There was plenty of congestion when they allowed 3rd man up in rucks. Congestion / flooding has been in vogue since the very early 2000s. Not sure why people think there is some correlation between the two.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
... and both these codes are comparatively crap to watch - as Tom Wills (who played rugby at Rugby School) famously said "not a suitable dame for grown men". Our code has (or at least had) far more skills and spectacular moments than the tedious tackle infested rugby codes.He'd lose his s**t if he ever attended a Union or League game where one player can smash twice the tackle count of both teams combined
You do bring up some pertinent points, I raised the Rugby of either code to show the apparent disparaging difference between the three most physical sport codes without protection required. AFL now can be considered not as a whole but game by game as a somewhat rolling maul, so I can sort of see where they're heading. But to dull one of the main weapons of a player seems a bit disingenuous... and both these codes are comparatively crap to watch - as Tom Wills (who played rugby at Rugby School) famously said "not a suitable dame for grown men". Our code has (or at least had) far more skills and spectacular moments than the tedious tackle infested rugby codes.
Can someone point me in the right direction to find the fans survey who called for a more free flowing game? Since when do Football supporters care what it looks like, don’t you just want your team to win?
If they hadn’t of started fiddling with the rules 25 years ago we would not be in this situation.
The game was fine 25 years ago, no one discussed rule changes required, the look of the game etc. all that was discussed was did your team win or lose and who played well.
Spot on - also the amount of so-called tackles where a player piles on to the back of a player with the ball at full pace, driving him head forward that once would have have been paid as in the back, but is now just let go. The interpretation of a legal tackle has become far too slack.
Reduced interchange would reduce tackles. More fatigue would mean more missed tackles and less intent to tackle.
You're right but the game has fundamentally changed in that time with floods, presses, zoning etc
Stay at home forwards, 100 goal seasons, 10+ goal games all barely happen anymore. The spearhead full forward used to be a staple of the game now they barely exist.
If you think Geelong fans have some unquestioning alliegence to Steve Hocking because he played and administered at the club then you're wrongNo posts from scats supporters I see
I'd vote we reduce excessive Steve Hocking tbh. He's too much of "a feature" of the game right now.
The bottom line is, the AFL is desperate for more goals each game so Chanel 7 can sell more spots to advertisers and therefore pay a lot more in television rights.
They’re gonna do whatever it takes and if reducing tackles is gonna help, that’s what will happen.
Maybe if you'd tackled Brereton we'd have won the '89 premiership you useless campaigner SHocking.