While it's possibly a typo, I quite like the word, 'officiala'. It could be a term for oblivious bureaucracy. A portmanteau word that joins official and la la la.Originally Posted by Ludwig
While it's possibly a typo, I quite like the word, 'officiala'. It could be a term for oblivious bureaucracy. A portmanteau word that joins official and la la la.
Officiala. A word used when intelligentsia doesn't quite fit the bill.
Blakey has a chat.....
Blakey: A good first hit out - YouTube
I'm feeling really optimistic about Blakey this year. Also interesting he mentions Gulden as having an impact as a small forward.
Looks like he might have put on a bit of weight. Hope so.
So if a player goes to handball sideways but changes their mind is that now going to be called play on? The man on the mark's first instinct is to react to that action. What gets me is someone at head office thinks this up, then a collective of minds signs off on it. Well that's what you would expect any rational organisation to do. Or is it someone at the top comes up with the idea and a collective of yes men say what a great idea. This is the most hair brained idea I can recall in my 60 years of following the game. Let the players play. So what has happened to the rule of a player running past the player on the mark restricting that player moving sideways (entering their 5 metre space)? I thought it was a good rule to keep the game moving. Mind you Keiran Jack copped a howler free against him. So will coaches tell their players to do this as a defence against this new rule.
Dwayne "I love the AFL heirachy" Russell on SEN likes the rule. Then a caller comes on and says well players won't stand the mark and players will quickly flood back to combat the quick play on. My thoughts as a coach would be don't stand the mark in our forward 50. Just organise yourself to put up a wall from the back 50 to the centre. Nothing will change. Scoring volume will remain the same. I believe coaches are already up in arms against this rule. How long will it last? Any guesses.
One rule that should be immediately brought in is to stop players preventing a player picking up the ball when there is a stoppage. Hawthorn has been doing this for years. A 50 metre penalty will stop that one quick smart. So someone is kicking for goal from 20 metres out dead in front. In the past a player could run from from side to side trying to put a player off. Is this now banned. This is not stopping a player moving the ball on.
You have to stop talking about yourself in the third person.
It'll be interesting to see how Blakey is used this year. I've noticed in some of the training footage, that he's been in close to a ruck contest; which suggests that he'll spend at least some time as an inside midfielder. Though I wouldn't like to see him getting battered in there for the majority of the game.
Personally, I'd like to see him as something of a hybrid player. Play a small portion of the game as an inside mid; where his pace out of the contest should be effective, and where he could be a difficult match up for the opposition. He could also play a bit up forward, as a third or fourth marking target. But mostly, I'd like to see him alternating between outside mid and half forward flanker. If he could get plenty of possessions roaming the flanks, then his pace, creativity and kicking skills, should be a nightmare for opposing teams.
Yes, can't really see him bulking up enough to become a KPF, but if he's added a bit more muscle, that should see him become more effective in laying tackles and winning contested balls. And I doubt if he'll ever start to become so muscle bound, that it will start to effect his pace and endurance.
I must admit that I haven't really bothered to research the rule, so I don't know how it will be applied and misapplied. But I can easily see how it has the potential to become one of those maddening, 'rule of the week' scenarios, that the AFL officials inflict on us. That is, by about halfway through the season, the umpires will be quietly starting to ignore the rule, then one Thursday or Friday night, there will be a spate of moving on the mark frees, which will continue over the weekend, with a few charity goals from inconsequential transgressions, being crucial in the outcome of a couple of games.
And like you, the where did it come from question, does bother me. It just has the strong appearance of busy work for overpaid and underemployed executives. I mean, if fans, players and coaches were surveyed about what rules and interpretations bugged them, I don't think anyone would have said, 'well, it really irks me that players move around on the mark'. I suspect that the main irritant in regards to manning the mark, is that some teams constantly send players to bump the person who's manning the mark. Apparently that's against the rules, but some teams get away with it so often, that I'm wondering if it is or not: so if it isn't illegal, then since it's mildly dangerous and probably not in the spirit of the game, then perhaps it should be?
And of course, probably main rule gripe, would be inconsistent interpretation of the holding the ball and illegal disposal rules. But if I start on that, it would turn an already long post into a marathon.
No chance of muscle bound!
I really like the idea behind the rule change, namely, that players not manning the mark itself restricts quick kicking on a 45 and therefore doesn’t give enough advantage for winning a mark or free kick. I would like to see it taken a step further to fix a pet peeve of mine...standing BEHIND the mark on a shot for goal and then running forward...this is an unwarranted disadvantage for a team that has taken a hard earned mark in the forward 50
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks