The AFL is on the edge of not coming back

[faible]

The commitment to get the ball first and win the contest was something awesome about the game and now players stand back and wait. Something's been lost because of that.

Part of this is a structural thing IMO, players are much more conscious of setting up around the ball and holding their width etc etc instead of simply swarming it and trying to smash through.

One of many reasons even the worst modern sides would dominate teams from the mid 90s or earlier.

 

[ferball]

Part of this is a structural thing IMO, players are much more conscious of setting up around the ball and holding their width etc etc instead of simply swarming it and trying to smash through.

One of many reasons even the worst modern sides would dominate teams from the mid 90s or earlier.

yeah true. But i'm talking about one on one contests for the ball where players hold back not the sort of structure my footy side doesn't show enough of. It really sticks out to me.

 

[Chadwiko]

Has anyone here gone back and watched a full game from even as recently as the early to mid 90s?

The overall quality of play was significantly worse. Every stoppage was just a scrap, defense was atrocious and relied on just man-handling your opponent in ways not legal in modern football, and every offensive gameplan seemed to essentially boil down to "just kick long it up the guts".

People nostalgic for the days of footy past are wearing rose-tinted glasses and only remember what they want to remember.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Has anyone here gone back and watched a full game from even as recently as the early to mid 90s?

The overall quality of play was significantly worse. Every stoppage was just a scrap, defense was atrocious and relied on just man-handling your opponent in ways not legal in modern football, and every offensive gameplan seemed to essentially boil down to "just kick long it up the guts".

People nostalgic for the days of footy past are wearing rose-tinted glasses and only remember what they want to remember.

I think this is all crap, with time all sports develop but what has happened to our sport is they changed our sport. There is not a reason in the world that the rules of our sport as they were in 70's, 80's, 90's could not be played today.
People are confusing evolution with changing the sport.
Evolution is playing a sport and getting, fitter, stronger, faster, better tactics, better medical programs, better management and more professional. But still playing the exact same sport with the same rules.

What the AFL have done is change the rules so many times that they have actually changed the sport to a different sport and that is what many people take offence to. The only thing the AFL have done that was great for the game was removing the Thuggery from the sport. Outside of that not one rule change or interpretation they have done in the last 30 years was needed or required. The fans loved the sport 30 years ago, the crowds were huge and no one was calling on any change at all. There was good games and bad games just as there is now. They were however playing a different sport than what is played now.

Of course we all see it as we want to see it and that is our right to do so, but for the life of me I cannot see any benefit to the hundreds of rule changes and interpretations that have been made the last 30 years. They have simply just changed the sport from Aussie Rules Football to a new sport called AFL.

 

[The 747]

Quality melt over a player being suspended.

 

[Chadwiko]

Evolution is playing a sport and getting, fitter, stronger, faster, better tactics, better medical programs, better management and more professional. But still playing the exact same sport with the same rules.

What the AFL have done is change the rules so many times that they have actually changed the sport to a different sport and that is what many people take offence to.

I hate to break it to you, but there literally isn't a major professional sporting code anywhere in the world that hasn't "changed the sport" (aka updating rules) in the last 30-40 years.

Just a few examples, off the top of my head;

• NFL
  Massive rule changes about legal/illegal contact in efforts to minimise concussion risks. Rule replays using video evidence. Kickoffs, touchbacks, fair catch rules all significantly changed. The league is stronger and richer than it's ever been.
• NBA
  Huge changes to what is legal/illegal contact on defense. Entire definitions around natural shooting motions/shooting fouls have changed multiple times. Perhaps no other sport has been impacted more by the advent of instant replay reviews. The league is stronger and richer than it's ever been.
• MLB
  Just this season they've introduced one of the biggest changes in baseball history with the introduction of the 'pitch-clock' in an attempt to speed up games. Rule changes around 'the shift' and legal/illegal defensive formations. Rule changes around acceptable helmets and gloves and pitching aids, etc. The league is stronger and richer than it's ever been.
• Cricket
  Just look at what dominates Cricket these days; T20. Rule changes around acceptable fielding formations, mainly in short-forms of the game. Changes to bat compositions/technology. Instant replay review is literally an integral part of the entire sport. There's more money in cricket than there has ever been.

This whole notion that the AFL is an inferior product compared to what it once was is just nonsense. Is it over-officiated and is the standard of umpiring poor? Yes. But have you gone back and re-watched games from the 80s and 90s? Guess what; it was over-officiated and the standard of umpiring was poor back then too.

 

[pz5151]

This idea that the game was tougher back in the 70s is a fantasy. Go actually watch a game and see how slow and non contested the play is. Teams were even up to the mid 1990s averaging about 40 tackles a game compared to double that today. The players are bigger, stronger, hit harder and tackle more violently than they ever did in the old days. The only things we’ve lost are cheap shots behind the play and hip and shoulders to the head (which if were done at todays strength and speed levels would possibly kill people). The phenomenon of players getting their heads slammed into the ground is quite recent, players only starting pinning the arm in the last 10-15 years which is what makes it dangerous. Todays game is awesome and we don’t have to make players give themselves a disability 15 years after retiring to
Enjoy it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I hate to break it to you, but there literally isn't a major professional sporting code anywhere in the world that hasn't "changed the sport" (aka updating rules) in the last 30-40 years.

Just a few examples, off the top of my head;

• NFL
  Massive rule changes about legal/illegal contact in efforts to minimise concussion risks. Rule replays using video evidence. Kickoffs, touchbacks, fair catch rules all significantly changed. The league is stronger and richer than it's ever been.
• NBA
  Huge changes to what is legal/illegal contact on defense. Entire definitions around natural shooting motions/shooting fouls have changed multiple times. Perhaps no other sport has been impacted more by the advent of instant replay reviews. The league is stronger and richer than it's ever been.
• MLB
  Just this season they've introduced one of the biggest changes in baseball history with the introduction of the 'pitch-clock' in an attempt to speed up games. Rule changes around 'the shift' and legal/illegal defensive formations. Rule changes around acceptable helmets and gloves and pitching aids, etc. The league is stronger and richer than it's ever been.
• Cricket
  Just look at what dominates Cricket these days; T20. Rule changes around acceptable fielding formations, mainly in short-forms of the game. Changes to bat compositions/technology. Instant replay review is literally an integral part of the entire sport. There's more money in cricket than there has ever been.

This whole notion that the AFL is an inferior product compared to what it once was is just nonsense. Is it over-officiated and is the standard of umpiring poor? Yes. But have you gone back and re-watched games from the 80s and 90s? Guess what; it was over-officiated and the standard of umpiring was poor back then too.

Instant replays are not rules of the sport, we have changed the fundamental way the game is played. Cricket still has the exact same thing it had 100 years ago. A bowler runs in and bowls a ball and a batsman tries to score. The players have been able to get new technology to ply their trade but the rules of cricket have not changed much at all.
That you believe money would not be a part in our sport if the rules had not been changed is just nonsense.
Everything you mention above has little to do with playing those sports, it's all tv broadcast stuff.

Just off the top of my head in my opinion what rules never ever needed to be touched in the AFL

1) Ruck nomination (Auskick stuff)
2) How many players can go for the ruck knock
3) Not having to kick the ball in from the goal square after a behind. (Auskick stuff helping the kiddies get the ball out further)
4) Player with ball now at fault for head high contact. (Just a nonsense change)
5) Running into protected area (More nonsense, you either interfere or you don't.)
6) Stand rule (Again just not required and not achieved anything.)
7) Player first to ball is generally penalised now. ( Rule changes designed to not be first to ball)
8) Deliberate out of bounds. ( Again was never needed, it is either absolute deliberate or should be a throw in)
9) Legal tackling now penalized.

Could just go on and on and on. None of this type of thing has improved the sport in my opinion. The fans were not calling for change. It is just suits making change for the sake of it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

This idea that the game was tougher back in the 70s is a fantasy. Go actually watch a game and see how slow and non contested the play is. Teams were even up to the mid 1990s averaging about 40 tackles a game compared to double that today. The players are bigger, stronger, hit harder and tackle more violently than they ever did in the old days. The only things we’ve lost are cheap shots behind the play and hip and shoulders to the head (which if were done at todays strength and speed levels would possibly kill people). The phenomenon of players getting their heads slammed into the ground is quite recent, players only starting pinning the arm in the last 10-15 years which is what makes it dangerous. Todays game is awesome and we don’t have to make players give themselves a disability 15 years after retiring to
Enjoy it.

The game has never ever been less contested than it is today. Over half of every AFL game and it is well above half is uncontested footy. That is not to say when it is contested it is not tough but lets not make it sound like it's a contested sport more than the past, it has never ever been this uncontested as it is now. The modern game is players standing around on their own. Thats what it is now.

 

[Chadwiko]

Instant replays are not rules of the sport, we have changed the fundamental way the game is played. Cricket still has the exact same thing it had 100 years ago. A bowler runs in and bowls a ball and a batsman tries to score.
Everything you mention above has little to do with playing those sports, it's all tv broadcast stuff.

Way to ignore the parts of my post that prove you wrong. How convenient!

The game has never ever been less contested than it is today.

That has nothing to do with rule changes and everything to do with improved skills and fitness levels.

The concept of a 'rebounding HBFer' was nonsense in the 70s/80s/90s. You'd rarely see a defender attempt to bounce the ball and run it out of defense. Their job was simple; manhandle your opponent and prevent him getting an easy mark/possession.

Again, your entire argument is based on absolute fallacies.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Way to ignore the parts of my post that prove you wrong. How convenient!



That has nothing to do with rule changes and everything to do with improved skills and fitness levels.

The concept of a 'rebounding HBFer' was nonsense in the 70s/80s/90s. You'd rarely see a defender attempt to bounce the ball and run it out of defense. Their job was simple; manhandle your opponent and prevent him getting an easy mark/possession.

Again, your entire argument is based on absolute fallacies.

You have proved nothing, you have a different opinion and thats fine.

Again you don't read. Improved fitness levels and skills doesn't change that it is not uncontested.

Listen you love todays new sport, I don't. I am not losing sleep over it. The AFL love fans like you.

 

[offtherails9]

So am I biased and insane for thinking that points three and four easily apply here?

View attachment 1719025

Nah. Force was influenced by other parties and McCluggage had one arm free. Try again superstar

 

[Maddo11]

Nah. Force was influenced by other parties and McCluggage had one arm free. Try again superstar

Do you understand parenthesis? If it follows a word and contains an s, it means one or both. Arm(s) pinned does not mean must have both pinned.

Superstar is a new one.

 

[The 747]

Do you understand parenthesis? If it follows a word and contains an s, it means one or both. Arm(s) pinned does not mean must have both pinned.

Superstar is a new one.

HE CHAMPED YOU

 

[offtherails9]

Do you understand parenthesis? If it follows a word and contains an s, it means one or both. Arm(s) pinned does not mean must have both pinned.

Superstar is a new one.

Well I guess the tribunal believed that he had no chance to protect himself, but if you're watching the game full speed it was a good tackle executed perfectly (as coach Mitchell has told his players) and an unfortunate accident occurred. Players need to decide whether they want to protect themselves or get hurt sometimes too.

 

[Maddo11]

Well I guess the tribunal believed that he had no chance to protect himself, but if you're watching the game full speed it was a good tackle executed perfectly (as coach Mitchell has told his players) and an unfortunate accident occurred. Players need to decide whether they want to protect themselves or get hurt sometimes too.

Except for points 3 and 4 of the dangerous tackle tribunal rules ey... "perfect"

 

[ferball]

Will you clowns stop talking about the 90s. A decade ago gameplay still valued being first to the ball.

 

[faible]

Improved fitness levels and skills doesn't change that it is not uncontested.

They kinda do change the game though. But keep ignoring the myriad of factors at play here.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

They kinda do change the game though. But keep ignoring the myriad of factors at play here.

Corrrect, that is evolution. Improved fitness and skills is evolution.
Changing the rules all the time is simply changing the sport. What part of that are you blind to?

 

[faible]

Corrrect, that is evolution. Improved fitness and skills is evolution.
Changing the rules all the time is simply changing the sport. What part of that are you blind to?

Improved fitness, skills and tactics mean that the game has changed regardless. Rules need to be changed to accommodate. Plus the whole players not having lifelong brain damage in order to entertain you thing.

 

[Kwality]

'A leading neuroscientist says former Australian footballers will be in for a “confronting” shock when they have their brains analysed by a new app that can detect the damage done by concussions.'

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football/revolutionary-app-to-provide-confronting-concussion-reality-for-australian-footballers/news-story/e6458528b8cb3b3e2fda641965668d81

& this is soccer, however it applies to all forms of footy.

'It comes as Professional Footballers Australia plans to lobby Football Australia to have better concussion management and detection protocols included as part of their future CBA.

The app will be used to test the brain function of past players at the PFA annual testing day in Melbourne on Friday.

It will be the first time the brain health of players has been included in the testing process.

BioEye takes just 60 seconds to get a snapshot of brain function.
Dr Joanne Fielding, who has more than 20 years experience in the neuroscience field, is the Chief Science Officer at BioEye.

“We’ve had proven results in a trial that we ran last year with the AFL where we showed that using simple metrics of movement, looking at smooth pursuit eye movements and following a moving target with the eyes and looking at pupil reflex – we could identify everyone who has had a concussion,” Dr Fielding said.

“Which is amazing for a smart phone application.”

 

[Back One Out]

Quality melt over a player being suspended.

To be fair, it's not often in our great game's history that we've seen anyone banned for 3 matches over a fantastic tackle in which they lunged horizontally, grabbed their opponent around the waist and pulled them down on top of them and were correctly rewarded by the umpire with a free kick for HTB.

Everyone is laughing at the OP of another thread who questions whether Steven May should be suspended for kneeing his opponent in the back of the head as he hauled in the Mark of the Round. But as ridiculous as that may sound to the Big Footy intelligentsia, it's not so far removed from Sicily's tackle.

Both were fair, legitimate football actions with absolutely zero intent to hurt their opponent. This is what sets Sicily's tackle apart from the more intentional "sling tackles" which the AFL wanted to outlaw. i.e. tackles done with bad intentions, slinging opponents (or slamming them) into the ground as hard as possible.

Imagine if people 10 years ago were shown a clip of an identical tackle to Sicily's with the exact same outcome: an accidental concussion resulting in a 3 match ban. They would've laughed their arses off and said "no fricken way".

Tacklers are now held accountable for accidental outcomes. It's crazy. How can this be good for the game?

It's probably only a matter of time before the AFL starts holding players equally accountable for their raised knees in marking contests. It's no more ridiculous than suspending Sicily for 3 matches for his tackle.

Our game has been irrevocably altered over the past decade due to lawyers running the game and being concerned over legal ramifications of CTE and other long-term effects of concussion.

The bump has all but been removed. Almost extinct.

The AFL are now in the process of removing strong tackles. Won't be long before we are playing Under 9's rules with no take-down tackles at all. Players will decide it aint worth the risk of suspension (like the bump) and will simply grab their opponent in a friendly hug.

it wasn't that long ago we all used to laugh & sneer at pro soccer players for the way they dived theatrically for free kicks and feigned injury. Funny how we no longer laugh at that... That's because our AFL players heave learned to do the exact same bullshit as soccer players and milk free kicks. Not just one or two in every team, but all of them. That's where our "great game" is at... Glorified soccer (but played with hands & feet)

Some people don't care about the slow demise of football... They have no real memory of what the game was. They just wanna watch some footy and see some goals kicked and barrack for their team. But other people do care. They can remember when our game was a tough violent gladiator sport when players hurt each other within the rules.

The violence & danger (within the rules) was partly what made the game so great. The brilliance of Robbie Flower, Peter Matera, Robert Harvey, Andrew McLeod, Chris Judd and Gary Ablett jr was all the more brilliant because opponents went after them (or they tried to) but failed to stop them.

 

[The 747]

To be fair, it's not often in our great game's history that we've seen anyone banned for 3 matches over a fantastic tackle in which they lunged horizontally, grabbed their opponent around the waist and pulled them down on top of them and were correctly rewarded by the umpire with a free kick for HTB.

How about that James Sicily and the Hawks eh?

Your argument would be a lot more persuasive without the hero worship.

 

[Back One Out]

How about that James Sicily and the Hawks eh?

Obviously I'm looking past that and talking about the future of the game.

But I learned long ago it's impossible to have a footy discussion in good faith with bad actors such yourself.
I wasn't really expecting a proper response from you. I was just voicing my opinion.

To be honest, I'm surprised you're still here after 15 years with the same schtick. Most people move on. Don't you ever get bored of the same old infantile tribalism & trolling? I see you there in the match day threads, casting a lonely figure and laying your bait with increasingly diminishing returns.

 

[The 747]

Obviously I'm looking past that and talking about the future of the game.

But I learned long ago it's impossible to have a footy discussion in good faith with bad actors such yourself.
I wasn't really expecting a proper response from you. I was just voicing my opinion.

To be honest, I'm surprised you're still here after 15 years with the same schtick. Most people move on. Don't you ever get bored of the same old infantile tribalism & trolling? I see you there in the match day threads, casting a lonely figure and laying your bait with increasingly diminishing returns.

Nice try. It is entertaining and keeps me amused. This place is quite funny sometimes.

But since I obviously struck a nerve, I will give you a serious response.

What else can they do? All contact sports are facing an existential threat and yes whatever format the game is in in the future will have to be very different from what footy fans grew up with.