Was Hayne auditioning for AFL last night?

[The Who]

So your trying to help the fullback only teams? we have an array of stars which can make this effort pointless and winless (see the result)

Sorry to sound like Pauline Hanson but "Please explain?"

 

[The Eagle]

Ok,Nullifying Slater can nullify the storm without Smith (we didnt kick dead,we brick walled the little ****)
With Parramatta this tactic might be handy to stop them because lets face it,they are the JROD brigade
With the Sharks it makes them less painful,they have a brilliant quick fullback (who has 1 player in his team,Gallen)
Against Bowen it works,however Thurston can still do stuff,not quiet as effective
Perfect for the raiders,do they have any players besides their back 3(well,2 out of 3) that can actually play?

Kicking it dead doesnt work as well against us,our fullback isnt the bust the line from a kick return type that these other blokes are and Minichello was,he is the safe as a house type,it was more effective against Wolf than it was Stewie

Teams who have threats all over the park its a moot effort,we have multiple playmaking options in our backline and a few in our forward pack

The rule change would only help ironically parramatta,the sharks and also Canberra.....from having their singular worthy back

 

[mosto]

So your trying to help the fullback only teams? we have an array of stars which can make this effort pointless and winless (see the result)

I'm trying to discourage negative football like intentionally putting the ball out of play. I suppose we could go back to unlimited tackles and take the fullbacks out of play altogether.

 

[The Eagle]

negative tactics cause a negative mindset,like taking 2 points often leads to opposition tries,to me it screams "this is the only way we can win"

 

[mosto]

Ok,Nullifying Slater can nullify the storm without Smith (we didnt kick dead,we brick walled the little s**t)
With Parramatta this tactic might be handy to stop them because lets face it,they are the JROD brigade
With the Sharks it makes them less painful,they have a brilliant quick fullback (who has 1 player in his team,Gallen)
Against Bowen it works,however Thurston can still do stuff,not quiet as effective
Perfect for the raiders,do they have any players besides their back 3(well,2 out of 3) that can actually play?

Kicking it dead doesnt work as well against us,our fullback isnt the bust the line from a kick return type that these other blokes are and Minichello was,he is the safe as a house type,it was more effective against Wolf than it was Stewie

Teams who have threats all over the park its a moot effort,we have multiple playmaking options in our backline and a few in our forward pack

The rule change would only help ironically parramatta,the sharks and also Canberra.....from having their singular worthy back

I take your point but TBH I'm not overly concerend who it does and doesn't benefit. The point of the rule is to keep the ball in play as much as possible. I'd rather be watching the fullback/winger (regardless of the team) bring the ball back at a potentially staggered defence than spend 20-30 seconds watching them go behind the advertising signs, pick the ball up, walk/jog back 30-40m, tap the ball and run into a set defence.

 

[The Eagle]

Your point taken aswell,it was annoying to see that happen every set during the last quarter of the game and that rule would finish Hodkinsons career

 

[Stevo]

Well i thought it was a good tactic. And had we not scored off a very lucky yet awesome play they would have won using it.

 

[mosto]

Well i thought it was a good tactic. And had we not scored off a very lucky yet awesome play they would have won using it.

When you've got a boot the size of Hayne or Soward's it's very effective and TBH you'd foolish not to employ it. You can only play by the rules in front of you and I've got no problems with teams using those rules to their advantage. But I think it promotes boring play and if one rule change can discourage I just think it makes the game more exciting.

 

[TokyoEagle]

Well i thought it was a good tactic. And had we not scored off a very lucky yet awesome play they would have won using it.

When you've got a boot the size of Hayne or Soward's it's very effective and TBH you'd foolish not to employ it. You can only play by the rules in front of you and I've got no problems with teams using those rules to their advantage. But I think it promotes boring play and if one rule change can discourage I just think it makes the game more exciting.

I have to agree with you, it won't take the smart coaches long to think up a way to counter this though.