Leaving aside the voices, it worries me that today's umpires can't find 80 free kicks a game.Originally Posted by stevoswan
Leaving aside the voices, it worries me that today's umpires can't find 80 free kicks a game.
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
Okay. I'll give a quick alternative to the current ruck rules since there's been so much comment on it.
- Each quarter can start the same as present. So no change. An alternative to this would be to alternate a free kick to each team in the centre square to start things off.
- After a goal, there is a 30 second break to allow teams to celebrate and make interchanges. The defensive team must vacate the forward 50 leaving it open to the kick-in team to gain more space. Once the ball leaves the goal square, the defensive team can return players to the forward 50.
- Out of bounds throw ins are similar to a play-on situation, like a hand ball coming from the sideline. So not much different than regular play.
- On in bound stoppages, the umpire chooses the 2 closest players to the stoppage from opposite sides to contest the toss up, similar to a jump ball situation in basketball.
I appreciate Liz' comment that there aren't special players, but rather special contests, like ruck contests and marking contests and there are rules that apply to these contests. So I would be looking to effectively eliminate the need for a type of player, a ruckman, who has special attributes favourable to the way stoppages are handled by the current rules. This is different than marking contests, which take place in general play and although taller players are favoured by contests in the air, anyone can compete in these contests, rather than only 2 designated players.
Not sure whether some of those points are attempts at humour or actually serious, Ludwig. What I will say is this, the rule should be simple: 'A ruck contest can only take place between two opposing players'....they should not have to be 'designated', they just have to be 'opposing'. If a team can't get their act together on this and a third player enters the contest, a free will be awarded against the offending team. The umps will sound less 'controlling' and can now just shut TF up.
I also think the game should always start back in the middle after a goal. It's the only fair way and is frankly, common sense. We need more common sense in the rules of our game....note to the AFL and fans of unnecessary change.
Andy Maher says Tom Mitchell would fit in seamlessly around Sydney’s young midfield and fill the void about to be left by the retiring Josh Kennedy.
Would trade back to former club suit Hawks midfielder?
Seriously?
Don't agree Mitchell is what we need. We've got Parks and Mills already with RB, Gus & Roberts coming through. And, even if we did need Mitchell, still wouldn't see it happening. Mitchell didn't leave on bad terms but he didn't exactly leave with our blessing either.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
I think Andy Maher is at his best, when he's the butt of jokes by Mick Molloy and Sam Pang.
If Mitchell was a few years younger he would be worth considering but he'll 30 next year.
"Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017
I think we do need a clearance creature, dislike being on the wrong end of clearance counts, and Mitchell is certainly that. He's at his best when able to link with players providing outside run, which our Cygnets could do.
I'm not sure his age is reason to veto, but I heard he was seeking a Melbourne club.
Also, I'm not sure I could stomach another Mitchell talking about how he missed the club that nurtured him and how he shouldn't have left etc. etc. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Mitchells a mercenary which Im not keen on but then again clubs are loyal for as long as it suits them so maybe hes just playing the same game.
I actually agree that he would be ideal for our side, unbelievable ability to find the ball which would complement the others in our midfield as parker and joey move out. Would only give him a two year contract though. Hes not pacy and often the slow guys like him just drop off a cliff once past thirty.
as good a player as he has been, I think we would be going back to 2020 midfield where we had Joey, Parks and Georgie all of which are never going to qualify for the sprints at the Olympics. Many on here deemed our midfield too slow then. We still have Parks and Millsy. One of them can be the extractor and feed the fleet of foot
The obvious flaw in Maher's suggestion of Mitchell as a replacement for Kennedy is that we had already moved Kennedy out of the middle and were struggling to find a spot for him in the side.
We could do with a pure "see ball, get ball" player in the middle of the ground, but that's what Sheldrick is. Is he as good now as Mitchell? No. Will he ever reach the peak level Mitchell reached? Probably not. But we've invested in him and he looks ready for senior footy, which he'll hopefully see some of next year. And he's a darned sight cheaper than Mitchell would be, even if the Hawks subsidise the Mitchell salary for a year.
Youve sold it to me. Agree that hes not worth the effort. I have felt that we have struggled in those midfield stoppages during the year.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks