Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

[Strapping Young Lad]

Ok....so just because it's a cool story and brings some romance to the game, should we start letting the odd goal through and tweak the odd result here and there?

Cause you know, old farts that want some storybook s**t.

I know what you're saying. Don't get me wrong. For some desperate losers, seeing a kid playing in the same jumper as their dad (even though the jumpers have all changed anyway) is cool and adds something.
But how on earth it can be justified when the AFL are supposedly doing everything they can to ensure balance, equality and integrity in the competition is just completely beyond me.

How's this sound...how about we ask the goal umpire to let the odd behind slide and just call it a goal if it's a scenario that will add a bit of romance? Come on, what's the big deal, right.

Integrity? Pfft. Who gives a s**t, right?

And the thing is it's not even actually about the father-son. It's about getting good players to the club via the father-son rule.

If you suck, suddenly clubs and fans go a bit cold on the whole romance and meaning thing.

Imagine how quickly the clubs would call for the axing of this stupid rule if it became mandatory to draft sons of ex-players.

Funny that.


And why sons of fathers? What about brothers?
What about guys that have played 200 games with 1 club and leave? Isn't that harder for fans? Wouldn't it be romantic to see these guys play for that same club the whole way through?

Certainly more relevant than a fuc**ng kid playing for a team that his dad played for 30 fu****g years ago!!!

This is a great melt.

Can I just add an opinion that will certainly be unpopular with you.

Sons of premiership players should be available to clubs.
It makes no sense that some has been who achieved nothing other than ticking over 100 games gets to see his son follow in his footsteps, while a premiership player who’s achieved the ultimate does not.

 

[Billy ray]

Meatloaf was not the worst GF entertainment- that was Dame Edna in 2005

 

[RedmanWasHere]

that was Dame Edna in 2005

Too soon?

 

[Billy ray]

Too soon?

Maybe.

 

[Hoops]

Bang on. Every weekend feels like a long weekend when the footys on Thursday night

Unfortunately my workplace doesn't feel the same

 

[Demon13304]

Richmond and Melbourne could have played a Thursday night game this round but no, two clubs who already have a marquee slot each need another one in the form of a game on ANZAC eve.

The Anzac eve slot was literally there for 20 odd years and nobody else thought of it, so Melbourne and Richmond decided to take it

 

[GhostofJimJess]

The Anzac eve slot was literally there for 20 odd years and nobody else thought of it, so Melbourne and Richmond decided to take it

Yep, and at present we have Easter Sunday and Queen's Birthday Eve both sitting vacant. If one of the bigger clubs decides to market either of those and turn them into annual blockbusters, I reckon we'd get the same hindsight complaining that we get for Anzac Day/Eve, Dreamtime, Queen's Birthday etc.

 

[VinnieB]

Yep, and at present we have Easter Sunday and Queen's Birthday Eve both sitting vacant. If one of the bigger clubs decides to market either of those and turn them into annual blockbusters, I reckon we'd get the same hindsight complaining that we get for Anzac Day/Eve, Dreamtime, Queen's Birthday etc.

Yes. ‘Eve’ is the entree to the main course. I agree we should see more of them.

 

[Pistol Night]

Yes. ‘Eve’ is the entree to the main course. I agree we should see more of them.

Essendon could play games on Grand Final Eve for the following year

 

[VinnieB]

The Father Son rule is just one of many quirks the AFL has which makes it an inequitable competition. It's a great tradition to keep family connections to a club alive but I think it's impossible to argue it's truly fair.

In a league where big name players more and more head to big name clubs its a mechanism which will further widen the gap.

I also cannot understand for the life of me why a 20% bidding discount exists for it (and academies etc). Why should a club not only get first rights to a player, but also have that player be delivered with a nice cherry on top?

I agree, but it’s not the only think which makes the competition inequitable.

I’m sure this will be unpopular, however, an allowance needs to be made for cost of living. Both in salary cap and the football department soft cap.

For those concessions, academies should be run by the afl with the kids all nominating for the draft and free for any club to pick them. Same as NGA etc.

 

[VinnieB]

Essendon could play games on Grand Final Eve for the following year

You need to give me a few minutes to understand what you mean

 

[Pistol Night]

You need to give me a few minutes to understand what you mean

Same. Something about never winning finals, September always free etc

 

[windyhill]

Same. Something about never winning finals, September always free etc

Checks premiership count.....

 

[Pistol Night]

Checks premiership count.....

You had to check? ****n hell it has been a while then

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

This is a great melt.

Can I just add an opinion that will certainly be unpopular with you.

Sons of premiership players should be available to clubs.
It makes no sense that some has been who achieved nothing other than ticking over 100 games gets to see his son follow in his footsteps, while a premiership player who’s achieved the ultimate does not.

Why though?

Having unprotected sex and their partner giving birth to a male - has absolutely nothing to do with football.


Why does that 'achievement' in any way result in a club getting an advantage by bypassing all other equalisation methods that the AFL has introduced to prevent clubs from gaining outdated and stupidly unfair advantages that are no longer relevant or appropriate in a modern sporting competition??!


I mean seriously, think about it... The AFL are literally saying "great job <insert club name here>, a player played 100 games for you 20 years ago, which in plenty of cases were completely forgettable, but he did root someone 18 years ago and through some act of nature - that woman gave birth to a boy! So to reward you for this wonderful achievement, we're going to compromise the draft and disadvantage all other clubs that didn't have the fortune to have an ex-player have sex and father a son - and allow this kid to play for you. I know it makes no fu***ng sense at all, but you know, there are some crusty old deadshits out there that will get some perverse kind of thrill out of it, so what the hell."


Do we let lifelong supporters of a club bypass the draft and join the club of their choice? Of course not.

What about kids that lived their whole lives next to the ground that a team plays at? Of course not. That would be absolutely idiotic and completely compromise the integrity of the comp.

But play 100 games for a club 20 years ago that is barely recognisable to the current day Club, have a boy...and BAM! Straight through.


It's just totally moronic.

 

[windyhill]

You had to check? *n hell it has been a while then

Finally, you get something right.

 

[Pistol Night]

Finally, you get something right.

Jesus you sound like my missus

 

[windyhill]

Jesus you sound like my missus

I think we’re both getting in the way of lavender bushrangers epic sized rant.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I think we’re both getting in the way of lavender bushrangers epic sized rant.

Haha.

I'm only just getting started ..

Wait 'til I really start mashing the keypad!

You'll never silence me!!!!

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Why though?

Having unprotected sex and their partner giving birth to a male - has absolutely nothing to do with football.


Why does that 'achievement' in any way result in a club getting an advantage by bypassing all other equalisation methods that the AFL has introduced to prevent clubs from gaining outdated and stupidly unfair advantages that are no longer relevant or appropriate in a modern sporting competition??!


I mean seriously, think about it... The AFL are literally saying "great job <insert club name here>, a player played 100 games for you 20 years ago, which in plenty of cases were completely forgettable, but he did root someone 18 years ago and through some act of nature - that woman gave birth to a boy! So to reward you for this wonderful achievement, we're going to compromise the draft and disadvantage all other clubs that didn't have the fortune to have an ex-player have sex and father a son - and allow this kid to play for you. I know it makes no fu***ng sense at all, but you know, there are some crusty old deadshits out there that will get some perverse kind of thrill out of it, so what the hell."


Do we let lifelong supporters of a club bypass the draft and join the club of their choice? Of course not.

What about kids that lived their whole lives next to the ground that a team plays at? Of course not. That would be absolutely idiotic and completely compromise the integrity of the comp.

But play 100 games for a club 20 years ago that is barely recognisable to the current day Club, have a boy...and BAM! Straight through.


It's just totally moronic.

It's great, but good on you for having an unpopular opinion. Thread win.

 

[Pistol Night]

Why though?

Having unprotected sex and their partner giving birth to a male - has absolutely nothing to do with football.


Why does that 'achievement' in any way result in a club getting an advantage by bypassing all other equalisation methods that the AFL has introduced to prevent clubs from gaining outdated and stupidly unfair advantages that are no longer relevant or appropriate in a modern sporting competition??!


I mean seriously, think about it... The AFL are literally saying "great job <insert club name here>, a player played 100 games for you 20 years ago, which in plenty of cases were completely forgettable, but he did root someone 18 years ago and through some act of nature - that woman gave birth to a boy! So to reward you for this wonderful achievement, we're going to compromise the draft and disadvantage all other clubs that didn't have the fortune to have an ex-player have sex and father a son - and allow this kid to play for you. I know it makes no fu***ng sense at all, but you know, there are some crusty old deadshits out there that will get some perverse kind of thrill out of it, so what the hell."


Do we let lifelong supporters of a club bypass the draft and join the club of their choice? Of course not.

What about kids that lived their whole lives next to the ground that a team plays at? Of course not. That would be absolutely idiotic and completely compromise the integrity of the comp.

But play 100 games for a club 20 years ago that is barely recognisable to the current day Club, have a boy...and BAM! Straight through.


It's just totally moronic.

I wish Peter Daicos had more unprotected sex than Wilt Chamberlain with recent developments

 

[The 747]

Any game or act that aims to 'raise awareness' for something. Get in the bin, you are trying to use a cause to raise your own profile.

Actually donate something of substance instead.

 

[PhatBoy]

Patrick Dangerfield’s kicking is SLIGHTLY over-criticised.

He clearly sprays it from time to time no denying that whatsoever.

BUT. He has a more penetrating kick than just about any midfielder going around - 55-60 is pretty simple for him and he kicks 50m on his non-preferred side. His precision is not great but his distance is better than most which compensates somewhat.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Any game or act that aims to 'raise awareness' for something. Get in the bin, you are trying to use a cause to raise your own profile.

Actually donate something of substance instead.

Anzac Day?

 

[The 747]

Anzac Day?

Yeah but not only Anzac Day/Round.