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

[blueboy25]

Not sure. There's probably info about what constitutes fair trade / transparency policies buried somewhere in contracts/terms of agreements etc., but none of us are likely privy to that.

I can't recall another instance recently where a team has traded a player in for a decently high pick and the guy didn't play a game. Don't remember us courting him throughout the year, the trade was done super late. We actually took care of him in his contract payout when we could've left him nothing.

It's just shady trading business.

Yarran came out and said he had been talking with Richmond including Dimmer during his last year at Carlton.

Jon Hay was traded from hawthorn to North but he did play games for North. Hawthorn didn't disclose his mental health issues to North.

Those two clubs don't have issues trading with each other.

 

[Scotland]

If they're so insistent on changing rules, the no marking backwards rule should have been the rule that was changed, rather than those other terrible changes. It would create real suspense and actual contests when going defensive, because they can't ice things and there's no longer a huge advantage from going backwards. Should also make rushed behinds just a throw in or a ball up 30 metres away from the middle of the goal line, so it rids the advantage of rushing the ball, and creates another defensive contest.

Personally I think it is a horrible rule because it's an 18 a side game played on an oval. It's not a rectangle with one referee and two dedicated linesmen. On top of umpires trying to judge whether a kick travelled 15 metres they will also be trying to judge whether or not it went backwards.

We also play a game where kicking backwards inside 50 can be to your advantage because of the shape of the ground. I would hate to see a player centre the ball per my artwork below and it be called play on.

 

[adammania9]

Throwing the ball away in a completely different direction, really delaying a significant amount of time holding onto the ball or hanging onto a player for far too long after they've marked the ball (but give the player a chance to actually hear the call). Not 50s when the players throw the ball back and it lobs slightly, they're so trigger happy giving out 50s. They even give out 50s for throwing their hands in the air, it's terrible.

You'll be disappointed when you discover how many times a game players will intentionally stop the game by giving away a 15m penalty, because it is more beneficial to do so than to let the other team keep moving the footy quickly.

 

[adammania9]

If they're so insistent on changing rules, the no marking backwards rule should have been the rule that was changed, rather than those other terrible changes. It would create real suspense and actual contests when going defensive, because they can't ice things and there's no longer a huge advantage from going backwards. Should also make rushed behinds just a throw in or a ball up 30 metres away from the middle of the goal line, so it rids the advantage of rushing the ball, and creates another defensive contest.

Do rules need to be changed because the average footy fan isn't getting enough of an adrenaline rush late in games? Maintaining possession and clock management are efficient and legitimate tactics used in every timed sport since their conception and shouldn't be discouraged. The AFL doesn't need to change this rule because teams can't man up and force a turnover.

 

[Clems Knee]

I would like the time clock to be stopped when the shot clock for a player kicking for goal is started. Stops time wasting for a team in front in a close game, and allows a team behind to take their kick properly.
It may make the game a few minutes longer, which is the only difficulty I can see. It’s dead time anyway, so this would be taken out, just like it is at kickins, ballups and throw ins.

 

[Quivorir]

I don't understand why so many people are trying to stop teams with good clock management.

 

[KissKiss]

I don't understand why so many people are trying to stop teams with good clock management.

Its a similar argument against the 6-6-6 rule and the pre-season bye. Why punish teams who get an early lead and get to manage or dictate the play?

 

[Aussie in exile]

I don't understand why so many people are trying to stop teams with good clock management.

It's called jealousy

 

[Clems Knee]

I don't understand why so many people are trying to stop teams with good clock management.

Clock management is a way to kill the contest.
In the past Footscray under Malthouse (and others) used to kick the ball towards the boundary to have endless throw ins and wind the clock down. Deliberate out-of-bounds and stopping the clock at stoppages were brought in to counter that.
6-6-6 means that teams can’t flood the backline to stop a run of goals.
Teams can still force the ball towards the boundary for a throw-in, force a ball up, kick backwards to a free player as time management methods but the clock stops for a stoppage or players are given the hurry up and play on from a mark.
The only time this doesn’t happen is when a player has marked or being given a free and is kicking for goal.

We then have the ridiculous situation of a player who can’t kick over a jam tin pointing that he is kicking for goal from 60 metres out, only to kick short in the same range to another player who can’t stall again.

Stopping the time clock when the shot clock is in play should be easy, and it eliminates the last loophole in clock management.

 

[Scotland]

Its a similar argument against the 6-6-6 rule and the pre-season bye. Why punish teams who get an early lead and get to manage or dictate the play?

6-6-6 is great because the game is designed to return to a 50/50 contest after each goal. Yeah it sucks if you are a point up with a minute to go you can't put 14 players behind the ball but coaches brought that on the game with their miserable tactics in the 2010s. And as soon as the ball is bounced you can do what you want.

It's easy to chip mark chip mark and take 30 seconds or a minute off the clock. If you are doing it for minutes on end it is because the opposition is making it easy for you. I mean there is nothing stopping a team from doing that all game which is kinda what Richmond (who finished 9th, lol) did to Adelaide (top 2, 6-1 at the time) in 2006 when they had 168 uncontested marks to 97 and the most marks ever recorded in a game. If you don't want teams doing this then you do what the old codger in the duffle coat has been calling out all game and 'man up!'.

 

[btdg]

Not sure. There's probably info about what constitutes fair trade / transparency policies buried somewhere in contracts/terms of agreements etc., but none of us are likely privy to that.

I can't recall another instance recently where a team has traded a player in for a decently high pick and the guy didn't play a game. Don't remember us courting him throughout the year, the trade was done super late. We actually took care of him in his contract payout when we could've left him nothing.

It's just shady trading business.

Yarran was still capable of playing football at Carlton though, and his mental health issues spiralled after going to Richmond.

His struggles at the Blues were quite public, too. Malthouse insisted on playing him out of position, he had lost heart after Eddie Betts was treated so badly by the club, and he was notoriously out of shape and struggling on field. He was publicly dropped after a totally lacklustre 5 disposal and zero tackle game. He was also battling niggling injuries and hurt his hamstring in his last game for Carlton.

Yarran came into Richmond as a reclamation project - a talented 24 year old who had off field and injury issues. Everyone knew that - it wasn't a secret. He then broke his foot in preseason and required surgery and an extended rehab program, requested to go home and things spiralled once he did.

Richmond took a gamble on Yarran at a time when they were seeking to surround their core star players with mature support. In 2015 they gambled on Yarran and it didn't work. A year later they traded a bit too much for an injury plagued Dion Prestia and an out of sorts Josh Caddy and it paid off in spades. So it goes...

 

[Soggy2112]

50 metre penalties should be abolished, umpires dictating the result of matches is horrible. There should be only 15 metre penalties, but just for very extreme cases.

50 metres acts as a strong deterrent to time wasting, dirty plays and umpire abuse, all things we don’t want in the game. It is a good rule. 15 metres is simply not enough of a deterrent, like all things, umpires are not perfect, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Even if we go with your suggestion, I guarantee there’ll be the same arguments about whether something was severe enough to warrant a 50.

 

[Call Me Cake]

I think 25 for most but 50 for very severe is good

 

[Do the Dew]

I think 25 for most but 50 for very severe is good

Agreed, 50m should only be for late hits.

All the bs penalties like protected area, going over the mark, goddamn STAND, hindrance on a player who has disposed the ball, interchange infringements etc. should be 25m. Nothing worse than seeing a team gifted a goal because a guy on the mark moved a millimeter.

 

[Interceptor]

I think 25 for most but 50 for very severe is good

The SANFL has used this system for years and it seems well accepted at this point.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Personally I think it is a horrible rule because it's an 18 a side game played on an oval. It's not a rectangle with one referee and two dedicated linesmen. On top of umpires trying to judge whether a kick travelled 15 metres they will also be trying to judge whether or not it went backwards.

We also play a game where kicking backwards inside 50 can be to your advantage because of the shape of the ground. I would hate to see a player centre the ball per my artwork below and it be called play on.

View attachment 2190426

I believe when they trialled it in preseason matches, backwards marking in the forward line/forward half was legal, and wouldn't conflict with removing backwards marking in defence.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Maintaining possession and clock management are efficient and legitimate tactics used in every timed sport since their conception and shouldn't be discouraged.

That's being eroded. They've already changed the rules to undermine those defensive tactics you mentioned, such as insufficient intent and illegal rushing points from 9 metres away, ridding backwards marking in the defensive half would just make it more thrilling, defenders would have more urgency to move the ball faster.

 

[Hawksboy72]

Marks should only be paid in the 50's.

Throw ins ruin the game and a wall should be put up like in ice hockey.

A wild horse should be let onto the ground in play during boring matches. Let's see how courageous you are going back with the flight when Phar Lap is lurking.

I'd have big red one out in the 50..black caviar on the wing hitting him lace out....he'd kick 130 a year easily.

On SM-S918B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Jon Hay was traded from hawthorn to North but he did play games for North. Hawthorn didn't disclose his mental health issues to North.

Still amazes me that people thought an employer should discuss an employees mental health/medical record with anyone.

 

[blueboy25]

Still amazes me that people thought an employer should discuss an employees mental health/medical record with anyone.

Some people just don't understand this and love to blame the other club because they didn't do their due diligence

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Brisbane Lions will go on the longest dynasty we have seen in the AFL. Suspect they are up for 10 years and win around 5 of the next 10 as a minimum

People want to pretend it isnt happening but it is

 

[Call Me Cake]

Brisbane Lions will go on the longest dynasty we have seen in the AFL. Suspect they are up for 10 years and win around 5 of the next 10 as a minimum

People want to pretend it isnt happening but it is

Lol they were lucky to finally strike and after so long. They've already had what should've been a dynasty and should've won more.

 

[adammania9]

That's being eroded. They've already changed the rules to undermine those defensive tactics you mentioned, such as insufficient intent and illegal rushing points from 9 metres away, ridding backwards marking in the defensive half would just make it more thrilling, defenders would have more urgency to move the ball faster.

I think it is clearly more unsportsmanlike to use the boundary or goal line to your advantage as opposed to simply hold possession with your teammates.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

I think it is clearly more unsportsmanlike to use the boundary or goal line to your advantage as opposed to simply hold possession with your teammates.

Similar to just passing it around marking backwards instead of going to a forward contest.