The protected area and the new rules.

[Bornadog]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

Funnily I'm not hearing how magnificent the new rules are for scoring.............or that fatigued players score more goals.

Wonder why? It could possibly be because it's all bullshit.

Yes it is BS. Mark my words

[jeemak]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

Yes it is BS. Mark my words

You mark my words!

[Sedat]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

Funnily I'm not hearing how magnificent the new rules are for scoring.............or that fatigued players score more goals.

Wonder why? It could possibly be because it's all bullshit.

There is probably no bigger critic of City Hall than me, but from a very small sample size the aesthetic of the game has improved significantly on the rucking maul/stoppage heavy dross of recent years. The game last night was entertaining to watch despite the low score.

I am less worried about lower scoring than I am about repeatedly seeing upwards of 100 tackles per team and endless stoppages in a heavily crowded area.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

There is probably no bigger critic of City Hall than me, but from a very small sample size the aesthetic of the game has improved significantly on the rucking maul/stoppage heavy dross of recent years. The game last night was entertaining to watch despite the low score.

I am less worried about lower scoring than I am about repeatedly seeing upwards of 100 tackles per team and endless stoppages in a heavily crowded area.

I think there is some merit to the standing the mark rule but I'm not sure about the interchange cap.

I'm with you in that I don't care too much about high scoring and that endless stoppages are the real concern. However I didn't like the spectacle in the latter stages of each quarter last night. Particularly that last quarter. It was painful and dull to watch. Given the first half of quarters were entertaining, I'd put that down to player fatigue. Round 1 symptoms or interchange cap symptoms? Both? I'm not sure.

[Sedat]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

I think there is some merit to the standing the mark rule but I'm not sure about the interchange cap.

I'm with you in that I don't care too much about high scoring and that endless stoppages are the real concern. However I didn't like the spectacle in the latter stages of each quarter last night. Particularly that last quarter. It was painful and dull to watch. Given the first half of quarters were entertaining, I'd put that down to player fatigue. Round 1 symptoms or interchange cap symptoms? Both? I'm not sure.

Yeah, bit of both. Players looked shot late in the match, but in last night's example we definitely (and rightly) shut down the game in the last 5 minutes to preserve our 3 goal lead.

The game on Thursday night was very exciting late in each qtr. Richmond really drove home the benefits of their game plan as the space opened up late in each qtr against a younger and less talented opponent. Teams who run endlessly up and down the arcs to flood back (eg: Collingwood) will not benefit from these new rules at all as the game wears on.

[GVGjr]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

There is probably no bigger critic of City Hall than me, but from a very small sample size the aesthetic of the game has improved significantly on the rucking maul/stoppage heavy dross of recent years. The game last night was entertaining to watch despite the low score.

I am less worried about lower scoring than I am about repeatedly seeing upwards of 100 tackles per team and endless stoppages in a heavily crowded area.

Fully agree, the ball is moving quickly and there is less congestion. Now of course the coaches might start getting the players to flood back more but at the moment it seems to be doing what it was designed for

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

I actually liked what I saw last night and not just because we won.

I think there were 2 50s paid and only 1 was due to the stand rule (Keath). It was correctly applied. The other 50 was simply Duryea outsmarting Josh Thomas to have him chasing when more than 3 metres adrift.

There was definitely less maul in the game but we also showed that you can still defend.

Yes the players got tired, but we have an endurance sport, so surely testing that endurance is part of the contest.

[GVGjr]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

I actually liked what I saw last night and not just because we won.

I think there were 2 50s paid and only 1 was due to the stand rule (Keath). It was correctly applied. The other 50 was simply Duryea outsmarting Josh Thomas to have him chasing when more than 3 metres adrift.

There was definitely less maul in the game but we also showed that you can still defend.

Yes the players got tired, but we have an endurance sport, so surely testing that endurance is part of the contest.

It's a physical contact sport with a lot of running, I don't get the angst of why people are against wanting players to get fatigued.
From memory we had 25 interchanges available to us entering the last quarter meaning every player could come off for a break if needed.

[Sedat]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

It's a physical contact sport with a lot of running, I don't get the angst of why people are against wanting players to get fatigued.
From memory we had 25 interchanges available to us entering the last quarter meaning every player could come off for a break if needed.

Any game where you can have Dustin Martin stationed inside F50 for an entire final qtr one-on-one is a watchable spectacle.

[Hotdog60]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

On Dusty Martin, from those guys that have played a lot of Footy would it be easy enough when tackling Martin to look for his wrist because 9 times out of 10 he goes the fend off and from what I see players are reaching for the body. Grabbing his wrist and holding on would be more effective in tackling then going the body. Just interested in how best to stop him being damaging apart from doing a Matthews on Bruns type scenario.

[Happy Days]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

It was awesome. How good was that 50 for Keath moving back on to the mark? That’ll be in highlights packages for years.

[Topdog]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

Which rule means less mauls?

[Bornadog]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

Which rule means less mauls?

Prior opportunity, boundary umpire just throwing in instead of waiting for rucks, ball up, no waiting for rucks and nominating, third man up to punch ball clear.

All these changes have not helped the situation.

[EasternWest]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

On Dusty Martin, from those guys that have played a lot of Footy would it be easy enough when tackling Martin to look for his wrist because 9 times out of 10 he goes the fend off and from what I see players are reaching for the body. Grabbing his wrist and holding on would be more effective in tackling then going the body. Just interested in how best to stop him being damaging apart from doing a Matthews on Bruns type scenario.

Get Bevo on the phone. Can't believe this has never occurred to anyone .

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

On Dusty Martin, from those guys that have played a lot of Footy would it be easy enough when tackling Martin to look for his wrist because 9 times out of 10 he goes the fend off and from what I see players are reaching for the body. Grabbing his wrist and holding on would be more effective in tackling then going the body. Just interested in how best to stop him being damaging apart from doing a Matthews on Bruns type scenario.

I see what you're saying but it would be very difficult to grab him by the wrists. In any case he still gets his kick off but yeah it might be less damaging. It's just a lower probability of actually being able to grab a hold of his wrists rather than that massive torso.