What game were the Tigers playing on Saturday?

[lockyno1]

I liked the Wizard Cup rule — marks aren't paid on backward kicks, unless inside the oppostion 50.

Hated that rule. But I do think kicks backwards should be limited to 10 seconds to kick it!

 

[camsmith]

Isn't it like 10 seconds to kick it now?

Seems like 2 seconds before the Ump tells a player to hurry up these days.

 

[lockyno1]

Isn't it like 10 seconds to kick it now?

Seems like 2 seconds before the Ump tells a player to hurry up these days.

Its 30 isn't it? Could be wrong though!

 

[CyberKev]

I liked the Wizard Cup rule — marks aren't paid on backward kicks, unless inside the oppostion 50.

Yep, excellent rule.

I don't know why they didn't bring this one in, rather than run with the instant kick-out newbie.

 

[meltiger]

I like the new kick in rule, although Incomparable has whinged about it this year to me ... Why penalise players for kicking backwards?

FFS people need to stop over reacting. Richmond kicked the ball backwards because Adelaide didn't man up.

End of story.

 

[CyberKev]

I like the new kick in rule, although Incomparable has whinged about it this year to me ... Why penalise players for kicking backwards?

FFS people need to stop over reacting. Richmond kicked the ball backwards because Adelaide didn't man up.

End of story.

Its a great rule and I was spruiking it well before Saturday's game.

AFL football should be about forward attack and greater contested play wherever possible, and eliminating the mark from a backward kick would promote that.

Bring it in.

 

[camsmith]

Eddie where are you?

I knew we had won today as soon as i heard the tired old Geelong supporters going, "bloody Richmond playing basketball" I wonder how many actually watched the Richmond/Adelaide game as opposed to just 'hearing' about it.

It's also funny how opposition fans whine about richmond always 'flooding' (although we do it no more and probably less than most teams) yet for some reason they must go blind or suddenly stop watching the game when their own team floods because we dont hear a word about it from then.

Goooooo the Tigeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

 

[meltiger]

Its a great rule and I was spruiking it well before Saturday's game.

AFL football should be about forward attack and greater contested play wherever possible, and eliminating the mark from a backward kick would promote that.

Bring it in.

Bringing in this rule would do nothing but reward teams who flood.

Would be the worst rule in the history of the game, without question.

 

[meltiger]

It's also funny how opposition fans whine about richmond always 'flooding' (although we do it no more and probably less than most teams) yet for some reason they must go blind or suddenly stop watching the game when their own team floods because we dont hear a word about it from then.

We noticed several long periods in the game on Saturday where there was no more than 2 players in Geelong's attacking half when Richmond had the ball.


Richmond/Wallace ruining the game?


No. It's the coaches who are pushing all of their players forward of the ball who are ruining the spectacle.

 

[Eddie.]

Eddie where are you?

I knew we had won today as soon as i heard the tired old Geelong supporters going, "bloody Richmond playing basketball" I wonder how many actually watched the Richmond/Adelaide game as opposed to just 'hearing' about it.

It's also funny how opposition fans whine about richmond always 'flooding' (although we do it no more and probably less than most teams) yet for some reason they must go blind or suddenly stop watching the game when their own team floods because we dont hear a word about it from then.

Goooooo the Tigeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

Mate my attack was more bought out of frustration of the recent trend in AFl football. I just picked out the most recent game which these tactics were used.

The Tigers are the only team i take a keen interest in with the AFL. They have done bloody well to get back from 0-3 to 5-4. I seem similarities with the NRL Tigers. Lots of great young players, a expearienced coach leading them out of the ruin. Wallace is doing an excellent job. Can be do a Tim Sheens?

 

[camsmith]

Fair enough, my post was bought out of frustration aswell. Frustration at the media and other supporters that had a go at us for employing a tactic that BEAT the flood that Adelaide had on. They're the tactics people should have been talking about. Instead all week most people were criticising Richmond (and IMO their masterful game plan) a game plan that WON us the game ffs.

Anyway thats in the past, Richmond got the win and won last week employing another game plan that worked. I can only hope Wallace can do a Sheens.. but for the moment it would be nice if he could just do a Bellamy and get us into the finals

Im definitely enjoying my footy at the moment and love the fact we have a smart coach who comes to games with a plan to beat the opposition.. something i think we may have been missing in previous years. Saying that, i was enjoying my footy last year aswell.. until about round 13

 

[CyberKev]

Bringing in this rule would do nothing but reward teams who flood.

Would be the worst rule in the history of the game, without question.

????

How would preventing teams from avoiding genuine play by softly going backwards to unmarked targets reward flooding?

At the moment, all it does is reward teams that refrain from playing attacking football.

Allowing players to mark from backward kicks, if anything, is more useful for flooding teams as they end up with extra players down back, and as these players get loose, they find themselves drawing marks from backward passes as players find themselves without free forward options to go to.

Would unquestionably be a fab rule (one of the best ever), and its disappointing that the AFL hasn't already brought it in.

 

[meltiger]

????

How would preventing teams from avoiding genuine play by softly going backwards to unmarked targets reward flooding?

Because if forced to kick forward 100% of the time, forces you to kick the ball into conjested forward lines. The ball would never be marked due to the key forwards being molested by 2-3 opponents every single time.


It is a fundamental change to the game and is not needed.


Once again, you're doing nothing but over reacting to what Richmond did against the Crows ... We beat the flood. All Adelaide had to do was MAN UP FFS and it never would have happened.

 

[CyberKev]

Because if forced to kick forward 100% of the time, forces you to kick the ball into conjested forward lines. The ball would never be marked due to the key forwards being molested by 2-3 opponents every single time.

Except that, once again, you're looking at it from a single side perspective and forgetting that there are two sides on the park. And as I mentioned in the previous email, marks from backward kicks assist flooding sides because they're the ones with loose players free down back and limited options to go to up forward.

Once again, you're doing nothing but over reacting to what Richmond did against the Crows ... We beat the flood. All Adelaide had to do was MAN UP FFS and it never would have happened.

The world doesn't start and end with the Tigers FFS! You're letting your bias overwhelm you on account of a solitary performance. I was spruiking this line long before that particular game. My own side is hardly averse to kicking backwards to defenders, but I find the style is ugly and not conducive to attacking contests. I also don't feel it helps sides develop effectively in the longterm.

 

[lockyno1]

The world doesn't start and end with the Tigers FFS! You're letting your bias overwhelm you on account of a solitary performance. I was spruiking this line long before that particular game. My own side is hardly averse to kicking backwards to defenders, but I find the style is ugly and not conducive to attacking contests. I also don't feel it helps sides develop effectively in the longterm.

What crap Kev! In the end, you MAN UP you can stop the flood! Its not Richmond's or any other teams fault that teams like to play players loose in defence FFS!

 

[meltiger]

And as I mentioned in the previous email, marks from backward kicks assist flooding sides

Richmond 69, Adelaide 66

I beg to differ.

The world doesn't start and end with the Tigers FFS!

No.

But all this 'stop backward kicking' bullsh!t started up again after the Adelaide game.

It's a fundamental change and there is no need for it.