Stupid Idea Mr Healy

[Triple B]

Still, a chain of 8 handballs is fraught with enough danger. And boy, haven't we seen that.

You might be onto something.

Healy, being a Swans man and all, is sick of watching some of our assclowns handball it around in a circle and coughing it up. The only way to stop it is legislate against it.

Healy, you're a genius.

Now if we can only stop Jude throwing the ball onto his boot willy nilly and kicking it straight to the opposition, we may really be onto something.

[Chow-Chicker]

Still, a chain of 8 handballs is fraught with enough danger. And boy, haven't we seen that.

And that's correct! After all, it is up to the opposition to get the footy off their opponent. If a team has a chain of 8 handballs or greater, then the other team simply hasn't worked hard enough to win the ball. It's called a contest....

[ScottH]

Still, a chain of 8 handballs is fraught with enough danger. And boy, haven't we seen that.

[Chow-Chicker]

"Running out of defence, several quick handballs, a long kick into the half forward line. Sensationally trapped by O'Loughlin, who handballs in the blink of an eye to a rampaging Goodes who bangs it thru for a goal from just on 50 to win the game. But wait, the 3rd umpire is speaking to the field umpires.
The MOL hb was the 51st of the qtr, making it illegal, as it is > the 50 limit. Score doesn't count. Now the swans chief statistician gets involved saying that there were only 49 hbs to that point." Meanwhile .....

The proposal is to limit handball to no more than a chain of 8. Still, how will you penalise it? Do you stop the play and bounce the ball (absolutely taking the game backwards if they do). Do they give a free kick to the opposition (too bloody harsh). Do they stop the play and make the 9th person in the chain go back and kick it (absolutely stupid of course). Back in the late 80's or early 90's I think they introduced a stupid rule that a free kick had to be kicked and not handballed. It lasted one season before it was canned.

I don't know why they keep tinkering with rules without considering the consequences of the change.

[ScottH]

it's just a discussion point.

Or an senseless arguing point, from reading the rest of this thread.

[ScottH]

Exactly. I don't like the interchange limit too much, but at least that is just something on the sidelines that can be tracked and mangaged on by coaches... I can't see how players can be expected to keep a running count of handballs.

"Running out of defence, several quick handballs, a long kick into the half forward line. Sensationally trapped by O'Loughlin, who handballs in the blink of an eye to a rampaging Goodes who bangs it thru for a goal from just on 50 to win the game. But wait, the 3rd umpire is speaking to the field umpires.
The MOL hb was the 51st of the qtr, making it illegal, as it is > the 50 limit. Score doesn't count. Now the swans chief statistician gets involved saying that there were only 49 hbs to that point." Meanwhile .....

[stellation]

Love to see how theyed enforce a handball limit during a game!!!

Exactly. I don't like the interchange limit too much, but at least that is just something on the sidelines that can be tracked and mangaged on by coaches... I can't see how players can be expected to keep a running count of handballs.

[ScottH]

Love to see how they'd enforce a handball limit during a game!!!

[Zlatorog]

Well, if they want to reduce the number of hand balling they'll have to reduce the number of players. Sometimes it gets so overcrowded that that is the only safe way to dispose the ball. Especially in today's interpretation of the holding the ball.
Of course, there's another alternative: Soccer.

[Chow-Chicker]

Okay - if you think that your comments make sense then stick with that delusion. I'm sure you'll win lots more people to your point of view on all sorts of topics!

Good.

You see, I don't bother presenting arguments against idiots who use pointless statistical data to propose changes to a game. They do so without asking and answering the questions "why is this trend bad?" or "why is this trend occuring?" or "will this trend continue?" or "do we need to create another rule to reduce a trend that may not necessarily continue?" or "any other @@@@ing question that needs to be asked" before they actually implement a ridiculous rule. Limiting the interchange, limiting the handballs........therefore, why not limit every other damn thing?

NAB Cup is....no, sorry, has been a completely irrelevant, meaningless "spectacle" of AFL football.

[Chow-Chicker]

Maybe your comments would be less stupid if you actually addressed Healy's (and Hopkin's) comments properly, or are you trying to say you are smarter and more knowledgeable of football than them?

The reductio ad absurdum argument is really the refuge of someone incapable of presenting a cogent rebuttal.

Ooh, you've taken offence to a veiled insult to a stupid suggestion by Mr Healy. I don't really care how it makes you feel, but I am pleased to have expressed my displeasure in the manner in which I have done.

So continue on with your pointless barage, as it really is making me laugh.

[Chow-Chicker]

You are right Doc - stupid.

How are you Mr Lobster? Trolling around baiting other posters again I see. Your friend has deserted you again?

[Chow-Chicker]

No - it was clear from the start, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.

Hmmmm, OK.........now I see why it upset you so. You don't like deliberate stupid suggestions highlighting deliberate stupid suggestions, because you believe suggesting something stupid is far worse than stupid suggestions actually being implemented.

[ROK Lobster]

No - it was clear from the start, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.

You are right Doc - stupid.

[Chow-Chicker]

Of course he was, but it was a pretty (very) stupid analogy.

To go with Healy's stupid suggestion. Takes a while to sink in, doesn't it?