Rohan Connolly's thoughts:
AFL rule changes: Is tinkering enough to do the trick?
All that speculation without mentioning what must be one of the worst blights on the game last season, namely throwing instead of passing the ball.
Rohan Connolly's thoughts:
AFL rule changes: Is tinkering enough to do the trick?
All that speculation without mentioning what must be one of the worst blights on the game last season, namely throwing instead of passing the ball.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
Obliquely Connolly does mention throwing, without naming it for what it is:Originally Posted by dimelb
'The Bulldogs mastered inventive handball, over heads, behind backs, around corners. And their ranking of No. 2 for inside 50 entries suggests it was an effective weapon indeed in getting through the heavy traffic. Expect other teams to follow suit next year.'
Since the grand final I have been strongly of the view that the definition/rule of handball must be discussed by the administrators and clubs before next season commences. And with one of two clear outcomes:
1. the current wording be clarified and confirmed with declared intent for it to be consistently administered in the coming season (and follow through on that intent),
or
2. the current definition/rule be rewritten so the current practice (most obviously by the Bulldogs) is formally legitimised, to enable all clubs/players to know exactly what they can do.
I agree with Connolly when he says 'It's great to watch in its own way.' But it gives those players/clubs who blatantly push out the boundaries of the current handball law an unfair advantage if the umpires simply turn a blind eye to the illegitimacy of their technique, while others are playing by the handball law as currently written.
To quote Connolly again: 'if we really want to preserve the "foot" in the football, a kick-to-handball ratio of just 1.21 this season, the second-lowest on record, should be the catalyst for a lot more thinking yet.'
I agree with the point that clear clarification needs to happen in this space - but I don't agree that what the Dogs do is 'great to watch'. Unless people are into watching NFL that is - which is where the Dogs took it to on Grand Final day. Yes it allows them to play more free flowing football, but it is, in my opinion at the expense of playing within the spirit of the game. Now they aren't the first or the last team to push the boundaries, but I think one can mount a strong argument that they wouldn't have got their fairytale had the umpires taken a more traditional interpretation of the handballing laws.
As you say Meg, the current approach is providing an unfair (And significant) advantage to teams bending the rules when the umpires simply choose to turn a blind eye to what is going on.
I do wish they'd stop fiddling with the rules, but there are clear areas where improvements can be made - Handballs, dropping the ball and reducing the interchanges allowed is where I'd focus.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
I both agree and disagree.
I agree that it is not great to watch. It's about as great to watch as seeing blatant push in the backs ignored, blatant head high tackles ignored, blatant holding off the ball ignored, blatant holding of Buddy's arms in a marking contest ignored, blatant kidney punches 80m behind play ignored, blatant tripping ignored (oops, the GF had a lot of that too), blatant throwing ignored (....oh, hold on.....). It's wilfully ignored cheating, nothing more or less. It's not great to watch at all. It's crap. It's not the game. It's rugby. It's cheating. Why it would be tolerated in any AFL match, let alone a grand final, is beyond me.
I disagree with the implication of your post that what Bulldogs did was some sort of subtle crossing of the boundaries of the spirit of the game. FFS, it's blatantly breaking the LAWS of the game. The spirit is miles behind in the rearview mirror. Again - it's cheating pure and simple. Why it is currently considered worthy of a blind eye is utterly beyond me. The spate of throwing is NOT the same thing as Hawthorn's rushed behinds in 2008. The rules at the time really were unclear on what the Dawks did. By contrast, the rules on blatant throwing have been clear for an awfully long time.
Which leads me to my last point. There is absolutely no need for rules to be changed here. How about taking the apparently revolutionary step of effing enforcing the rules that have been in place in this game for more than a hundred years? The failure in the GF was not with the laws of the game, it was with pathetic umpires who for some reason declined to enforce clear rules.
My opinion is objective truth in its purest form
Another excuse why we lost the Grand Final?
I believe that lack of leadership (e.g. McVeigh) contributed more than this "one of the worst blights on the game ..." crap.
Yeah. That's the reason we lost the GF. Twice I saw McVeigh's leadership try to outmark Boyd instead of spoiling him. Not to mention the time his leadership dropped a sitter in the goalsquare when McVeigh was up the other end the field.
I want what you're on.
The throwballing was one part of a number of umpiring issues - so not another excuse but one factor among others. Obviously we didn't lose because of that item alone. And you are entitled to say that's crap, but I would still say if it is not dealt with it remains a blight on the game.
As I (and others) have said elsewhere, the single biggest issue was Lance's injury in the first quarter.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
1. Agree. The ruling on what is a legitimate handball action was left totally unclear after the GF. This really needs to be resolved.
2. I agree with you on this. So sad, not only that Buddy's very early injury caused the Swans' chance of victory so much damage but also because it diminished the spectacle of the match.
I also think that Buddy's injury and consequent inability to run very much (particularly in the first half) was a significant factor in X's underwhelming performance (and to a lesser extent that of Tom Papley). Without Buddy running hard they seemed bewildered what they should do. Not so surprising, they are both very inexperienced (with X particularly inexperienced at playing in the forward line).
Meg,
So we lost the G.F. because of:
1. illegitimate handball, &
2. injury to our star player.
I accept that you, dimelb, & others feel this way.
I played the game, a long time ago, (at a low level) - you get to know when a team-mate lets you down - hero against weak opposition - "weak-as" when the chips are down.
No, I didn't say this.
The first point relates directly to this thread which is a discussion about the current AFL rules.
In regard to the GF, there were a mix of reasons why we lost/the Bulldogs won. In the second point, I was agreeing with the view of an earlier poster that in that mix the most significant was Buddy's injury. Given the ominous form Buddy had been in, I think we would have overcome the other factors had he been fit the whole match.
Ugh.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks