Oppo Camp "Code Wars" discussion

[jatz14]

But will never ever take over from non contact sports for women, Mens ffotball struggles with participation rates to be the leader for the same obvious reasons

A lot of those sports are really just idle pastimes. Done for a bit of activity and fitness. The people involved do not follow or watch with any great interest.

Contact sport, because it's contact, requires a bit of commitment and passion.

An extra 100k women playing football is much more significant than an extra 100k going swimming.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[The_Wookie]

In veiwing audience the marketing gurus have done a fantastic job with the AFL, by aligning the teams with Clubs which have loyal supporter bases and in which clubs would get 10000 people to an event as long as they advertised to their supporters to come along, it could be a wheel barrow race and they would come, that is how much some supporters love their club.

The next step will be getting the young girls to play which shouldnt be too hard to convince them although they dont realise the consequences of playig footy, although saying that 90% my injuries came at senior level, junior football was either softer or your body had more bounce . But its the parents who will in over 50% of cases say no!

If they love the game and continue playing then they will cop the horror injuries, I would say a minority get away without some sort of lasting injury

Ive seen it first hand my daughter wanted to play, I said no probs Ill teach you, and my wife said a flat out No way!

And yet theres considerable evidence out there - in the form of women turning up for training and new clubs being set up this season - more than 50 new womens teams in Victoria alone - that suggests not everyone shares your wifes opinion.

 

[marty36]

And yet theres considerable evidence out there - in the form of women turning up for training and new clubs being set up this season - more than 50 new womens teams in Victoria alone - that suggests not everyone shares your wifes opinion.

There will hunderds of people whio will join the growing sport but there will be thousands that dont although they might want to, the parents simply wont allow. I have mixed feelings on it as having played it are fully aware of the chance of injury As the season goes on and if we see a few bad injuries which will happen as we see almost every week in the mens game, media will jump on i for a strory. I thought the reports on the weekend werent much but I am sure the AFL are going to attempt to keep this game as clean as possible as it will deter particpation by parents not allowing it

 

[The_Wookie]

There will hunderds of people whio will join the growing sport but there will be thousands that dont although they might want to, the parents simply wont allow. I have mixed feelings on it as having played it are fully aware of the chance of injury As the season goes on and if we see a few bad injuries which will happen as we see almost every week in the mens game, media will jump on i for a strory. I thought the reports on the weekend werent much but I am sure the AFL are going to attempt to keep this game as clean as possible as it will deter particpation by parents not allowing it

Theres been no efforts on the part of the AFL to limit contact, and the women playing dont want it either.

 

[marty36]

A lot of those sports are really just idle pastimes. Done for a bit of activity and fitness. The people involved do not follow or watch with any great interest.

Contact sport, because it's contact, requires a bit of commitment and passion.

An extra 100k women playing football is much more significant than an extra 100k going swimming.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Contact sport requires that but also requires you to be aware of the consequences later in life

I disagree on the activity basis. Cycling would have a higher particpation rate in Australia with both women and men than pretty much any other sport its just not an organised soprt in most instances , sport is an activity nothing more nothing less, its great to keep fit and healthy, football is probably no different. As with football with cycling you are in a group also, we have all seen the groups that take up the whole road that is actually organised, I know Im probably choosing the biigest sport in the world where the Tour De France gets what 4 billion veiwers compared to the few million the AFL gets . Its just highlighting that AFL football is great to a select few but will never ever ever compete with these enormous sports

 

[The_Wookie]

Contact sport requires that but also requires you to be aware of the consequences later in life

I disagree on the activity basis. Cycling would have a higher particpation rate in Australia with both women and men than pretty much any other sport its just not an organised soprt in most instances , sport is an activity nothing more nothing less, its great to keep fit and healthy, football is probably no different. As with football with cycling you are in a group also, we have all seen the groups that take up the whole road that is actually organised, I know Im probably choosing the biigest sport in the world where the Tour De France gets what 4 billion veiwers compared to the few million the AFL gets . Its just highlighting that AFL football is great to a select few but will never ever ever compete with these enormous sports

Team sports have never rated as high in particpation as walking, cycling, swimming and other individual activities. Look at the ABS figures some time.

 

[marty36]

Theres been no efforts on the part of the AFL to limit contact, and the women playing dont want it either.

The way the game has gone over the past 40 years it clearly has, when as soon as there is a bump or someone is tackled and injured there is talk of reports

Will be interested to see if the report rate is as high in coming weeks I would expect the girls to be less aggresive with the less testosterone levels, thats just life in general, we dont need to discuss that is a biological fact that tesoasterone causes aggression and men clearly carry more esppecially fit and healthy ones

 

[marty36]

Team sports have never rated as high in particpation as walking, cycling, swimming and other individual activities. Look at the ABS figures some time.

Cycling is a team sport probably first and foremost, you' ve obviously never raced it does have some individual events but teh majority are done in a team

 

[jatz14]

There will hunderds of people whio will join the growing sport but there will be thousands that dont although they might want to, the parents simply wont allow. I have mixed feelings on it as having played it are fully aware of the chance of injury As the season goes on and if we see a few bad injuries which will happen as we see almost every week in the mens game, media will jump on i for a strory. I thought the reports on the weekend werent much but I am sure the AFL are going to attempt to keep this game as clean as possible as it will deter particpation by parents not allowing it

Some of the early women's leagues had modified rules, but these were dropped due to demands of the players. They wanted to play 'real' football, not some tame women's football.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[The_Wookie]

Cycling is a team sport probably first and foremost, you' ve obviously never raced it does have some individual events but teh majority are done in a team

Get me some "team" cycling sport activity stats then. I dont even think the ABS reports them.

 

[The_Wookie]

The way the game has gone over the past 40 years it clearly has, when as soon as there is a bump or someone is tackled and injured there is talk of reports

Will be interested to see if the report rate is as high in coming weeks I would expect the girls to be less aggresive with the less testosterone levels, thats just life in general, we dont need to discuss that is a biological fact that tesoasterone causes aggression and men clearly carry more esppecially fit and healthy ones

Thats the game in general, not womens sport. Which is the matter under discussion.

 

[Gigantor]

I'm genuinely surprised that some people think the success of the first round comes down entirely to marketing.

 

[The_Wookie]

I'm genuinely surprised that some people think the success of the first round comes down entirely to marketing.

AND free entry. Dont forget the free entry.

 

[marty36]

Some of the early women's leagues had modified rules, but these were dropped due to demands of the players. They wanted to play 'real' football, not some tame women's football.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

And so they should but how many parents will see the risk too great, I know from my experience you will lose over 50% of the potential players due to the parents just seeing as dangerous and if you are honest you could understand why, parents are a lot more protective these days than ever

 

[marty36]

I'm genuinely surprised that some people think the success of the first round comes down entirely to marketing.

The success was driven by a number of factors, the biggest one being drawing upon the supporters who stay loyal to their clubs regardless of what the club is asking them to do, the marketing, the timing of the game in summer with the fact everyone wants to see some footy and the novelty factor, the free entry.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The success was driven by a number of factors, the biggest one being drawing upon the supporters who stay loyal to their clubs regardless of what the club is asking them to do, the marketing, the timing of the game in summer with the fact everyone wants to see some footy and the novelty factor, the free entry.

If you honestly think that a five figure number of people would rock up to a Carlton vs Collingwood wheelbarrow race, you're delusional.

 

[The_Wookie]

If you honestly think that a five figure number of people would rock up to a Carlton vs Collingwood wheelbarrow race, you're delusional.

Didnt work for the NSL teams they both had.

 

[BringBackTorps]

And so they should but how many parents will see the risk too great, I know from my experience you will lose over 50% of the potential players due to the parents just seeing as dangerous and if you are honest you could understand why, parents are a lot more protective these days than ever

I am a senior Field Umpire, turned 60 y.o. in Melb. snrs. comp. The % of FU's over 40 is very high ,maybe 40% +. We all have a bit of a chat at half time.

For FU oldies like me, the subject of umpiring in the "good ol'days"often occurs between the FU's. I only have direct experience of Melb. suburban snr. FU views.
These common themes usually have virtually unanimous agreement, concerning community snr. football:-

. Senior football has never been cleaner, referring to the deliberate actions of mongrels.

The old adage of "what happens on the field, stays on the field"is breaking down. FU's more often hear, from a variety of sources, "Keep an eye on player X because...".

The main change happened from the mid 90's -& is continuing with the 'new guard' that is on the c'tees of snr. FC's. This 'new guard'increasingly understands the importance of being seen as a respected member of the community, of a good club culture. They understand that having mongrels inside their club often upsets & destabilises the whole 75+ snr players in the clu; & causes infighting in the C'tee about what to do with the mongrel.

Also, all community clubs understand the importance of juniors coming through the totally indep. junior club ranks to U19. We know you cant hide things any more, bad news travels fast -social media, mobile phone photos!
The "affiliated"junior club will be very unhappy with the snr. club if mongrels are allowed to continue their dirty work. Parents of jnrs. will be irate, might have their kids flick the jnr. club if there are ongoing problems - certainly won't approve of their U 19's joining the snr. club if mongrels are still there.

Fortunately, the culture has changed, thuggery is not accepted, clubs don't want to get a bad reputation, lose sponsors, want to have a "family"vibe.

Also, send -off Rule has been introduced universally (started by VAFA).

Many comps. impose automatic melee fines(started by VAFA).

Intro. of the 16 week Rule throughout Vic.(started by VAFA). Once a player has been given, ACCUMULATIVELY, a total of 16 weeks in his snr. career, he is banned for life.

VAFA is the only comp. to have banned the "niggle"-1st a warning, then a free, then a report (fights/grudges often occur after the niggle). VAFA is the only snr. comp. to ban alcohol at games -this is believed to have introduced a more" civil"behaviour, on & off the field (It is understood, however, many clubs are financially reliant on their alcohol sales to remain vibrant -VAFA clubs are generally in good financial shape)

VAFA is the only snr. comp. (many jnr. comps, though) where the FU can award a free for loud abusive comments at the FU's made by READILY IDENTIFIABLE adults associated with a team ie free kick paid against a team, for comments made off-field.
This has also contributed to more "civility" at football games, & keeps the "hot-head"mongrel players under a bit more control.

The introduction of female teams and/or female c'tee members into jnr. & snr FC's has been a major, very little acclaimed contribution to this cultural change.

The fewer % of mongrels today are more sneaky. We hardly ever see anymore the fist, forearm, elbow, or headbut.
The sneaky ones try a forceful clenched fist into the abdomen of their opponent, as an attempt to "tackle"; & might "accidentally"swing their knee into their opponent whilst tackling him to the ground. Or try a sling tackle (which is often very difficult for a FU to adjudicate if it was an illegal action).

The mongrels today are often unfit/fat/old/slow blokes who cant run with their opponent; and/or very unskilled.

The clever mongrels can legally execute a good shirt front -but we even see much fewer of these now, because if it rides up to the head, they will get a heavy suspension (& usually a melee/fight occurs after a big shirt front -& the shirt fronter knows he will be hunted).

. Re injuries occurring in the course of play, the rules have been changed much in the last 20 years to make the game safer -"head sacrosanct"etc.

We believe the lower the skill level of the teams, the higher the injury rates. Clean hands & feet lead to fewer contests & packs.
Muddy grounds, slippery rain-affected ball, very congested games (big numbers around the ball) lead to more injuries.

Conversely, HARD grounds and/or hard central cricket pitch areas are notorious for broken wrist/arm/collarbones -FU's & players fear these conditions. I believe there should be much more stringent conditions about the acceptable hardness of grounds -to reduce the chance of injury. This issue was of great concern during the drought years-& usually only a problem early in the season.

I believe the AFL should enforce, through its affiliates, more stringent standards in community football -to prevent playing on grounds that are too hard. If necessary, the AFL should pay for water trucks to saturate grounds affected by drought (waste water OK). Many community clubs could not afford this.

Too many players (snr. & jnr.) are getting SERIOUS injuries from hard grounds The AFL is a multi billion organisation -how about paying to keep the grassroots safe:it's the grassroots at the bottom that produce the AFL stars at the top, & pays for the exhorbitant salaries that AFL executives receive (probably their most serious injury in their job is a paper cut).

The Club Secretary or President only should sign off at the start (ie on Sat. or Sun. morning early) that a ground is not too hard & dangerous to play on. The decision should NOT be made by the coach or team manager or Council (the latter is always too late/not available). The temptation for the coach/team manager is to say "lets start playing boys, I've seen worse than this" -& sign OK on the Ground Report.
Furthermore, accurate & timely records should be kept of players forced to leave the field & seek asistance from a doctor and/or hospital -& these records sent immed. to a relevant Controlling Body. This would alert the latter immed. if there is a "PATTERN"of injuries -which could be deduced to poor ground conditions(or a particular club is "involved"in thuggery).

Furthermore, FU's are very reluctant to have this responsibility. We don't need further opprobrium & angst to walk into the change rooms & tell the assembled coaches & players it is unsafe to play, since the ground/cricket pitch area is too hard & dangerous (This opprobrium for the FU's would probably be greater for rural & non-city based matches -where often one club might have travelled 1.5 hrs+ to get to the ground).



Re jnr. injuries, these are generally quite low, at least to U 17. Jnr. football is being made safer. The most common serious jnr. injury is a broken wrist -in a jnr career over 10 years, maybe 10- 20% of male players might get one.
For female jnrs, injuries are quite rare

 

[peternorth]

Is Australia the only country that has/promotes code wars?

 

[Garlic muncher]

Is Australia the only country that has/promotes code wars?

no

 

[threenewpadlocks]

no

Ireland has battles between Gaelic, Soccer and Rugby for example for the best junior talent, media space etc.

 

[Gigantor]

Is Australia the only country that has/promotes code wars?

It's an interesting question.

In most parts of the world, soccer is so far ahead of all other sports that no one bothers arguing the toss, and the rest of the sports make do with whatever scraps they can get.

In the US, the NFL is massive, but it's such a huge sports market that the other big sports make plenty of money, and even soccer has a healthy niche. In America, soccer fans aren't dumb enough to pass any critical judgement on American Football.

Ireland appears to be closest to us in having two international brands of football competing with a very strong indigenous game, and in our case, we also have Rugby League, which also has a small international presence and a strong domestic presence, much bigger than soccer and rugby.

It's interesting to note the difference you see in how Australian rugby fans view the sporting landscape and how soccer fans view it.

 

[Garlic muncher]

It's an interesting question.

In most parts of the world, soccer is so far ahead of all other sports that no one bothers arguing the toss, and the rest of the sports make do with whatever scraps they can get.

In the US, the NFL is massive, but it's such a huge sports market that the other big sports make plenty of money, and even soccer has a healthy niche. In America, soccer fans aren't dumb enough to pass any critical judgement on American Football.

Ireland appears to be closest to us in having two international brands of football competing with a very strong indigenous game, and in our case, we also have Rugby League, which also has a small international presence and a strong domestic presence, much bigger than soccer and rugby.

It's interesting to note the difference you see in how Australian rugby fans view the sporting landscape and how soccer fans view it.

FME Rugby fans have a realistic view, they might not be happy, but they are realistic.

In rugbys case in Sydney they lead the charge against footy in the late 1890's and when RL was introduced around 1908 they saw it as a very good way to halt any spread of footy.

Sort of backfired a bit on them, because RL started stealing players from the Amatuer game.

But that is all histroy as they say, i personally have found RU fans the most reasonable of the lot in this country.

 

[marty36]

I am a senior Field Umpire, turned 60 y.o. in Melb. snrs. comp. The % of FU's over 40 is very high ,maybe 40% +. We all have a bit of a chat at half time.

For FU oldies like me, the subject of umpiring in the "good ol'days"often occurs between the FU's. I only have direct experience of Melb. suburban snr. FU views.
These common themes usually have virtually unanimous agreement, concerning community snr. football:-

. snr. football has never been cleaner, referring to the deliberate actions of mongrels.

The main change happened from the mid 90's -& is continuing with the 'new guard' that is on the c'tees of snr. FC's. This 'new guard'increasingly understands the importance of being seen as a respected member of the community, of a good club culture. They understand that having mongrels often upsets & destabilises the whole 50+ players in the club

Also, all community clubs understand the importance of juniors coming through the totally indep. junior club ranks to U19. We know you cant hide things any more, bad news travels fast -social media, mobile phone photos!
The "affiliated"junior club will be very unhappy with the snr. club if mongrels are allowed to continue their dirty work. Parents of jnrs. will be irate, might have their kids flick the jnr. club if there are ongoing problems - certainly won't approve of their U 19's joining the snr. club if mongrels are still there.

Fortunately, the culture has changed, thuggery is not accepted, clubs don't want to get a bad reputation, lose sponsors, want to have a "family"vibe.

Also, send -off Rule has been introduced universally (started by VAFA).

Many comps. impose automatic melee fines(started by VAFA).

Intro. of the 16 week Rule throughout Vic.(started by VAFA). Once a player has been given, ACCUMULATIVELY, a total of 16 weeks in his snr. career, he is banned for life.

VAFA is the only comp. to have banned the "niggle"-1st a warning, then a free, then a report (fights/grudges often occur after the niggle). VAFA is the only snr. comp. to ban alcohol at games -this is believed to have introduced a more" civil"behaviour, on & off the field (It is understood, however, many clubs are financially reliant on their alcohol sales to remain vibrant -VAFA clubs are generally in good financial shape)

VAFA is the only snr. comp. (many jnr. comps, though) where the FU can award a free for loud abusive comments to the FU's made by READILY IDENTIFIABLE adults associated with a team ie free kick paisd against a team, for comments made off-field.
This has also contributed to more "civility'at football games, & keeps the "hot-head"mongrel players under a bit more control.

The introduction of female teams and/or female c'tee members into jnr. & snr FC's has been a major, very little acclaimed contribution to this cultural change.

The fewer % of mongrels today are more sneaky. We hardly ever see anymore the fist, forearm, elbow, or headbut.
The sneaky ones try a forceful clenched fist into the abdomen of their opponent, as an attempt to "tackle"; & might "accidentally"swing their knee into their opponent whilst tackling him to the ground.

The mongrels today are often unfit/fat/old/slow blokes who cant run with their opponent; and/or very unskilled.

The clever mongrels can legally execute a good shirt front -but we even see much fewer of these now, because if it rides up to the head, they will get a heavy suspension (& usually a melee/fight occurs after a big shirt front -& the shirt fronter knows he will be hunted).

. Re injuries occurring in the course of play, the rules have been changed much in the last 20 years to make the game safer -"head sacrosanct"etc.

We believe the lower the level of the teams, the higher the injury rates. Clean hands & feet lead to fewer contests & packs.
Muddy grounds, slippery rain-affected ball, very congested games (big numbers around the ball) lead to more injuries.

Conversely, hard grounds and/or hard central cricket pitch areas are notorious for broken wrist/arm/collarbones -FU's & players fear these conditions. I believe there should be much more stringent conditions about the acceptable hardness of grounds -to reduce the chance of injury. This issue was of great concern during the drought years.

I believe the AFL should enforce, through its affiliates, more stringent standards in community football -to prevent playing on grounds that are too hard. If necessary, the AFL should pay for water trucks to saturate grounds affected by drought (waste water OK). Many community clubs could not afford this.

Too many players are getting SERIOUS injuries. The AFL is a multi billion organisation -how about paying to keep the grassroots safe:it's the grassroots at the bottom that produce the AFL stars at the top, & pays for the exhorbo-itant salaries that AFL executives receive (probaly their most serious injury in their job is a paper cut).

The Club Secretary or President only should sign off at the start (ie on Sat. or Sun. morning early) that a ground is not too hard & dangerous to play on. The decision should NOT be made by the coach or team manager or Council (the latter is always too late/not available). The temptation for the coach/team manager is to say "lets start playing boys, I've seen worse than this" -& sign OK on the Ground Report.
Furthermore, accurate & timely records should be kept of players forced to leave the field & seek asistance from a doctor and/or hospital -& these records sent immed. to a relevant Controlling Body. This would alert the latter immed. if there is a "PATTERN"of injuries -which could be deduced to poor ground conditions(or a particular club is "involved"in thuggery).



Re jnr. injuries, these are generally quite low, at least to U 17. The most common jnr. injury is a broken wrist -in a jnr career over 10 years, maybe 20% of male players might get one.
For female jnrs, injuries are quite rare

Definetly wouldnt disagree that it isnt as rough in terms of king hits and elbows and such, probably more knee and ankle injuries due to the different style of play that reqyuires a faster pace.

But in your honest opinion do you believe parents are far more protective in todays society and in turn will make decisions on what they believe their childs safety should be far greater than years ago.

I see it and hear it first hand

And to suggest most parents would be copmfortable in allowing their daughters to paly a contact sport like football is pretty out there. There of course will be a number that would but in my experience a majority wouldnt

Your thoughts please?

 

[jatz14]

Definetly wouldnt disagree that it isnt as rough in terms of king hits and elbows and such, probably more knee and ankle injuries due to the different style of play that reqyuires a faster pace.

But in your honest opinion do you believe parents are far more protective in todays society and in turn will make decisions on what they believe their childs safety should be far greater than years ago.

I see it and hear it first hand

And to suggest most parents would be copmfortable in allowing their daughters to paly a contact sport like football is pretty out there. There of course will be a number that would but in my experience a majority wouldnt

Your thoughts please?

Parents have a roll in deciding the sports their kids play, up to a point. There will be parents who do not let their girls play footy because they see it as rough, but imop, there will be just as many who are delighted that their girls are wanting to play a rough sport, for the life lessons it provides.

Some parents will not let their kids play soccer because its a `NTTAWWTs` sport, or a `wog` sport, however it seems to have thrived despite this.

Parents who do not let their kids play footy are irrelevant, the future is in the hands of the parents that do.