TOPIC: RL coaching school

TheColonel RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #1

TheColonel
Looks like he has instilled his coaching philosophies well.
Login to reply,

Raglan Matt RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #2

Raglan Matt
David King is right for once.

But Fox Footy’s David King believed Clarkson was on the mark when he noted how unrewarded the Hawks’ tackling had gone. Paying more holding the ball free kicks was the place to start.

“We’ve got to open up the game,” King said on Fox Footy’s First Crack. “The umpires have to take control. He’s spot on.
“In round 4, there were 954 tackles laid for 62 holding the balls. That’s six per cent, it’s a shocking percentage. I think he’s right. He pleaded at the end of the press conference, saying please pay them, for us and against us, we’ll adjust.”

Paying those and other free kicks, instead of calling a ball-up, means that players are not able to play chase the stoppage, they have to play to position more. The one thing that will improve the game.
Login to reply,

The_Yeti RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #3

The_Yeti
Perhaps, it's just me but these issues with the 'look of the game' really made it's mark when the A(V)FL started changing the rules and interpretations of the rules which has resulted in massive inconsistencies in the way the game is run.

Perhaps if the rules weren't changed so often and were applied consistently, the game would do what it has done for over 100 years and reach a balance. When you have different rule interpretations for 'ball players / champions' or obvious differences in the way HTB is applied to different teams, MRO / Tribunal decisions etc, the natural reaction will be to go negative to avoid as much of that as possible.

So, rather than address the 500 kg monster in the room, the A(V)FL has decided to look at more rule changes. Well, Kim Jong Gil, you are the problem, not the solution.

Then again, I suppose Victorian footy has to be protected at all costs.
Egurls Suck!
Login to reply,
Raglan Matt said You Beaut

shane RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #4

shane
All they're really saying is that ratings are down. Maybe get people like Anthony Hudson to do more than just tolerate the teams outside the top 4.
Login to reply,

Morgan RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #5

Morgan
The thing I keep coming back to is that for 100 years grounds have stayed the same size, but with increases in professionalism, better grounds and extra rotations players are covering a lot more distance. The net result is that the space players have to operate has effectively shrunk.

Coaching tactics have a role to play, but those tactics (eg, old-school flooding, zoning, numbers at the contest etc) are only available because players can get up and down the ground more. If in 1975 you had asked your 18 guys to run 15km a game on a muddy deck you would have burnt them all out by halftime.

My view has always been that ‘rewarding the tackler’ is contradictory to the spirit of the game – which is to get the ball – but even if you were to double the number of HTB decisions you’re still not addressing the real problem; the tweaking the rules one way then the other is just unhelpful nibbling at the edges.

There haven’t been too many rule changes the last few years, and I’d probably give it another couple of years to see what happens, but I think 16-a-side is inevitable.
Login to reply,
goodie said You Beaut

Docker by the Sea RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #6

Docker by the Sea
Recently I was watching some late 80’s state of origin clashes. I know these may not be truly representative of footy played in that era but from memory, they weren’t vastly different to the footy I watched each weekend in the WAFL.
I remember when the AFL begun its life, it was almost taken as gospel that, the VFL was the epitome of the game. I remember thinking at the time, VFL footy although arguably a harder brand of footy, it was not as enjoyable as WAFL to watch. WAFL was a much more open and free flowing affair. I have always thought this was mainly attributed to climate and ground conditions. This doesn’t appear to be the case as current day ground conditions have never been better. I think maybe this belief shaped the trends followed and, the rules that were adopted in pursuit of the best game.
Anyway while watching these old games one of the most glaring differences I noted, was interpretation of holding the ball/man. How I heard the ruling explained was “the player wasn’t allowed to be impeded until they had control of the footy”. The massive difference I see to current day footy is, players being grabbed scragged and held even before they have taken possession. Immediately, the player with the footy needs to be given more space to make the play. If you impede the player it’s holding the man. Prior opportunity is no longer required, your prior opportunity is while you take control. Once you have control and either don’t release the footy or release it incorrectly it is holding the ball.
I thinks another rule that could be implemented is, third man in is penalised. Currently as soon as a player is tackled or taken to the ground it’s stacks on the mill. The only point to this is to cause a stoppage.
Login to reply,
shirtfront said You Beaut

Corporal Agarn RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #7

Corporal Agarn
Login to reply,

Docker by the Sea RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #8

Docker by the Sea
I didn’t see your post before I posted Morgan but in response to it.
Tightening up on players ability to hold a player until he has control protects the player attacking the ball. Too often now, players are tackled pre-empting possession being taken. The result is the player is tackled as they take possession.
If the player doesn’t have the footy and has disposed of it correctly then you shouldn’t have hold of them. This would actually prohibit the tackle from lingering. I think this would result in less players being taken to ground and a stoppage.
With this interpretation surely the intent of the tackle is to cause a player to have to release the ball to disadvantage it’s no longer an advantage to cause a stoppage.
I watch so many players particularly defenders their first choice is to brace. If this was going to be a free kick they may choose to evade or keep the ball in motion. Consistent forward pressure may result in more goals
Login to reply,

cletus RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #9

cletus
The rubbish that comes out from the coaches on this, is unbelievable!!

Not surprisingly, a 'Scott' is at the forefront of this dribble.

I have long argued for 'long kicking' to somehow be brought back into the game.

When was the last time you saw a long kick in a modern AFL game??

Who was the last person to 'Torpedo it from the guts'...and who was the fellow before that.??

You'll be a long time finding for an answer to that.

Now, who has eliminated 'long kicking' from the game.?? It certainly has not been the rules committee, or any CEO, or any Umpire.

Its the coaches, and theirr constant need to minimize risk, maintain possesion, and be ruled by 'precision' and 'set plays'..

I'm sure a fellow like Morgan will tell me the game has 'moved on from that' and 'evolved'.

Evolved into what?? Because its ancestor was a far superior spectacle than the 'ho hum' stuff we have now!!

You wanna solve congestion...well ..sink the boot into it and kick it over the congestion.

You wanna see forwards stay in the forward half...well, relinquish the screws and give players the freedom to sink the boot into into rather than position up from the boundary, or switching play, or concentrating on getting the ball to a free player 30m out from goal with short, precise kicking.

You wanna see high flying marks again?. Well ,allow 60 m drop punts and 70 m torps to be done.

I mean, most of the current lot are scared to kick from 45 out these days.! They are looking around for someone to pass off to.

The skill is being lost from the game, the game is being changed by its loss.

The only people that have changed it to a game of short passing and 'keepies off' is the smart a...ed coaches.!!

We just what some free flowing footy, and that simply has to come from free thinking coaches, who aren't afraid to 'let players have there heads'.

At the moment its being dulled into a game of gridiron!
Login to reply,

Corporal Agarn RL coaching school 1 week 2 days ago #10

Corporal Agarn
Well one thing's for sure Cletus. Your use of paragraphs has taken Dockerland to a new level. It's the new roman numerals!
Login to reply,
pollyanna, Eggy said You Beaut

Dockermus RL coaching school 1 week 1 day ago #11

Dockermus
I agree with just about every good suggestion already made, but I'd add truly professional umpires, run by a footy umpiring department that's properly independent of the A V FL.
Login to reply,

Redned RL coaching school 1 week 1 day ago #12

Redned
I don't agree with Clarkson.

I see many HTB decisions made where the prior opportunity could only be measured in picoseconds.

Moving from that to "rewarding the tackler" will mean that every tackle earns a free kick which discourages playing the ball, the purpose of the game.

"In round 4, there were 954 tackles laid for 62 holding the balls. That’s six per cent, it’s a shocking percentage".
That is not shocking at all. If there was no prior opportunity, there was an immediate attempt to dispose of the ball legally, and the tackle was legal, there is no free kick. That is the rule.
Login to reply,
DS said You Beaut

pollyanna RL coaching school 1 week 1 day ago #13

pollyanna
Jeff Farmer once said that laying a good tackle was as good, if not better than kicking a goal. If you don't get possession, what's the point in laying a tackle?

Award the tackle, enough of the spilling the ball excuse. Clarko is spot on.
Login to reply,
Raglan Matt, Corporal Agarn, Docker by the Sea said You Beaut

Drubbing RL coaching school 1 week 1 day ago #14

Drubbing
Isn't tackling an opportunity to win the ball back? The way it's umpired these days, it isn't.

It's rewarding the bloke whose held on it, who achieves the aim of stopping play til the reinforcements arrive.
Login to reply,
Corporal Agarn said You Beaut