-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
No Oppo Supporters 2020 General AFL Discussion
- Thread starter scaryness
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Oct 2, 2016
- 12,517
- 26,108
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Did someone say AFL background?
Is he going for money ?
He'll get about $15 million USD just in the first four years of his rookie contract alone.
He would have got the same at Collingwood.
I for one look forward to three years time where the rule changes still haven't worked. We will see the man on the mark for the kick out is placed 150m down the ground so the opposition can progress the ball to the centre circle unhindered. We will see a faster flowing game but at every stoppage the umpire will wait 30 seconds to ensure all players are standing on painted x's which they must start ever play from. The umpires will also have to delay throwing the ball up at a stoppage if each player does not have their socks pulled up to a length between 10 and 15 cm from the knee.
Just have it be ruckmen cause 1 vs 1 means everyone has so much time and space they can make a ****ing continuum
Nooooo, a bunch of guys 100 yes ago said it had to be 18 a side, we can't change that, it's not like things change over time.
RobbieK
Cancelled
- Aug 20, 2009
- 5,731
- 10,803
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I am really struggling to imagine how anyone ever thought it was a good idea. It is surely just going to result in constant 50m penalties.
Which results in scores which results in ad breaks which results in ad revenue
Should just make the normal free kick a 100m penalty. Would increase scoring.
That's why we should make it 1 vs 1. Ruck wins the tap, runs on to the ball, into an open goal, ad break.
So much time. So much space. So much scoring.
GotTheGoodes
Bloods
- Moderator
- #5,466
GotTheGoodes
Bloods
- Moderator
- #5,467
Maybe there's an argument for in-game advertising (like you tend to see in the US) which could work to help take pressure off AFL House and prevent them ruining the game with more money grabbing rule changes simply to create "more scoring".
More scoring isn't even that bloody important. Unless you rely on an ad based income stream that is...
sataris
Chief Toastie Officer
- Feb 15, 2015
- 10,694
- 21,690
- AFL Club
- Sydney
This is Joe Schmoe live from Pfizer Stadium to bring you today's 3 quarter time break provided by VISA.
Here we're looking at the QBE Instant Replay we can see a contender for the Audi Mark of the year presented by Toyota.
Looks like the 4th quarter is about half way through so back to you in the box. Sponsored by Gatorade.
TheMase
Brownlow Medallist
AFL avoids financial catastrophe despite lockdown
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan has revealed the league’s financial losses during a coronavirus-impacted 2020 were less than $100 million.
www.news.com.au
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan has revealed the league’s financial losses during a coronavirus-impacted 2020 were less than $100 million.
Extraordinary.
kickthething
Brownlow Medallist
That is a big win
AFL avoids financial catastrophe despite lockdown
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan has revealed the league’s financial losses during a coronavirus-impacted 2020 were less than $100 million.
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan has revealed the league’s financial losses during a coronavirus-impacted 2020 were less than $100 million.
Extraordinary.
kickthething
Brownlow Medallist
Joe Shmoe is highly under rated
scaryness
Premium Platinum
- Oct 19, 2008
- 14,859
- 23,326
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Trail Blazers / Cowboys
- Thread starter
- #5,472
Probably repeating myself from around this time last year, but in my estimations more scoring doesn't come from arbitrary rule changes regarding pace or fatigue, it simply comes from a high skill floor across the league. A big increase in scoring would come simply from getting goal accuracy up a few percentage points, which in a professional era I can't see why that hasn't happened anyway. High skills can and will bypass good defence.
The backwards logic of the AFL to increase scoring by increasing fatigue while simultaneously trying to encourage corridor play (which has always been high-risk playstyle that requires high skills to begin with) is drastically lowering the skill floor, which will lower scoring. Modern defence exploits bad skills.
Not to mention the obvious that it increases the athleticism entry level into the AFL which will reward less skillful players who can just simply run more.
If they are going for drastic chance and I had to pick one, I agree with 16 a field, 6 on the bench to satisfy the AFLPA about players losing jobs if 2 players get cut every week, and still removing the interchange cap entirely cause it was a horrible idea in the first place. Or something marginal (that I don't see suggested much for some reason) like widening the centre square and creating a bigger centre circle to make centre bounces cleaner and accomodate for the higher level of athleticism? I'm not committed to either but they sound better than permanent zones or whatever logic that fatigue = points comes from.
With some of the crap Hocking and co are trialling and brainstorming, at some point there is going to be a Ship of Theseus moment where you have to ask how much you are willing to change while still calling it Aussie rules football, and if that even matters to you at all.
I couldn't agree more, and it's depressing that the AFL is going in the exact opposite direction.
Can't see why they just don't let the game evolve. Every time there is an advance in defensive tactics sooner or later there will be an advance in attacking tactics, and vice versa.
The flood lowered scoring. Then Geelong ran and handballed around it. Then there was Clarko's cluster...
Clearly Channel 7 wants more goals because more goals = more ads.
Therefore the AFL at least has to be seen to do something.
Maybe Hocking has a very fine line to walk, between appeasing Channel 7 and leaving the game to evolve.
Hence the bullshit rule change about the man on the mark - I can't see it will make any real difference but it sounds good to Ch 7, and with the likes of Brian Taylor doing the analysis, 7 is not likely to realise it.
The interesting thing to me is how far the AFL is willing to go to appease Ch 7. He who pays the piper etc. How far is the AFL prepared to go to compromise the sport for the dollars? The further it goes the more likely we will see two sports, AFL, the professional game, which will be some AFLX style hybrid, and Australian Football, played throughout the land.
Or will the AFL show some (lol) integrity?
Is the AFL in the entertainment business? or is it managing a sporting code?
Because right now it's the former - and it's all about the dollars. And if it keeps going down that road it will break the sport.
The flood lowered scoring. Then Geelong ran and handballed around it. Then there was Clarko's cluster...
Clearly Channel 7 wants more goals because more goals = more ads.
Therefore the AFL at least has to be seen to do something.
Maybe Hocking has a very fine line to walk, between appeasing Channel 7 and leaving the game to evolve.
Hence the bullshit rule change about the man on the mark - I can't see it will make any real difference but it sounds good to Ch 7, and with the likes of Brian Taylor doing the analysis, 7 is not likely to realise it.
The interesting thing to me is how far the AFL is willing to go to appease Ch 7. He who pays the piper etc. How far is the AFL prepared to go to compromise the sport for the dollars? The further it goes the more likely we will see two sports, AFL, the professional game, which will be some AFLX style hybrid, and Australian Football, played throughout the land.
Or will the AFL show some (lol) integrity?
Is the AFL in the entertainment business? or is it managing a sporting code?
Because right now it's the former - and it's all about the dollars. And if it keeps going down that road it will break the sport.
The AFL's idea seems to be just to help its most favoured clubs kick more goals. They idea is to make a poor club better by giving them a ridiculously high draft compensation pick, even when most of their players desperately want to leave them.
I'm talking about giving Essendon pick 7 compensation for Daniher, a broken down forward who can't get on the field and has managed a tad over 100 games in his entire career, despite going on 27.
Compare that with Hawthorn's compensation in 2013 for losing arguably the best forward currently playing the game (at the time). A player who went on to play 20 games/year for the next 6 years, kicking more goals and playing more games for his new club than Daniher's entire career. What's more, Buddy's had 8 all-Australian selections including captaincy and 4 Coleman medals. By contrast, Hawks got pick 19 for Buddy.
Now I'm not out to shed any tears for Hawthorn but WTF ? Are the AFL ignoring the elephant in the room while everyone slides about in a huge pile of elephant shit at AFL HQ ? Two players the same age. One is a genuine "once in a generation" superstar traded for a 9 year contract worth $10 million (or $11.5M in 2020 money), the other a broken down hack with half the games and a quarter of the goals by the same age who'll be lucky to see out his 3 year contract with more than 10 games. Buddy played 62 games in his last 3 years at Hawks. Daniher 15 games in the same period at Essendon. Length of contract is supposed to be a big factor in determining compensation but Daniher is only on 3 years and the reality is he's not even half the player Tippet was at the same age yet far less reliable. So what gives ? Did the Lion's inflate the base salary to over $800k to trigger a round 1 pick ? What was the AFL's role in sneaking that one through the door ? How can anyone have faith in free agency compensation after this ? The whole system stinks.
So the AFL's intent seems to be to improve goal scoring but just for the clubs they like, handing out overs in compensation to their favoured drug riddled club. No-one could argue that we Swans don't need help scoring more goals and Sydney is a key market for lucrative TV rights. Perhaps we should do a Dons. Suck up, shoot up and trade up.
How desperate are Brisbane ? We could pass off Reid to them next year on a 3 year contract (after Joe can't get on the park). Reid's probably got more goals left in him than Joe in any case, so I guess a compo pick 4 would do for us. Hey, maybe some team wants Harry Cunningham next year. Surely we can net a pick 1 compo for Harry if we kick him in the groin and rest him for a year.
I'm talking about giving Essendon pick 7 compensation for Daniher, a broken down forward who can't get on the field and has managed a tad over 100 games in his entire career, despite going on 27.
Compare that with Hawthorn's compensation in 2013 for losing arguably the best forward currently playing the game (at the time). A player who went on to play 20 games/year for the next 6 years, kicking more goals and playing more games for his new club than Daniher's entire career. What's more, Buddy's had 8 all-Australian selections including captaincy and 4 Coleman medals. By contrast, Hawks got pick 19 for Buddy.
Now I'm not out to shed any tears for Hawthorn but WTF ? Are the AFL ignoring the elephant in the room while everyone slides about in a huge pile of elephant shit at AFL HQ ? Two players the same age. One is a genuine "once in a generation" superstar traded for a 9 year contract worth $10 million (or $11.5M in 2020 money), the other a broken down hack with half the games and a quarter of the goals by the same age who'll be lucky to see out his 3 year contract with more than 10 games. Buddy played 62 games in his last 3 years at Hawks. Daniher 15 games in the same period at Essendon. Length of contract is supposed to be a big factor in determining compensation but Daniher is only on 3 years and the reality is he's not even half the player Tippet was at the same age yet far less reliable. So what gives ? Did the Lion's inflate the base salary to over $800k to trigger a round 1 pick ? What was the AFL's role in sneaking that one through the door ? How can anyone have faith in free agency compensation after this ? The whole system stinks.
So the AFL's intent seems to be to improve goal scoring but just for the clubs they like, handing out overs in compensation to their favoured drug riddled club. No-one could argue that we Swans don't need help scoring more goals and Sydney is a key market for lucrative TV rights. Perhaps we should do a Dons. Suck up, shoot up and trade up.
How desperate are Brisbane ? We could pass off Reid to them next year on a 3 year contract (after Joe can't get on the park). Reid's probably got more goals left in him than Joe in any case, so I guess a compo pick 4 would do for us. Hey, maybe some team wants Harry Cunningham next year. Surely we can net a pick 1 compo for Harry if we kick him in the groin and rest him for a year.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
