Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2
- Thread starter Mordecai
- Start date
- Tagged users None
There's barely any VIC games on FTA here either. On average, 4 to 5 clubs a week get a game on FTA. And rest assured, the Pies/Tigers featured a whole lot more than the Bulldogs/North/Saints did.
sydney can't miss finals, wtf is that all about ? Complete nonsense, they can wait their turn like everyone else.
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 62,361
- 166,530
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #1,279
I'd remove the interchange cap entirely and go back to the way it was when teams would have 150+ interchanges per match.
I have no hard evidence to support this, but feel the game was better from a skills and injury standpoint with unlimited interchanges, rather than forcing players to be fatigued through the cap.
I have no hard evidence to support this, but feel the game was better from a skills and injury standpoint with unlimited interchanges, rather than forcing players to be fatigued through the cap.
Numero Uno
Club Legend
- Mar 28, 2019
- 2,645
- 3,939
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Fyfe is actually well liked at Fremantle and a good role model for the younger players despite the bulls**t and lies that some West Coast fans spew. There's more evidence to suggest he's respected than there is that he isn't. Look forward to the response of people telling me why I'm wrong
standard response from any freo fan: blame West coast
If you think the source is WC fans then you are 'extremely ignorant'
Sparkle
Simpson for Strawberry
Rule changes I think would improve the game:
- Remove the interchange cap and allow unlimited interchanges. Echoing what Scorpus said above, the game will be faster and the skills will improve if the players are less fatigued
- Remove 6-6-6 and allow players to set up as they please
- Re-introduce the 'third man up' rule. With TMU, players can knock the ball into wide open space to score, without it, ruckman just paddle it to their feet for another stoppage over and over again
- Adjust the 'contact below the knees' rule to only pay a free kick when the umpire deems the slide to be one to deliberately cause injury or is dangerous, rather than simply going for the ball. Too often players are fairly fighting for the ball and a free kick is paid
Russian Demon
Premiership Player
- Mar 26, 2015
- 4,225
- 5,651
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Make the ground 50 longer and 30m wider on all grounds.
Remove all interchanges
Make all players drink 15 schooners on the weekend after their game.
That should bring back positional play
Remove all interchanges
Make all players drink 15 schooners on the weekend after their game.
That should bring back positional play
- Mar 29, 2019
- 14,206
- 20,316
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- San Francisco 49ers, Swan Districts.
Trust me I'm not blaming you, but I'm taking all of this from the fact that a lot of West Coast fans are the ones who say this to discredit Fyfe. If you have said sources that discredit this viewpoint, please feel free to provide the evidence and I'll admit I'm wrong mate.
- Jan 13, 2004
- 8,704
- 14,720
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Harry's Heroes
Very well said, I have been harping on about these rule changes being terrible for years
- Oct 30, 2014
- 4,902
- 9,924
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Third man up wasn’t even a rule. Once the ball was bounced, game on, within normal rules. 36 men could go up theoretically? But the AFL in their ‘superior wisdom’ love to micro manage how the game is played. Now we have more time before a throw up and then more congestion afterwards.
I don't mind the third man up rule, just the way it's policed/implemented. You have to protect your rucks, both from physical harm and as a species. Third man up threatens their usefulness, so a rule to protect that is a good thing. But to have to nominate ruckmen is just dumb. Everyone knows who the ruckmen are and they should be allowed to compete one-on-one. If a third person gets involved, call a free against their team and move on. As for blocking mids who "were competing for the ruck", they can get stuffed. They shouldn't be competing and a block on them shouldn't be judged any differently than if they were running past the contest.
I rate David "The man with the hardest working buttons in football" King as a special comments guy and footy analyst. There, I said it.
I like that idea a lot. The whole reason for nominations was because it let players know who couldn't be blocked. Make the rule that pre designated ruckmen cannot be blocked, then anyone can contest the ruck, but if your not a ruckman and your path was impeded, bad luck.
It's an incentive to have your rucks ruck.
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
- Sep 8, 2011
- 11,461
- 11,921
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I don’t think anyone is going out there trying to injure a player while sliding in. Removing the action altogether reduces the chances someone is going to be horribly injured. Players need to adapt and keep their feet.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
- Dec 21, 2005
- 23,638
- 14,971
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
The issue with the sliding rule is people don't understand it and it is not umpired how it was intended to be umpired when it was introduced.
It shouldn't be considered a free if there's contact below the knees. Only if someone slides in and takes out the legs front on. If it's not a slide it shouldn't be a freak kick.
It shouldn't be considered a free if there's contact below the knees. Only if someone slides in and takes out the legs front on. If it's not a slide it shouldn't be a freak kick.
Teams nominate rucks to take the centre bounce, it's just extending that rule to everywhere else on the ground.
The one that stands out was during the Israel Folau scandal, how well Rugby Australia management handled it came up on 360.
I thought Scott spoke pretty measured and eloquently on the topic(maybe this was driven by the fact Gary Ablett was on the periphery of the issue). He talked about how big organisations are always going to have to deal with these "Black Swan" type events, which is a reference to the "Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_the_Highly_Improbable). A book I think is a worthwhile read, impressed to hear a footy coach drop a reference, albeit indirectly.
Can you show me one instance where an umpire has gone to the centre circle and asked each team who their designated ruckman is?
Geelong need to sack Chris Scott
I know that, just as I know who will be contesting the ruck around the ground. My question was, if the umpire needs to designate ruckmen around the ground, why doesn't he do it at a centre bounce? big_e said the centre bounce ruck designation is merely being extended around the ground, and I'm highlighting how that isn't the case.
The ball is in the Eagles forward line and Oscar Allen and Jack Darling are in the vicinity of a ball up. Darlings opponent has body on, as he should, opposition ruckman lines up to jump against Allen.
Allen doesn't move, Darling makes a theatrical show of trying to jump for the ruck.
Free kick Darling, blocking out in the ruck contest, right in front.
That was what was starting to happen as a strategy, that is why rucks nominate.
Most teams have one ruck, keep them away from forward half ruck contests, use makeshift ruckman forward, but keep switching.
Deep forward, Eagles could use Allen, Waterman, Darling, Kennedy, shit, they could even have Ryan jump for it.
Bit of a problem for a defender if you don't know if your direct opponent is going to compete in the ruck or not.
How long until teams are running drills around ruck contests where they decide on the fly, which player is going for the ruck based on which player is the most blocked, and therefore most likely to draw a free?
Because I think that is why the nomination rule came in, teams were already doing just that.
You do nominate in the centre square, entering the circle is nominating, raising your hand as well is superfluous. Nominating around the ground is essentially replacing the circle with a hand raise.
I suppose the umps could carry a spray can and spray a circle at every ball up, don't think it would do much for game flow though.
This is why the previous idea is good. If Eagles have to nominate Allen as a backup ruck pre game, then only he and the number one ruck cannot be blocked. Darling can take a ruck if he wants, but if he is blocked, play on.
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
Most finals football is underwhelming
Maybe the season should be 17 games. And then have a top 4 finals system but each finals game is best of three.
Season will be same length more or less but at least the best of the best are involved in finals series.
Maybe the season should be 17 games. And then have a top 4 finals system but each finals game is best of three.
Season will be same length more or less but at least the best of the best are involved in finals series.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,401
- 35,170
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
False.
Plenty of players have received knee injuries from opponents diving head/shoulders first into their legs. Probably more prevalent than injuries from opponents sliding in. Doesn't have to be front on either. Injuries just as likely to occur with a player crashing in from the side.
The issue with the "sliding rule" is that it is only one component of the Rough Conduct law. People get this confused with the "forceful contact below the knees" rule. They are different. The sliding rule refers to ANY contact which eventuates from the slide: knees or boots into the opponent's midriff, legs, arms or head... Wherever... (Think of Adam Goodes and the way he used to slide into contests.)
Commentators like Carey, Kingy, Roosy and Richo persistently spread misinformation about this rule. It bugs me that people don't take the simple step of googling the AFL laws and educating themselves about the rules of the game.
17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:
(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;
(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action;
(c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;
(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury
Last edited:
Similar threads
