Minor things that annoy you about the game

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

That the "rookie list" is even a thing (instead of just extra list spot... Eligible or not) and the term rookie doesnt generically mean 1st year player.

That the Rising Star is not limited to best 1st year player, and is rather somewhat arbitrary of an award. (and usually won by guys who have spent more time in the system, just didnt get playing opportunities for whatever reason)

That all has to do with the equalisation between the clubs, salary cap, and is whole other argument. It's not even worth worrying about, it's too complicated, but with the rules they have, it does need to exist. The rising star award is also tied to the same thing. Ages of players, even down to the month they were born, still has a slight influence on "making the big time"
 
Not so much about the game, but how every conceivable thing can be the official product of the afl.

"The official washing detergent of the afl"

Really?

Soon to be Official Booger Sugar of the AFL.

cocaine.jpg
 
This, so much. Even my goddamn milk is the official milk of the AFL. Why does the AFL need an official milk?
tumblr_o2qq99LuXh1tv1nj5o1_500.jpg

Racists!
 
I've got a trivial one. The players that go to the trouble of getting a hair cut the day of, or the day before a game, to make sure they look good for the cameras. Get over yourself, you get paid to play footy !!!
Dale Thomas is close to thirty, is now a father, is Carlton's highest paid player and would be desperate to play some good footy after several injury riddled seasons, so what does he do in the week leading up to the first televised game of the year? He decides to go get himself a man bun.

It's like he wants people to dislike him.
 
Dale Thomas is close to thirty, is now a father, is Carlton's highest paid player and would be desperate to play some good footy after several injury riddled seasons, so what does he do in the week leading up to the first televised game of the year? He decides to go get himself a man bun.

It's like he wants people to dislike him.

Hahaha exactly !!!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I really don't like 'GWS' as a team name. I hate GWS because it is abbreviated rubbish. It could quite easily be 'West Sydney Giants', like 'North Melbourne Kangaroos' or 'Port Adelaide Power'.

Similarly I hate 'Western Bulldogs' as a team... the only team name that can't be said without the mascot included. You can say "I barrack for Collingwood/ Essendon/ Richmond/ etc." and it makes perfect sense... no need to say "Magpies/ Bombers/ Tigers/ etc.". You can't just say "I barrack for Western" though... "Western" what??? Change it back to 'Footscray' or make it 'West Melbourne'.
 
Last edited:
Double standards. How certain elite players can do dog acts and treated as courageous, passionate and "not meaning harm". While others deserve book thrown at them and condemned to relentless criticism

Yeah, agreed... if 'borderline starting 18' player at whatever club did this:



They would have been rubbed out for 6-8 weeks. It seriously could have left Wingard a quadriplegic. Nothing 'courageous' or 'tough' about this dog act.
 
People demanding rule changes every time Lindsay Thomas goes near the ball.

Also, tv commentators who think they need to call every player who touches the ball, that is, all tv commentators. It's not radio or a horse race, we can see what is happening! Can't we just get the pictures and some crowd noise? Maybe they can talk every now and then if they have something useful to add.
 
I've got a trivial one. The players that go to the trouble of getting a hair cut the day of, or the day before a game, to make sure they look good for the cameras. Get over yourself, you get paid to play footy !!!
that is over thinking it imo.
Players are allowed to just go and get a haircut...
 
The thing that annoys me is the way that a deliberate rushed behind is treated, when the solution is mind-blowingly simple.

The deliberate rushed behind rule was deemed necessary for two reasons:

1) To stop a team with a narrow lead wasting time
2) As a correction from the recently introduced rule that allowed the team bringing the ball back in straight away after a behind was scored (they used to have to wait for the goal umpire to wave the flags before being allowed to bring the ball in)

So, instead of the ridiculous situation that we have now, why couldn't you just 'penalise' a rushed behind by blowing time off and making the defender wait until the flags were waved to bring the ball back in? It gets rid of the unfair advantages that a team could gain from continually rushing behinds, while not removing it completely as a legitimate defensive tactic. And if the defender does a Joel Bowden and crosses back over the line without getting the ball out of the square, then you can do the ball up at the top of the goal square thing.

Is there a single reason why that wouldn't work?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top