Time to paint the grass different colours?

[WoodyPecker]

So we all know that sponsors logos are painted on to the ovals, but is it time we looked at changing it up a bit and painting the whole playing surface? Imagine how cool it would be to see a black oval for instance. Or what about an orange oval with black lines at a GWS game? Pink oval could be used for breast cancer awareness round while a soft yellow may give off an illusion of the grass being dead. Perhaps a possibility for next years much anticipated AFLX series to trial it out?

 

[Glassjaw]

I've seen some ordinary threads in my time, but I think this may be the worst.

 

[Anja_Nees]

Paint the ball the same colour as the grass.

 

[Damon_3388]

a soft yellow may give off an illusion of the grass being dead.

When we think of "desirable outcomes" in footy, this is surely the first thing that springs to mind.

 

[StillAtLarge]

Ban

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Maybe replace the grass with bubble wrap to end injury concerns. Bubble wrap comes with multiple colours

 

[quotemokc]

You realise you pretty much can only do it on turf and that sort of surface is not conducive to footy.

 

[Stevi_Tigers]

Yeah would have to be done on turf and that’s an acl waiting to happen

 

[Carson Dial]

So we all know that sponsors logos are painted on to the ovals, but is it time we looked at changing it up a bit and painting the whole playing surface? Imagine how cool it would be to see a black oval for instance. Or what about an orange oval with black lines at a GWS game? Pink oval could be used for breast cancer awareness round while a soft yellow may give off an illusion of the grass being dead. Perhaps a possibility for next years much anticipated AFLX series to trial it out?

Jesus some people who were at Woodstock are still alive!

 

[Always Ballin]

You realise you pretty much can only do it on turf and that sort of surface is not conducive to footy.

Bro, you watch AMERICAN SPORTS?

WOW!

 

[Boxhead_31]

So we all know that sponsors logos are painted on to the ovals, but is it time we looked at changing it up a bit and painting the whole playing surface? Imagine how cool it would be to see a black oval for instance. Or what about an orange oval with black lines at a GWS game? Pink oval could be used for breast cancer awareness round while a soft yellow may give off an illusion of the grass being dead. Perhaps a possibility for next years much anticipated AFLX series to trial it out?

Only three more sleeps and we wont have to worry about threads like this

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

They could paint the surface at Etihad green

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Go a step further and paint the players head to toe in the same colour, same with their uniforms. Full camo effect.

 

[HighBudget]

Woodpeckers on some grade A shit tonight man, making crazy threads all over the place

 

[AstroboyUK]

What I find most insteresting is teh manipulative wording that post titles (and newspaper articles) use as they have here...
ie
is it TIME we considered coloured turf...
not "would it be a good idea if"
Not "how about we"
Not, "I'd like to make a case for"....

no,,, "Is it TIME!"... implying this is something that's already got the weight of previous collective consideration behind it, that it comes with some weight of authority, and more than anything that its a PROGRESSIVE idea, and that to resitst the idea one would have to be, oh no" ANTI-PROGRESSIVE!.


This kind of manipulative language can be very effective, Is it TIME for gay marriage? for example.
It also takes other forms : there are often headings like
"How <person x> changed the way we view <pet issue Y>" By using this language the author no longer even needs to justify their proposition, as by the very title of the piece they have made it a predetermined fact. Now the disagreeing reader is given the challenge of not only being 'anti-prgoressive' but also the obligation to disprove something that wasn't even proven in the first place.

What does it mean? Well, if you know someone is trying to manipulate you, it becomes harder to manipulate you; and it means your counter views can sidestep their rhetorical trap and argue without accepting their premises. But secondly, it means that the writer is insincere in their own virtue, and probably intolerant of dissent or diversity of thought; ie : "my opinion is not open to discussion, agree with me or you are bad."

Not saying this applies to this specific thread, but hell, had to make something worthwhile out of it.

 

[Rance2Mewtwo]

We could paint the grass greener.

Then whenever a team switches to the other side, the commentators could say “he’s testing to see if the grass is greener on the other side”

 

[Benny78]

We could paint the grass greener.

Then whenever a team switches to the other side, the commentators could say “he’s testing to see if the grass is greener on the other side”

No they couldn't

 

[Feerits Elf]

If it weren't for shit being painted pink once a year I'd literally have no idea breast cancer was even a thing.

 

[Moggy]

What about a “mirror” surface?

Would be great for TV, and that’s what counts.

 

[Moggy]

Forgot to ask... are you an AFL exec?

 

[sataris]

Replace the turf with fire.

 

[Ocker]

So we all know that sponsors logos are painted on to the ovals, but is it time we looked at changing it up a bit and painting the whole playing surface? Imagine how cool it would be to see a black oval for instance. Or what about an orange oval with black lines at a GWS game? Pink oval could be used for breast cancer awareness round while a soft yellow may give off an illusion of the grass being dead. Perhaps a possibility for next years much anticipated AFLX series to trial it out?

WTAF man?

 

[Ocker]

Replace the turf with fire.

Yes...yes...fire is good

 

[Ocker]

What I find most insteresting is teh manipulative wording that post titles (and newspaper articles) use as they have here...
ie
is it TIME we considered coloured turf...
not "would it be a good idea if"
Not "how about we"
Not, "I'd like to make a case for"....

no,,, "Is it TIME!"... implying this is something that's already got the weight of previous collective consideration behind it, that it comes with some weight of authority, and more than anything that its a PROGRESSIVE idea, and that to resitst the idea one would have to be, oh no" ANTI-PROGRESSIVE!.


This kind of manipulative language can be very effective, Is it TIME for gay marriage? for example.
It also takes other forms : there are often headings like
"How <person x> changed the way we view <pet issue Y>" By using this language the author no longer even needs to justify their proposition, as by the very title of the piece they have made it a predetermined fact. Now the disagreeing reader is given the challenge of not only being 'anti-prgoressive' but also the obligation to disprove something that wasn't even proven in the first place.

What does it mean? Well, if you know someone is trying to manipulate you, it becomes harder to manipulate you; and it means your counter views can sidestep their rhetorical trap and argue without accepting their premises. But secondly, it means that the writer is insincere in their own virtue, and probably intolerant of dissent or diversity of thought; ie : "my opinion is not open to discussion, agree with me or you are bad."

Not saying this applies to this specific thread, but hell, had to make something worthwhile out of it.

WORD!

 

[Ocker]

Forgot to ask... are you an AFL exec?

Hehe...maybe the Afl will adopt this for the AFLW and then blitzkrieg ALL media, against our natural will, showing the women footballing 'superstars' playing the future brand of football. Coz apparently thats want WE wanted.