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

[eastfreo75]

Number 6 is the big one. A couple of years back they did this and the congestion cleared up big time. Then, as the AFL always does with new interpretations, forgot about it after 5 weeks and we had the rolling maul midfielder again. It's the simplest fix for the congestion around the ball and the best one.

Such an easy thing to do.

While the stand the mark has reduced congestion, teams still have time to set up behind the ball.

Throwing it up quickly would increase scoring because of deceased time to set up defensive systems.

 

[yodellinhank]

i absolutely HATE the behind the player camera angle the director chooses when a player is lining up for goal. It ruins the spectacle of a long goal. A shot for goal should always be from the normal broadcast camera angle so you can see if the ball is going to fall short of the goal line, or if it will carry.

Example:



In 2006 GF Lynch blasts one from 55m near the boundary. The camera angle gave it no justice how good that set shot was.

Also a s**t angle that doesn't show depth very well. People often start celebrating a shot that drops 10+m short.

 

[deanc]

Such an easy thing to do.

While the stand the mark has reduced congestion, teams still have time to set up behind the ball.

Throwing it up quickly would increase scoring because of deceased time to set up defensive systems.

Related to reducing congestion (I mentioned this in another thread a while ago) I'd like to see one the original 10 rules of the game, that Tom Wills and his mates penned back in 1859, reintroduced and trialed during pre-season, whereas:

"VIII. The ball may be taken in hand only when caught from the foot, or on the hop. In no case shall it be lifted from the ground."

NB. - this was later modified to include 'caught from handball', then modified again to only apply when the ball was 'being contested' and then years later it was scrapped completely.

Unpopular - as we are all aware, coaches today often use congestion as part of their defensive tactics, so they will not be very keen to trial this, even if lifting the ball from the ground is still allowed in non-contested play.

Thoughts..?

 

[Quivorir]

That sounds horrible.

 

[eastfreo75]

Related to reducing congestion (I mentioned this in another thread a while ago) I'd like to see one the original 10 rules of the game, that Tom Wills and his mates penned back in 1859, reintroduced and trialed during pre-season, whereas:

"VIII. The ball may be taken in hand only when caught from the foot, or on the hop. In no case shall it be lifted from the ground."

NB. - this was later modified to include 'caught from handball', then modified again to only apply when the ball was 'being contested' and then years later it was scrapped completely.

As we are all aware, coaches today often use congestion as part of their defensive tactics, so they will not be very keen to trial this, even if lifting the ball from the ground is still allowed in non-contested play.

Thoughts..?

Can you say it another way? I don’t understand.

 

[deanc]

Can you say it another way? I don’t understand.

Basically - you cannot lift the ball from the ground while it's being contested...

 

[deanc]

That sounds horrible.

Care to expand on your response, why would it be 'horrible'..?

 

[Quivorir]

I think that not being able to pick the ball up sounds horrible.

 

[bjwilliams]

I am not sure whether this is unpopular or simply contrary to the current establishment.

If this Grand Final is drawn there should be a full replay next week.

So if Bulldogs and Melbourne win in six minutes or whatever extra time I will not regard that as a actual premiership.


If a team wins in extra time they have not won anything in my book

Thread is for unpopular opinions, and this definitely is one.

Not an 'actual' premiership because the game was tied and needed extra time? What rubbish. Makes no sense.

 

[Desync]

Dusty is still overrated.

 

[Mr Magic]

Thread is for unpopular opinions, and this definitely is one.

Not an 'actual' premiership because the game was tied and needed extra time? What rubbish. Makes no sense.

Makes total sense.

Melbourne whipped the Bulldogs and deserved the premiership. To me the victory and premiership was definitive

Just say Melbourne drew with the Bulldogs and either team won by 2 points after 5 minutes of extra time. To me thats not a premiership.

Have to play next week and the only reason it was changed was to appease the bleeding hearts.

If you won by a point after 5 minutes extra would you not be embarrassed to be called the winner? Stakeholders are involved all season to win the premiership and for it to be determined by 5 minutes of luck after a drawn normal game time is wrong and a insult to those putting in to achieve the premiership they desired

Another way of looking at it is if either team fell over the line after 5 minutes extra time Richmond would think it was a fluke and a better run with injuries we will roll on through and be a real threat in 2022. Now Melbourne have been infatic in normal time, RFC, if astute, will realise Melbourne are quite a imposing side and trying to win in 2022 will not be easy at all especially getting past the Demons..

Demons where dominant, and clearly won in normal time and will be a very imposing side in 2022 that other teams have to deal with and rightfully so

 

[Soggy2112]

Makes total sense.

Melbourne whipped the Bulldogs and deserved the premiership. To me the victory and premiership was definitive

Just say Melbourne drew with the Bulldogs and either team won by 2 points after 5 minutes of extra time. To me thats not a premiership.

Have to play next week and the only reason it was changed was to appease the bleeding hearts.

If you won by a point after 5 minutes extra would you not be embarrassed to be called the winner? Stakeholders are involved all season to win the premiership and for it to be determined by 5 minutes of luck after a drawn normal game time is wrong and a insult to those putting in to achieve the premiership they desired

Another way of looking at it is if either team fell over the line after 5 minutes extra time Richmond would think it was a fluke and a better run with injuries we will roll on through and be a real threat in 2022. Now Melbourne have been infatic in normal time, RFC, if astute, will realise Melbourne are quite a imposing side and trying to win in 2022 will not be easy at all especially getting past the Demons..

Demons where dominant, and clearly won in normal time and will be a very imposing side in 2022 that other teams have to deal with and rightfully so

Why is winning in extra time any less of a victory than a GF replay win?

The rules are known before the game begins, if it takes 10 extra minutes to separate the sides then that’s what it takes.

In fact you could argue the opposite about Collingwood’s 2010 flag*, extra time in that game and the Saints probably win.

From a fan perspective extra time is the far better option. I would’ve much preferred to watch Collingwood and St Kilda play extra time than another game. Similarly the extra time in the 2017 EF is some of the most exciting footy I’ve ever watched.

*For the record I wouldn’t argue that, under the rules of the day the Pies won fair and square.

 

[Mr Magic]

Why is winning in extra time any less of a victory than a GF replay win?

The rules are known before the game begins, if it takes 10 extra minutes to separate the sides then that’s what it takes.

In fact you could argue the opposite about Collingwood’s 2010 flag*, extra time in that game and the Saints probably win.

From a fan perspective extra time is the far better option. I would’ve much preferred to watch Collingwood and St Kilda play extra time than another game. Similarly the extra time in the 2017 EF is some of the most exciting footy I’ve ever watched.

*For the record I wouldn’t argue that, under the rules of the day the Pies won fair and square.

Rules can say what they like, the pub test and people know if its a real premiership win or not.

Simply put, a new rule simply does not pass the mustard. Its not about a bureaucratic decision, it is about, if those invested feel it is appropriate, right and deserving.

If a team cannot win in normal time, they are not good enough anyway. If they can't front up the week after they lack the fortitude to win as well

 

[Soggy2112]

Rules can say what they like, the pub test and people know if its a real premiership win or not.

Simply put, a new rule simply does not pass the mustard. Its not about a bureaucratic decision, it is about, if those invested feel it is appropriate, right and deserving.

If a team cannot win in normal time, they are not good enough anyway. If they can't front up the week after they lack the fortitude to win as well

Why does the new rule not past the mustard? It’s common practice in many different sports, and plenty of other footy leagues have had ET for years.

Your argument is if a team can’t win in regular time they aren’t good enough then why declare a premier at all in that situation? A replay is still extra time, it’s just 70 more minutes of extra time.

 

[Mr Magic]

Why does the new rule not past the mustard? It’s common practice in many different sports, and plenty of other footy leagues have had ET for years.

Your argument is if a team can’t win in regular time they aren’t good enough then why declare a premier at all in that situation? A replay is still extra time, it’s just 70 more minutes of extra time.

Its a bit like the Premier League win is not determined by finals.

The victory is about completing a full game test over the course of the year including finals. Tradition is partly about acceptance over time

10 minutes either side after a draw simply is not cricket in my book

The extra game replay is still a game so it satisfies the true test argument and for league integrity reasons the winner earned the premiership it in my book

A lot of other sports are mickey mouse efforts, the change things here and there and no-one really cares because they are mickey mouse efforts

In a sense the finals accomplishment has to be a sturn test(ie a full game) because the season victory is a real accomplishment, unlike a dab at a grand slam where match point can be determined in a tie break under point review, because the players have three other slams and other tournaments so the integrity of the tournament is less important to a players career and also its not team orientated. Its a bit like the NBA final being best of seven instead of a one-off match. The extra time argument is off-set by the fact the teams play best of seven. Likewise in baseball the finals matchups are series matches against the opposition to off-set trivial finishes to ensure integrity of the winner

 

[Soggy2112]

Its a bit like the Premier League win is not determined by finals.

The victory is about completing a full game test over the course of the year including finals.

10 minutes either side after a draw simply is not cricket in my book

But it’s not ten minutes of footy, it’s ten EXTRA minutes.

The winner is the best team over 90 minutes of footy instead of the usual 80 minutes. It’s not that different to a game that is tied with five minutes to go in regular time. You’ve still won a full game of footy in an extra time situation.

The Premier League is also not a fair comparison, their system is designed to award the best team over the whole season.

Ours is designed to set up a winner takes all contest where it’s all about how you perform on the day, not how you performed in the 24/25 other games leading up to it. Which is one of the reasons I like ET in a GF. It’s winner takes all, and we don’t leave until we have a winner.

 

[jaymasha]

Teams that make the finals should be able to ‘loan’ players from clubs that didn’t. Not sure what the incentives for clubs outside the finals would be, however.

I don’t mind the idea of loaning players in general.

 

[Soggy2112]

Teams that make the finals should be able to ‘loan’ players from clubs that didn’t. Not sure what the incentives for clubs outside the finals would be, however.

That might be the worst idea I’ve ever heard.

 

[Mr Magic]

But it’s not ten minutes of footy, it’s ten EXTRA minutes.

The winner is the best team over 90 minutes of footy instead of the usual 80 minutes. It’s not that different to a game that is tied with five minutes to go in regular time. You’ve still won a full game of footy in an extra time situation.

The Premier League is also not a fair comparison, their system is designed to award the best team over the whole season.

Ours is designed to set up a winner takes all contest where it’s all about how you perform on the day, not how you performed in the 24/25 other games leading up to it. Which is one of the reasons I like ET in a GF. It’s winner takes all, and we don’t leave until we have a winner.

Baseball and Basketball is not determined by extra time after one games normal time in a final.

Premier League is not even determined by finals. Is the AFL premiership not about determining the best team for the season? I thought it was except we can't play all teams twice

This is the whole point, the winner of the GF is not neccesarily the winner on the day, its the winner that put in all the work beforehand including the season proper to prepare for the normal game time of the day that determines the result

 

[Soggy2112]

Baseball and Basketball is not determined by extra time after one games normal time in a final.

Dunno about baseball but basketball definitely includes ET in finals series.

Premier League is not even determined by finals. Is the AFL premiership not about determining the best team for the season? I thought it was except we can't play all teams twice

If it was about determining the best team of the whole season then we would just award the premiership to the minor premiers.

This is the whole point, the winner of the GF is not neccesarily the winner on the day, its the winner that put in all the work beforehand including the season proper to prepare for the normal game time of the day that determines the result

If it’s about putting in the work to qualify and prepare for that one game, how is playing a WHOLE EXTRA GAME, better than ET?

Every team now goes into the GF knowing that if it’s a draw they play ET. The rules are set and understood ahead of time, if you win you win fair and square and deserve to be premiers.

 

[WillHayward]

I'd prefer more but shorter games.

 

[Mr Magic]

Dunno about baseball but basketball definitely includes ET in finals series.




If it was about determining the best team of the whole season then we would just award the premiership to the minor premiers.




If it’s about putting in the work to qualify and prepare for that one game, how is playing a WHOLE EXTRA GAME, better than ET?

Every team now goes into the GF knowing that if it’s a draw they play ET. The rules are set and understood ahead of time, if you win you win fair and square and deserve to be premiers.

No-one lives life by the rules totally especially with experience and evolution, changing trends, people live by choices whether rules are adhered to or not. If the will of the people does not recognise the premiership winner thats it regardless of what is in the paper about the result.

NBA and baseball have a series to mitigate against fluke results

Why support a team involved in a lottery?

 

[Soggy2112]

No-one lives life by the rules totally especially with experience and evolution, changing trends, people live by choices whether rules are adhered to or not. If the will of the people does not recognise the premiership winner thats it regardless of what is in the paper about the result.

NBA and baseball have a series to mitigate against fluke results

Why support a team involved in a lottery?

Your posting an opinion in an “unpopular opinion” thread. You’ve literally admitted that the majority of people recognise an ET win as a legitimate win.

And ET is certainly not a lottery, just as the last five minutes of a game that was tied up until that point is not a lottery.

 

[Mr Magic]

Your posting an opinion in an “unpopular opinion” thread. You’ve literally admitted that the majority of people recognise an ET win as a legitimate win.

And ET is certainly not a lottery, just as the last five minutes of a game that was tied up until that point is not a lottery.

That is a false narrative, where have I admitted the majority of people recognise ET win as a legitmate win?

How is extra time not a lottery? That's the point of having a normal game time to avoid lottery results and mickey mouse results. Thats why the NBA have series otherwise the effort put in is not rewarded because to many random events affect the determination of the result so why would players and others like the fans bother watching lottery results?

 

[Soggy2112]

That is a false narrative, where have I admitted the majority of people recognise ET win as a legitmate win?

Posting that you don’t consider an ET win to be legitimate in an unpopular opinions thread implies you think most people disagree with you.

How is extra time not a lottery? That's the point of having a normal game time to avoid lottery results and mickey mouse results.

Because ET still involves a ball, a football field, four posts and 36 players with the objective to score more points, nothing about it is random, and there is no more luck involved then there is in the last five minutes of a close game.