AFL players in League

[Sydney Knight]

tee hee - I know that's a joke - - crikey, he looked so ungainly and how he didn't snap in two I'll never know - - but, I saw him a couple of times take a bounce, sell the dummy, and roost a goal on the run......how does a guy like that do that????

The old adage has it's inverse - - built like Tarzan, plays like Jane. In this case, built like a really tall skinny Jane, and now and then produced a Tarzan moment.......well.....!!

Obviously it was a joke. Don't really follow afl closely so never saw him play. I see him at work conferences. Certainly stands out.

 

[Munro_Mick]

I am not uninitiated and do like and watch AFL (even though I do not follow a specific team, I would if there was truly one in Canberra), you must admit that there are only two things you have to be aware of in AFL and they are the ball and the goalposts. In RL you have to be aware of every movement on the field from were the ball and posts are respective to you to were the ref is.

The truth is (in my opinion) AFL could be a much better game with a thew small changes such as allowing true tackling not the sort of weak fingers (fingers/fairy tackling is when you tackle a person with your arms reached out and don't use your shoulder, its very hard to tackle this way) tackling they do now (I understand that there is no rule that says you can not use the shoulder I am suggesting encouraging the use of the shoulder in tackles by change the dangerous tackle rules) witch would make for better defensive structure and a more exciting game.

Good comment - obviously in the past the tackling might tend to the more physical.
I think what happened was a focus on not losing your feet - not going to ground - even in laying the tackle. And I guess the AFL requirement of the guy being tackled is to correctly dispose of the ball whereas in RL you can decide to hold it in (unless on the 6th tackle.).
It does change the imperative for both tackler and tacklee.
The other factor is how readily the umpires might pay a free kick to the tackler and in recent times that's fluctuated somewhat. And that plays a part in how willing the tackler is to fully commit head down shoulder first and drive hard - - if the ball spills free he wants to be able to contest for that ball. And this again is the differing imperative to RL for example where - for me watching it is frustrating - that half the time the ball spills free it's deemed a 'knock on' and the 'contest' for the ball is killed.
It has been cool seeing the guys raised on a bit of Rugby now and then get the chance to drive a Rugby style tackle, Pyke, Hunt and Jack.
The thuggery has been driven out though - so the capacity to willy nilly fly in shoulder first and clean up a guy is much reduced, but, players need to not go looking for it all the time - the opportunities will arise and the good players are ready when they do.

The other rule I would change is throw ins, instead of throw ins I would change the rule to the last player who touched balls team loses the ball (the same as RL) once again forcing better defensive structure and this will also make all players more aware of boundary line and fear going out because they will defiantly lose the ball.

This one I disagree with mainly because the ruck contests that result help to re-inforce the requirement for ruckmen. And that helps ensure a broad range of body types out on the field.
Also, I hate it where the ball is free and people are not trying to take possession....we'd see one side effectively shepparding the other away from the ball to gain the free. Wouldn't like the look of that.
The other thing is the curved boundary makes it very difficult compared to a square sided game.
The other aspect of such a ruling would be that it effectively creates a buffer to the boundary.Teams generally 'build a wall' to try to stop the opposition rebounding through. You wouldn't need anyone within 20m's of the boundary because the rule would give you a virtual defender one each side of the ground.
Last reason = set plays. There are too few set play stopped play scenarios in AFL. I don't mind the capacity to work set plays around boundary throw ins.
And also the notion of the ball being thrown back in by an umpire unsighted to a neutral contest is part of the fabric of the game - more than anyother code I reckon the 50/50 neutral contest is a feature of AFL. It's like a 'real time' computer game compared to a 'turn based'. Again - I don't say which is better - I enjoy both - I'm just glad there's the option!!!!

 

[Munro_Mick]

it takes much more awareness to play football than League or AFL

its easy to look around for your team mates with the ball in your hands, that argument is pretty mute

try doing it with the ball at your feet, knowing the ball is under your control without looking at your feet too much and knowing, or anticipating, where your team members are or will be

you'll never win that argument

Off-side brings it's own level of required awareness and anticipation. Certainly Aust Footy doesn't have that requirement. But, off-side also means the vast majority of the opposition is normally in front of the soccer/rugby player. Ironically AFL 'flooding' introduces almost a voluntary 'off-side'!!!

Ball at your feet is both good and bad. it removes the requirement of the ball drop from hand to foot in the kicking action.
But, in running with the ball it requires greater attention to the ball.

Like all sport though - as you move up the competitive ladder, it's the awareness under greater duress that tests the player. Tacklers get to you quicker. Defenders close on your target quicker so disposals need to be better weighted and more accurate.

It's not really an argument to 'win'. Just to acknowledge.

 

[The Great Dane]

it takes much more awareness to play football than League or AFL

its easy to look around for your team mates with the ball in your hands, that argument is pretty mute

try doing it with the ball at your feet, knowing the ball is under your control without looking at your feet too much and knowing, or anticipating, where your team members are or will be

you'll never win that argument

You will get no argument about that form me. I have played soccer for a very long time and it certainly takes a lot more awareness to play then either RL or AFL.

 

[The Great Dane]

Good comment - obviously in the past the tackling might tend to the more physical.
I think what happened was a focus on not losing your feet - not going to ground - even in laying the tackle. And I guess the AFL requirement of the guy being tackled is to correctly dispose of the ball whereas in RL you can decide to hold it in (unless on the 6th tackle.).
It does change the imperative for both tackler and tacklee.
The other factor is how readily the umpires might pay a free kick to the tackler and in recent times that's fluctuated somewhat. And that plays a part in how willing the tackler is to fully commit head down shoulder first and drive hard - - if the ball spills free he wants to be able to contest for that ball. And this again is the differing imperative to RL for example where - for me watching it is frustrating - that half the time the ball spills free it's deemed a 'knock on' and the 'contest' for the ball is killed.
It has been cool seeing the guys raised on a bit of Rugby now and then get the chance to drive a Rugby style tackle, Pyke, Hunt and Jack.
The thuggery has been driven out though - so the capacity to willy nilly fly in shoulder first and clean up a guy is much reduced, but, players need to not go looking for it all the time - the opportunities will arise and the good players are ready when they do.


This one I disagree with mainly because the ruck contests that result help to re-inforce the requirement for ruckmen. And that helps ensure a broad range of body types out on the field.
Also, I hate it where the ball is free and people are not trying to take possession....we'd see one side effectively shepparding the other away from the ball to gain the free. Wouldn't like the look of that.
The other thing is the curved boundary makes it very difficult compared to a square sided game.
The other aspect of such a ruling would be that it effectively creates a buffer to the boundary.Teams generally 'build a wall' to try to stop the opposition rebounding through. You wouldn't need anyone within 20m's of the boundary because the rule would give you a virtual defender one each side of the ground.
Last reason = set plays. There are too few set play stopped play scenarios in AFL. I don't mind the capacity to work set plays around boundary throw ins.
And also the notion of the ball being thrown back in by an umpire unsighted to a neutral contest is part of the fabric of the game - more than anyother code I reckon the 50/50 neutral contest is a feature of AFL. It's like a 'real time' computer game compared to a 'turn based'. Again - I don't say which is better - I enjoy both - I'm just glad there's the option!!!!

This ^^^. The differences between the games is why I enjoy them all. The rule changes I suggested where not to make AFL better than RL (or any other game for that matter) but just ways I think the great game that is Aussie Rules could improve I have just as many ideas on how RL could improve, and as we proved before with my idea to remove throw ins once bouncing them off other people who also enjoy and understand the game they don't always sound as good as they did before because you reveled flaws to my proposed rules that I may have over looked.

I just wish there were more sensible people in the media who instead of writing crap like the whole code war bullshit (Sydney media) or down right refusing report on all sports unless the story is negative and will harm the sport in question (Melbourne media), would report on all sports and spread the good they do for there community instead of trying to put them at odds.

 

[Band On The Run]

This ^^^. The differences between the games is why I enjoy them all. The rule changes I suggested where not to make AFL better than RL (or any other game for that matter) but just ways I think the great game that is Aussie Rules could improve I have just as many ideas on how RL could improve, and as we proved before with my idea to remove throw ins once bouncing them off other people who also enjoy and understand the game they don't always sound as good as they did before because you reveled flaws to my proposed rules that I may have over looked.

I just wish there were more sensible people in the media who instead of writing crap like the whole code war bullshit (Sydney media) or down right refusing report on all sports unless the story is negative and will harm the sport in question (Melbourne media), would report on all sports and spread the good they do for there community instead of trying to put them at odds.

Very good post :thumn

 

[Munro_Mick]

This ^^^. The differences between the games is why I enjoy them all. The rule changes I suggested where not to make AFL better than RL (or any other game for that matter) but just ways I think the great game that is Aussie Rules could improve I have just as many ideas on how RL could improve, and as we proved before with my idea to remove throw ins once bouncing them off other people who also enjoy and understand the game they don't always sound as good as they did before because you reveled flaws to my proposed rules that I may have over looked.

I just wish there were more sensible people in the media who instead of writing crap like the whole code war bullshit (Sydney media) or down right refusing report on all sports unless the story is negative and will harm the sport in question (Melbourne media), would report on all sports and spread the good they do for there community instead of trying to put them at odds.

cheers -

one thing for sure - with the AFL rules committee - there's often discussion about rule tweaks and changes.
The insular elements of AFL land complain about the AFL ruining the game but seem unaware that tweaking is common, the NRL has tweaked away for years, and the IRB weht to town on the ELV's. Soccer hasn't tweak much although the passive off-side and IFK's and DFK's have been nudged here and there.
Point is that no game is perfect and we shouldn't fear change nor change just for the sake of it.
so, thanks for engaging in serious discussion.

 

[The Great Dane]

cheers -

one thing for sure - with the AFL rules committee - there's often discussion about rule tweaks and changes.
The insular elements of AFL land complain about the AFL ruining the game but seem unaware that tweaking is common, the NRL has tweaked away for years, and the IRB weht to town on the ELV's. Soccer hasn't tweak much although the passive off-side and IFK's and DFK's have been nudged here and there.
Point is that no game is perfect and we shouldn't fear change nor change just for the sake of it.
so, thanks for engaging in serious discussion.

Any time.

Thank you as well, The Great Dane.

 

[Gidley Up]

This guy Israel Folau from GWS Giants looks like he has all the attributes to be a serviceable player in league.

 

[Twizzle]

he'll look OK in blue and gold

 

[Munro_Mick]

Any time.

Thank you as well, The Great Dane.

you can have him.

He fits the old idiom of "Built like Tarzan, plays like Jane".

On the paddock he's too slow, where the ball ain't, indecisive, lacks awareness.....

....does that fit the bill?
;-)

 

[Teddyboy]

I am not uninitiated and do like and watch AFL (even though I do not follow a specific team, I would if there was truly one in Canberra), you must admit that there are only two things you have to be aware of in AFL and they are the ball and the goalposts. In RL you have to be aware of every movement on the field from were the ball and posts are respective to you to were the ref is.

The truth is (in my opinion) AFL could be a much better game with a thew small changes such as allowing true tackling not the sort of weak fingers (fingers/fairy tackling is when you tackle a person with your arms reached out and don't use your shoulder, its very hard to tackle this way) tackling they do now (I understand that there is no rule that says you can not use the shoulder I am suggesting encouraging the use of the shoulder in tackles by change the dangerous tackle rules) witch would make for better defensive structure and a more exciting game.

The other rule I would change is throw ins, instead of throw ins I would change the rule to the last player who touched balls team loses the ball (the same as RL) once again forcing better defensive structure and this will also make all players more aware of boundary line and fear going out because they will defiantly lose the ball.

Other rule would be to allow players not to bounce the ball when they are on a run.

 

[Munro_Mick]

Other rule would be to allow players not to bounce the ball when they are on a run.

This rule was wrestled with in the early days/years of the game.

Back then, when they did settle upon the notion of the bounce requirement they still tended to have a midfield 'kick off' with both sides starting at opposing ends before finally moving across the field into positions.

Personally I like the degree of difficulty that it brings into a foot race towards the goals - you gotta run, gotta bounce and maintain pace and then settle and kick.
Even in general play a highlight of the GF this year was Lewis Jetta burning off Cyril Rioli with 4 bounces and the Lance Franklin bouncing run around the boundary a couple of years back v Ess followed with drilled goal put to shame say Greg Inglis simply running in a straight line with the only requirement to put ball on ground (the NRL commentators gushed over the slow mo replay and described him as a 'Rolls Royce'.....a tad over the top I thought at the time).

The rule I reckon that could be reviewed is most goals to win - i.e. behinds ONLY used to separate teams equal on goals.
That way, if a team kicks 12.20 to 13.5, the team with 13 goals wins. Presently it'd be 92 v 83 in favour of the wasteful side.

However - the Rugby codes have become points accumulation games and so I can live with Aust Footy also being a points accumulation rather than just most goals. Most goals would be like soccer - and have a final scoreline simply of 13 v 12 instead of 78 v 72.

 

[papabear]

This rule was wrestled with in the early days/years of the game.

Back then, when they did settle upon the notion of the bounce requirement they still tended to have a midfield 'kick off' with both sides starting at opposing ends before finally moving across the field into positions.

Personally I like the degree of difficulty that it brings into a foot race towards the goals - you gotta run, gotta bounce and maintain pace and then settle and kick.
Even in general play a highlight of the GF this year was Lewis Jetta burning off Cyril Rioli with 4 bounces and the Lance Franklin bouncing run around the boundary a couple of years back v Ess followed with drilled goal put to shame say Greg Inglis simply running in a straight line with the only requirement to put ball on ground (the NRL commentators gushed over the slow mo replay and described him as a 'Rolls Royce'.....a tad over the top I thought at the time).

The rule I reckon that could be reviewed is most goals to win - i.e. behinds ONLY used to separate teams equal on goals.
That way, if a team kicks 12.20 to 13.5, the team with 13 goals wins. Presently it'd be 92 v 83 in favour of the wasteful side.

However - the Rugby codes have become points accumulation games and so I can live with Aust Footy also being a points accumulation rather than just most goals. Most goals would be like soccer - and have a final scoreline simply of 13 v 12 instead of 78 v 72.

rugby league the skill is in beating the opposing team defensive line, not running fast in the backfield. The defensive skill is obviously keeping your line intact.

Crapping on about lewis jettas run as the highlight of the GF in terms of skill is pathetic. Isn't rioli a fair bit heavier and slower then him, also they would have had different amounts of time on the field and run different amounts. I am sure plenty of athletes who have never played a game of AFL in their life could learn to run and bounce a sherrin and after a fday or two of training also out run rioli. Skill my bung hole.

 

[Munro_Mick]

rugby league the skill is in beating the opposing team defensive line, not running fast in the backfield. The defensive skill is obviously keeping your line intact.

All field games require defensive structures to be maintained as well as possible, and all field games see the rebound out of attack due to a quick turnover as the greatest point of weakness.
It's all about space and dangerous space varies from game to game.

Crapping on about lewis jettas run as the highlight of the GF in terms of skill is pathetic. Isn't rioli a fair bit heavier and slower then him, also they would have had different amounts of time on the field and run different amounts.

Rioli is about 175 cm and 80 kg and Jetta 181 cm and 75 kg. On pure numbers you might be right but obviously a lot of factors come into it - running technique of course makes up for a lot. The 'handicapper' in this case forces Jetta to bounce and then to use the ball (in this case kick effectively to a team mate up field) at the end of that in some manner other than tapping it on the ground. Believe me - that is harder than you might think.

I am sure plenty of athletes who have never played a game of AFL in their life could learn to run and bounce a sherrin and after a fday or two of training also out run rioli. Skill my bung hole.

Simple answer is 'No'. That would be like saying that surely any athlete around the world could be taught to run in and bowl fast in cricket in a couple of days.
While rhythm is a greater factor in bowling fast in cricket - the general concept is that the even relatively simple sporting bio-mechanics become difficult under the realy pressure and the duress of fatique of a match situation.
So, yeah, perhaps we can teach said athlete to jog around the boundary at training bouncing the ball back reasonably successfully. That's only the starting point. Not the end game.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Simple answer is 'No'. That would be like saying that surely any athlete around the world could be taught to run in and bowl fast in cricket in a couple of days.
While rhythm is a greater factor in bowling fast in cricket - the general concept is that the even relatively simple sporting bio-mechanics become difficult under the realy pressure and the duress of fatique of a match situation.
So, yeah, perhaps we can teach said athlete to jog around the boundary at training bouncing the ball back reasonably successfully. That's only the starting point. Not the end game.

Sorry, you're comparing bouncing a football to bowling a cricket ball? :lol:

 

[Munro_Mick]

Sorry, you're comparing bouncing a football to bowling a cricket ball? :lol:

Yes.

Given that I coach Under 10s cricket and Auskick, the capacity for the unco kids to struggle immensley with any skill that requires balance, co-ordination and being on the correct 'foot'.

Bowling a cricket ball is more comparable to kicking a footy in that respect - I acknowledge it's a bit of a stretch to bouncing the ball on the run.

However - the need for timing, and a combination of actions - it's the old rubbing your tummy and patting your head thing. For a lot of kids it seems to be so foreign (until it finally clicks). And of course - there are those who are absolute naturals (probably at just about any sport).

 

[Twizzle]

U/10s cricket and Auskick ?

great qualifications you have there

 

[Munro_Mick]

U/10s cricket and Auskick ?

great qualifications you have there

Given that that's where my children are playing,

then do you have some sort of issue with that??

I really have no idea what sort of person you are but you come across as sanctimonious (btw - I spelled it correctly on first try without googling) judgemental twat to make such a belittling and smart rrrrr's'd comment about that.

 

[Twizzle]

if only I was an U/10 coach and were as wise as you oh great supercoach

seriously, U/10 cricket is a modified game, its not ever real cricket and no one bounces the ball in Auskick, its not even real AFL

fmd