Bombertalk

boncer34 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:53 am

BenDoolan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:03 am

grassy1 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:59 am What’s the go here,MH?

Hope I didn’t spoil your Original Post?!

I guess the one thing about The Dreamtime Match and The Long Walk Importantly,was the Reflection and Celebration of the Heritage and Culture of Australia’s 1st People!

That’s a Very Important thing,which Everyone should Not forget!

I sort of get the feeling that the ESS v RICH Dreamtime game will be a travelling road show from here on in. The success up in Darwin this year, the success in WA this year. Where will they take it to next year (COVID or not)? Canberra??

No chance Benny. We left a lot of $$ on the table playing in Perth instead of a packed MCG.

The Perth Stadium Management Table by any chance,Bonce?A lot of people in town said Mike McKenna and even the Premier were wetting themselves about hosting The Dreamtime Game!

I'm not sure mate. They would've made a bundle but only slightly more than the MCG normally I think.

We lost something like $500k not having it in Melbourne.

grassy1 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:32 am Rule 18.6 3 ........of a bloody million!

Jesus,Fair Dinkum!

It’s not just that rule,a supposed simple part of the game,the Umps have got to keep up with,but the amount of Bloody Rules the Umps have on their plate!

THAT’S ALL YOUR FAULT AWFULL!!!!!!!!!!

We are picking the Wrong Target here folks.The poor Umps cop it all the time and despite the Crap coming from HQ about criticising the Umps,they’re more than comfortable that the Umps take the Heat off them and Often!

The sooner people start and persist in Hammering the f****** AWFULL Commission and the f****** Rules Committee for Tampering with the game,nay.......Wrecking it,the better!

I don’t know why they make it do complicated...

18.6 HOLDING THE BALL
18.6.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall
award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.

18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire
shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.

18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

All those Rules for the Umps to try and remember.

If anything,THEY should drawing the Line on the amount of Rule changes there are and Say,.....

”ENOUGH!”

Then threaten Strike Action,giving AWFULL and their Bloody Rules Committee the ULTIMATUM,that if they Tamper with the Game anymore and don’t resolve to remove some of the Umpteen Rules shovelled into the game(to fruitlessly attempt to attract a demographic that doesn’t give a Stuff about Aussie Rules Football),then STRIKE ACTION will be a Serious Consideration.

Strike Action by the Umps mightn’t be too popular with the fans if it potentially disrupts the footy season and AWFULL would be counting on that!What they won’t be counting on,is if the Fans and Supporters Support the Umpires,Fed up to the back Teeth with BLOODY AWFULL and their Bloody Rules Committee!

If we don’t Support the Umpires on such a Radical move,we’ll then don’t go complaining when you continue to see the same old,same old with frequent Umpire Errors!

It has to come to a point when The AWFULL Commission in particular have to Stop their Nonsense in fiddling with the game and start repairing the damage they have done for years,by scaling back on their Rule changing Nonsense!

The rules are changed for the benefit of the TV broadcasters,not the players or the fans.

Some rules are imposed to make the game more pleasant a watching experience such as:
* Deliberate Out of Bounds
* Nominating rucks
* Ability to wander from the goal square while kicking in

Other rules are imposed to result in more goals:
* Standing the mark rule
* restricting interchange rotations ( even though the AFL is aware that this will result in more injuries)
* 6,6,6 rule

In short - the rules are being driven by ratings and the desire to run more adverts after a goal.

I put the holding the ball interpretations some what differently
* Jumping on the ball/pulling the ball in was instigated to prevent the stop/start style of footy that was around 20 years ago and make the game more free flowing. Fair enough,but it is frustrating when the ball comes out and the tackler pulls it back in/holds the free ball against the tacklee... and gets rewarded for it.
*Prior opportunity came in about the same time because,surprise surprise, players were holding back and not picking up the ball for fear they would be tackled and give away a free.

it used to be that if the player with the ball was in motion, they were not penalised unless they ran too far or bounced the ball while being held (eg by the jumper)

And don't start me about the ball coming out as a result of the tackle ... we now have whole teams being coached on how to carry the ball so it comes out in a tackle.

Anyway -the AFL has moved towards a mechanistic determination of the rules to promote "consistency". Holding the ball/incorrect disposal and deliberate out of bounds are pretty much the only remaining rules where subjective interpretation still exists (apart from ducking, but lets not go there).

IMO,looking after/protecting the ball carrier/ball winner is more important than rewarding a tackle.

Trouble is with 3 o r4 umpires on the ground, consistency of interpretation goes to hell.

Good post s’dreams.

Though the Sports Minister can send Stokes and Murdoch to the Aussie Rules Tower too!

Its simple.

If you are tackled and had time to dispose of the ball and fail to dispose of the ball by a handball or Kick.(the only 2 means of legal disposal in our game) It should be holding the ball.

Not given a consolation prize simply for "attempting" to dispose by calling play on.



Additonally, umpires need to stagger on sides of the contest not position in a stright line down the middle of the ground.

Umpires Academy?

Good stuff s'dreams.

The old interpretation for holding the ball was better. The ball getters were given the chance to go in and get it. If however they are running and get tackled then THAT was holding the ball. Also if however they are tackled when they have had prior opportunity and the bsll spills out THAT waaincorrect disposal.

These interpretations were fair to both the ball extractors and the tackling team.

What makes no sense whatsoever was the difference in interpretation by the umpires in the Bris V Melbourne game and our game. Oh yeah that's right our game involved Richmond who as a protected species even common sense rules don't apply.

MH_Bomber wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 5:06 pm Good stuff s'dreams.

The old interpretation for holding the ball was better. The ball getters were given the chance to go in and get it. If however they are running and get tackled then THAT is holding the ball. Also if however they are tackled when they have had prior opportunity and the bsll spills out THAT is incorrect disposal.

They is fair to both the ball extractors and the tackling team.

What makes no sense whatsoever was the difference in interpretation by the umpires in the Bris V Melbourne game and our game. Oh yeah that's right our game involved Richmond who as a protected species even common sense rules don't apply.

Mmmmm,you certainly gotta wonder sometimes.When the perception continues that certain players are getting a good ride,then the Umpires AND the System simply aren’t doing their Job right!

NOT GOOD ENOGH!!!!!

Makes it very hard to defend Umps there!

I’m no Umpire,but as I said I work with them on Match Days,albeit briefly.When my team gets done over by Umpires in my fellow supporters One Eyes ,I tend to Shuddup when I give ‘em the paperwork.If me mate wants to do that,he knows that he has to Zip It,no matter what he thinks went out in the middle.

Actually got to know a Goal Ump over a few years.Not that closely,but we say G’day when our paths cross.

nomolos wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:36 pm Its simple.

If you are tackled and had time to dispose of the ball and fail to dispose of the ball by a handball or Kick.(the only 2 means of legal disposal in our game) It should be holding the ball.

Not given a consolation prize simply for "attempting" to dispose by calling play on.



Additonally, umpires need to stagger on sides of the contest not position in a stright line down the middle of the ground.

100%

nomolos wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:36 pm Its simple.

If you are tackled and had time to dispose of the ball and fail to dispose of the ball by a handball or Kick.(the only 2 means of legal disposal in our game) It should be holding the ball.

Not given a consolation prize simply for "attempting" to dispose by calling play on.



Additonally, umpires need to stagger on sides of the contest not position in a stright line down the middle of the ground.

This

I think their Q4 effort v us might've sucked the life out of 'em.

F111 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:14 pm I think their Q4 effort v us might've sucked the life out of 'em.

Could well be,but they sat on their Laurels against the Egirls when 22 up in the Final Quarter and Paid for it!

Could it be that they lost a bit of respect for their coach when he did a Barnaby Joyce on them? You know the behaviour of the person at the top often rubs off on the whole organisation.
I might havd to stand corrected but seems that the culture has changed a bit there.lately.

Mate,No sucker could outbarnaby Barnaby!

Rover99 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:24 am Could it be that they lost a bit of respect for their coach when he did a Barnaby Joyce on them? You know the behaviour of the person at the top often rubs off on the whole organisation.
I might havd to stand corrected but seems that the culture has changed a bit there.lately.

Very good point