Saad ordered to speed up

[kosifantutti]

PROMISING St Kilda forward Ahmed Saad has been forced to change his goalkicking routine because of a clampdown on players taking too long kicking for goal.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... z2M6fftHat

[mr six o'clock]

No worries !

but it's still ok for buddy to deviate 5 metres off his line .

[Devilhead]

No worries !

but it's still ok for buddy to deviate 5 metres off his line .

Leave Dumetriou's two strike Golden Child out of this

[matrix]

mark/crumb (play on) snap, goal

doesnt need a set shot
learn from the master

[saintspremiers]

mark/crumb (play on) snap, goal

doesnt need a set shot
learn from the master

I'm sure if the ball sponsor offered to pay a few thou more to get there image on screen for longer Saad would be afforded all the time in the world.

[Life Long Saint]

Why don't they just stop the clock when a player is taking a set shot?
Then it doesn't matter how long they take.

Goal kicking accuracy is the one area of the game that has not had any significant improvement over time. With silly rules like this it's no wonder.
Another brainless initiative by the rules committee to justify their own existence.

They claim the game is too fast and they bring in rules/interpretations to fatigue the players instead of letting players recover naturally through stoppages like shots at goal, kick-ins, ball-ups and throw-ins.

[GrumpyOne]

Why don't they just stop the clock when a player is taking a set shot?
Then it doesn't matter how long they take.

The best football idea I have heard in a long time.

[thejiggingsaint]

+1 However, I must admit that Ahmed has my heart in my mouth at times with that "run" up! I don't have a problem with the AFL doing this IF it's applied to EVERY player taking a set shot. Lifelong, I reckon you're spot on the money with your idea!

[SainterK]

Maybe the league doesn't know how to approach someone who is accurate?

[plugger66]

Why don't they just stop the clock when a player is taking a set shot?
Then it doesn't matter how long they take.

Goal kicking accuracy is the one area of the game that has not had any significant improvement over time. With silly rules like this it's no wonder.
Another brainless initiative by the rules committee to justify their own existence.

They claim the game is too fast and they bring in rules/interpretations to fatigue the players instead of letting players recover naturally through stoppages like shots at goal, kick-ins, ball-ups and throw-ins.

The game goes to long anyway in a lot of peoples eyes and it isnt the sole reason for this anyway. The clock is stopped after a point but they only give them 6 seconds to kick out. They want the game to be continuous so players get more tired so there is less people around the ball which I would expect most people want. If the clock stopped the players would rest even more which would mean more people around the ball. 30 seconds is plenty.

[gringo]

I just want one season where the AFL just go the rules are ok- lets leave them alone. Bartlett was going on about how fans want the rules? Who are they?

[plugger66]

I just want one season where the AFL just go the rules are ok- lets leave them alone. Bartlett was going on about how fans want the rules? Who are they?

There was no rule changes last year and on another thread you suggested rule changes.

[Life Long Saint]

Why don't they just stop the clock when a player is taking a set shot?
Then it doesn't matter how long they take.

Goal kicking accuracy is the one area of the game that has not had any significant improvement over time. With silly rules like this it's no wonder.
Another brainless initiative by the rules committee to justify their own existence.

They claim the game is too fast and they bring in rules/interpretations to fatigue the players instead of letting players recover naturally through stoppages like shots at goal, kick-ins, ball-ups and throw-ins.

The game goes to long anyway in a lot of peoples eyes and it isnt the sole reason for this anyway. The clock is stopped after a point but they only give them 6 seconds to kick out. They want the game to be continuous so players get more tired so there is less people around the ball which I would expect most people want. If the clock stopped the players would rest even more which would mean more people around the ball. 30 seconds is plenty.

Who says the game goes too long? Nobody that I know thinks that.

Personally, I think the six second rule is ludicrous.
The clock has stopped...Who gives a flying continental how long the player takes to kick it in. The longer he takes, the more likelihood of a turnover from the kick-in.
The thirty second rule is pointless...If they let it go then it would all even out anyway. Some players like to kick quickly as if they linger too long they over think the kick and miss...Others like to go through a routine.
The problem was that you could waste time taking too long to kick at goal. If you stop the clock while they're kicking that issue goes away.

This is the major issue I have with these new rules/interpretations...They are not trying to stamp out loopholes in the games where coaches are instructing players to go outside the spirit of the game. They are trying to make the players more tired. Leading to a drop in the skills and clubs being forced to rest players. Not the right outcome.

[mullet]

Holy smoke! Yep lets stop this absolute blite on the game!

BTW its ok to take drugs if you fess up afterwards. And inject players against their will.

But taking too long to kick for goal, it just hurts the game!

[plugger66]

Holy smoke! Yep lets stop this absolute blite on the game!

BTW its ok to take drugs if you fess up afterwards. And inject players against their will.

But taking too long to kick for goal, it just hurts the game!

Under that loic we would never change the game. Of course those things are worse but if the game can be improved why not. The longer players get to rest allows more players around the ball. Im pretty sure most people dont want 30 players around the ball and that is why they are trying to make play more continuous.

[gringo]

I just want one season where the AFL just go the rules are ok- lets leave them alone. Bartlett was going on about how fans want the rules? Who are they?

There was no rule changes last year and on another thread you suggested rule changes.

I suggested it's inevitable based on the fact that brain trauma will kill the sports ability to function if they get their arses sued off. I would rather them actually just come out and say " we have evidence of a problem we will fix it once and for all " instead of tinkering with little rules that make the game more confusing for outside audiences because of trivial interpretations on unimportant aspects of the game.

Bartlett says he want to give the fans what they want. I want to watch footy, good bad or ordinary. Fans are idiots that think they know what they want, the game develops and changes as systems and game plans become more sophisticated. Just because you loved old school 1970s footy doesn't mean you can just tinker the rules so the game submits to your whims.

[evertonfc]

To be fair, he takes about 3 minutes to take the shot...

I've got no objections.

[Life Long Saint]

To be fair, he takes about 3 minutes to take the shot...

I've got no objections.

He probably takes no more than 40 seconds.
If the clock is stopped and he kicks the goal then why should it matter how long he takes?

Maybe, in the spirit of not lengthening the time it takes to play the game, we should abandon the mandatory delay for the TV channel to finish its commercial break before recommencing the play.
Because you only need to listen to the crowd to know that frustrates them more than Saad taking 10 seconds longer than the allotted 30 seconds to kick at the goals.

[desertsaint]

Isn't this the Matthew Lloyd rule - the one that didn't seem to actually apply to Lloyd himself?

[plugger66]

To be fair, he takes about 3 minutes to take the shot...

I've got no objections.

He probably takes no more than 40 seconds.
If the clock is stopped and he kicks the goal then why should it matter how long he takes?

Maybe, in the spirit of not lengthening the time it takes to play the game, we should abandon the mandatory delay for the TV channel to finish its commercial break before recommencing the play.
Because you only need to listen to the crowd to know that frustrates them more than Saad taking 10 seconds longer than the allotted 30 seconds to kick at the goals.

Yep lets do that and the TV rights drop so we lose a couple of clubs or we just make it 30 seconds. Pretty sure every player could handle it. And lets give them a minute to kick out so the players recover and we can get 36 around the ball. Look I dont like every rule that is brought in but i do think that 30 seconds is plenty and especially like the idea of 80 interchanges because it should stop as many packs forming and test out the coaches skills on how to use them.

[Dr Spaceman]

Lets' face it, if he wasn't one of ours we'd all be saying he takes way too long.

[Life Long Saint]

To be fair, he takes about 3 minutes to take the shot...

I've got no objections.

He probably takes no more than 40 seconds.
If the clock is stopped and he kicks the goal then why should it matter how long he takes?

Maybe, in the spirit of not lengthening the time it takes to play the game, we should abandon the mandatory delay for the TV channel to finish its commercial break before recommencing the play.
Because you only need to listen to the crowd to know that frustrates them more than Saad taking 10 seconds longer than the allotted 30 seconds to kick at the goals.

Yep lets do that and the TV rights drop so we lose a couple of clubs or we just make it 30 seconds. Pretty sure every player could handle it. And lets give them a minute to kick out so the players recover and we can get 36 around the ball. Look I dont like every rule that is brought in but i do think that 30 seconds is plenty and especially like the idea of 80 interchanges because it should stop as many packs forming and test out the coaches skills on how to use them.

More than half of the games each week do not even have commercial breaks after goals. So where does that leave your argument?
There are other ways to satisfy the commercial interests and still have an uninterrupted quarter.

All I am saying is that if the the logic of why they are enforcing a 30 second time limit on a shot at goal pertains to length of the game then it is fundamentally flawed. Because there are many other areas where they could cut time.
- Recalling the footy after it's been kicked because the kicker in the back pocket needed to move half a step to his left to be put on the correct angle. Really efficient use time, that one.
- The ridiculous goal line reviews that almost always prove inconclusive and end up going with what the goal umpire thought anyway.
- Re-bouncing the ball at the centre square because the umpire failed to execute the one ball skill they have to perform. Throw the thing up all the time and that goes away.
I could go on but that should allow you to get the gist.

[Life Long Saint]

Lets' face it, if he wasn't one of ours we'd all be saying he takes way too long.

Only because he'd be wasting time.
Stop the clock and it's a non-issue.

[plugger66]

He probably takes no more than 40 seconds.
If the clock is stopped and he kicks the goal then why should it matter how long he takes?

Maybe, in the spirit of not lengthening the time it takes to play the game, we should abandon the mandatory delay for the TV channel to finish its commercial break before recommencing the play.
Because you only need to listen to the crowd to know that frustrates them more than Saad taking 10 seconds longer than the allotted 30 seconds to kick at the goals.

Yep lets do that and the TV rights drop so we lose a couple of clubs or we just make it 30 seconds. Pretty sure every player could handle it. And lets give them a minute to kick out so the players recover and we can get 36 around the ball. Look I dont like every rule that is brought in but i do think that 30 seconds is plenty and especially like the idea of 80 interchanges because it should stop as many packs forming and test out the coaches skills on how to use them.

More than half of the games each week do not even have commercial breaks after goals. So where does that leave your argument?
There are other ways to satisfy the commercial interests and still have an uninterrupted quarter.

All I am saying is that if the the logic of why they are enforcing a 30 second time limit on a shot at goal pertains to length of the game then it is fundamentally flawed. Because there are many other areas where they could cut time.
- Recalling the footy after it's been kicked because the kicker in the back pocket needed to move half a step to his left to be put on the correct angle. Really efficient use time, that one.
- The ridiculous goal line reviews that almost always prove inconclusive and end up going with what the goal umpire thought anyway.
- Re-bouncing the ball at the centre square because the umpire failed to execute the one ball skill they have to perform. Throw the thing up all the time and that goes away.
I could go on but that should allow you to get the gist.

What games dont have commercial breaks? You do realise a lot of foxtel games are shown on free to air in some states. Yes some of those things could be changed. Have no idea what that has to do with 30 seconds in kicking for goal though. I will ask you this question and I would hope for an honest response. Did you ever get annoyed with how long Lloyd took to get for goal as it seems most opposition fans did. Well the Saints ones did anyway.

And what are the other ways to satify commercial interests? Im sure free to air TV would like to hear about them and still pay the same money.

[saintspremiers]

Lets' face it, if he wasn't one of ours we'd all be saying he takes way too long.

Only because he'd be wasting time.
Stop the clock and it's a non-issue.

Still an issue as the more you stop the clock the longer the game goes in real time!