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

[HawkerHurricane]

This is something my old boy has been banging on about for years, and i'm actually starting to warm to it..
Anything that goes between the big sticks is a goal.. just like soccer. It doesn't matter if it has hit the post, has been punched, kicked or head butted across the line.
With all the dramas & hold ups associated with video review process for nearly every score now days, it is actually becoming more relevant.
I'm sure someone will have an opinion as to why this has never been implemented,
if so i'd love to hear it, i'll pass it on to him

 

[Forward Press]

This is something my old boy has been banging on about for years, and i'm actually starting to warm to it..
Anything that goes between the big sticks is a goal.. just like soccer. It doesn't matter if it has hit the post, has been punched, kicked or head butted across the line.
With all the dramas & hold ups associated with video review process for nearly every score now days, it is actually becoming more relevant.
I'm sure someone will have an opinion as to why this has never been implemented,
if so i'd love to hear it, i'll pass it on to him

In soccer, it's either a goal worth one point or not.

In Australian rules football, it's a goal worth six points, or we have a behind worth a point, or we have none at all.

Now imagine you have a shot after the siren with scores tied, and the ball hits the post and bounces out...

 

[HawkerHurricane]

In soccer, it's either a goal worth one point or not.

In Australian rules football, it's a goal worth six points, or we have a behind worth a point, or we have none at all.

Now imagine you have a shot after the siren with scores tied, and the ball hits the post and bounces out...

its a no score, easy
he does mention this in his rants, forgot to add it sorry

 

[Forward Press]

its a no score, easy
he does mention this in his rants, forgot to add it sorry

Bit unfair where if the ball bounced off the goal post either way it would win the game, but the one that bounces out is no score.

The proposal only works if we no longer have behinds, and that's not happening while the game exists.

 

[HawkerHurricane]

Bit unfair where if the ball bounced off the goal post either way it would win the game, but the one that bounces out is no score.

The proposal only works if we no longer have behinds, and that's not happening while the game exists.

but that would be the ruling, implemented to abolish all the confusion. Goals & Points could still exist, it just has to go through the sticks to score, if it bounces off & back into play, play on (obviously not in the case of a kick after the siren, it just doesn't register as a score)
I appreciate your thoughts, and the old boy will love to hear how this plays out. I'm still struggling to fault his idea.

 

[Franc de Borges]

but that would be the ruling, implemented to abolish all the confusion. Goals & Points could still exist, it just has to go through the sticks to score, if it bounces off & back into play, play on (obviously not in the case of a kick after the siren, it just doesn't register as a score)
I appreciate your thoughts, and the old boy will love to hear how this plays out. I'm still struggling to fault his idea.

Struggling to fault it? It’s our entire scoring system. Having a shot from 50m would be eradicated as you could just set it up 5m out and have your ruckman punch it through. Rolling mauls whenever there’s a ball up within 30m of goal. Tactics and recruitment would be severely altered. It’s a shit idea.

 

[HawkerHurricane]

Struggling to fault it? It’s our entire scoring system. Having a shot from 50m would be eradicated as you could just set it up 5m out and have your ruckman punch it through. Rolling mauls whenever there’s a ball up within 30m of goal. Tactics and recruitment would be severely altered. It’s a s**t idea.

there it is, good call, and thankyou.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

This is something my old boy has been banging on about for years, and i'm actually starting to warm to it..
Anything that goes between the big sticks is a goal.. just like soccer. It doesn't matter if it has hit the post, has been punched, kicked or head butted across the line.
With all the dramas & hold ups associated with video review process for nearly every score now days, it is actually becoming more relevant.
I'm sure someone will have an opinion as to why this has never been implemented,
if so i'd love to hear it, i'll pass it on to him

It's been discussed on this thread quite a few times.

I'm a huge fan of getting rid of the snicko-type behinds from a kick at goal - if it gets through the goals then it's a goal, post or no post. Ditto for behinds.

Hitting the goal post and rebounding into play HAS to be a behind. The ball was on a trajectory and that needs to be honoured, just like if the ball strikes the goal umpire on the goal line and rebounds, it needs to be called a goal.

Punching through for a goal is a hard no for me. Just like in soccer, or hockey, or rugby, or any one of a multitude of other ball sports.

 

[HawkerHurricane]

It's been discussed on this thread quite a few times.

I'm a huge fan of getting rid of the snicko-type behinds from a kick at goal - if it gets through the goals then it's a goal, post or no post. Ditto for behinds.

Hitting the goal post and rebounding into play HAS to be a behind. The ball was on a trajectory and that needs to be honoured, just like if the ball strikes the goal umpire on the goal line and rebounds, it needs to be called a goal.

Punching through for a goal is a hard no for me. Just like in soccer, or hockey, or rugby, or any one of a multitude of other ball sports.

ah yep, what i meant, when referring to soccer, was that the ball doesn't have to be kicked for it to be a goal, but i agree completely with the arguments put forward by yourself & Franc de Borges - Good chat, it's been put to bed

 

[brmi]

The clock should keep rolling at each stoppage, excluding boundary throw ins, and the clock should stop from the time a mark is awarded for a set shot inside 50 or near it until it is kicked.

Would speed up general play and if a player was deemed to be deliberately delaying/wasting time for the umpire ball it up, a free kick can be paid.

Why we allow the clock to continue to run down for 30+ seconds for someone to have a shot at goal still baffles me.

 

[BigPond101]

6-6-6 is the greatest rule change in the last 25 years and "stand" a close second. I don't know if this is still unpopular but it sure was when first introduced. I remember the melts and "I'll never watch AFL again" comments lol.

Seriously it took major balls by whichever administrator introduced such a large change and they've been proved correct. Well done. Now if only we could work out how to maintain 6-6-6 the entire game without going full netball and making the players wear bibs

 

[RUNVS]

To be honest I do not know if this would be a popular opinion or not as I doubt anyone else has ever really thought about it since it is quite dumb but I would love to see, just as a preseason game or something a version of AFL where there are 4 teams playing in a single game rather than 2.

Have 4 sets of goals, two in the normal place, two on the wings, have 9 players per team and one ball.

Like normal AFL each team has to try and score a goal through their own goal posts while restricting the opposition from scoring in theirs. After each quarter the teams rotate so eventually every team uses every set of goals once.

I want to see this game

Sydney
Grundy, Gulden, Warner, Heeney, McDonald, Amartey, Blakey, Rampe

Geelong
Blicavs, Dangerfield, Cameron, Stewart, Stengle, Holmes, C.Guthrie, Duncan, Z.Guthrie

Essendon
Goldstein, Martin, Merrett, McGrath, Langford, McKaym Durham, Redman, Perkins

Melbourne
Gawn, Pettracca, Oliver, May, Lever, Van Rooyen, Fritsch, Viney, Neal-Bullen

 

[GoldbergsGold]

6-6-6 is the greatest rule change in the last 25 years and "stand" a close second. I don't know if this is still unpopular but it sure was when first introduced. I remember the melts and "I'll never watch AFL again" comments lol.

Seriously it took major balls by whichever administrator introduced such a large change and they've been proved correct. Well done. Now if only we could work out how to maintain 6-6-6 the entire game without going full netball and making the players wear bibs

666 rule is a meh rule, it hasn't made the game more open and high scoring, so it's pointless. But The Stand Rule is one of the worst rules ever, it removes pressure on the ball carrier, which is why I don't understand why anyone would want that. Pressure is the best part of the sport. And likewise, has not made the sport more high scoring, so it's just a bad rule because it doesn't even do anything other than remove pressure, which is terrible for the sport.

 

[peetoo]

To be honest I do not know if this would be a popular opinion or not as I doubt anyone else has ever really thought about it since it is quite dumb but I would love to see, just as a preseason game or something a version of AFL where there are 4 teams playing in a single game rather than 2.

Have 4 sets of goals, two in the normal place, two on the wings, have 9 players per team and one ball.

Like normal AFL each team has to try and score a goal through their own goal posts while restricting the opposition from scoring in theirs. After each quarter the teams rotate so eventually every team uses every set of goals once.

I want to see this game

Sydney
Grundy, Gulden, Warner, Heeney, McDonald, Amartey, Blakey, Rampe

Geelong
Blicavs, Dangerfield, Cameron, Stewart, Stengle, Holmes, C.Guthrie, Duncan, Z.Guthrie

Essendon
Goldstein, Martin, Merrett, McGrath, Langford, McKaym Durham, Redman, Perkins

Melbourne
Gawn, Pettracca, Oliver, May, Lever, Van Rooyen, Fritsch, Viney, Neal-Bullen

AFL off to the races? League could build ovals in middle of Moonee Valley — The Age

The AFL could build two new football ovals in the centre of Moonee Valley racecourse under a long-term lease agreement that would help the league keep up with the sport’s growing demands.

apple.news

I have actually dreamed of AFL with larger teams on a huge ground in a racecourse.

Dream got crazy when tunnels appeared and ball could be run through it bypassing most of the players

It was WW1 meets racing meets AFL

 

[peetoo]

Or less ambitious have 8 interchange players who can enter or leave through any of four gates. Two in a fwd pocket and one on each wing.
GPS monitored. EG a player can leave via the wing and another player can enter via any gate.

Still have change limits though.

Maybe keep the 22 but only 14 on the field at any time

 

[peetoo]

16. Adelaide v gws
17 Geelong v hawthorn
18 bulldogs v carlton
19 giants v suns
20 melb v giants
21 port v sydney
22 bris v giants
23 giants v fre

Games whic could have been of interest the remaining rounds on thursday, without stealing main Friday or sat night game

Would have promoted the giants more

And for lat round. There would be guaranteed 3-4 games with final ladder position deciders Thu fri sat sun

 

[VinnieB]

Defenders running the ball over the boundary should be penalised unless they look as though they are attempting to handball or kick it up the ground.

It’s never paid and so obvious there is ‘not intent’ to keep the ball alive.

 

[btdg]

666 rule is a meh rule, it hasn't made the game more open and high scoring, so it's pointless. But The Stand Rule is one of the worst rules ever, it removes pressure on the ball carrier, which is why I don't understand why anyone would want that. Pressure is the best part of the sport. And likewise, has not made the sport more high scoring, so it's just a bad rule because it doesn't even do anything other than remove pressure, which is terrible for the sport.

As a supporter of a team that has had 10 of its last 16 games be decided by less than a goal... and who has a team with a ripping midfield and two big forwards, the 6-6-6 is definitely not pointless.

In close games, it has a massive impact. When one team is pressing and the other trying to hang onto a lead it opens things up enormously. The team defending can't bring numbers behind the ball - the only way to do so is to have your wings push to the back of the square, which means essentially conceding the center bounce and allowing the other team to at least get the ball deep into attack. It also makes it far easier to chain goals together mid game. If you get on top at center bounces, and can score quickly, you can swing matches fast.

Go back to Carlton vs Melbourne last week and have a look at the last 4 minutes. Melbourne kick a goal from a desperation play on the goal-line and cut it to 13 points, and suddenly they are back at the center bounce with Gawn/Oliver/Petracca/Viney and an opposition that can't defend deep. Carlton push numbers back, but too slowly and twice Melbourne midfielders are able to kick goals... and suddenly its a one-point match with 30 seconds to go. Prior to 6-6-6 Carlton just stack that backline with 18 players, slow the game up and win much more comfortably.

 

[dmac_55]

As a supporter of a team that has had 10 of its last 16 games be decided by less than a goal... and who has a team with a ripping midfield and two big forwards, the 6-6-6 is definitely not pointless.

In close games, it has a massive impact. When one team is pressing and the other trying to hang onto a lead it opens things up enormously. The team defending can't bring numbers behind the ball - the only way to do so is to have your wings push to the back of the square, which means essentially conceding the center bounce and allowing the other team to at least get the ball deep into attack. It also makes it far easier to chain goals together mid game. If you get on top at center bounces, and can score quickly, you can swing matches fast.

Go back to Carlton vs Melbourne last week and have a look at the last 4 minutes. Melbourne kick a goal from a desperation play on the goal-line and cut it to 13 points, and suddenly they are back at the center bounce with Gawn/Oliver/Petracca/Viney and an opposition that can't defend deep. Carlton push numbers back, but too slowly and twice Melbourne midfielders are able to kick goals... and suddenly its a one-point match with 30 seconds to go. Prior to 6-6-6 Carlton just stack that backline with 18 players, slow the game up and win much more comfortably.

To make the 6-6-6 even better, I would ensure the wings have to start on the true wing at every centre bounce. You cannot start at the back of the square.

 

[btdg]

16. Adelaide v gws
17 Geelong v hawthorn
18 bulldogs v carlton
19 giants v suns
20 melb v giants
21 port v sydney
22 bris v giants
23 giants v fre

Games whic could have been of interest the remaining rounds on thursday, without stealing main Friday or sat night game

Would have promoted the giants more

And for lat round. There would be guaranteed 3-4 games with final ladder position deciders Thu fri sat sun

I think there is a big problem with Thursday games, which is that they inevitably mean short rests for both teams.

Take last Thursday - Carlton vs Melbourne was an awesome match, but to get there Carlton had to have back-to-back 6 day rests, and Melbourne had a 5 day break after playing Geelong. As it turned out, Melbourne started the match understandably flat, and Carlton came away with 6 players added to the injury list this week (albeit a couple via the VFL).

Typically, we have a bunch of games on Saturday, so rotating Friday night features means 2 out of the 6/8 teams that played the following week get a 6 day rest, then rotate back to 8 days the week after.

But even if we play two matches on Friday night, Thursday games probably mean back-to-back 6 day rests.

I think that's ok mid-season. Cerra's hammy will rest up and be better once the business end of the year comes, and a certain degree of injury risk is fine.

But I'm also ok with the AFL winding up Thursday matches after the mid-season bye, and allowing teams heading towards finals (who are the likely Thursday feature teams) a better chance of having everyone fit by September.

 

[BigPond101]

666 rule is a meh rule, it hasn't made the game more open and high scoring, so it's pointless. But The Stand Rule is one of the worst rules ever, it removes pressure on the ball carrier, which is why I don't understand why anyone would want that. Pressure is the best part of the sport. And likewise, has not made the sport more high scoring, so it's just a bad rule because it doesn't even do anything other than remove pressure, which is terrible for the sport.

IDGAF about "high scoring" the fact in a close game the leading team can't start a centre bounce with 16 players behind the ball is good enough as used to happen in every close game before the 6 6 6 rule was introduced

 

[blaisee]

The fact there are different sized ovals that play afl is ridiculous

Soccer, basketball, nfl, the size of the ground is constant

The fact that the government has given $300 m to redevelop Kardinia Park, yet the AFL has not taken the opportunity to make it the size of the MCG is a disgrace.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Defenders running the ball over the boundary should be penalised unless they look as though they are attempting to handball or kick it up the ground.

It’s never paid and so obvious there is ‘not intent’ to keep the ball alive.

It’s super frustrating however I cant see it working because there’s already too much interpretation. Needs to be more black and white

 

[Xtreme]

It’s super frustrating however I cant see it working because there’s already too much interpretation. Needs to be more black and white

Easy make it a permanent free kick against the team who touched the ball last before going over the line.

See the desperation to keep the ball IN play at all times.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Easy make it a permanent free kick against the team who touched the ball last before going over the line.

See the desperation to keep the ball IN play at all times.

Not a fan of it personally but, can see the appeal.