Talking Footy

I started this thread on another forum a few years ago and it seemed to spark a lengthy and interesting debate. So I thought I would introduce it to you fine people to discuss.

The issue I have with RL as a sport is that the vast majority of possessions are totally uncontested. They are just simple throws from one free player to another with no hint of pressure on the passer or receiver to deliver accurately, other than the penalty of dropping a small throw like a 2 year old, because the opposition is many meters away and protected by off-side.


Where as most team ball sports like Australian Rules, soccer, netball, handball, NFL, Hockey and basketball involve a fascinating and often heated contest for possession. The rules allow for players to compete directly beside one and other, requiring greater skill so the passer can deliver accurately and the receiver to receive cleanly, beating his or her opponent in a one on one contest. The skill level required is MUCH higher because the chance of a turnover is far higher. To win a team must be better at these skills than their opposition.

On many occasions though a turnover will occur due to pressure, poor disposal, poor receiving or just better skills by the defense. It happens in all contested sports and is not a sign of poor skill but a healthy sign of a contest! there is no requirement to have a rule that penalizes an offensive team for failing to execute a successful pass. The mere fact an opposition defensive player is so close to the contest means the ball is inevitably turned over resulting in a suitable penalty without time wasting involved by referee intervention.

This leads me to my final observation: how laughable is it that RL fans call AFL Fumbleball when all they are watching is a contest by two teams for the one ball, as is seen in many team sports. Of course they cannot see how dreadfully boring their game looks because in RL a contest for the ball is all but unheard of, and their skill level is poorer because of it.

Discuss! :D

Xman wrote:

I started this thread on another forum a few years ago and it seemed to spark a lengthy and interesting debate. So I thought I would introduce it to you fine people to discuss.

The issue I have with RL as a sport is that the vast majority of possessions are totally uncontested. They are just simple throws from one free player to another with no hint of pressure on the passer or receiver to deliver accurately, other than the penalty of dropping a small throw like a 2 year old, because the opposition is many meters away and protected by off-side.


Where as most team ball sports like Australian Rules, soccer, netball, handball, NFL, Hockey and basketball involve a fascinating and often heated contest for possession. The rules allow for players to compete directly beside one and other, requiring greater skill so the passer can deliver accurately and the receiver to receive cleanly, beating his or her opponent in a one on one contest. The skill level required is MUCH higher because the chance of a turnover is far higher. To win a team must be better at these skills than their opposition.

On many occasions though a turnover will occur due to pressure, poor disposal, poor receiving or just better skills by the defense. It happens in all contested sports and is not a sign of poor skill but a healthy sign of a contest! there is no requirement to have a rule that penalizes an offensive team for failing to execute a successful pass. The mere fact an opposition defensive player is so close to the contest means the ball is inevitably turned over resulting in a suitable penalty without time wasting involved by referee intervention.

This leads me to my final observation: how laughable is it that RL fans call AFL Fumbleball when all they are watching is a contest by two teams for the one ball, as is seen in many team sports. Of course they cannot see how dreadfully boring their game looks because in RL a contest for the ball is all but unheard of, and their skill level is poorer because of it.

Discuss! :D

our game is a contest for territory ...
good use of your possesion gets you quality territory .... & you will be always working off your line or well inside your half ... if your use of possesion is poor.

in vicky kicky .. the only contest is to see who can actually pick the ball up & get it to their foot without fumbling it like a concussed baboon.

please to do not try to make comment about our sport
its way beyond the simple minded rantings of a flogball wombat like you .................. K

Skills, for territory!

Cool story

Hahaha, it might help if you actually understood the game.

No pressure when passing LOL.

Xman wrote:

Skills, for territory!

Cool story

yep
whilst one can score a try from 100m out ... & how friggin spectacular is that
its rare
you breakdown defences by tiring them ... you do this by ensuring they start their set ( 6 tackles) deep in their .... territory

a facinating .. contest .. develops as a result

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Hahaha, it might help if you actually understood the game.

No pressure when passing LOL.

it might help if he understood something .......... about anything

Pressure in fumbleball, what's that?

LOL.


Does this so called pressure in Fumbles and feebles only come about when some derp lines up to kick the ball through the big sticks and even manages to miss the little ones too?

Hey, maybe they should give the guy half a point for really trying hard

Derpball, where ******* are rewarded for mediocrity.

It takes a lot more skill to contest than it does to play a childish game of keepings off. Sometimes AFL teams try to do that, and they get absolutely roasted by fans for it. And correctly as well. They know a childish tactic when they see it. RL relies on such a childish tactic that is incredibly simple to execute. Even a scrum is a case of keepings off.

Topper wrote:

It takes a lot more skill to contest than it does to play a childish game of keepings off. Sometimes AFL teams try to do that, and they get absolutely roasted by fans for it. And correctly as well. They know a childish tactic when they see it. RL relies on such a childish tactic that is incredibly simple to execute. Even a scrum is a case of keepings off.

tell me tispy

how long do you think you could keep the ball ... off... Fui Fui Moi Moi



hmm
a better question would be how long you could refrain from soiling your pants if he was running at you

Raiderdave wrote:

you breakdown defences by tiring them ... you do this by ensuring ...

That players count the number of tackles.
This seems too exhausting for most and they just collapse in a heap.....

oh................it's called a scrum.

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

you breakdown defences by tiring them ... you do this by ensuring ...

That players count the number of tackles.
This seems too exhausting for most and they just collapse in a heap.....

oh................it's called a scrum.

yep a set piece its called
6 forwards out of the defence ... great opportunities for backs & attack that aren't used enough for mine

discuss cuzzy ?

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

you breakdown defences by tiring them ... you do this by ensuring ...

That players count the number of tackles.
This seems too exhausting for most and they just collapse in a heap.....

oh................it's called a scrum.

yep a set piece its called
6 forwards out of the defence ... great opportunities for backs & attack that aren't used enough for mine

discuss cuzzy ?

Yeah, and AFL teams need up to 150 interchanges each per match.

The running game, from the pitch to the bench and back again and again and again and again and again and again

Maybe kelvin shonky should give them all a cape so they can fly back and forth instead huh? :D

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Maybe kelvin shonky should give them all a cape so they can fly back and forth instead huh? :D

zzzzzzooooooooommmmmm...............

Intentcity wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Maybe kelvin shonky should give them all a cape so they can fly back and forth instead huh? :D

zzzzzzooooooooommmmmm...............

Hillarious wasn't it.

zoooooooommmmmm.............