AFL Introduces Wild Card Round

[kickazz]

Do these games count towards the Gary Ayres medal?

Great question.

Taking the piss if they do.

I'm ok with them keeping this round, just don't class them as finals. No anthems, no expensive tickets, no Gary Ayres medal.

 

[Partridge]

I recon Richmond being crap is probably the main reason AFL isn't as interesting as it use to be for you.

I'm a Geelong supporter and I've never been less interested.

 

[emuboy]

Under the Top 8 finals system used by the AFL from 2000-2025, the semi-finals would always be between the loser of 1st vs 4th QF and the winner of 5th vs 8th EF; and on the other side of the draw the loser of 2nd vs 3rd QF and winner of 6th vs 7th EF regardless of the ladder positions of the teams winning or losing. For example there would frequently be a 4th vs 5th SF, but sometimes it would be 1st vs 5th or 4th vs 8th, and sometimes even 1st vs 8th such as this year.

The new wildcard finals are going to be 7th vs 10th and 8th vs 9th, but will the elimination finals be set in stone or will they vary depending on the highest ranked winners of the wildcard finals?

To illustrate, imagine this is the ladder from 5th to 10th in 2026:

5. Collingwood
6. Sydney Swans
7. Geelong
8. Western Bulldogs
9. Fremantle Dockers
10. Carlton

Now if the Cats and Bulldogs win their wildcard finals over the Blues and Dockers as the higher ranked teams, the elimination finals will be Collingwood 5th vs. Bulldogs 8th, and Sydney 6th vs Geelong 7th as they are in the current Final 8 system. But lets say 10th placed Carlton spring an upset and eliminate the 7th placed Cats in the wildcard final. Does this mean that Collingwood in 5th will now play the lower ranked Carlton while the 8th placed Bulldogs travel to Sydney to meet the Swans? Or does the 5th vs. 8th final remain for the Magpies and Dogs, while the Blues simply take the Cats' place in the Elimination Final against the Swans?

 

[Clark G]

Do these games count towards the Gary Ayres medal?

If the games count as finals wins, they have to count towards the medal.

 

[Lsta062]

Don't really think this is melt-worthy IMO. Yes, probably just a cash-grab to give these sides some hope, but the finals race last year was the most boring in many years. As a non-finalist supporter, it was a painful season to watch because the top 9 of Round 7 were the top 9 at the end of the season.

 

[cricketnut14]

with going from 22 to 23 rounds a few seasons ago to incorporate gather round and now extending the finals from 4 to 5 weeks, players now have the opportunity to play 28 games in a season.

will we see players break the 400 game barrier more frequently (i remember when making it to 300 was a stretch)

joel selwood's record of 40 finals could be at risk in years to come.

the 100 goal barrier may also be broken again at some point.

having the wildcard weekend, may also be a sign that we may see a 20 team competition before too long and get back to half the teams competing in finals.

me personally, i would have preferred the top 8 in its current format and the empty weekend being moved to after the prelim to assist with any concussion rules and grand final festivities such as the brownlow, all australian etc.

 

[doppleganger]

Do these games count towards the Gary Ayres medal?

A medal that has been around for what 10 years?

If people are happy with an elimination final between 5&8, surely an elimination final between 7&10 really ain't that big a stretch.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

What

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

with going from 22 to 23 rounds a few seasons ago to incorporate gather round and now extending the finals from 4 to 5 weeks, players now have the opportunity to play 28 games in a season.

will we see players break the 400 game barrier more frequently (i remember when making it to 300 was a stretch)

joel selwood's record of 40 finals could be at risk in years to come.

the 100 goal barrier may also be broken again at some point.

having the wildcard weekend, may also be a sign that we may see a 20 team competition before too long and get back to half the teams competing in finals.

me personally, i would have preferred the top 8 in its current format and the empty weekend being moved to after the prelim to assist with any concussion rules and grand final festivities such as the brownlow, all australian etc.

No. Just no.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Nothing like a rant.

Do people realise that back in the 1970s that there were 80 free kicks per game?

There were less than 40 per game in 2025.

If people long for the glory days of 70s and 80s footy you fondly remember a time when the umpires awarded double the free kicks.

Do you realise that the game was very physical and some behind the play that THE UMPIRE, you know the one umpire, would be calling all sorts of frees but genuine, because the game was slower and much much more contact than the castrated game we see now, with collision being the toughness of it now., n

No one is degrading players now, to say they aren't as brave , but the game was easier to umpire then and free kicks were generally a free kick. And lots of players were hunters too.
And you lied at the tribunal. That side of footy was for a different era. But footy now is simply not footy.

Now what happens is most of the viewing and spectator crowds don't know what on earth most of the frees are for.
Once upon a time abusing the umpire was part of the crowd fun and funny at times, now it's a robots game. Like everything that happens now.
So explain what the rule last touch is?

What if a backman punches the ball out of bounds while defending and contesting with a forward, is that a shot on goal ?????????????????????????

Oh btw I doubt there were 80 frees a game , I watched lots of footy in Melbourne in those days, and before, when you could pick a game on a Saturday, any game, and go and a beer didn't cost you $15 ,
I know,I know, a different era doesn't change the argument the game is a corporatised mess and now another club Tassie. More dilution!
Tassie who should have had an AFL club 20 years ago. Before Demitriou and McClachlan began the new football dictatorship. Now there's a rant for you.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Do you realise that the game was very physical and some behind the play that THE UMPIRE, you know the one umpire, would be calling all sorts of frees but genuine, because the game was slower and much much more contact than the castrated game we see now, with collision being the toughness of it now., n

No one is degrading players now, to say they aren't as brave , but the game was easier to umpire then and free kicks were generally a free kick. And lots of players were hunters too.
And you lied at the tribunal. That side of footy was for a different era. But footy now is simply not footy.

Now what happens is most of the viewing and spectator crowds don't know what on earth most of the frees are for.
Once upon a time abusing the umpire was part of the crowd fun and funny at times, now it's a robots game. Like everything that happens now.
So explain what the rule last touch is?

What if a backman punches the ball out of bounds while defending and contesting with a forward, is that a shot on goal ?????????????????????????

Oh btw I doubt there were 80 frees a game , I watched lots of footy in Melbourne in those days, and before, when you could pick a game on a Saturday, any game, and go and a beer didn't cost you $15 ,
I know,I know, a different era doesn't change the argument the game is a corporatised mess and now another club Tassie. More dilution!
Tassie who should have had an AFL club 20 years ago. Before Demitriou and McClachlan began the new football dictatorship. Now there's a rant for you.

 

[JoondalupJ]

So a team in the bottom half of the comp now makes finals? Kind of diminishes the season when you start letting everyone in. You ****ing idiots afl.

Here is a simple question, the AFL won't have an answer to?

What if 9th and 10th finish outside the 8 and both are at least 1 but maybe 2 or 3 games behind 7th and 8th, the scenario is, if circumstances or injuries, or "JUST A GOOD DAY OUT" happens for 9th and 10th in the wild card games, if that's how it runs , but even if its 8th to 10th and 7th is safe (at 7th) it could mean that 2 teams that lost 1, 2 or 3 games more than 7th and 8th, are finalists??

How in gods name is the finals legitimate.

Now even if the AFL has an answer , that it won't be run that unfairly.
Well, first what and how can it be fair that lower winning game numbers after Home & Away, gives a team the right to challenge for a 7th or 8th and be a finalist. Perhaps

The scenarios are countless, to how unfair this will become and it'll happen, watch.

And after home and away season, two teams that MADE IT with more wins, will miss out because of a wild card game.

Oh it'll happen!

ARE THE AFL JOKING .

This is another disaster, players will be disillusioned and disappointed and two under achievers that had a single real good day each, will make a mockery out of finals.

So why not just cancel the last two 7 and 8 and have a final 6, and stop diluting the sport with new rules and farcical ideas for money making. The AFL has made a stupid decision and they need to be told.

I can see this explode in the AFL's face. I hope it does.

I wish they didn't exist and we had a decent football commission made up of ex footballers.

With real football being played, the money still rolls in, because real football, not footy run by umpires and greed, was, WAs The best sport ever invented on earth! Why keep murdering it.

And why let petty frees win games , when they are not really frees at all.
It might happen once or twice but when it does it is and will be unfair and stupid and a spoiling of a unique sport.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Here is a simple question, the AFL won't have an answer to?

What if 9th and 10th finish outside the 8 and both are at least 1 but maybe 2 or 3 games behind 7th and 8th, the scenario is, if circumstances or injuries, or "JUST A GOOD DAY OUT" happens for 9th and 10th in the wild card games, if that's how it runs , but even if its 8th to 10th and 7th is safe (at 7th) it could mean that 2 teams that lost 1, 2 or 3 games more than 7th and 8th, are finalists??

How in gods name is the finals legitimate.

Now even if the AFL has an answer , that it won't be run that unfairly.
Well, first what and how can it be fair that lower winning game numbers after Home & Away, gives a team the right to challenge for a 7th or 8th and be a finalist. Perhaps

The scenarios are countless, to how unfair this will become and it'll happen, watch.

And after home and away season, two teams that MADE IT with more wins, will miss out because of a wild card game.

Oh it'll happen!

ARE THE AFL JOKING .

This is another disaster, players will be disillusioned and disappointed and two under achievers that had a single real good day each, will make a mockery out of finals.

So why not just cancel the last two 7 and 8 and have a final 6, and stop diluting the sport with new rules and farcical ideas for money making. The AFL has made a stupid decision and they need to be told.

I can see this explode in the AFL's face. I hope it does.

I wish they didn't exist and we had a decent football commission made up of ex footballers.

With real football being played, the money still rolls in, because real football, not footy run by umpires and greed, was, WAs The best sport ever invented on earth! Why keep murdering it.

And why let petty frees win games , when they are not really frees at all.
It might happen once or twice but when it does it is and will be unfair and stupid and a spoiling of a unique sport.

Indeed. But the AFL don't care. More games more money.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Do you realise that the game was very physical and some behind the play that THE UMPIRE, you know the one umpire, would be calling all sorts of frees but genuine, because the game was slower and much much more contact than the castrated game we see now, with collision being the toughness of it now., n

No one is degrading players now, to say they aren't as brave , but the game was easier to umpire then and free kicks were generally a free kick. And lots of players were hunters too.
And you lied at the tribunal. That side of footy was for a different era. But footy now is simply not footy.

Now what happens is most of the viewing and spectator crowds don't know what on earth most of the frees are for.
Once upon a time abusing the umpire was part of the crowd fun and funny at times, now it's a robots game. Like everything that happens now.
So explain what the rule last touch is?

What if a backman punches the ball out of bounds while defending and contesting with a forward, is that a shot on goal ?????????????????????????

Oh btw I doubt there were 80 frees a game , I watched lots of footy in Melbourne in those days, and before, when you could pick a game on a Saturday, any game, and go and a beer didn't cost you $15 ,
I know,I know, a different era doesn't change the argument the game is a corporatised mess and now another club Tassie. More dilution!
Tassie who should have had an AFL club 20 years ago. Before Demitriou and McClachlan began the new football dictatorship. Now there's a rant for you.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!!!

 

[doppleganger]

Do you realise that the game was very physical and some behind the play that THE UMPIRE, you know the one umpire, would be calling all sorts of frees but genuine, because the game was slower and much much more contact than the castrated game we see now, with collision being the toughness of it now., n

No one is degrading players now, to say they aren't as brave , but the game was easier to umpire then and free kicks were generally a free kick. And lots of players were hunters too.
And you lied at the tribunal. That side of footy was for a different era. But footy now is simply not footy.

Now what happens is most of the viewing and spectator crowds don't know what on earth most of the frees are for.
Once upon a time abusing the umpire was part of the crowd fun and funny at times, now it's a robots game. Like everything that happens now.
So explain what the rule last touch is?

What if a backman punches the ball out of bounds while defending and contesting with a forward, is that a shot on goal ?????????????????????????

Oh btw I doubt there were 80 frees a game , I watched lots of footy in Melbourne in those days, and before, when you could pick a game on a Saturday, any game, and go and a beer didn't cost you $15 ,
I know,I know, a different era doesn't change the argument the game is a corporatised mess and now another club Tassie. More dilution!
Tassie who should have had an AFL club 20 years ago. Before Demitriou and McClachlan began the new football dictatorship. Now there's a rant for you.

Another rant about the good old days when one umpire gave more than 80 frees per game on.average.

Bring back the Victorian FreeKick League, cheap beer, thugs picking blokes off behind the play and the final 5.

 

[Doggy Dan]

Why didn’t they just do 8th vs 9th as the first iteration of Wildcard and then add 7th v 10th when Tassie are in. Would’ve been more interesting and less weird.

 

[Dan26]

Here is a simple question, the AFL won't have an answer to?

What if 9th and 10th finish outside the 8 and both are at least 1 but maybe 2 or 3 games behind 7th and 8th, the scenario is, if circumstances or injuries, or "JUST A GOOD DAY OUT" happens for 9th and 10th in the wild card games, if that's how it runs , but even if its 8th to 10th and 7th is safe (at 7th) it could mean that 2 teams that lost 1, 2 or 3 games more than 7th and 8th, are finalists??

How in gods name is the finals legitimate.

Here is a simple question, you won't have an answer to?

What if 7th and 8th finish outside the top-6 and both are at least 1 but maybe 2 or 3 games behind 5th and 6th, the scenario is, if circumstances or injuries, or "JUST A GOOD DAY OUT" happens for 7th and 8th in the Elimination Finals, if that's how it runs , but even if its 6th to 8th and 5th is safe (at 5th) it could mean that 2 teams that lost 1, 2 or 3 games more than 7th and 8th, progress to the second week effectively taking "5th" and "6th" seeds.

How in gods name is the final 8 legitimate?


Or, how about imagine the 1999 season with a knockout final-6 where 3v6 and 4v5 in knockout games to decide who progresses to make the Preliminary Finals to play 1st and 2nd

1	ESSENDON​	22	18	4	0	2400	1905	126.0	72
2	KANGAROOS (P)​	22	17	5	0	2463	2129	115.7	68
3	BRISBANE LIONS​	22	16	6	0	2422	1671	144.9	64
4	WESTERN BULLDOGS​	22	15	6	1	2363	1993	118.6	62
5	WEST COAST​	22	12	10	0	2068	1937	106.8	48
6	CARLTON​	22	12	10	0	2088	2028	103.0	48
7	Port Adelaide​	22	12	10	0	1851	2054	90.1	48
8	Sydney​	22	11	11	0	2184	2128	102.6	44
9	Hawthorn​	22	10	11	1	1858	1943	95.6	42
10	St Kilda​	22	10	12	0	1978	2021	97.9	40
11	Geelong​	22	10	12	0	2328	2454	94.9	40
12	Richmond​	22	9	13	0	1977	2170	91.1	36
13	Adelaide​	22	8	14	0	1903	2232	85.3	32
14	Melbourne​	22	6	16	0	1850	2293	80.7	24
15	Fremantle​	22	5	17	0	1981	2403	82.4	20
16	Collingwood​	22	4	18	0	1973	2326	84.8	16

In the 1999 season with this hypothetical knockout final-6, What if 5th and 6th finish outside the top-4 and both are at least 1 but maybe 2 or 3 games behind 3rd and 4th (OH WAIT, IT HAPPENED), the scenario is, if circumstances or injuries, or "JUST A GOOD DAY OUT" happens for 5th and 6th in the Elimination Finals, if that's how it runs , but even if its 4th to 6th and 3rd is safe (at 3rd) it could mean that 2 teams that lost 1, 2 or 3 games more than 5th and 6th, progress to the second week effectively taking "3rd" and "4th" seeds for the knockout Preliminary Finals.

How in gods name is the final-6 legitimate?

The reason your argument is so piss poor, is that any team can be three wins behind any other team at any point on the ladder. Yes 9th could be 3 games behind 8th. But it's also possible they could be separated in percentage. 6th could be 4 games being 5th. 5th could be 3 games being 4th (like in 1999). That's footy.

 

[Dan26]

I can see this explode in the AFL's face. I hope it does.

It won't. People like you said the same thing in 1994, when the AFL introduced the final-8 in the 15 team league. People sooked on talkback radio. People wrote into newspapers saying it was a terrible decision. it was 20/80 for/against amongst the idiotic public. This was the ladder in 1994:



Within 12 months, no one ever complained again about 8 being the right number of teams. No one complained for another 31 years. Until now. Since 1994, FOUR more teams have been added to the AFL (if you include Tassy, which is why the final-10 has been introduced) and... shock horror, the AFL has expanded the finals just like they did in 1994 to accommodate that fact that it is no longer the 15-team league it was in 1994.

Kindly explain to me, and the rest of this forum the horrific legacy the 1994 AFL had on the subsequent 31 years? Please explain that. It really did ruin the last 31 years that 1994 decision, right? Imagine 8 teams making the finals in a 15-team league! However did we get by? Horrible!

This time next year, no one will be complaining about the final-10. It will be 80-20 the other way, just like the final-8 completely flipped in public opinion in just 12 months.

Learn from history.

 

[cricketnut14]

Here is a simple question, the AFL won't have an answer to?

What if 9th and 10th finish outside the 8 and both are at least 1 but maybe 2 or 3 games behind 7th and 8th, the scenario is, if circumstances or injuries, or "JUST A GOOD DAY OUT" happens for 9th and 10th in the wild card games, if that's how it runs , but even if its 8th to 10th and 7th is safe (at 7th) it could mean that 2 teams that lost 1, 2 or 3 games more than 7th and 8th, are finalists??

How in gods name is the finals legitimate.

Now even if the AFL has an answer , that it won't be run that unfairly.
Well, first what and how can it be fair that lower winning game numbers after Home & Away, gives a team the right to challenge for a 7th or 8th and be a finalist. Perhaps

The scenarios are countless, to how unfair this will become and it'll happen, watch.

And after home and away season, two teams that MADE IT with more wins, will miss out because of a wild card game.

While I agree a top 10 seems a little farcial, time will tell I guess.
I can live with a top 10 in a 20 team comp and maybe that's what the AFL are gearing towards
(they did this with the introduction of the top 8 when we had 15 teams, before expanding to 16).

Simple answer though - Think of it this way - the WILDCARD round as the AFL have said are 'FINALS'.
the top 10 teams qualify, regardless of how many wins they've had during the home & away season.
teams 7-10 are effectively starting their finals campaign a week earlier and i highly doubt any team will win 5 games in 5 weeks (pretty much at away venues). if they win the 1st week, they probably going to be out the following week.

a good day out can happen from time to time and that's the beauty about sport.
brisbane finished 2 and a half games from top spot in 2024 and won it.
hawthorn finished 4 games behind top spot in 2008 and won it etc.

the AFL isn't like the EPL and just hands the trophy to the top team, however it is set up for an opportunity for others to win it, but does reward the higher teams with the greatest advantages and mathematical probabilities. that's the beauty about our game - the season doesn't finish until grand final day.
the cream usually rises to the top though with the flag coming from
-1st/2nd 102 times,
-3rd/4th 23 times and
-5th onwards on 4 occasions.

FYI - brace yourself as in the NFL, a wildcard has won the superbowl on 7 occasions (however some wildcards have a better win-loss ratio than some qualified teams because of the conference set up etc).
(mind you the NFL wildcard only has to win 4 games in 4 weeks)

 

[Kickit2brown]

Here is a simple question, the AFL won't have an answer to?

What if 9th and 10th finish outside the 8 and both are at least 1 but maybe 2 or 3 games behind 7th and 8th, the scenario is, if circumstances or injuries, or "JUST A GOOD DAY OUT" happens for 9th and 10th in the wild card games, if that's how it runs , but even if its 8th to 10th and 7th is safe (at 7th) it could mean that 2 teams that lost 1, 2 or 3 games more than 7th and 8th, are finalists??

How in gods name is the finals legitimate.

Now even if the AFL has an answer , that it won't be run that unfairly.
Well, first what and how can it be fair that lower winning game numbers after Home & Away, gives a team the right to challenge for a 7th or 8th and be a finalist. Perhaps

The scenarios are countless, to how unfair this will become and it'll happen, watch.

And after home and away season, two teams that MADE IT with more wins, will miss out because of a wild card game.

Oh it'll happen!

ARE THE AFL JOKING .

This is another disaster, players will be disillusioned and disappointed and two under achievers that had a single real good day each, will make a mockery out of finals.

So why not just cancel the last two 7 and 8 and have a final 6, and stop diluting the sport with new rules and farcical ideas for money making. The AFL has made a stupid decision and they need to be told.

I can see this explode in the AFL's face. I hope it does.

I wish they didn't exist and we had a decent football commission made up of ex footballers.

With real football being played, the money still rolls in, because real football, not footy run by umpires and greed, was, WAs The best sport ever invented on earth! Why keep murdering it.

And why let petty frees win games , when they are not really frees at all.
It might happen once or twice but when it does it is and will be unfair and stupid and a spoiling of a unique sport.

The crazy thing is the controversy over wildcard teams getting an illegitimate spot in the finals will be seen as a good thing by the AFL when the media lap it up and create more headlines and clicks.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Indeed. But the AFL don't care. More games more money.

Then they are greedy blind fools.

 

[JoondalupJ]

While I agree a top 10 seems a little farcial, time will tell I guess.
I can live with a top 10 in a 20 team comp and maybe that's what the AFL are gearing towards
(they did this with the introduction of the top 8 when we had 15 teams, before expanding to 16).

Simple answer though - Think of it this way - the WILDCARD round as the AFL have said are 'FINALS'.
the top 10 teams qualify, regardless of how many wins they've had during the home & away season.
teams 7-10 are effectively starting their finals campaign a week earlier and i highly doubt any team will win 5 games in 5 weeks (pretty much at away venues). if they win the 1st week, they probably going to be out the following week.

a good day out can happen from time to time and that's the beauty about sport.
brisbane finished 2 and a half games from top spot in 2024 and won it.
hawthorn finished 4 games behind top spot in 2008 and won it etc.

the AFL isn't like the EPL and just hands the trophy to the top team, however it is set up for an opportunity for others to win it, but does reward the higher teams with the greatest advantages and mathematical probabilities. that's the beauty about our game - the season doesn't finish until grand final day.
the cream usually rises to the top though with the flag coming from
-1st/2nd 102 times,
-3rd/4th 23 times and
-5th onwards on 4 occasions.

FYI - brace yourself as in the NFL, a wildcard has won the superbowl on 7 occasions (however some wildcards have a better win-loss ratio than some qualified teams because of the conference set up etc).
(mind you the NFL wildcard only has to win 4 games in 4 weeks)

I guess I am saying , "WHAT IF IT DOESN'T?" one year or two.

But besides that I am from the older tradition and I can barely put into words how little things but many many little things turn into big things and they have turned our unique sport into an unfair sport in terms of new rules and things I can't believe.
There are many, but a few years back the arm punch was brought in, the full forwards were bound to get an advantage from leading and a defender trying to spoil. To get more goals I 'd say, but it was simply unfair. On many of occasions
Freekicks have been given front seat top priority, by the AFL.
It was not a contest it became a judgement of what the umpire decided he saw?

Now one more of many. James Sicily actually caught McCluggage in a brilliant chase down tackle which James got a free kick from the umpire.
Where the AFL is right of the track is this stopping of footballers playing their natural contact game and being penalised.

Sicily didn't get penalised.... he got CRUCIFIED for playing good football, at least one umpire thought it was fair and fine.

That aspect of the game now , will really castrate it, it looks to me like we're heading for non contact.

Its all very well looking forward to a newer modern game , but to change its essense is very dissappointing.

The contest sometimes doesn't matter, with so many free kicks coming from anywhere
But the contest, is all, that matters.
So accidental out of bounds last touch ,how on earth do they police that when a pack jumps.

Really its another unneeded rule, being invented. For an old buggar, I've nearly had it.

I don't think I'm alone.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

I guess I am saying , "WHAT IF IT DOESN'T?" one year or two.

But besides that I am from the older tradition and I can barely put into words how little things but many many little things turn into big things and they have turned our unique sport into an unfair sport in terms of new rules and things I can't believe.
There are many, but a few years back the arm punch was brought in, the full forwards were bound to get an advantage from leading and a defender trying to spoil. To get more goals I 'd say, but it was simply unfair. On many of occasions
Freekicks have been given front seat top priority, by the AFL.
It was not a contest it became a judgement of what the umpire decided he saw?

Now one more of many. James Sicily actually caught McCluggage in a brilliant chase down tackle which James got a free kick from the umpire.
Where the AFL is right of the track is this stopping of footballers playing their natural contact game and being penalised.

Sicily didn't get penalised.... he got CRUCIFIED for playing good football, at least one umpire thought it was fair and fine.

That aspect of the game now , will really castrate it, it looks to me like we're heading for non contact.

Its all very well looking forward to a newer modern game , but to change its essense is very dissappointing.

The contest sometimes doesn't matter, with so many free kicks coming from anywhere
But the contest, is all, that matters.
So accidental out of bounds last touch ,how on earth do they police that when a pack jumps.

Really its another unneeded rule, being invented. For an old buggar, I've nearly had it.

I don't think I'm alone.

What

 

[Dirty Bird]

Imagine the response if BigFooty was around in 1916?

Who cares about the finals series
I'd be attacking Collingwood/Carlton/Richmond/Fitzroy for pocketing 80%* of fundraising for the Patriotic Fund which was to get comfort item for the soldiers fighting for our nation.

*Some clubs were better, some were worse. Carlton pocketing 100% of the fundraising for themselves

Fitzroy raised the most - The equivalent of $104,685 but only donated the equivalent of $17,333
Carlton raised $100,808 but kept it all for themselves
Of Collingwood's $75,720 raised they only gave the Patriotic fund $4,561
And of Richmond's $70,018 raised, they donated $10,263

Note - All values are in 2022 dollars.

It's why I feel Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond and if I had for bye purposes, Brisbane should be banned from ANZAC Day/Round. They spat in the face of the ANZAC's when needed the most.