Discussion General Discussion
- Thread starter Impromptu
- Start date
Agree, hard to be perfect. (Without a 'perfected' high tech system), there will always be the problem 'did the whole ball cross the line'. That can happen now, so my original suggestion is not adding to a problem. My original suggestion "If a KICKED ball goes between the 2 goal sticks, it's a goal, REGARDLESS if it was touched or it touched a goal post" is still more simplified and practical.
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,968
- Likes
- 11,084
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Football is a terrific high scoring game with a well balanced system of scoring and rules which results (more often than not) in an exciting outcome.
Soccer is a low scoring game which generates its own tension but is a completly different (and in my opinion inferior) game to AFL. If goals weren't allowed in soccer from deflections then there would be almost zero goals scored ever and many more games would be Drawn than currenly happens.
Completely different games and rules - no need to change the AFL scoring system in my opinion.
Soccer is a low scoring game which generates its own tension but is a completly different (and in my opinion inferior) game to AFL. If goals weren't allowed in soccer from deflections then there would be almost zero goals scored ever and many more games would be Drawn than currenly happens.
Completely different games and rules - no need to change the AFL scoring system in my opinion.
I'm not comparing AFL to Soccer, no, just comparing the ball crossing the goal line.
Humans in general don't like change, I don't like change, but sometimes change is necessary for all sorts of reasons.
The AFL have been changing rules in the past years for the betterment of the game, some not popular, but the game is improving (according to the attendances).
By the way, I like your comment "If goals weren't allowed in soccer from deflections then there would be almost zero goals"
Humans in general don't like change, I don't like change, but sometimes change is necessary for all sorts of reasons.
The AFL have been changing rules in the past years for the betterment of the game, some not popular, but the game is improving (according to the attendances).
By the way, I like your comment "If goals weren't allowed in soccer from deflections then there would be almost zero goals"
Bermi, i will try to explain my view that what you propose would destroy the game. let me start with a qualification to my comment, and that is "as we know it".
aussie rules is not, per se, AFL. the afl is a corporation whose main objective appears to be, the expansion and increasing popualarity hence revenue of their league. the greatest players in the country gravitatate to the afl because the challenge, competition and rewards are the highest for their chosen sport in the nation. these players have grown up with the game, and have been coached/mentored/inspired by previous generations of footballers.
there is an essence in footy that many, if not most fans of the game do not want messed with. the contest is sacred. bravery is paramount. skill the coup de grais of the consummate player. and marking is as intrinsic to aussie rules as anything else.
the essence of the game can be further related to the shape of the ball itself, and the fact that we can use our hands. this brings height into the kicking framework, and this is why the ball must not be touched on the way through goal to score 6 points. there is no real excuse not to get it through untouched given the height and distance and variety of shapes to the kick that can be achieved. not to mention the dribble kicks that turn corners : ]
as stephen said, to score any ball that goes through the big sticks as a goal would result in completely different play within the 50 metre arc, and especially within 10-15 metres of goal. we would see less marking contests, less gloriously skilled shots from the boundary sailing through, we would end up with a fist-fest at the top of the square, with long bombs not even attempting to be put through, just set up like a volleyball for the best "spiker" to knock through. and, in that when something changes it is no longer what it was, i would call that destroying the game at an essential level.
as to the afl and its continual tinkering for the sake of spectacle- it is arguable that they have improved the game. most people i know are sick and tired of the pet rule, over-umpiring and cringe at the score review. is the corporate aspect of the afl at odds [pardon the pun] with the essence of the game? i feel that it is. surely the fact that millions each week are on the line thru gambling has entrenched the score review into our beloved game. the way i see it, the constant changes like the deliberate out of bounds rule, this encroachment 50-metre rubbish etc is enough for most fans of the game to put up with- to change the definition of a goal would quite possibly be the last straw.
lastly, the change thing. sometimes people resist change not because they don't like change, but because they believe in the preservation of something.
the above ramble is my take on it, apologies for the clumsy writing
aussie rules is not, per se, AFL. the afl is a corporation whose main objective appears to be, the expansion and increasing popualarity hence revenue of their league. the greatest players in the country gravitatate to the afl because the challenge, competition and rewards are the highest for their chosen sport in the nation. these players have grown up with the game, and have been coached/mentored/inspired by previous generations of footballers.
there is an essence in footy that many, if not most fans of the game do not want messed with. the contest is sacred. bravery is paramount. skill the coup de grais of the consummate player. and marking is as intrinsic to aussie rules as anything else.
the essence of the game can be further related to the shape of the ball itself, and the fact that we can use our hands. this brings height into the kicking framework, and this is why the ball must not be touched on the way through goal to score 6 points. there is no real excuse not to get it through untouched given the height and distance and variety of shapes to the kick that can be achieved. not to mention the dribble kicks that turn corners : ]
as stephen said, to score any ball that goes through the big sticks as a goal would result in completely different play within the 50 metre arc, and especially within 10-15 metres of goal. we would see less marking contests, less gloriously skilled shots from the boundary sailing through, we would end up with a fist-fest at the top of the square, with long bombs not even attempting to be put through, just set up like a volleyball for the best "spiker" to knock through. and, in that when something changes it is no longer what it was, i would call that destroying the game at an essential level.
as to the afl and its continual tinkering for the sake of spectacle- it is arguable that they have improved the game. most people i know are sick and tired of the pet rule, over-umpiring and cringe at the score review. is the corporate aspect of the afl at odds [pardon the pun] with the essence of the game? i feel that it is. surely the fact that millions each week are on the line thru gambling has entrenched the score review into our beloved game. the way i see it, the constant changes like the deliberate out of bounds rule, this encroachment 50-metre rubbish etc is enough for most fans of the game to put up with- to change the definition of a goal would quite possibly be the last straw.
lastly, the change thing. sometimes people resist change not because they don't like change, but because they believe in the preservation of something.
the above ramble is my take on it, apologies for the clumsy writing
Bermi, i will try to explain my view that what you propose would destroy the game. let me start with a qualification to my comment, and that is "as we know it".
aussie rules is not, per se, AFL. the afl is a corporation whose main objective appears to be, the expansion and increasing popualarity hence revenue of their league. the greatest players in the country gravitatate to the afl because the challenge, competition and rewards are the highest for their chosen sport in the nation. these players have grown up with the game, and have been coached/mentored/inspired by previous generations of footballers.
there is an essence in footy that many, if not most fans of the game do not want messed with. the contest is sacred. bravery is paramount. skill the coup de grais of the consummate player. and marking is as intrinsic to aussie rules as anything else.
the essence of the game can be further related to the shape of the ball itself, and the fact that we can use our hands. this brings height into the kicking framework, and this is why the ball must not be touched on the way through goal to score 6 points. there is no real excuse not to get it through untouched given the height and distance and variety of shapes to the kick that can be achieved. not to mention the dribble kicks that turn corners : ]
as stephen said, to score any ball that goes through the big sticks as a goal would result in completely different play within the 50 metre arc, and especially within 10-15 metres of goal. we would see less marking contests, less gloriously skilled shots from the boundary sailing through, we would end up with a fist-fest at the top of the square, with long bombs not even attempting to be put through, just set up like a volleyball for the best "spiker" to knock through. and, in that when something changes it is no longer what it was, i would call that destroying the game at an essential level.
as to the afl and its continual tinkering for the sake of spectacle- it is arguable that they have improved the game. most people i know are sick and tired of the pet rule, over-umpiring and cringe at the score review. is the corporate aspect of the afl at odds [pardon the pun] with the essence of the game? i feel that it is. surely the fact that millions each week are on the line thru gambling has entrenched the score review into our beloved game. the way i see it, the constant changes like the deliberate out of bounds rule, this encroachment 50-metre rubbish etc is enough for most fans of the game to put up with- to change the definition of a goal would quite possibly be the last straw.
lastly, the change thing. sometimes people resist change not because they don't like change, but because they believe in the preservation of something.
the above ramble is my take on it, apologies for the clumsy writing
aussie rules is not, per se, AFL. the afl is a corporation whose main objective appears to be, the expansion and increasing popualarity hence revenue of their league. the greatest players in the country gravitatate to the afl because the challenge, competition and rewards are the highest for their chosen sport in the nation. these players have grown up with the game, and have been coached/mentored/inspired by previous generations of footballers.
there is an essence in footy that many, if not most fans of the game do not want messed with. the contest is sacred. bravery is paramount. skill the coup de grais of the consummate player. and marking is as intrinsic to aussie rules as anything else.
the essence of the game can be further related to the shape of the ball itself, and the fact that we can use our hands. this brings height into the kicking framework, and this is why the ball must not be touched on the way through goal to score 6 points. there is no real excuse not to get it through untouched given the height and distance and variety of shapes to the kick that can be achieved. not to mention the dribble kicks that turn corners : ]
as stephen said, to score any ball that goes through the big sticks as a goal would result in completely different play within the 50 metre arc, and especially within 10-15 metres of goal. we would see less marking contests, less gloriously skilled shots from the boundary sailing through, we would end up with a fist-fest at the top of the square, with long bombs not even attempting to be put through, just set up like a volleyball for the best "spiker" to knock through. and, in that when something changes it is no longer what it was, i would call that destroying the game at an essential level.
as to the afl and its continual tinkering for the sake of spectacle- it is arguable that they have improved the game. most people i know are sick and tired of the pet rule, over-umpiring and cringe at the score review. is the corporate aspect of the afl at odds [pardon the pun] with the essence of the game? i feel that it is. surely the fact that millions each week are on the line thru gambling has entrenched the score review into our beloved game. the way i see it, the constant changes like the deliberate out of bounds rule, this encroachment 50-metre rubbish etc is enough for most fans of the game to put up with- to change the definition of a goal would quite possibly be the last straw.
lastly, the change thing. sometimes people resist change not because they don't like change, but because they believe in the preservation of something.
the above ramble is my take on it, apologies for the clumsy writing
The logical reasons that were put forward, to me, don't seem very strong, eg. RE: ".....within 10-15 metres of goal. we would see less marking contests,........" I haven't got any stats, but I don't remember many pack marks taken by forwards 10-15 meters of goal in a game. Forwards would still be allowed to mark the ball in close.
RE: ".....less gloriously skilled shots from the boundary sailing through,......." I can't see why a player would stop those kicks. Kick the ball through the goals for a certain goal or set it up for a tap, which might be knocked away.
RE: ".....we would end up with a fist-fest at the top of the square,....." Only if a goal kicker can't clear the pack for a certain goal. The defenders are trying to punch the ball away from the forward's mark now anyway.
I can see that the answer is the emotional reasons that seems to stop this rule from changing. I can understand that, as I hate change too when I like something (and used to it) done a certain way. But an 'emotional reason' doesn't mean it is right, or best for the game, but it helps to keep the AFL leaders in their job by keeping popular with the masses
.RE: ".....the change thing. sometimes people resist change not because they don't like change, but because they believe in the preservation of something....." If the world stopped moving forward/progressing, then there would be room for preservation.
RE: ".....the above ramble is my take on it, apologies for the clumsy writing...."
Well written psykro, I liked your 'ramble', thanks.
Thanks for all your replies. I was after a good logical reason/s why the 'aussie rules' goal scoring is not simplified and I have an answer.
The logical reasons that were put forward, to me, don't seem very strong, eg. RE: ".....within 10-15 metres of goal. we would see less marking contests,........" I haven't got any stats, but I don't remember many pack marks taken by forwards 10-15 meters of goal in a game. Forwards would still be allowed to mark the ball in close.
RE: ".....less gloriously skilled shots from the boundary sailing through,......." I can't see why a player would stop those kicks. Kick the ball through the goals for a certain goal or set it up for a tap, which might be knocked away.
RE: ".....we would end up with a fist-fest at the top of the square,....." Only if a goal kicker can't clear the pack for a certain goal. The defenders are trying to punch the ball away from the forward's mark now anyway.
I can see that the answer is the emotional reasons that seems to stop this rule from changing. I can understand that, as I hate change too when I like something (and used to it) done a certain way. But an 'emotional reason' doesn't mean it is right, or best for the game, but it helps to keep the AFL leaders in their job by keeping popular with the masses.
RE: ".....the change thing. sometimes people resist change not because they don't like change, but because they believe in the preservation of something....." If the world stopped moving forward/progressing, then there would be room for preservation.
RE: ".....the above ramble is my take on it, apologies for the clumsy writing...."
Well written psykro, I liked your 'ramble', thanks.
The logical reasons that were put forward, to me, don't seem very strong, eg. RE: ".....within 10-15 metres of goal. we would see less marking contests,........" I haven't got any stats, but I don't remember many pack marks taken by forwards 10-15 meters of goal in a game. Forwards would still be allowed to mark the ball in close.
RE: ".....less gloriously skilled shots from the boundary sailing through,......." I can't see why a player would stop those kicks. Kick the ball through the goals for a certain goal or set it up for a tap, which might be knocked away.
RE: ".....we would end up with a fist-fest at the top of the square,....." Only if a goal kicker can't clear the pack for a certain goal. The defenders are trying to punch the ball away from the forward's mark now anyway.
I can see that the answer is the emotional reasons that seems to stop this rule from changing. I can understand that, as I hate change too when I like something (and used to it) done a certain way. But an 'emotional reason' doesn't mean it is right, or best for the game, but it helps to keep the AFL leaders in their job by keeping popular with the masses
.RE: ".....the change thing. sometimes people resist change not because they don't like change, but because they believe in the preservation of something....." If the world stopped moving forward/progressing, then there would be room for preservation.
RE: ".....the above ramble is my take on it, apologies for the clumsy writing...."
Well written psykro, I liked your 'ramble', thanks.
There is confusion on the 15 metres rule for a mark. Sometime the ball seems to travel well short of the 15 metres but it is called a mark, sometimes the opposite happens: lets simplify the rule and make it a mark whenever the ball travel even if only a few centimeters. Then what about a mark when a ball is touched: Lets simplify this rule again: it doesnt matter if the ball is touched, it is always a mark.
Let's not change rules for the sake of a change.
Bermi, i'm enjoying the discussion mate : ]
not trying to accuse you of tunnel vision here but you do seem to have cherry-picked my reply for the emotional elements and ignored the logical points.
i do not deny, in any way, that i have an emotional attachment to the game, and there is indeed an emotional element to my views. but would you consider it possible that there can be a co-existence of logic and emotion?
let me revisit part of my post concerning the way the aussie rules ball can be kicked compared to, let's use your example, the ways a soccer ball can be kicked. let us bring also into the equation, the size of the goal. now, in soccer, it makes perfect sense to award a deflected kick that enters the goal a full score, as let's face it, the goal is not much higher than a man, so the likelihood of a ball getting through untouched is much lower than in our game.
unlike soccer however, we don't have just one score value, we have two. we can score 1 point or 6 points. the minor score [this term always makes me think of beethoven's moonlight sonata for some reason, but i digress] can be achieved in numerous ways- the ball goes through on the full either side of the goalposts, the ball hits a goal post, rushed etc etc.
so, a ball going through that is not kicked sufficiently well to clear the pack etc, is penalised score-wise because the kicker has failed to achieve the skill level required to put the ball, unmolested, through the goalposts. this is the whole point of the game. if you want the big points, you have to earn them!
i would venture that the massive size of our goal [for all intents and purposes it is infinite in the vertical direction] and the two-tier scoring system are the logical points of difference that underly the existence of our rushed/touched rule. but there is more to it, and it has a lot to do with percentage of difficulty.
at present, the contest continues close to goal- the defenders would rather it go through for a behind while the attacking team is trying to keep it in play in order to score a goal. a rule change would likely see both teams trying to fist it through [one through the behind zone and one through the goal zone] which would be a massive loss of tension and contest to the game., and honestly it would not be footy anymore. if you can't see that i can't make you
also, there are plenty of marking contests close to goal! the percentage kick from the pocket is to the top of the square. that said, it is not the most skilled kick from the pocket. it is attempting to give the attacking team a chance to get a goal from a much better angle, as such it is sacrificing the slim chance for a difficult 6 points in order to create a better chance for an easier 6 points. therefore it should not be rewarded with 6 points if it is punched through. in the extremely competitive big bucks environment of afl, there is no way players would be coached to do anything but kick it to the top of the square from difficult angles- therefore we would lose that skill element from the game. we have already seen the demise of the drop-kick because of it's margin for error. this is not emotion mate, this is cold hard logic.
do you notice how a huge part of tactics in the game is to force forward entries deep to the pockets? you see then, how intrinsic to play across the whole ground this scoring system is? there is a case to be put that the way a goal is ruled to be scored is the seed of the evolution of the game. yes, the game is evolving. but it is evolving according to certain "laws" that have given it it's uniqueness. i would say the way we award 6 points is as essential to footy as gravity to matter.
but yes, as i mentioned, in conjunction with these logical reasons i also have emotional reasons. i admit that my logical arguments are tied to preserving the uniqueness of the game, and i in no way see that as wrong. i think your arguments are tied to simplifying the game, and increasing it's comprehension by "untapped markets".
there is also nothing "wrong" with your view. i think that emotion and logic are not mutually exclusive, and part of what i love about this game is the continual interplay between tactics and skill- the skill to overcome even the best opposition press and the tactics to minimise the effect of even the most sublime skill.
in a way, this is the analogue of emotion and logic : ] if we completely sacrifice one for the other, a tendency toward ****geny results. if we wield both we protect diversity and make sure innovation is not reductionism.
not trying to accuse you of tunnel vision here but you do seem to have cherry-picked my reply for the emotional elements and ignored the logical points.
i do not deny, in any way, that i have an emotional attachment to the game, and there is indeed an emotional element to my views. but would you consider it possible that there can be a co-existence of logic and emotion?
let me revisit part of my post concerning the way the aussie rules ball can be kicked compared to, let's use your example, the ways a soccer ball can be kicked. let us bring also into the equation, the size of the goal. now, in soccer, it makes perfect sense to award a deflected kick that enters the goal a full score, as let's face it, the goal is not much higher than a man, so the likelihood of a ball getting through untouched is much lower than in our game.
unlike soccer however, we don't have just one score value, we have two. we can score 1 point or 6 points. the minor score [this term always makes me think of beethoven's moonlight sonata for some reason, but i digress] can be achieved in numerous ways- the ball goes through on the full either side of the goalposts, the ball hits a goal post, rushed etc etc.
so, a ball going through that is not kicked sufficiently well to clear the pack etc, is penalised score-wise because the kicker has failed to achieve the skill level required to put the ball, unmolested, through the goalposts. this is the whole point of the game. if you want the big points, you have to earn them!
i would venture that the massive size of our goal [for all intents and purposes it is infinite in the vertical direction] and the two-tier scoring system are the logical points of difference that underly the existence of our rushed/touched rule. but there is more to it, and it has a lot to do with percentage of difficulty.
at present, the contest continues close to goal- the defenders would rather it go through for a behind while the attacking team is trying to keep it in play in order to score a goal. a rule change would likely see both teams trying to fist it through [one through the behind zone and one through the goal zone] which would be a massive loss of tension and contest to the game., and honestly it would not be footy anymore. if you can't see that i can't make you
also, there are plenty of marking contests close to goal! the percentage kick from the pocket is to the top of the square. that said, it is not the most skilled kick from the pocket. it is attempting to give the attacking team a chance to get a goal from a much better angle, as such it is sacrificing the slim chance for a difficult 6 points in order to create a better chance for an easier 6 points. therefore it should not be rewarded with 6 points if it is punched through. in the extremely competitive big bucks environment of afl, there is no way players would be coached to do anything but kick it to the top of the square from difficult angles- therefore we would lose that skill element from the game. we have already seen the demise of the drop-kick because of it's margin for error. this is not emotion mate, this is cold hard logic.
do you notice how a huge part of tactics in the game is to force forward entries deep to the pockets? you see then, how intrinsic to play across the whole ground this scoring system is? there is a case to be put that the way a goal is ruled to be scored is the seed of the evolution of the game. yes, the game is evolving. but it is evolving according to certain "laws" that have given it it's uniqueness. i would say the way we award 6 points is as essential to footy as gravity to matter.
but yes, as i mentioned, in conjunction with these logical reasons i also have emotional reasons. i admit that my logical arguments are tied to preserving the uniqueness of the game, and i in no way see that as wrong. i think your arguments are tied to simplifying the game, and increasing it's comprehension by "untapped markets".
there is also nothing "wrong" with your view. i think that emotion and logic are not mutually exclusive, and part of what i love about this game is the continual interplay between tactics and skill- the skill to overcome even the best opposition press and the tactics to minimise the effect of even the most sublime skill.
in a way, this is the analogue of emotion and logic : ] if we completely sacrifice one for the other, a tendency toward ****geny results. if we wield both we protect diversity and make sure innovation is not reductionism.
Below is what I originally said;
"If a KICKED ball goes between the 2 goal sticks, it's a goal, REGARDLESS if it was touched or it touched a goal post.
The simpler the AFL makes the rules, the better chance the AFL game will be understood and accepted overseas."
The conversation is going off the rails a bit, like a) I am not comparing Aussie Rules to Soccer, or b) I said regardless who the ball comes off (an attacker or a defender).
Been thinking that, deliberately punching a ball through between the goal posts, from a kick at goal, does not constitute a kicked goal. I agree.
To decide if the ball was deflected or punched is not making it simpler.
At least, if a KICKED ball goes between the 2 goal sticks, it's a goal, REGARDLESS if it touched a goal post, surely that could be changed.
"If a KICKED ball goes between the 2 goal sticks, it's a goal, REGARDLESS if it was touched or it touched a goal post.
The simpler the AFL makes the rules, the better chance the AFL game will be understood and accepted overseas."
The conversation is going off the rails a bit, like a) I am not comparing Aussie Rules to Soccer, or b) I said regardless who the ball comes off (an attacker or a defender).
Been thinking that, deliberately punching a ball through between the goal posts, from a kick at goal, does not constitute a kicked goal. I agree.
To decide if the ball was deflected or punched is not making it simpler.
At least, if a KICKED ball goes between the 2 goal sticks, it's a goal, REGARDLESS if it touched a goal post, surely that could be changed.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,570
- Likes
- 1,373
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Lots of great discussion here. Not sure about the fisting the kicked ball through for a goal, not a big fan of it. For me, the only way you should be able to score as the offensive team (inside your attacking 50) is through a untouched kicked ball. I will concede that it may make decisions on touched behinds easier to adjudicate on, it’s so hard to tell on the replays sometimes whether the ball was touched or not.
One thing I wouldn’t mind seeing has to do with the ball bitting the goal posts. I support the ball staying live if it falls back into the playing arena after hitting the post. I also think that a goal should be awarded if the ball hits the post and goes through the big posts (and a behind if it goes through the small posts). Would take a lot of the controversy out with balls that go close to the posts and it’s nearly impossible to tell on replays whether it’s actually hit the post or not (especially with dribble kicks).
One thing I wouldn’t mind seeing has to do with the ball bitting the goal posts. I support the ball staying live if it falls back into the playing arena after hitting the post. I also think that a goal should be awarded if the ball hits the post and goes through the big posts (and a behind if it goes through the small posts). Would take a lot of the controversy out with balls that go close to the posts and it’s nearly impossible to tell on replays whether it’s actually hit the post or not (especially with dribble kicks).
AFL rules are very anal in some respects. I.e. compulsively seeking order and tidiness.
Shaving the post is a good example along with stepping over the line with the kick in. I mean...why can't you just step on the freaking line...unless your heel goes over of course.
The other one that comes to mind is hitting the post where the ball rebounds into play. But oh no...this is just way to random for the rules and it must be an anal behind. Haha
Shaving the post is a good example along with stepping over the line with the kick in. I mean...why can't you just step on the freaking line...unless your heel goes over of course.
The other one that comes to mind is hitting the post where the ball rebounds into play. But oh no...this is just way to random for the rules and it must be an anal behind. Haha