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

[situationz]

I agree, ultimately being a footy supporter is about enjoying moments. Obviously nothing beats a premiership, but those teams still would have given their fans heaps of great moments.

Yes, for instance I've always found Collingwood 2011 to be so much more memorable than 2010 because of their incredible dominance. The 2010 side, despite winning the GF, never quite reached the same heights.

It's so absurd to act like all the greatness can be wiped away by a single bad day in September. If that's so, then what even is the point of the whole rest of the season at all?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Regular-season success ought to be valued a lot more in and of itself, not just as a prelude to the finals. It's such a shame that so many all-time great teams are forgotten (e.g. Collingwood 2011, West Coast 1991), or only remembered as the butt of jokes (e.g. Geelong 2008), because they fell short in the finals.

15 years ago. To be fair, I didn’t get too much love

Do We Need More Silverware

 

[FootyLad0]

Yes, for instance I've always found Collingwood 2011 to be so much more memorable than 2010 because of their incredible dominance. The 2010 side, despite winning the GF, never quite reached the same heights.

It's so absurd to act like all the greatness can be wiped away by a single bad day in September. If that's so, then what even is the point of the whole rest of the season at all?

A single bad day you say?
We beat them 3 times that year

Round 8, Round 24 and then again in the Grand Final, we had them covered on all measures that year.

Just like 2022, beat them multiple times.

I could have understood if you had said the 2009 Saints who literally beat us when both teams were undefeated in one of the best Home and Away season games ever, and the best game at Marvel ever played.
We were very lucky to win that Grand Final, that is an example of a team who had 1 bad day in an entire year.

 

[Blackhawk42]

'Insufficient intent' is the worst rule in football. I'd prefer to see it abolished and replaced with endless boundary throw ins.

As a rule, it lacks integrity. The vast majority that are paid are simple skill errors or well executed kicks under immense pressure that actually go close to finding a team mate. The fact it's punishable all in the name of 'speeding up the game' is genuinely ridiculous.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

The man under the ball must be protected from incoming knees.

 

[situationz]

A single bad day you say?
We beat them 3 times that year

Round 8, Round 24 and then again in the Grand Final, we had them covered on all measures that year.

Just like 2022, beat them multiple times.

I could have understood if you had said the 2009 Saints who literally beat us when both teams were undefeated in one of the best Home and Away season games ever, and the best game at Marvel ever played.
We were very lucky to win that Grand Final, that is an example of a team who had 1 bad day in an entire year.

For what it's worth, I would also consider the Cats of 2011 to be an all-time great team in their own right - on par with Essendon 2000, Hawthorn '89, Geelong '07, and (yes) Collingwood '11.

My point is that it isn't fair to dismiss the '11 Pies (and others) just because they didn't win the GF.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

The man under the ball must be protected from incoming knees.

Agree, but it isn't going to happen. The game is so beholden to "the high mark" that they will sell their soul on protecting the head to preserve it. The current AFL regime certainly don't have the required will to enforce any such protection to players.

 

[situationz]

The man under the ball must be protected from incoming knees.

I don't think this is unpopular, assuming you're talking about the "contact below the knees" rule.
In my experience most people either hate the rule, or see it as merely a necessary evil to protect player safety.

I'm one of those people who hates the rule as well, it was an overreaction to a freak injury and punishes players who go in hard for the ball.

 

[Billy ray]

When they changed the rule (mid 90s?) that the playing time went from 25mins plus time on down to 20mins plus time on and at the same time made the clock stop when the ball went out of bounds, from that point onwards there us no longer a need for intentional/insufficient intent.

The clock stops as soon as the ball goes over/umpire blows whistle.
It should be a genuine tactic for both attacking and defending teams to be able to gain metres by going toward the boundary line.

Why give humans, umpires that is, a grey area of trying to get into another humans brain.

 

[peetoo]

'Insufficient intent' is the worst rule in football. I'd prefer to see it abolished and replaced with endless boundary throw ins.

As a rule, it lacks integrity. The vast majority that are paid are simple skill errors or well executed kicks under immense pressure that actually go close to finding a team mate. The fact it's punishable all in the name of 'speeding up the game' is genuinely ridiculous.

One incident on the wing hawks v giants the ball hadn’t crossed the boundary yet and the two giants players nearest were appealing for deliberate. Much closer than any hawks players. If they had time to appeal they had time to get the footy. Which would have given them the same outcome, albiet without a hawk player doing the ‘stand’

 

[GhostofJimJess]

'Insufficient intent' is the worst rule in football. I'd prefer to see it abolished and replaced with endless boundary throw ins.

As a rule, it lacks integrity. The vast majority that are paid are simple skill errors or well executed kicks under immense pressure that actually go close to finding a team mate. The fact it's punishable all in the name of 'speeding up the game' is genuinely ridiculous.

Yeah, agree. There was one against Saad on Sunday night where he was well within his rights to let the ball continue to run over the boundary. Instead he stopped the ball from going OOB by legging it another 30 odd metres around the boundary line in Carlton's direction. Yet he was pinged for "insufficient intent"

The rule is a total joke and should be abolished immediately.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

I don't think this is unpopular, assuming you're talking about the "contact below the knees" rule.
In my experience most people either hate the rule, or see it as merely a necessary evil to protect player safety.

I'm one of those people who hates the rule as well, it was an overreaction to a freak injury and punishes players who go in hard for the ball.

I'm talking about protecting the player that is under the ball going for the mark. There should be some duty of care from the player that's flying in from the side/back that's leading with their knee.
Happened to Boak in a preseason game in 2023 where he jumped straight up with hands up to mark the ball and big Jeremy McGovern ploughed his knee into Boak's back which resulted in cracked ribs, a fair few games on the sidelines and an average season from him from not being 100%.
I'm not sure if anything can be done but I'd just like to see some protection given to the player stationed under the ball from incoming knees.
As for the Petracca injury - The spoil from Moore was pretty much textbook, but it has left a guy with 4 fractured ribs, a lacerated spleen and a punctured lung. Moore has protected himself by leading with his knee, but he has severely injured another player.

 

[Soggy2112]

'Insufficient intent' is the worst rule in football. I'd prefer to see it abolished and replaced with endless boundary throw ins.

As a rule, it lacks integrity. The vast majority that are paid are simple skill errors or well executed kicks under immense pressure that actually go close to finding a team mate. The fact it's punishable all in the name of 'speeding up the game' is genuinely ridiculous.

I actually really like the last possession rule.

Promotes keeping the ball in, but still allows room to play conservatively along the boundary line if required, and removes the need for interpretation.

 

[WN123]

More onus needs to be placed on players to protect their own heads. The current rule set promotes and rewards putting yourself in harms way.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

More onus needs to be placed on players to protect their own heads. The current rule set promotes and rewards putting yourself in harms way.

Unfortunately when they do though WN, the media turn on them and highlight them avoiding a contest, not "taking their turn".

 

[big_e]

removes the need for interpretation.

This.

We make it so hard for umpires.

 

[Cam Payne]

The AFL influence outcomes they want and this year it's the Blues/Pies/Bombers into the GF. Sorry Swanies, you're going to have to suck eggs.

 

[brmi]

The AFL influence outcomes they want and this year it's the Blues/Pies/Bombers into the GF. Sorry Swanies, you're going to have to suck eggs.

Don't suggest the AFL influence outcomes to Swans supporters, they're still trying to get over the 2016 GF.

 

[Cam Payne]

Don't suggest the AFL influence outcomes to Swans supporters, they're still trying to get over the 2016 GF.

The AFL got the result they wanted that day too. Lucky you.