The fact remains that afl can be played on a cow paddock and not have a negative outcome really on the quality of the game but soccer pitches can be ruined by afl and rugby. So common courtesy would be to deconflict with a stadiums only tenant and life blood.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
AFL X
- Thread starter boncer34
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Going from 36 on a field to 14 will significantly reduce the ware on the pitch.
- Nov 23, 2016
- 10,558
- 7,070
- AFL Club
- GWS
I think there's an element of getting in the faces of the other codes in the ground selection in NSWand SA.
Alliance stadium is really the home of NRL. ANZ is used for the GF and state of origin, but it's used for big games of all three codes and is seen as neutral in those terms.
I don't know Adelaide well these days but assume soccer is the major competitor there, so using their ground fits.
Melbourne is obviously unique with the AFL owning Ettihad
Alliance stadium is really the home of NRL. ANZ is used for the GF and state of origin, but it's used for big games of all three codes and is seen as neutral in those terms.
I don't know Adelaide well these days but assume soccer is the major competitor there, so using their ground fits.
Melbourne is obviously unique with the AFL owning Ettihad
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #430
Can they now? Ive not seen a poor AFL surface in nearly 20 years where AFL is the primary tenant.
Common courtesy? The stadium is government owned, and despite Adelaides whining here, it is not an exclusive tenant, merely the only tenant interested in using it.
The game is aerial for the ball whilst soccer is more on the ground, so my point was a bad ground wont affect afl like it does soccer.as for the other paragraph, the mcg is a cricket ground but depends on afl, and afl would fume if cricket booted them off at their leisure citing the afl is just someone that uses it.
Hindmarsh is used by soccer 99% of all its usage so its fair enough they get annoyed by this blatant disregard for them
- Moderator
- #432
My point is that theres no evidence a single day of AFL will turn the ground too bad for soccer to be played on it. This isnt the 90s, ground curation has come a long way.
And this simple fact remains, while United at the grounds main tenant, they dont get exclusive access to the ground. As for the MCG example, you are aware that the Victorian Government in recent years decided that the AFL began fixturing soccer events there mid year despite the AFL being its primary tenant at that time of the year? Or see United hosting a final at Adelaide Oval in 2015, less than 2 days before a friggin Showdown of all things.
stew23
Draftee
Does anyone know what the television schedule for these matches is. I imagine the AFL would want this screened on free-to-air over Foxtel due to maximum exposure, but so far haven't had any indication as to what the plans are.
I suspect they are in negotiations with the networks. Most likely I imagine it would end up on channel 7
Will check it out, looking forward to going to Hindmarsh Stadium for the first time.
B: Glass-McKasker and Macreadie
C: Cuningham Polson and Mullett
F: J.Silvagni and Kerr
INT: Graham, Pickett, Lamb and LeBois
In other words.. Who gives a shit
C: Cuningham Polson and Mullett
F: J.Silvagni and Kerr
INT: Graham, Pickett, Lamb and LeBois
In other words.. Who gives a shit
FreddieAppsHero
Cancelled
- Nov 20, 2017
- 4
- 0
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I can't help but feel that this is just going to turn into a kick fest. Just before they announced the rules, I was thinking that they need to find a way to disincentivise just punting the ball to goal from halfway. The pitch length is too short to allow players to just get maximum points by kicking from wherever; other kicking games on rectangular pitches have ways of discouraging kicking from distance. Instead, the AFL did the exact opposite of what they should do, and added an incentive for players to just belt it long for a goal from halfway.
It will be interesting where it works in practice. I had similar thoughts in terms of the encouraging of long bombs at the expense of working the ball closer to goal. It is possible that they are trying to discourage teams organising too defensively. I think they should narrow the goals.
I am certainly taking an open mind to it but I am not sold on the idea that it needs to be super high scoring as has been suggested in some of the PR. Australian football is a fast and relatively high scoring game already. What it offers is a simpler, smaller (in time, ground and team sizes) game that will be easier to follow for those with less exposure to the game. It will necessarily reduce the "scrimmage" element of the game which is an acquired taste and accentuate the free flowing skilled linkage play.
FreddieAppsHero
Cancelled
- Nov 20, 2017
- 4
- 0
- AFL Club
- Carlton
My (probably controversial) first opinion is that they should remove behinds, make goals a minor score, and then add either International Rules-style net goals or ever (shock horror) rugby-style tries, in order to encourages players to get the ball forward instead of just kicking from distance. I imagine those are too different from the main game for what the AFL wants to achieve with the new format though.
I think that's right, there are a set of parameters that a seen as fundamental, or near enough to fundamental, to the game that they won't screw with. They, IMO are already sailing pretty close to the wind in largely removing the neutral restart for stoppages (out of bounds, after goal). It needs to be Australian football still. Trys certainly aren't Australian football, and I think changing the goal posts is too radical as well.
im warming tonthe concept.
whenever i think of it on TV i think it might be a bit ordinary to watch, but whenever i think of actually playing it muself- as a busy person who is not massively fit and a bit old- i think ‘i could really see me playing this:i want to try this’
ie: the real purpose of this showcase is to get people to play it not watch it: and i eould definately be more motivsted to pull the boots on again for this than 6 a side soccer - and im just not capable of playing full scale competitive football anymore. i would love to drop down to the local field and do this for an hour or so...
whenever i think of it on TV i think it might be a bit ordinary to watch, but whenever i think of actually playing it muself- as a busy person who is not massively fit and a bit old- i think ‘i could really see me playing this:i want to try this’
ie: the real purpose of this showcase is to get people to play it not watch it: and i eould definately be more motivsted to pull the boots on again for this than 6 a side soccer - and im just not capable of playing full scale competitive football anymore. i would love to drop down to the local field and do this for an hour or so...
FreddieAppsHero
Cancelled
- Nov 20, 2017
- 4
- 0
- AFL Club
- Carlton
In that case, and this is probably another controversial opinion, I don't think AFL as it is today can be adequately played on a rectangular field. Too many changes have to be made to make it work well, and those changes would take it too far from the main game.
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,968
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
It's possible to sink a basket from the half way line in basketball, but teams rarely do it.
Why not? Because it's low percentage and the other team takes possession with a likely basket going the other way.
Similarly, it would be low percentage having a flying shot from 55m, the other team will take possession and give themselves a good chance of scoring a major going the other way.
In short, so what, if one team wants to persist with low percentage flying shots from 55m in a game which only has 10 min quarters?
And if there is someone who can split the sticks from 55m 2 out of every 3 attempts, good on them.
Why not? Because it's low percentage and the other team takes possession with a likely basket going the other way.
Similarly, it would be low percentage having a flying shot from 55m, the other team will take possession and give themselves a good chance of scoring a major going the other way.
In short, so what, if one team wants to persist with low percentage flying shots from 55m in a game which only has 10 min quarters?
And if there is someone who can split the sticks from 55m 2 out of every 3 attempts, good on them.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
The small ground relative to the fact that people can kick a long way doesn't mean it's an issue. It just means the way scoring works needs to be tweaked to have a balanced game between attack and defence and make it entertaining. In Hurling, the players can hit whatever ball thingo they have three quarters of the length of the field, but the sport clearly works and is entertaining when I've watched it, even if I have no idea what's going on.
Under the AFLX rules any goal outside of 40m will score 10 points. I think we will see alot of "flying shots" at goal with that incentive.
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,968
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
Yeh, I only learned about the 10 point goal the other day. I dislike having three difference scoring units.
41 metres isn't exactly a huge kick either, at amateur level, most of us would be sinking goals from that distance.
Tandy
Norm Smith Medallist
Should have made it exact rules of IR. Except with a football, even a more rounded one.
Im with you on this one and it would get AFL players more used to the IR game.
You clearly did enough to put the time and effort into this high quality team
