THE AFL COMPLETELY DISGUSTS ME

[Arch]

WHAT ON EARTH ARE THESE BRAINDEAD MORONS DOING TO OUR ONCE GREAT GAME. OUTLAWING THE SHIRTFRONT HAS GOT TO BE THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE GAME I LOVED SO MUCH. I HAVE THE FEELING THE AFL IS TRYING SCRAP "AUSSIE RULES" AND START SHOWING US GAELIC (*** -LIC) FOOTBALL IN AN ATTEMPT TO TOTALLY SANITISE OUR GAME INTO A WATERED DOWN WUSS FEST. IT MAKES ME SICK. I HOPE SOMEONE GOES INTO AFL HQ AND DELIVERS A DEVASTATING SHIRTFRONT TO THE MINDLESS TWATS WHO DECREED TOUGHNESS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OUR GAME.
THE AFL'S POWERS THAT BE SHOULD ROT IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY FOR WHAT THEY'VE DONE. IT MAKES ME SICK. COLLINS OUTTA BE SHOT.
From an ex-AFL fan.

 

[Don]

Should make it retrospective to last weekend and report Jason Johnson.

 

[Shinboners]

Arch,

Totally, one hundred percent, pure gold SPOT ON.

 

[Don]

Should make it retrospective to halfway through last year and put Pickett out for a season or so for his gutless effort on Krummel.

 

[collo sucks.]

we will put flags on players shorts and if someone grabs the flag off, then theyre considered tackled. also, lets prevent the players kicking the ball too hard as it might hurt another players hands when it comes down. and the feilds can be made of rose petals and we can have lovely little pictures of daisies and fairies on the goal posts. The umps can wear hot pink outfits, and the players must all be polite to eachother and have a cup of tea and scones with jam and cream at half time. fANS will be expected to clap politely and will be removed if they get too passionate and/or voice too many of their opinions. oh- and the games will 10 minute quarters so your attention span isnt tested.
welcome to aussie rules for the new millenium.
thanks jackson & collo you pr*cks.

 

[Dave]

Arch
well said. Footy's a game for men not nancy boys. Collo, Jacko, f*ck off and leave our game alone.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 03 March 2000).]

 

[TIG]

Here Here, I loved seeing Ricciuto line up Romero and thump him so hard (fairly) that his ancestors would of felt it.
It is hard to believe that those on the rules commitee have ever played the game.

 

[colley31]

Spot on Arch. The players of yesteryear will be turning in their graves over this new rule. You're right, it is becoming more like the Irish code, but no matter what it is still the greatest game in the world....

 

[The Dutchman!]

Don

Just don't tell me you're a Hawthorn supporter because that would the definition of hypocracy.

IE: Complaining about JJ last week and Pickett last year after 10 years of thuggery from Brereton, Aryes, Wallace, Diper etc..oh and Colin Robertson in the 83 GF...

Just tell me you support any other team.

 

[Don]

I support ANY other team.
Its simple guys you can't use unneccassary or unreasonable force. In other words IF YOU ARE GOING FOR THE FOOTY YOU ARE OK.

Non of this gutless taking out the man stuff.

 

[Grendel]

Much as it pains me to do so but I really agree with (GAG) Gerard healy on this one. He keeps stressing the point that it isnt so much the bumping/charging it is the contact to the HEAD that shouldnt ever be allowed. On this I agree with him 100% No one wants another kevin rose or neil sachae (Sorry not sure on the correct spelling of his name) incident. Even the Sommerville and greening stuff was, in a word, ugly.
But to take away a perfect hip and shoulder when the option to deliver it in the manner and spirt in whcih the game is played will just turn those who are already feeling that the spirt is not as pure in todays game further away from it.

 

[Dan26]

ARCH,

I'd be interested if you and those that agree with you actually knew the old rule, or know the new rule.

This has got nothing to do with toughness.

It is not "tough" to take out a player who is going for the ball, while you are NOT going for the ball. It is cowardly.

The new rule is basicaly the same, but with a subtle difference.

Just like in the old days, you can't bump if the ball is 5 metres away.

BUT, if the ball is within 5 metres, you CAN bump, but only if the player who you are bumping is involved in the contest for the ball.

You can't just charge into someone, who is standing there, not involved in the contest. You can't just ignore the ball and charge into their body. That's cowardly.

The game will now be tougher becasue players will be forced to go for the ball (as they should). That's what the game is about anyway.

As much as we enjoyed Jason Johnson bump, he had no intention of going for the ball. Blakey who won the ball, and kicked it got poleaxed. It didn't take any courage for Johnson to do this. None at all. All it did was serve to knock Blakey out. Remember, Blakey was the guy making the play. You have to protect the player going for the ball from a player who has NO intention of going for the ball.

repeat : You have to protect the player going for the ball from a player who has NO intention of going for the ball.

Bumping, and the "hip and shoulder" will still be perfectly legal.

The "shirtfront" never existed anyway. Tell me where "shirtfront" exists in the rulebook ?

The old rule just said you can bump with the hip, shoulder, etc, as long as the ball is withinn 5 metres, but you can't charge.

The new rule actually defines charging, and now, quite correctly outlaws it, when the player being charged is not in the contest, or not would reasonably have expected such contact.

The game will be tougher now, becasue it will take out all those cowardly acts. Players will go for the ball, rather than cowardly taking out a player, and will still be able to "hip and shoulder', and "bump" like they always have been.

 

[Don]

Intelligence from Dan24 mayebe Fremantle won't finish on the bottom this season it appears anything can happen.

You've got exactly the right point players should be rewarded for GOING FOR THE FOOTY and wiped out for gutless acts.

 

[Dronak]

Admittedly I'm not terribly familiar with the rules, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the argument against this rule change the use of the phrase "unnecessary or unreasonable"? These are not well-defined terms; everyone is going to have their own opinion of what is unnecessary or unreasonable. I was reading some articles regarding the rule change on the AFL site and it seemed like this was a big part of the complaint against the change -- what is deemed unnecessary or unreasonable will vary depending on who is judging a particular match; what one judge sees as unreasonable another may not. You can't have consistency in judging with a rule that allows for personal interpretation and variation. Now, if they had *defined* what is unnecessary or unreasonable, I suspect there would be far less complaints because people would know exactly what was being outlawed. To my understanding, the rule as they've now made it is too vague to be truly useful.

 

[Bomber]

Of course the player going for the ball should be protected, but what johnson did was perfect, any coach would have been thrilled with that.

Players must put pressure on opposition, if an opponenet gets the ball, you run straight at him (to tackle), should he dispose, you have to either quickly get out of the way (which sometimes you cant) or turn side on and bump. Johnson did what he had to do.

Guys like pickett and hocking (incidents last year) have to be outlawed - but apparently under the new rule Johnson goes for what he did - now that is bull$hit!
and your right - what exactly is 'unreasonable'?????

 

[sainter]

I'd have to agree with Dan on this one. To be a courageous player in the AFL it is not how many players you shirt front or take out but by keeping your eye on the ball. By no means do I want the hip and shoulder to be taken out of the game but certainly a line has to be drawn. Blakey and Krummel had their eyes fairly and squarely on the ball and I think Picketts and Johnsons act, while it may have looked tough, was cowardly. They had absolutely no intention of going for the ball which should in my mind be paramount. Particularly Pickett's act because Krummel was bending over the ball at the point of contact and made contact with his head. I agree with Grendel too that contact with the head had to be outlawed.

I suppose it remains to be seen if this new rule cleans up the game and doesn't lose the toughness that we all love

 

[Arch]

dan 24, i dont give a stuff what the law is , was, is going to be. I actually met rex hunt the other day and he agrees with me.
If what JJ did is now outlawed in AFL football then god help us all.
what pickett did was dirty as he lined up the guys head and elbowed it (ie krummel).that should be outlawed.
JJ didnt hit him high, and didnt cause any serious injury. Blakey was out, but hasnt got a broken jaw (like some players copped). JJ couldve hit him way harder. we just have to stop players going over the top and injuring guys. not "fair bumps".
anyway......looks like season 2000 will be wussy as hell.

 

[Pessimistic]

Not to mention smart's effort on Salmon (although he did get a free kick)

 

[Dan26]

Arch,

You're probably right about Johnsons bump. it wasn't violent. He just got Blakey at his most vulnerable. Having taped the game, I looked at it again, and it wasn't particularly violent.

One thing you said though irks me. Outlawing acts such as Picketts last year and Hocking etc, will NOT make the game "wussy" as you put it. What, do you like the big king-hit from behind, or something ?

These new rules are made for a reason. if you actually read the new rule, and then "visualized" incidednts in which it can be applied, you will agree with it. Who wouldn't ? Perhaps the wording of "unnecessary, and unreasonable" have the potential for a courtroom drama, but the ESSENCE of the rule is to protect the player going for the ball, and STILL allowing a fair bump to be layed. A bump cannot be layed on a player when the player performing the bump has no intention of going for the ball. And why should it ?

Like I said, the game will now be tougher. If you go for the ball, you will be rewarded. That is what the game is all about.

 

[Arch]

thought id re-hash this one.

anyone seen a decent hip and shoulder in the last 12 weeks ?????

i rest my case.

 

[Paulkanga2000]

Arch,

I haven't seen one either.

It is also affecting Byron Pickett's game thsi season. You don't see him aggresive towards the ball because he is unsure as to whether he can use a hip and shoulder or not.

 

[Dan26]

Arch,

Is the game any worse off ?

The standard of footy has been great.

We don't want to see players laying prostrate on the ground ala the Pickett incident last year. That is not good for the game.

Legal use of the body is allowed in our game. When two players are contesting the ball, you can bump, as long as you don't hold him.

We see this every week. It is, and always will be a physical game. What we now don't have (thank god) is players being knocked unconscious.

CONCLUSION :

A.) More parents will want their kids to play the game

B.) The game flows better

C.)The physical clashes still happen, but not to the extent of knocking a player unconscious.

As we discussed earlier in the topic, this han NOTHING to do with courage. Taking out a player, when you are not looking at the ball is cowardly, not tough or courageous. Especially if the player is not expecting it. There was nothing tough about Hocking taking out Harvey last year OFF THE BALL.

So, in your response, don't spin me any rubbish by saying , "But Dan24, it's now a less courageous game"

It's just a courageous a game as it always was. To be honest, I've barely noticed anything.

Anyway, the "hip and shoulder" is only one type of physical clash. There are "other" physical clashes which are much more important to the game. These include marking contests, tackling, and bumping when both players are going for the ball.

Did you realise what that new law was designed to prevent ?

 

[jod23]

Ok Arch lets just say Worsfold (the master of the shirtfront) was still playing and in the same game he cleans up (i think your a dons supporter) Lloyd off the ball and then cleans up Hird off the ball and both are out for the rest of the season, your opinion i think would dramatically change.
"Oh Worsfolds a coward you cant do that" ect ect

i rest my case

2000 the year of the Eagle

 

[servo]

Well no, I haven't seen any prostrate players from 'shirtfronts' lately. And I am glad of that. I don't like seeing players taken out of the game unfairly no matter who they are.

And the off the ball incidents were distressing in that our kids worship these guys and some of them were going aroung picking off unsuspecting opponents when they had no immediate part to play in the game. The two most extreme incidents were probably the Yeates on Brereton GF bump and worse still the Mathews king hit of Neville Bruns. The only difference between those and the more recent ones it that they have learnt to disguise it better now. Yes this has been stopped it seems and thank the AFL for that.

In general I don't like the way the rules committee are heading in that they are sanitising the game with rules like this which in many cases are good. But then they instruct the umpires to let so much scragging and obviously deliberate strikes while pretending to spoil go on.

There must be a middle ground where we can eliminate the thuggery such as the Pickett bump or the recent Leowe 'spoil' yet promote the fascinating physical tussles we see with the likes of Carey/Jackovich, Lockett/Martyn even Ratten/Romero. These tussles rarely result in injuries and then not intentional.

And while I am at it, Why the hell are the Players Association so touchy about ground conditions? Not so long ago we saw teams facing off on grounds like the Western Oval & Moorabin where there was no grass at all. Just mud, mud and more mud. The players didn't bitch about it, they just got on with it. And didn't we love watching those battles. Now if there is a little bit of lose turf on an otherwise picture perfect groung we have all and sundry complaining about the players slipping over. So bloody what. Just get on with the game.

[This message has been edited by servo (edited 31 May 2000).]

 

[The Ball]

Servo,

The reason why the players association is concerned with playing surfaces is that they were promised great conditions, most notably in Colonial's case . Strathayr, the grass supplier even said they had done all the testing and that the grass should be in perfect condition. However, this is not the case so the players association is upset.