dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,399
- 81,188
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #26
That's probably the crux of where we differ. I am resistant to bringing in "entertainment" for the sake of entertaining, as opposed to changes to make the game better or safer. More "entertaining" doesn't equal "better". As you pointed out, there are options (which I have banged on about for years, such as blowing the bloody whistle) to address the same issues that also diminish the entertainment factor.
I think this is the key part where we disagree - I'm looking at it from the opposite perspective, as I think the key is to make the game "better" and then "more entertaining" will follow. The ultimate aim is still entertainment, but the path to get there isn't necessarily strippers on the halfway line or chook raffles at the door. Swann wasn't saying we needed entertainment for entertainment's sake - just that it should be "more entertaining". That can simply be done by improving the on-field spectacle, as seen by our resurgence this year, except at a competition-wide level.
Given the repeated laments on how to bring footy back to what it used to be (whether reduced interchanges, subs, or hacky approaches like zones) I think people agree that footy used to be more entertaining and the aim is to get back there.
FWIW blowing the whistle isn't inherently going to diminish the entertainment factor. The knock on free kicks used to be that it made the game stop-start. We're way past that now, with the game stop-start because of the congestion and scragging. Adding double the free kicks isn't going to affect the average punter's perception of the game because we're already past the point where it'd be noticeable. Instead it would most likely reduce the congestion and hence number of stoppages, and actually result in the game being more entertaining.