in the right direction.

[therisingblues]

Stupid out there couple of beers thinking

Rather than have the deliberate rule as it is or last touch out.

Could the rule be similar to rugby union

If a player kicks the ball and it bounces out its a throw in as per usual

If a player kicks it out of bounds on the full it's then a free kick to the opposition from where the ball was kicked

Would this then put more pressure on a player who chooses to kick the ball along the boundary line with a much harsher penalty

Would this encourage teams to player the corridor more meaning less likely players would be kicking towards the boundary

Isn't that what the rule was in years past?

[bennymacca]

So no deliberate at all?

It would lead to a boundary hugging stoppage style game that freo and Malthouse era Collingwood loved