Play Nice AFL Womens - General Discussion

[jatz14]

Ah okay, I do apologise. I was under the impression the AFLW grand final was a Gold Coast Suns curtain raiser. My mistake, carry on.

Your not very good at this.

 

[NoobPie]

Your not very good at this.

To be fair, it's hard being a cultural cringer watching the AFL get more and more dominant in this country...you're left looking pretty silly most of the time

...anyway, great news for the Lions women's team (and the Brisbane more generally)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-11-22/woohoo-lions-one-step-closer-to-springfield

Great work by the AFL in leveraging the gravitas of $50M a year NFP football clubs and its own contribution to ensure all its clubs have state of the art facilities.

Apparently the women's facilities will be of equal standards to the men's

 

[Eaglemaniac]

*sigh*

Sam Kerr(and probably about most of the team) would be full-time pros nowadays, or close to. They play in Europe or the USA. AFLW is a part of the booming women's sports scene. Every sport is booming, and that includes soccer. 10k+ for a midweek friendly is a testament to that. It is a trend happening worldwide. Look at the women's world cup in soccer and cricket. Heck, I didn't even hear that many complaints about equal pay in tennis this year. That was a welcome change.




You mean like Ben Simmons, Mitch Marsh, Alex Keath, Matty Wade etc etc etc.

They will go to what sport they want to go. No one has forced Sam Kerr to say anything. She is probably sick of the question by now. She knows her soccer career will far outweigh anything the AFLW could offer and she enjoys the career she is having. She also enjoys AR, which would rock your mind i am sure. Heck, outside Perry and certain Olympians, she is probably the most marketable female star in Aussie sport right now. The only thing i agree with is that she deserves every success and the FFA was slow to read the changing tide in sport.

Which is a massive joke as they play less sets, draw less sponsorship and less crowds, but our excessively gynocentric and sjw focused society has decided that reality doesnt matter and we just have to pretend men and women are equal in everything when they arent. I'm all for promoting womens sport, but sport is still an entertainment business, and if you dont get bums on seats you dont get paid the same as others that do.

By the way, Sam's soccer career might give her plenty of travel opportunities, but she'd be playing in front of bigger crowds if she was playing AFLW, because there's not many who watch womens soccer at the best of times, yet the first game of AFLW had 20,000 and the GF had over 10,000, so your cultural cringing really doesnt work for the argument when the facts oppose it. Here's a hint for you, just because the rest of the world likes something, doesnt make it the best, just like McDonalds is the worlds most popular restaurant.

 

[NoobPie]

Which is a massive joke as they play less sets, draw less sponsorship and less crowds, but our excessively gynocentric and sjw focused society has decided that reality doesnt matter and we just have to pretend men and women are equal in everything when they arent. I'm all for promoting womens sport, but sport is still an entertainment business, and if you dont get bums on seats you dont get paid the same as others that do.

By the way, Sam's soccer career might give her plenty of travel opportunities, but she'd be playing in front of bigger crowds if she was playing AFLW, because there's not many who watch womens soccer at the best of times, yet the first game of AFLW had 20,000 and the GF had over 10,000, so your cultural cringing really doesnt work for the argument when the facts oppose it. Here's a hint for you, just because the rest of the world likes something, doesnt make it the best, just like McDonalds is the worlds most popular restaurant.

Last year Sam Kerr played in front of a crowd of 4K in the W League GF while 10K watched the dockers women playing at the same time. In 2020 when her brothers club enters a women's team, how big will the derby crowd be presumably at PS?

Anyway, I suspect her recent uber ascendancy makes her far less likely to choose to play in the first season if ever. Point is though that there won't be many more switching to soccer at 12 given lack of youth girls pathways

You are right about the cultural cringers though. The sad reality is they will keep seeing an illusion future where Australian football loses its pre-eminence in this country because they are actually blind to the sheer cultural power that drives its success.

 

[jatz14]

Which is a massive joke as they play less sets, draw less sponsorship and less crowds, but our excessively gynocentric and sjw focused society has decided that reality doesnt matter and we just have to pretend men and women are equal in everything when they arent. I'm all for promoting womens sport, but sport is still an entertainment business, and if you dont get bums on seats you dont get paid the same as others that do.

By the way, Sam's soccer career might give her plenty of travel opportunities, but she'd be playing in front of bigger crowds if she was playing AFLW, because there's not many who watch womens soccer at the best of times, yet the first game of AFLW had 20,000 and the GF had over 10,000, so your cultural cringing really doesnt work for the argument when the facts oppose it. Here's a hint for you, just because the rest of the world likes something, doesnt make it the best, just like McDonalds is the worlds most popular restaurant.

Actually, some of the women's team in the US comp Sam plays in draw 10k plus regularly.

As for the tennis. Sets played are regularly raised, but men only play 5 sets at majors, or 4 times a year, it is hardly something to base an argument on. In any case, isn't the main reason justifying low pay for women the money it draws in?

Women's tennis pays for itself, so by what measure can they be considered overpaid?

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[BobbyMorri]

Which is a massive joke as they play less sets, draw less sponsorship and less crowds, but our excessively gynocentric and sjw focused society has decided that reality doesnt matter and we just have to pretend men and women are equal in everything when they arent. I'm all for promoting womens sport, but sport is still an entertainment business, and if you dont get bums on seats you dont get paid the same as others that do.

By the way, Sam's soccer career might give her plenty of travel opportunities, but she'd be playing in front of bigger crowds if she was playing AFLW, because there's not many who watch womens soccer at the best of times, yet the first game of AFLW had 20,000 and the GF had over 10,000, so your cultural cringing really doesnt work for the argument when the facts oppose it. Here's a hint for you, just because the rest of the world likes something, doesnt make it the best, just like McDonalds is the worlds most popular restaurant.

I will try to be nice....

Your first post. *sigh*. It is a misleading thing saying they get equal pay because they don't. Outside the Grand Slams/Masters, they have separate tours, sponsors etc etc etc. They get paid what bums on the seat, as you say. Its only equal PRIZE MONEY at 8 or so events a year where they share the tournament.

At GS/M, I would argue they share equal billing and deserve equal pay. I mean, all the news yesterday was about Serena Williams and not any man. The amount of sets means nothing as people still complain at Masters events, despite them both playing 2 sets each. They train the same, have the same media commitments etc as the men, which is 99% of their time. But hey, it is all SJW fault, despite the fact that equal tennis pay has been a thing since the 80's.

On the attendance, you do realise that the Matildas played in front of a sell out crowd of 15K not long after I posted this right......Another 15K crowd this year in the USA. And at the Olympics, 52K watched them against Brazil. (with 30K in group stage matches). I could go on and on but hopefully, you see the point.

Facts hey.

And i like Maccas.

 

[jatz14]

I will try to be nice....

Your first post. *sigh*. It is a misleading thing saying they get equal pay because they don't. Outside the Grand Slams/Masters, they have separate tours, sponsors etc etc etc. They get paid what bums on the seat, as you say. Its only equal PRIZE MONEY at 8 or so events a year where they share the tournament.

At GS/M, I would argue they share equal billing and deserve equal pay. I mean, all the news yesterday was about Serena Williams and not any man. The amount of sets means nothing as people still complain at Masters events, despite them both playing 2 sets each. They train the same, have the same media commitments etc as the men. But hey, it is all SJW fault, despite the fact that equal tennis pay has been a thing since the 80's.

On the attendance, you do realise that the Matildas played in front of a sell out crowd of 15K not long after I posted this right......Another 15K crowd this year in the USA. And at the Olympics, 52K watched them against Brazil. (with 30K in group stage matches). I could go on and on but hopefully, you see the point.

Facts hey.

And i like Maccas.

I like Macca's to, but an essential ingredient is it's basic blandness. You cannot have mass appeal with any aspect that may in any way challenge.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[BobbyMorri]

I like Macca's to, but an essential ingredient is it's basic blandness. You cannot have mass appeal with any aspect that may in any way challenge.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

i wouldnt pick it as my last meal but it is always a safe option if you need a nice cheap food fix anywhere in the world.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

I will try to be nice....

Your first post. *sigh*. It is a misleading thing saying they get equal pay because they don't. Outside the Grand Slams/Masters, they have separate tours, sponsors etc etc etc. They get paid what bums on the seat, as you say. Its only equal PRIZE MONEY at 8 or so events a year where they share the tournament.

At GS/M, I would argue they share equal billing and deserve equal pay. I mean, all the news yesterday was about Serena Williams and not any man. The amount of sets means nothing as people still complain at Masters events, despite them both playing 2 sets each. They train the same, have the same media commitments etc as the men, which is 99% of their time. But hey, it is all SJW fault, despite the fact that equal tennis pay has been a thing since the 80's.

On the attendance, you do realise that the Matildas played in front of a sell out crowd of 15K not long after I posted this right......Another 15K crowd this year in the USA. And at the Olympics, 52K watched them against Brazil. (with 30K in group stage matches). I could go on and on but hopefully, you see the point.

Facts hey.

And i like Maccas.

They still dont deserve it if they arent playing the same amount of sets or bringing in the same money, which you have not debunked in any way.

Sure Bobbi, if they're so equal and deserve equal pay why dont we put them all in the one division, take all the sponsorship money and put in the one prize pool. I think you'll find the women wont like that kind of equality.

15k is still less than 20k at the AFLW opener Bobbi, and most of the people at the olympics are there because its the olympics, not to see Australian women play soccer.

And like i said, just because people all around the world like Maccas doesnt make it the best food in the world Bobbi, which is often soccer fans only selling point for the worlds most boring game.

 

[BobbyMorri]

They still dont deserve it if they arent playing the same amount of sets or bringing in the same money, which you have not debunked in any way.

Sure Bobbi, if they're so equal and deserve equal pay why dont we put them all in the one division, take all the sponsorship money and put in the one prize pool. I think you'll find the women wont like that kind of equality.

15k is still less than 20k at the AFLW opener Bobbi, and most of the people at the olympics are there because its the olympics, not to see Australian women play soccer.

And like i said, just because people all around the world like Maccas doesnt make it the best food in the world Bobbi, which is often soccer fans only selling point for the worlds most boring game.

So not worth the time to reply since you are just angling for a response.

I am being nice here as well

 

[jatz14]

They still dont deserve it if they arent playing the same amount of sets or bringing in the same money, which you have not debunked in any way.

Sure Bobbi, if they're so equal and deserve equal pay why dont we put them all in the one division, take all the sponsorship money and put in the one prize pool. I think you'll find the women wont like that kind of equality.

15k is still less than 20k at the AFLW opener Bobbi, and most of the people at the olympics are there because its the olympics, not to see Australian women play soccer.

And like i said, just because people all around the world like Maccas doesnt make it the best food in the world Bobbi, which is often soccer fans only selling point for the worlds most boring game.

Its a ridiculous argument, not made smarter by just repeating it.
Should the NBA be paid less than the AFL, because games are a lot shorter? Or should they be paid more, because it brings in more money. NBA players get a higher percentage of league revenue than AFL players do, so should AFL players get more, or NBA players get less? Maybe, the NBA and the AFL each negotiated pay based on the circumstances of those sports?

Can you name 1 other sport where you have argued for pay on the basis of game time. How much should golfers earn, relative to the NFL where a player can play 10 min or less?

Maybe, `me going out on a limb here` players should be paid what they can negotiate in the context of the sport and comp they play in? So female tennis players are entitled to what the sport is willing to pay them, in the context of that sport and its revenue.

I would also point out, Tennis prize money is offered by the tournament. The Australian open prize money is determined by the open. It was set as it is due to the Aussie open declining in importance to the point it was being questioned whether it deserved Major status. Attracting the best male and female talent was part of the strategy to fix that. The open needed the best female players, and it chose to pay enough to make them want to come. If they are not important, pay nothing, just offer a fruitbowl, see what happens to the Aussie open. They deserve their prize money at the open, because that is what the open is willing to pay to make them play.

Your just coming across as someone that hates the idea of women being paid for sport, and will argue anything against it.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

Its a ridiculous argument, not made smarter by just repeating it.
Should the NBA be paid less than the AFL, because games are a lot shorter? Or should they be paid more, because it brings in more money. NBA players get a higher percentage of league revenue than AFL players do, so should AFL players get more, or NBA players get less? Maybe, the NBA and the AFL each negotiated pay based on the circumstances of those sports?

Can you name 1 other sport where you have argued for pay on the basis of game time. How much should golfers earn, relative to the NFL where a player can play 10 min or less?

Maybe, `me going out on a limb here` players should be paid what they can negotiate in the context of the sport and comp they play in? So female tennis players are entitled to what the sport is willing to pay them, in the context of that sport and its revenue.

I would also point out, Tennis prize money is offered by the tournament. The Australian open prize money is determined by the open. It was set as it is due to the Aussie open declining in importance to the point it was being questioned whether it deserved Major status. Attracting the best male and female talent was part of the strategy to fix that. The open needed the best female players, and it chose to pay enough to make them want to come. If they are not important, pay nothing, just offer a fruitbowl, see what happens to the Aussie open. They deserve their prize money at the open, because that is what the open is willing to pay to make them play.

Your just coming across as someone that hates the idea of women being paid for sport, and will argue anything against it.

Thats absolute rubbish, if you're playing the same sport, not getting the same amount of interest, not playing for the same length of time and not getting the same amount of viewership or sponsorship you dont deserve the same amount of remuneration. That is the same in any entertainment business. I am a big supporter of women in all walks of life, i just dont believe they should be given special privileges in the name of this current notion of "equality" which is nothing like equality at all. As i said, if they were truly equal they'd all play together in the one division and split the total money, but you know that wont happen because they're not equal. Mens sport in most case is much faster, harder, more dynamic and therefore usually more exciting to watch. Everyone who's being honest would admit that. I dont know why people are so afraid of being honest and calling a spade a spade. Being honest doesnt mean you are disrespecting women or their abilities either.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

So not worth the time to reply since you are just angling for a response.

I am being nice here as well

You're in an AFL forum telling people how great soccer is. It is us that are being nice in our responses to the rubbish you're dishing up in a forum that has nothing to do with your sport.

 

[BobbyMorri]

You're in an AFL forum telling people how great soccer is. It is us that are being nice in our responses to the rubbish you're dishing up in a forum that has nothing to do with your sport.

I am?????? (telling people how great soccer is)

Last time I checked I made 1 post near an end of a discussion about Soccer. And in that, I didn't slam AFLW or proclaim soccer as the god among men. I wasn't the one who stated Soccer as the world most boring sport or stating "that she'd be playing in front of bigger crowds if she was playing AFLW" as a fact then completely ignoring the actual facts.

AFLW is great for the local scene and it is the biggest attended women's domestic football league atm. But that is not what you said. Australias best-paid and known athletes will always be international sports stars. Nothing revolutionary about that.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

I am?????? (telling people how great soccer is)

Last time I checked I made 1 post near an end of a discussion about Soccer. And in that, I didn't slam AFLW or proclaim soccer as the god among men. I wasn't the one who stated Soccer as the world most boring sport or stating "that she'd be playing in front of bigger crowds if she was playing AFLW" as a fact then completely ignoring the actual facts.

AFLW is great for the local scene and it is the biggest attended women's domestic football league atm. But that is not what you said. Australias best-paid and known athletes will always be international sports stars. Nothing revolutionary about that.

You told us how great her career was because she'd be playing in front of more people by playing soccer (which is untrue) and how that was so much better than AFLW because it was international. This is the same old trope that's trotted out by soccer fans every time they get in a discussion with AFL fans. What soccer fans dont seem to understand is that we dont care that soccer is international, most of us find it incredibly boring and no amount of attempted convincing of how great it is will change our minds. We like AFL because it the exact opposite of soccer in that its fast paced, tough, dynamic and requires a multitude of skillsets. The best we can do is agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Thats absolute rubbish, if you're playing the same sport, not getting the same amount of interest, not playing for the same length of time and not getting the same amount of viewership or sponsorship you dont deserve the same amount of remuneration. That is the same in any entertainment business. I am a big supporter of women in all walks of life, i just dont believe they should be given special privileges in the name of this current notion of "equality" which is nothing like equality at all. As i said, if they were truly equal they'd all play together in the one division and split the total money, but you know that wont happen because they're not equal. Mens sport in most case is much faster, harder, more dynamic and therefore usually more exciting to watch. Everyone who's being honest would admit that. I dont know why people are so afraid of being honest and calling a spade a spade. Being honest doesnt mean you are disrespecting women or their abilities either.

This is really a simple argument

Who cares if men can beat women. They don't play against each other(bar mixed). It is a different game. It is not the discussion at hand and has no relevance about prize money. I personally prefer women's tennis but I am sure 99% of tennis fans would prefer watching Aga Radwanska over Ivo Karlovic any day of the week. As a tennis fan, it is rare to find someone who doesn't enjoy watching both sexes. It is a part of a package. If you followed tennis at all this year, you know that the women's side of the grand slams saved the grand slams from becoming a complete bore. Especially the French and Wimbledon

At Grand Slams/masters, where they SHARE EQUAL BILLING, they deserve the same amount of prize money. It is not unknown for the womens final(especially at the US Open) to out-rate or outsell the men's final. Especially when Serena Williams is involved. As jatz14 put it, judging prize money on the amount of "work" is a stupid argument. If that was the case, T20 players would be paid pittance compared to test cricketers. We all know that isn't the case.

And once more, THEY DONT GET PAID EVEN. It happens 4-8 times a year because they share the billing. Everywhere else, they are paid separate incomes. But you fail to even see that the WTA is a professional tour by itself and that people may like watching women's sport. I hate to tell you this but you have started this argument in the worst possible section of bigfooy. It is fair to say that we all enjoy women's sport here or else we wouldn't be here. Your argument is like stating "i am not racist but". Your actions and words are saying different things. (not playing nice anymore). Watching women's sport is not a handicap event like you are stating. It can be just as entertaining and amazing, if not more. Give me a Justine Henin 1 handed Backhand, a Tayla Harris kick or a Sammy Kerr bicycle kick any day of the week over watching Ty Zantuck kick a football.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

This is really a simple argument

Who cares if men can beat women. They don't play against each other(bar mixed). It is a different game. It is not the discussion at hand and has no relevance about prize money. I personally prefer women's tennis but I am sure 99% of tennis fans would prefer watching Aga Radwanska over Ivo Karlovic any day of the week. As a tennis fan, it is rare to find someone who doesn't enjoy watching both sexes. It is a part of a package. If you followed tennis at all this year, you know that the women's side of the grand slams saved the grand slams from becoming a complete bore. Especially the French and Wimbledon

At Grand Slams/masters, where they SHARE EQUAL BILLING, they deserve the same amount of prize money. It is not unknown for the womens final(especially at the US Open) to out-rate or outsell the men's final. Especially when Serena Williams is involved. As jatz14 put it, judging prize money on the amount of "work" is a stupid argument. If that was the case, T20 players would be paid pittance compared to test cricketers. We all know that isn't the case.

And once more, THEY DONT GET PAID EVEN. It happens 4-8 times a year because they share the billing. Everywhere else, they are paid separate incomes. But you fail to even see that the WTA is a professional tour by itself and that people may like watching women's sport. I hate to tell you this but you have started this argument in the worst possible section of bigfooy. It is fair to say that we all enjoy women's sport here or else we wouldn't be here. Your argument is like stating "i am not racist but". Your actions and words are saying different things. (not playing nice anymore). Watching women's sport is not a handicap event like you are stating. It can be just as entertaining and amazing, if not more. Give me a Justine Henin 1 handed Backhand, a Tayla Harris kick or a Sammy Kerr bicycle kick any day of the week over watching Ty Zantuck kick a football.

You've just highlighted my point in your first paragraph. "99% of people would prefer mens tennis to womens", and thats why they deserve more money because they bring in more fans/sponsorship dollars. If you cant see how youve just shot yourself in the foot then you're too blind to see your own hands right in front of you.

I have no problem supporting womenand i do so in many different sports and arts, i just believe that in entertainment its about bums on seats etc, and just doing your best doesnt mean you automatically get the same amount of income as other people. If that was the case local bands would be getting the same as the Foo Fighters because they're doing thier best.

You may think so, but for a lot of people watching womens sport is not as exciting as the mens, that doesnt mean it doesnt deserve support or have it own merits, but you'd struggle to find a majority of people who felt the same way as you do. I also love how you blame me for starting an "argument" when you brought up the tennis pay issue, and i simply disagreed with it. The problem with todays society is you cant disagree with the sjw's or even simply mention that women may not be as good at something as men, because then you get likened to racists etc which is pathetic really.

Considering I've done everything from teaching women self defence against rape to coaching female sports teams and giving female musicians their break into the industry its pretty laughable that you're trying to make it out i have something against women.

 

[BobbyMorri]

You do know Aga Radwanska is a women who basically wins shot of the month...every month.
And Ivo Karlovic is a man who can only serve.......read it again and that paragraph might just make sense.

I am not going to respond again as this thread is about AFLW and i have said all that needs to be said.

 

[NoobPie]

I am not going to respond again as this thread is about AFLW and i have said all that needs to be said.

And yet he only comments when women's soccer is being discussed....

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You've just highlighted my point in your first paragraph. "99% of people would prefer mens tennis to womens", and thats why they deserve more money because they bring in more fans/sponsorship dollars. If you cant see how youve just shot yourself in the foot then you're too blind to see your own hands right in front of you.

I have no problem supporting womenand i do so in many different sports and arts, i just believe that in entertainment its about bums on seats etc, and just doing your best doesnt mean you automatically get the same amount of income as other people. If that was the case local bands would be getting the same as the Foo Fighters because they're doing thier best.

You may think so, but for a lot of people watching womens sport is not as exciting as the mens, that doesnt mean it doesnt deserve support or have it own merits, but you'd struggle to find a majority of people who felt the same way as you do. I also love how you blame me for starting an "argument" when you brought up the tennis pay issue, and i simply disagreed with it. The problem with todays society is you cant disagree with the sjw's or even simply mention that women may not be as good at something as men, because then you get likened to racists etc which is pathetic really.

Considering I've done everything from teaching women self defence against rape to coaching female sports teams and giving female musicians their break into the industry its pretty laughable that you're trying to make it out i have something against women.

You're fundamentally missing the point when the reason that women's sport is of lower quality, and there is less demand, is because of (note: historically) sexist sporting policies that have impacted upon their ability to play: both overt and covert.

Overtly, for example, the English FA had a ban on females playing organised soccer on FA grounds (so effectively every club in England) despite getting 50,000+ to soccer games during WWI, from 1921 to 1971. That still has an effect today on the development and opportunities afforded to female soccer players. On a more minor level, just little things like access to change room facilities at local clubs has an impact on female sport. And then covertly, just the little things like society's attitudes to females playing sports has impacted participation and the quality of play, which also needs to be rectified in society.

You can't preach "free market of who wants to watch sports should determine what support we give females" without recognising the intervention of a free market that both historically and current sexist views on women's sport has subsequently.

The only "real" sport where there's been a generation plus of equal development and opportunities afforded to females - tennis, since the WTA was formed in the 70's - shows how male and female sport is comparable. Whilst clearly male tennis is of higher quality due to the physical advantages males have, the fact that despite this the quality of female tennis and the "free market" opinion of female tennis through attendances and eyeballs is clearly similar enough to the men's game. Whether or not female football would have similar support had there not been historical lack of opportunities for females to play and develop doesn't really matter because what the AFL is doing is addressing that historical imbalance with top-down policies (ie funding a AFLW at the top to encourage participation and change society's attitudes at the bottom).

 

[jatz14]

You're fundamentally missing the point when the reason that women's sport is of lower quality, and there is less demand, is because of (note: historically) sexist sporting policies that have impacted upon their ability to play: both overt and covert.

Overtly, for example, the English FA had a ban on females playing organised soccer on FA grounds (so effectively every club in England) despite getting 50,000+ to soccer games during WWI, from 1921 to 1971. That still has an effect today on the development and opportunities afforded to female soccer players. On a more minor level, just little things like access to change room facilities at local clubs has an impact on female sport. And then covertly, just the little things like society's attitudes to females playing sports has impacted participation and the quality of play, which also needs to be rectified in society.

You can't preach "free market of who wants to watch sports should determine what support we give females" without recognising the intervention of a free market that both historically and current sexist views on women's sport has subsequently.

The only "real" sport where there's been a generation plus of equal development and opportunities afforded to females - tennis, since the WTA was formed in the 70's - shows how male and female sport is comparable. Whilst clearly male tennis is of higher quality due to the physical advantages males have, the fact that despite this the quality of female tennis and the "free market" opinion of female tennis through attendances and eyeballs is clearly similar enough to the men's game. Whether or not female football would have similar support had there not been historical lack of opportunities for females to play and develop doesn't really matter because what the AFL is doing is addressing that historical imbalance with top-down policies (ie funding a AFLW at the top to encourage participation and change society's attitudes at the bottom).

Intelligent, clearly reasoned post. Are you lost?

 

[BringBackTorps]

Melb.Herald-Sun 11.12

It is reporting that the AFLW in 2018 is likely to introduce an automatic free kick when the ball goes out-of-bounds, against the player who touched the ball last.
G.Hocking said the rule is successful in the SANFL.
The article states the AFL wants free-flowing play, & wants to minimise stoppages in the AFLW.
The Article also states the AFL is keen to see more goals being kicked in the AFLW & less congestion.

(The free kick is likely to be awarded only when the FU or BU can clearly determine who was the last player to touch the ball. This Rule was introduced to the VFL in the 1920's, & operated in the VFL up to the 1930's. The Rule then was also to encourage free-flowing play, & to mimimise stoppages -& to combat the appeal of the VFA)

EDIT:
The article states the Rule is likely to be introduced by the Commission this week.
It did not clarify if the free kick is paid automatically -or only if a player had clean possession, then handballs/kicks the ball over the line.

 

[jatz14]

Melb.Herald-Sun 11.12

It is reporting that the AFLW in 2018 is likely to introduce an automatic free kick when the ball goes out-of-bounds, against the player who touched the ball last.
S.Hocking said the AFL wants free-flowing play, & wants to minimise stoppages.
The Article also states the AFL is keen to see more goals being kicked in the AFLW.

(The free kick is likely to be awarded only when the FU or BU can clearly determine who was the last player to touch the ball. This Rule operated in the VFL up to the 1930's. The Rule then was also to encourage free-flowing play; & to mimimise stoppages)

Isnt this rule in effect in the SANFL? Or is it just if it is kicked?

 

[GreyCrow]

Isnt this rule in effect in the SANFL? Or is it just if it is kicked?

It is in the SANFL and here is a video

 

[NoobPie]

It is in the SANFL and here is a video

Actually that doesn't seem to bad. So incidental / accidental last touches are still thrown in, it is only from clean possessions. I hope they go with this and not a more comprehensive last touch rule.