AFL/AFLW 2022 - It Came Home! - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > AFL/AFLW 2022 - It Came Home!

«‹›54 »

MysticalMachineGun: Apr 5, 2005

snaeksikn posted:

Power bad?

Plenty of injuries from last week, mind. They're a different team without Gray and Aliir

# ? Mar 26, 2022 13:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 11:05

realbez: Mar 23, 2005; Fun Shoe

BrigadierSensible posted:

Hawks vs Blues Grand Final preview next week.

# ? Mar 26, 2022 13:03

monolithburger: Sep 7, 2011

BrigadierSensible posted:

Hawks vs Blues Grand Final preview next week.

The footy gods are really punishing us for our hubris of thinking anything is possible after the Dees' flag, huh?

# ? Mar 26, 2022 22:37

Drunk Canuck: Jan 9, 2010; Robots ruin all the fun of a good adventure.

im enjoying watching brisbane styling on collingwood

# ? Mar 27, 2022 04:25

Windmill Hut: Jul 21, 2008

West Coast had 13 changes before the game, then lost another player in the warmup.

North have lost two players for the game, and have two players on the bench due to the blood rule, so no fit players on the bench.

# ? Mar 27, 2022 04:45

Windmill Hut: Jul 21, 2008

Cool so the AFL is loving with games again by letting players dive forward when being tackled, forcing the tackling player to land on their back. It's garbage.

Hopefully a player gets a bad (but fully recoverable) injury from doing it, and it stops.

# ? Mar 27, 2022 05:21

cmndstab: May 20, 2006; Huge Internet Celebrity!

Windmill Hut posted:

Cool so the AFL is loving with games again by letting players dive forward when being tackled, forcing the tackling player to land on their back. It's garbage.

Hopefully a player gets a bad (but fully recoverable) injury from doing it, and it stops.

You say they're loving with games again, but that's been happening for years, right?

Much like how most of the "protect the head" rules were immediately undermined because players were now even more incentivised to lead with their head.

# ? Mar 27, 2022 08:24

Windmill Hut: Jul 21, 2008

I just feel like it's so much more pronounced this year. In the Dees game last night, a bloke was on his knees in a tackle for a few seconds, and you could actually see the ticking over in his brain of "oh hang on, if i just drive my face into the turf i'll get a free here", and it happened.

Players are smart and will abuse the interpretation of rules when they can. The problem is that umpires have to pay it, even if it's not in the spirit of the game.

# ? Mar 27, 2022 08:38

monolithburger: Sep 7, 2011

Coming home from work and seeing the Saints have kicked 0.3 to 3.0 in the first, and getting stomped in the middle. I'm not even going to bother, gently caress this poo poo.

# ? Mar 27, 2022 08:43

Periphery: Jul 27, 2003; ...

If the Saints can't beat Freo without Fyfe or Mundy then they may as well just give up now and plan how best to gently caress up pick 1 this year.

# ? Mar 27, 2022 09:23

drunkill: Sep 25, 2007; me @ ur posting; Fallen Rib

9thmond has returned, the world is healing

# ? Mar 27, 2022 11:00

Forum Joe: Jun 8, 2001; Every day I'm shuffling!

Ask me about Tasmania!

Thank you, Essendon, for letting Lachie Neale score 204 as captain for the Country Pumpkins (my Goon Golden Spoon team).

# ? Mar 28, 2022 00:23

harperdc: Jul 24, 2007

monolithburger posted:

Coming home from work and seeing the Saints have kicked 0.3 to 3.0 in the first, and getting stomped in the middle. I'm not even going to bother, gently caress this poo poo.

Things got marginally better!!!

Saw the score from my Sainters group chat, and watching the replay now.

# ? Mar 28, 2022 11:12

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

I think it�s hilarious that the AFL finally scheduled a Friday night showdown, and both teams are in the bottom 4 and it�s not even the main broadcast match due to the overlap with another Friday game (which I can�t even remember them doing before)

# ? Mar 29, 2022 01:26

cmndstab: May 20, 2006; Huge Internet Celebrity!

Solemn Sloth posted:

I think it�s hilarious that the AFL finally scheduled a Friday night showdown, and both teams are in the bottom 4 and it�s not even the main broadcast match due to the overlap with another Friday game (which I can�t even remember them doing before)

Wait, really? Two Friday night matches? Why on earth are they doing that?

# ? Mar 29, 2022 01:54

harperdc: Jul 24, 2007

cmndstab posted:

Wait, really? Two Friday night matches? Why on earth are they doing that?

yep, Dees-Dons at the MCG and the Showdown. that's, uh, a choice.

[edit] I wonder if the two AFLW prelim finals have anything to do with it? Both are on Saturday, so maybe they moved one of the men's games forward for TV time on Saturday?

# ? Mar 29, 2022 02:49

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

I think it�s because the AFLW grand final was originally supposed to be played on Saturday until they delayed the prelim because of Collingwood

# ? Mar 29, 2022 05:49

Nutsngum: Oct 9, 2004; I don't think it's nice, you laughing.

Windmill Hut posted:

I just feel like it's so much more pronounced this year. In the Dees game last night, a bloke was on his knees in a tackle for a few seconds, and you could actually see the ticking over in his brain of "oh hang on, if i just drive my face into the turf i'll get a free here", and it happened.

Players are smart and will abuse the interpretation of rules when they can. The problem is that umpires have to pay it, even if it's not in the spirit of the game.

Almost all "in the back" frees are bullshit in the first place. The point is to protect the player from having someone else just piledrive them into the turf and injuring them but people are pinged for otherwise perfectly fine tackles where theyve had non forceful contact with the back once both players are on the ground. I think I saw one on sunday where the player was literally straddling his opponent with basically no weight on him and got pinged for it.

# ? Mar 29, 2022 23:01

monolithburger: Sep 7, 2011

https://twitter.com/stevemay_92/status/1507890350324850693?s=20&t=XMwJzgaJEjDBTbjMd-ZbGg

Huh, never could have guessed that Jack Viney is a weeb.

# ? Mar 30, 2022 00:03

cmndstab: May 20, 2006; Huge Internet Celebrity!

Nutsngum posted:

Almost all "in the back" frees are bullshit in the first place. The point is to protect the player from having someone else just piledrive them into the turf and injuring them but people are pinged for otherwise perfectly fine tackles where theyve had non forceful contact with the back once both players are on the ground. I think I saw one on sunday where the player was literally straddling his opponent with basically no weight on him and got pinged for it.

I feel the same way about almost all HTB-related free kicks. The head-high contact frees are almost induced by the player receiving the tackle, either by deliberately putting their head in harm's way, or by deliberately forcing the opponent's arm to slip over the shoulder. The in-the-back free kicks are usually a result of a player dropping to their belly as soon as they sense contact, sometimes even pinning the tackler's hands and falling forward on purpose. The "player holding the ball in" HTB free kick is almost never actually a result of the player actually diving on the ball.

Most of these free kicks are a solution in search of a problem, that manage to create much worse problems in the process.

# ? Mar 30, 2022 07:48

Nutsngum: Oct 9, 2004; I don't think it's nice, you laughing.

cmndstab posted:

I feel the same way about almost all HTB-related free kicks. The head-high contact frees are almost induced by the player receiving the tackle, either by deliberately putting their head in harm's way, or by deliberately forcing the opponent's arm to slip over the shoulder. The in-the-back free kicks are usually a result of a player dropping to their belly as soon as they sense contact, sometimes even pinning the tackler's hands and falling forward on purpose. The "player holding the ball in" HTB free kick is almost never actually a result of the player actually diving on the ball.

Most of these free kicks are a solution in search of a problem, that manage to create much worse problems in the process.

Its the sudden prevalence of paying "HTB" when the player has absolutely zero prior opportunity that has my goose. Either the player "tried to break the tackle" or "didnt break the tackle enough" which is just absolute garbage either way.

The game is purposely adjudicated to try and make it "more free flowing" whilst ignoring if its fairly adjudicated.

I almost feel like the AFL know this, hence the umpire respect garbage lately to try and stave off the backlash they knew was inevitable.

# ? Mar 30, 2022 08:47

cmndstab: May 20, 2006; Huge Internet Celebrity!

Yes, I can still remember when the whole "you have to show you're making an attempt" garbage came in and thinking, wow, really? Players have to kind of wriggle in the tackle and pretend they're trying to handball?

The issue is, and has always been, that the AFL generally sets out with a goal in mind and then tries to set rules to achieve that goal. We see this in mystery tribunal outcomes, we see this in inconsistently applied draft penalties, and we see it in rule changes. The problem is, the AFL can't just come out and say "we're going to reward teams who play more free-flowing" so instead they do it by setting these various rules that they just hope will penalise congested play.

Where it falls down is that the actual players and coaches don't give a poo poo about what the AFL wants. They just want to win. They'll happily exploit any rules, regardless of how ugly it is, regardless of whether it is actively dangerous to them. They don't give a poo poo, as long as it helps them to win.

Edit: There was a fascinating argument that went on in commentary during the (otherwise unwatchable) Crows vs Collingwood match on the weekend. I'll paraphrase here:

Buckley: Free kick to [player] there, very clever to drop into the tackle at just the right moment to earn the free kick.
Dunstall: Earn the free kick? He's tough, but it's crazy that we laud a player for going out of their way to get hit high.
Buckley: That's modern footy, Jason. What, have you got a problem with, say, Joel Selwood?
Dunstall: Look, if I was building a side, Selwood would be one of the first I would pick. But his tendency to deliberately cause high contact is an issue. Why should a player be rewarded for causing their own high contact?
Buckley: Well that's the rule. It's up to the tackler to have good technique, to ensure they don't go high in the tackle.
Dunstall: If you're a tackler and you go in to tackle someone around the torso, and at the last moment they drop at the knees to force you to get them head-high, how is that the fault of the tackler?

I think Hudson broke the argument up, but Dunstall was right. Tackles happen in a matter of seconds, and if you lay a weak tackle and your opponent dishes off the ball, you've let your team down. If you've gone in for what would be a perfectly legal tackle, but your opponent drops down at the last moment, that shouldn't be the tackler's fault. I'm sure there was a thing a few years back where players who ducked would not only not receive a free kick, but the act of ducking would count as your prior opportunity. But it was never actually adjudicated that way, of course.

cmndstab fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Mar 30, 2022

# ? Mar 30, 2022 10:16

thepokey: Jul 20, 2004; Let me start off with a basket of chips. Then move on to the pollo asado taco.

I'm curious about the discrepancy between frees being paid one way for something like a holding the ball or head high and then not being paid for an almost identical incident soon after. What I'm most curious about is are you more likely to see discrepancy in the decisions when its being called by 2 different umpires, or is 1 umpire as likely to make the 2 different calls?

# ? Mar 30, 2022 10:46

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

thepokey posted:

I'm curious about the discrepancy between frees being paid one way for something like a holding the ball or head high and then not being paid for an almost identical incident soon after. What I'm most curious about is are you more likely to see discrepancy in the decisions when its being called by 2 different umpires, or is 1 umpire as likely to make the 2 different calls?

I think that the combination of 3 field umpires, and the various different angles an umpire can get caught in, how many players end up in the way, etc. make it basically impossible to have a decently informed opinion from watching the tv.

Honestly even with a competent broadcast setup it would be challenging to really get a sense of how the game is going in many respects, with what we�ve got currently there�s no hope.

Also the no dissent change is one of the best things the afl has done in a long time. It took one practice game (well for richmond it took a real game too), and players have completely figured out that it�s not worth it to act like a loving goose. In addition to it setting a better example for junior leagues it got pretty old to see players losing their poo poo at an umpire instead of resetting themselves for the next play.

# ? Mar 30, 2022 14:00

thepokey: Jul 20, 2004; Let me start off with a basket of chips. Then move on to the pollo asado taco.

I feels like 3 different interpretations would have far bigger discrepancies than 1 person but I'd be interested to see if that could be backed up. Not that 1 could do the job these days I guess. On the flip side, if somehow the discrepancies of 1 umpire is similar to 3 then that would be pretty damning

# ? Mar 30, 2022 14:24

Nutsngum: Oct 9, 2004; I don't think it's nice, you laughing.

cmndstab posted:

Yes, I can still remember when the whole "you have to show you're making an attempt" garbage came in and thinking, wow, really? Players have to kind of wriggle in the tackle and pretend they're trying to handball?

The issue is, and has always been, that the AFL generally sets out with a goal in mind and then tries to set rules to achieve that goal. We see this in mystery tribunal outcomes, we see this in inconsistently applied draft penalties, and we see it in rule changes. The problem is, the AFL can't just come out and say "we're going to reward teams who play more free-flowing" so instead they do it by setting these various rules that they just hope will penalise congested play.

Where it falls down is that the actual players and coaches don't give a poo poo about what the AFL wants. They just want to win. They'll happily exploit any rules, regardless of how ugly it is, regardless of whether it is actively dangerous to them. They don't give a poo poo, as long as it helps them to win.

Edit: There was a fascinating argument that went on in commentary during the (otherwise unwatchable) Crows vs Collingwood match on the weekend. I'll paraphrase here:

Buckley: Free kick to [player] there, very clever to drop into the tackle at just the right moment to earn the free kick.
Dunstall: Earn the free kick? He's tough, but it's crazy that we laud a player for going out of their way to get hit high.
Buckley: That's modern footy, Jason. What, have you got a problem with, say, Joel Selwood?
Dunstall: Look, if I was building a side, Selwood would be one of the first I would pick. But his tendency to deliberately cause high contact is an issue. Why should a player be rewarded for causing their own high contact?
Buckley: Well that's the rule. It's up to the tackler to have good technique, to ensure they don't go high in the tackle.
Dunstall: If you're a tackler and you go in to tackle someone around the torso, and at the last moment they drop at the knees to force you to get them head-high, how is that the fault of the tackler?

I think Hudson broke the argument up, but Dunstall was right. Tackles happen in a matter of seconds, and if you lay a weak tackle and your opponent dishes off the ball, you've let your team down. If you've gone in for what would be a perfectly legal tackle, but your opponent drops down at the last moment, that shouldn't be the tackler's fault. I'm sure there was a thing a few years back where players who ducked would not only not receive a free kick, but the act of ducking would count as your prior opportunity. But it was never actually adjudicated that way, of course.

I dont mind the "making an attempt" as ive discovered during football training drills that its almost impossible getting a ball out of someone's arms when they just have it pinned to themselves. Punching at the ball gives the opposition opportunity to extract the ball. The issue is "insufficent or attempt" which is bullshit, they're doing it within the scope of the rules ffs.

The coaching aspect is what makes me laugh when people suggest lowering the players on the field down to 16 to "lower congestion". Are people seriously stupid enough to think that coaches wont pull players from the forward line and back line before the contest? A coach would have to have their head checked if they gave up extra players around the ball as stoppages, youll get pulverised in clearances. So the end result will be even less opportunities to hit up a player with less forwards to kick to (and less backs to man up on them).

You're right about the ducking being a thing years ago thats since been forgotten. Seen many a player leading with the head awarded for it.

# ? Mar 30, 2022 14:26

cmndstab: May 20, 2006; Huge Internet Celebrity!

Solemn Sloth posted:

Also the no dissent change is one of the best things the afl has done in a long time. It took one practice game (well for richmond it took a real game too), and players have completely figured out that it�s not worth it to act like a loving goose. In addition to it setting a better example for junior leagues it got pretty old to see players losing their poo poo at an umpire instead of resetting themselves for the next play.

Agreed. I don't watch a huge amount of rugby, but my wife's parents grew up in Sydney so they're pretty big NRL fans and I'll often catch a game when I'm at their place. I'm always impressed at how little carry-on there is compared to AFL. There's occasionally a bit of it, but for the most part the players just move on to the next play. It's chalk and cheese with what you normally see in the AFL and I'm glad for anything that cuts that poo poo out.

# ? Mar 30, 2022 15:13