Discussion General Discussion
- Thread starter Impromptu
- Start date
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.
Yes again, my tunnel vision was trying to only focus on logic, not emotion.
Yes, logic and emotion does co-exist, we are humans, not robots ay, but decisions should be based on logic.
Yes, you have logically explained the problem of 'allowing a goal to be counted if it was touched', basically that is what I was after, well done!. You explained it so well, that I withdraw the suggested rule change.
But I still think the ball touching the goal post should count as a goal
Yeah, it is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your detailed input. The discussion had a lot of emotion in it, which is totally understandable, but the emotion seemed to be getting in the way of the logic. I was after a logical reason.
Yes again, my tunnel vision was trying to only focus on logic, not emotion.
Yes, logic and emotion does co-exist, we are humans, not robots ay, but decisions should be based on logic.
Yes, you have logically explained the problem of 'allowing a goal to be counted if it was touched', basically that is what I was after, well done!. You explained it so well, that I withdraw the suggested rule change.
But I still think the ball touching the goal post should count as a goal
Yes again, my tunnel vision was trying to only focus on logic, not emotion.
Yes, logic and emotion does co-exist, we are humans, not robots ay, but decisions should be based on logic.
Yes, you have logically explained the problem of 'allowing a goal to be counted if it was touched', basically that is what I was after, well done!. You explained it so well, that I withdraw the suggested rule change.
But I still think the ball touching the goal post should count as a goal
I feel if one took the emotion out of it then it'd be the death of the game.
It mirrors life. Sometimes it's fair, other times it isn't.
I feel it should stay just the way it is.
Football is very emotional, I'm not the best person to be around when watching a game, my wife says
I'm trying to say, when it comes down to making rules, emotions should take a back seat to logic.
I'm trying to say, when it comes down to making rules, emotions should take a back seat to logic.
Keep the game unique and our rules should support this.
It's Australian Rules Football and changing it to simplify it for an overseas audience would do our game a disservice I feel.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 19,855
- Likes
- 929
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I tried once to delete my SC account about 3 years back from memory. They make it too hard, you got to go through Herald-Sun and Virtual sports hoops, so you better off just keeping SC account like I did and play out season looking for ways to somehow have slim hope of winning weekly prize if your team stuffed early in season from 5 or 6 forced injury trades and lost cash.
This is interesting and a little concerning as a new NN owner.
————————
Eagles coach Adam Simpson raised concerns about the hardness of the surface this week after several players suffered lower-leg injuries so far this season.
"I don't think we'll let it go because in the end the safety of our players is our No.1 priority," Simpson said.
"I'm just aware of a couple of things with our playing group and teams that play here, how they're pulling up.
"It's not to say it's Optus Stadium's fault but we're pulling up a little bit sorer than we normally do, so we're just investigating why and letting them know that's happening.
"I'm sure they'll work through it. We want a really good relationship with the stadium – it's our home ground – and we're doing everything we can to make that work."
Dockers coach Ross Lyon said the surface was in the "acceptable range for the AFL", although it was harder than Domain Stadium.
"It's a work in progress. It's acceptable," Lyon said.
"We're handling it quite well, but we've been on there less (than the Eagles) because they couldn't train at Domain, is my understanding."
————————
Eagles coach Adam Simpson raised concerns about the hardness of the surface this week after several players suffered lower-leg injuries so far this season.
"I don't think we'll let it go because in the end the safety of our players is our No.1 priority," Simpson said.
"I'm just aware of a couple of things with our playing group and teams that play here, how they're pulling up.
"It's not to say it's Optus Stadium's fault but we're pulling up a little bit sorer than we normally do, so we're just investigating why and letting them know that's happening.
"I'm sure they'll work through it. We want a really good relationship with the stadium – it's our home ground – and we're doing everything we can to make that work."
Dockers coach Ross Lyon said the surface was in the "acceptable range for the AFL", although it was harder than Domain Stadium.
"It's a work in progress. It's acceptable," Lyon said.
"We're handling it quite well, but we've been on there less (than the Eagles) because they couldn't train at Domain, is my understanding."
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 11,740
- Likes
- 34,741
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Yeah it is a little concerning for our players, To have both Ryan & Venables go down with nearly the exact same long-term injury in consecutive weeks is concerning. And also to have players pulling up sorer than normal as well. But I guess it's probably no different to teams that play Etihad nearly every week as that is a very hard surface.
Simmo doesn't usually get fired up in public about things, so hopefully they are working on trying to make the ground softer.
Simmo doesn't usually get fired up in public about things, so hopefully they are working on trying to make the ground softer.
