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

[Proffessor]

Wouldn’t be disastrous at all. The game existed for decades without it and was just fine… incl through periods that people cite as the most entertaining ever.

It all comes down to one thing: you have to keep the ball in motion. Players would take possession and get rid of it rapidly.

You can still get tackled with the ball, but when you are, you have to get rid of it.

Keep the game moving. Every other bandaid measure, like capping interchanges, becomes redundant. Players naturally tire out because they’re not breaking at a stoppage every 10 seconds.

All the ills they’ve tried to “fix” in the modern game can be traced back to the misguided introduction of prior opportunity in the late 90s.

In that previous era they enforced the other rules as I suggested.

The problem with removing the prior opportunity condition and maintaining the current ultra lax approach to tackling rules is that there would be a resultant disincentive for players to take possession unless they are well clear of any opponents, resulting in games where players continually tap the ball around without grabbing hold of it.

 

[Hoops]

It is certainly an unpopular take to suggest drug cheats deserve best and fairest awards. You are right about that at least.

My take, popular or unpopular as it may be, is that Essendon and the 34 players got off easy.

Mu unpopular opinion is that the players were hard done by but the club got off easy.

Stripping Jobe of the Brownlow was the right thing to do.

 

[bobs head soup]

In my unpopular opinion, the game would be better with 14 players for each team on the ground.

The athletic capacities of the modern player and heavy interchange rotations have made a 36 man game just too many.

Get rid of the flankers, all they do is congest.

If the game started with the existing onballers, wings and 4 on 4 at each end it would be a better spectacle.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Hamish McLaughlan is totally inoffensive to me and actually not a bad commentator.

 

[jatz14]

Wouldn’t be disastrous at all. The game existed for decades without it and was just fine… incl through periods that people cite as the most entertaining ever.

It all comes down to one thing: you have to keep the ball in motion. Players would take possession and get rid of it rapidly.

You can still get tackled with the ball, but when you are, you have to get rid of it.

Keep the game moving. Every other bandaid measure, like capping interchanges, becomes redundant. Players naturally tire out because they’re not breaking at a stoppage every 10 seconds.

All the ills they’ve tried to “fix” in the modern game can be traced back to the misguided introduction of prior opportunity in the late 90s.

The game wasn't fine, it's why the rule was brought in.

People have rose coloured glasses for the past.

Players were starting to game the rules as they were, and to cut it off, they introduced the prior opportunity rule.

Now players game that.

If it was removed, players would go back to gaming the tackle rules, but in this day of full time pro players, it would be much worse.

Think Toby gaming the rules when the head is sacrosanct rule was brought in, and the AFL had to change the rule.

If they dropped the prior opportunity rule, I think they would reintroduce it within a month because of the resulting cluster ****.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Hoops]

If a player on top of an opponent drags the ball under the opponent who is trying to get the ball out should get holding the ball against himself.

 

[Caligo]

If a player on top of an opponent drags the ball under the opponent who is trying to get the ball out should get holding the ball against himself.

Yes please! This annoys me every time.

 

[peetoo]

The game wasn't fine, it's why the rule was brought in.

People have rose coloured glasses for the past.

Players were starting to game the rules as they were, and to cut it off, they introduced the prior opportunity rule.

Now players game that.

If it was removed, players would go back to gaming the tackle rules, but in this day of full time pro players, it would be much worse.

Think Toby gaming the rules when the head is sacrosanct rule was brought in, and the AFL had to change the rule.

If they dropped the prior opportunity rule, I think they would reintroduce it within a month because of the resulting cluster *.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

Holding the ball/holding the man/incorrect disposal and all associated rules are impossible to resolve.

Make a change, players adapt. Make another change and so on

Perhaps it worked when there was a serious risk of permanent hurt holding onto the ball too long. Now not so much

 

[peetoo]

Yes please! This annoys me every time.

Plus one. Especially when the other player didn’t drag it in just got smashed to the ground in the vicinity of the ball

 

[LoBu]

Wouldn’t be disastrous at all. The game existed for decades without it and was just fine… incl through periods that people cite as the most entertaining ever.

It all comes down to one thing: you have to keep the ball in motion. Players would take possession and get rid of it rapidly.

You can still get tackled with the ball, but when you are, you have to get rid of it.

Keep the game moving. Every other bandaid measure, like capping interchanges, becomes redundant. Players naturally tire out because they’re not breaking at a stoppage every 10 seconds.

All the ills they’ve tried to “fix” in the modern game can be traced back to the misguided introduction of prior opportunity in the late 90s.

If you get the ball and get it off quickly but don't, that's prior opportunity. Getting rid of prior opportunity doesn't mean you can get dispose of the ball quicker does it?

 

[lizard man]

Kane Cornes is the benchmark when it comes to afl pundits

 

[sdfc]

Mu unpopular opinion is that the players were hard done by but the club got off easy.

Stripping Jobe of the Brownlow was the right thing to do.

I've changed my mind, It was the right thing to do. It's amazing what you find when you do a bit or research. It turns out the program did have an impact. They dropped away after it stopped. I thought they were so incompetent that the players copped those suspensions for a program that didn't do anything.

 

[austinnn]

The game is better to watch now than it was in the old days in the mud with slower players in loads more space. People were starved of entertainment back then.

Conversely crowds were much better in the old days. Apart from the racism obvs

 

[Caligo]

I've changed my mind, It was the right thing to do. It's amazing what you find when you do a bit or research. It turns out the program did have an impact. They dropped away after it stopped. I thought they were so incompetent that the players copped those suspensions for a program that didn't do anything.

Peptides absolutely work.

 

[p4p1]

Shirt underneath? or guns out?

Depends on their shape surely? If I was in good shape I would be wearing sleevless tops everywhere tbh.

 

[p4p1]

You and a few others seem to have missed half the debate and at least partially misunderstood my position.

I agree that Essendon did the wrong thing and needed to be punished.

Even though the players were given dodgy advice by medical staff, I also recognise that they couldn’t be completely absolved of personal responsibility lest that open the door for future exploitation of such a ruling.

My position is simply that the suspension was more than enough punishment for the players including Jobe, and that there was no need to go further and strip the poor bloke of his Brownlow. He’d been punished enough.

How much punishment is too much for the crime of allowing yourself to be misled by your club’s medical staff?

The AFL didn’t have to take it away, there was no rule requiring them to do so. It is simply an umpire voted playing conduct award and they could have, and should have, just let it stand.

You can't be dense enough to think that if a team/players entire season is tainted due to PEDs then stripping them of their achievements during that season is too much punishment? Does Jobe win the Brownlow that year without the injections? His history says probably not but we will never know. Is it not unfair for the players whos clubs didn't cheat that he would get to keep his competition BnF?
If Essendon won the premiership that year, would the club have kept the premiership?

 

[p4p1]

If a player on top of an opponent drags the ball under the opponent who is trying to get the ball out should get holding the ball against himself.

I like this.

 

[p4p1]

The game is better to watch now than it was in the old days in the mud with slower players in loads more space. People were starved of entertainment back then.

Conversely crowds were much better in the old days. Apart from the racism obvs

Crazy to me that this is an unpopular opinion. It's faster and harder than it has ever been. Could it do with less congestion? Definitely but that is a side effect of players being better/professional athletes now.

 

[peetoo]

Crazy to me that this is an unpopular opinion. It's faster and harder than it has ever been. Could it do with less congestion? Definitely but that is a side effect of players being better/professional athletes now.

They used to get 2-3 goals up and ‘hit the boundary line’

 

[hilly]

because they....tanked.

Turn it up, we've been shizen. I'd be happier if we could just flick a switch and win games.

 

[Proffessor]

You can't be dense enough to think that if a team/players entire season is tainted due to PEDs then stripping them of their achievements during that season is too much punishment? Does Jobe win the Brownlow that year without the injections? His history says probably not but we will never know. Is it not unfair for the players whos clubs didn't cheat that he would get to keep his competition BnF?
If Essendon won the premiership that year, would the club have kept the premiership?

Possibly because multiple clubs including Essendon have won Premierships and subsequently been shown to have cheated the salary cap, yet still kept their flags.

Can you be bloody minded enough to suggest a bloke who did not knowingly take anything that transgressed the rules, should not only get a two-year suspension but also have to lose an award for on-field playing conduct, 4 years after the fact?

With that sort of attitude, I wonder if you would support Brisbane retrospectively having to forfeit their 2001-2003 premierships due to the participation of admitted PED user Allister Lynch, should WADA belatedly appeal the AFL's decision not to suspend him earlier?

 

[Caligo]

Possibly because multiple clubs including Essendon have won Premierships and subsequently been shown to have cheated the salary cap, yet still kept their flags.

Can you be bloody minded enough to suggest a bloke who did not knowingly take anything that transgressed the rules, should not only get a two-year suspension but also have to lose an award for on-field playing conduct, 4 years after the fact?

With that sort of attitude, I wonder if you would support Brisbane retrospectively having to forfeit their 2001-2003 premierships due to the participation of admitted PED user Allister Lynch, should WADA belatedly appeal the AFL's decision not to suspend him earlier?

Salary cap breaches and an industrial performance enhancing drug program are not comparable. Thinking that they are says a little about your judgement.

Lynch is a dreadful example. He did not take PEDs during the flag era, he self reported, it was a medically prescribed substance that was only just added to the banned list while he was still talking it for a short period of time and the club had no involvement. There was never any intent to circumvent the drug code, from either player ot team. Any awards he won in 1998 should be retrospectively stripped though. Just like Watson.

There isn't any hypocrisy here.

 

[Proffessor]

Salary cap breaches and an industrial performance enhancing drug program are not comparable. Thinking that they are says a little about your judgement.

Lynch is a dreadful example. He did not take PEDs during the flag era, he self reported, it was a medically prescribed substance that was only just added to the banned list while he was still talking it for a short period of time and the club had no involvement. There was never any intent to circumvent the drug code, from either player ot team. Any awards he won in 1998 should be retrospectively stripped though. Just like Watson.

There isn't any hypocrisy here.

There is plenty of hypocrisy in your position.

Salary cap breaches are cheating. Especially intentional premeditated breaches as many were. That sort of cheating seems ok by you though, not even comparable, and can therefore go unpunished even if it helps that club achieve the ultimate goal of winning the whole competition.

Exceptions can apparently also be made for Lynch who admittedly breached rules and clearly gained performance benefits from taking genuine PEDs. Here was a person who had chronic fatigue syndrome, struggled to get out of bed, yet was able to maintain an Adonis like physique through chemical assistance not provided to him by his club, never had to pay any penalty, serve any suspension and went on to play a key role in a triple premiership. No punishment required here either apparently.

Yet for a bloke who was duped by his employer club’s dodgy medical and performance staff to take some low level supplements following repeated assurances that they were legal, and which provided no clearly discernible benefits as the club was not successful during this period, apparently for him a 2 year total suspension from playing and even training within club facilities isn’t enough punishment for you. No, you think that this guy definitely had to be punished further and have his umpire adjudicated on field playing conduct medal revoked too. Couldn’t possibly let that symbolic pat on the back, for the laudable manner in which he conducted himself and interacted with team mates, opponents and officials during game time, stand.

 

[Lsta062]

The whole “preseason form means absolutely nothing” is a myth spread within the footy community.

Some trends actually emerge in preseason games if you know what to look for. For example, Richmond and Adelaide’s offensive potency in the 2022 and 2023 AFL seasons respectively started in the preseason and intraclub matches of the same season.

Not everything translates of course, which is why I said “if you know what to look for”. Preseason games occur 2-3 weeks before the season starts, so there isn’t a long time to change things before the H&A season starts.

 

[Caligo]

There is plenty of hypocrisy in your position.

Salary cap breaches are cheating. Especially intentional premeditated breaches as many were. That sort of cheating seems ok by you though, not even comparable, and can therefore go unpunished even if it helps that club achieve the ultimate goal of winning the whole competition.

Exceptions can apparently also be made for Lynch who admittedly breached rules and clearly gained performance benefits from taking genuine PEDs. Here was a person who had chronic fatigue syndrome, struggled to get out of bed, yet was able to maintain an Adonis like physique through chemical assistance not provided to him by his club, never had to pay any penalty, serve any suspension and went on to play a key role in a triple premiership. No punishment required here either apparently.

Yet for a bloke who was duped by his employer club’s dodgy medical and performance staff to take some low level supplements following repeated assurances that they were legal, and which provided no clearly discernible benefits as the club was not successful during this period, apparently for him a 2 year total suspension from playing and even training within club facilities isn’t enough punishment for you. No, you think that this guy definitely had to be punished further and have his umpire adjudicated on field playing conduct medal revoked too. Couldn’t possibly let that symbolic pat on the back, for the laudable manner in which he conducted himself and interacted with team mates, opponents and officials during game time, stand.

I am not making an exception for lynch. Any awards he won in 1998 should be stripped. Just like they were for Watson. But that isn't what you asked for. You wanted Brisbane to be penalised in years where nobody took a PED. That is just stupid.

Thinking all forms of cheating are the same is stupid too. You can believe in retrospective historical bans for doping but only current bans for salary cap cheating. For all the reasons obvious to everyone but you.

This is a particularly close subject for me. I missed out on opportunities in my chosen sport because others were doping. If I had my way they would be in prison.