Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Rusty Brookes

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 9, 2001
6,702
8,679
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
I don’t know if its popular or unpopular, but deliberate out of bounds rule needs to be scrapped. Its the only rule where the umpire needs to know what a player is thinking. Ridiculous.
Plus the original reason it was brought in - time wasting- is no longer the case. When it was introduced the quarters were 25mins plus time-on but the clock didn’t stop when the ball went out of bounds. So it was time wasting, usually 30 seconds or so as the game clock kept running.
But when they switched to 20mins plus time on they also made the official game clock stop when it went out of bounds. So there is no time wasting anymore. Clock doesnt restart until ball back in play.

So just scrap it. Remove the greyish rule in the book.

If a player is perpendicular to the boundary and kicks it over the line, then I have no issue it. But players hacking the ball forward or even kicking for touch down the line should not be penalised. My argument has always been in those instances, the primary intent is to get the ball out of the immediate area. I actually miss players that could kick it forward and get it to roll out. And as a life long defender, I reckon it's only fair that the backs have this option. Forwards don't get penalised for shots on goal that roll out of bounds.
 
Oct 20, 2004
17,112
20,904
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Pompey
If a player is perpendicular to the boundary and kicks it over the line, then I have no issue it. But players hacking the ball forward or even kicking for touch down the line should not be penalised. My argument has always been in those instances, the primary intent is to get the ball out of the immediate area. I actually miss players that could kick it forward and get it to roll out. And as a life long defender, I reckon it's only fair that the backs have this option. Forwards don't get penalised for shots on goal that roll out of bounds.
I reckon that the advent of the cluster defence has necessitated a strict interpretation of the deliberate rule, because any “get it out” kick now no longer goes to a 50-50, but instead to the waiting opposition. Hence why sides tactically go for the line
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Foxman98

Norm Smith Medallist
May 25, 2018
5,152
7,185
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Mine is that despite these rule changes designed to make the game "better", that the game as a spectacle is getting less and less enjoyable as a neutral and has been for the past 30 years.
It says unpopular not what most of us are saying not "what the media nuffies tell us we are wrong about"
 

Wargreymon90

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
7,621
12,570
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Mine is that despite these rule changes designed to make the game "better", that the game as a spectacle is getting less and less enjoyable as a neutral and has been for the past 30 years.
I think the approach is wrong. They shouldn’t introduce rules to make it easier to score.

Rule changes should reward players who execute their skills better.

That’s why I think the last possession out of bounds rule would be good. Team will be forced to keep the ball in and the more skilled teams will flourish
 
Aug 27, 2014
38,196
41,193
spacetime
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
there are no other teams worthy
Mine is that despite these rule changes designed to make the game "better", that the game as a spectacle is getting less and less enjoyable as a neutral and has been for the past 30 years.
30 years goes back to 1992.
The game was still very enjoyable then and for most of mid 90's as a spectacle. It more towards end of 90's with the added interchange spots and more prolonged flooding to go with it, that some of the spectacle diminished. But really took into next decade and real exploitation of interchange bench to used for something it was never intended, rotations, where the significant drop in spectacle was becoming more than norm.
There are also other factors such as different style of umpiring that lead to drop in spectacle.
2020 probably the most unwatchable season ever. It certainly has thankfully not got worse since but that mostly to do with playing time back to normal.
The one clear positive I seen this season is I noticed umpires actually punish illegal tackles way more than they seem to have in decades, which has been refreshing. Seems they paying more attention to protect the guy going for the ball which is a step in right direction.
There is heaps to fix up to really undo a lot of mistakes of last 26 years though.
 

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
21,589
41,458
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
1. Most commentators are good at what they do.
2. Commentators are rarely biased when calling the game.
3 Most club supporters are biased.
4. Umpires are rarely biased except against Richmond (See point 3 ;))
5. I like to listen to the commentary of Daisy Pearce and Kelli Underwood.
 
Dec 9, 2015
5,513
9,871
AFL Club
Collingwood
30 years goes back to 1992.
The game was still very enjoyable then and for most of mid 90's as a spectacle. It more towards end of 90's with the added interchange spots and more prolonged flooding to go with it, that some of the spectacle diminished. But really took into next decade and real exploitation of interchange bench to used for something it was never intended, rotations, where the significant drop in spectacle was becoming more than norm.
There are also other factors such as different style of umpiring that lead to drop in spectacle.
2020 probably the most unwatchable season ever. It certainly has thankfully not got worse since but that mostly to do with playing time back to normal.
The one clear positive I seen this season is I noticed umpires actually punish illegal tackles way more than they seem to have in decades, which has been refreshing. Seems they paying more attention to protect the guy going for the ball which is a step in right direction.
There is heaps to fix up to really undo a lot of mistakes of last 26 years though.
When they got rid of the bump, the game became more congested. Now everyone just goes for the ball and it gets stuck in a pack. It's like watching a flock of seagulls fighting over a chip. Bring back the bump I say, if the ball is within 5 metres. Bit more blood and guts and free-flowing footy.
 
Aug 27, 2014
38,196
41,193
spacetime
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
there are no other teams worthy
When they got rid of the bump, the game became more congested. Now everyone just goes for the ball and it gets stuck in a pack. It's like watching a flock of seagulls fighting over a chip. Bring back the bump I say, if the ball is within 5 metres. Bit more blood and guts and free-flowing footy.
Yeah, it is all to do with one thing.... FMD....theatre goer type throw away op
 
Jan 14, 2002
12,638
16,545
...
AFL Club
Richmond
Do you replace it with a last touch or boundary throw guaranteed every time?
If it’s the latter, players will just handball /kick to the line any time there in trouble. It would ruin the game.
Last touch rule would be worth trialing, but with the caveat that a goal could not be directly kicked by the player with the kick-in, except from an "out on the full".
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HTPunter

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 27, 2014
10,795
14,995
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I think the approach is wrong. They shouldn’t introduce rules to make it easier to score.

Rule changes should reward players who execute their skills better.

That’s why I think the last possession out of bounds rule would be good. Team will be forced to keep the ball in and the more skilled teams will flourish

Yep. While I'm not sure on your proposed rule change, I agree with the sentiment.

Is anyone truly like WOAH, a goal kicked from a 50m penalty because a player didn't affect a kick from 4.5m away instead of 5.5m, or took a step off the mark in all the confusion around a loud game? WOAH exciting more goals, woohoo!

6 6 6 has brought back more 1 on 1 contests leading to goals which is good, but no other rule change has actually resulted in more skill winning out. They're all just s**t designed to artificially make it easier to score which is ridiculous. Oh and also no 3rd man up in the ruck taking away any tactic strategy in the ruck...so let's spend 10 seconds every stoppage waiting for the 2 designated rucks to get there and nominate and slow the game down...
 
When they got rid of the bump, the game became more congested. Now everyone just goes for the ball and it gets stuck in a pack. It's like watching a flock of seagulls fighting over a chip. Bring back the bump I say, if the ball is within 5 metres. Bit more blood and guts and free-flowing footy.

You can still bump, you can't just clean someone up off the ball (or in the head). I reckon the higher congestion is a combination of more advanced defensive tactics being developed, as well as the move from semi-pro athletes that smoked at halftime to elite, full-time endurance athletes.
 

GWT6

Club Legend
Jun 7, 2011
1,616
4,349
Western Sydney
AFL Club
Melbourne
When they got rid of the bump, the game became more congested. Now everyone just goes for the ball and it gets stuck in a pack. It's like watching a flock of seagulls fighting over a chip. Bring back the bump I say, if the ball is within 5 metres. Bit more blood and guts and free-flowing footy.
CTE got rid of the bump. Unfortunately it had to happen, for the sake of the players, and the financial viability of the AFL. Once they know there is a problem they are liable if they have not done their best to avoid it.
 
Dec 9, 2015
5,513
9,871
AFL Club
Collingwood
CTE got rid of the bump. Unfortunately it had to happen, for the sake of the players, and the financial viability of the AFL. Once they know there is a problem they are liable if they have not done their best to avoid it.
They should make all the players sign waivers and bring back the old rules, then I might start going again. Match day experience is dreadful these days. Boring spectacle and non-stop attacks on the senses with lights and loudspeakers.
 
Jan 14, 2002
12,638
16,545
...
AFL Club
Richmond
Oh and also no 3rd man up in the ruck taking away any tactic strategy in the ruck...so let's spend 10 seconds every stoppage waiting for the 2 designated rucks to get there and nominate and slow the game down...
You forget why the "3rd man up" rule was introduced - to overcome the nonsense of 5'11'' players getting free kicks for "blocking" after feigning they were trying to take the ruck (danger was a genius at it). It was beyond ridiculous in the end, with the "infringed" player initiating contact with an opponent and throwing arms out to draw the free. I like it more now, despite the silliness of ruck nomination.
 
Apr 12, 2014
30,353
52,271
AFL Club
Melbourne
All three players that Collingwood traded to alleviate the salary cap at the end of 2020 have been irrelevant since joining their new clubs. In another universe if the Magpies kept all three, they wouldn't have saved the club from their dreadful bottom four finish last season.

Tom Phillips - played all 22 games for Hawthorn last season and did not crack the top 10 of their B&F. Wasn't picked to start in their 22 for round one.
Jaidyn Stephenson - couldn't crack the top 10 of the B&F at the bottom side. Will be plying his trade in the VFL in a few weeks if he keeps up his current form. I've been a big backer of him despite his softness and fading in and out of games, but even I can't stick up for him at the moment.
Adam Treloar - clearly the best of the three at the moment but the Bulldogs are wasting their money on a 5th string midfielder who won't give anything defensively. Despite the fact they've tied Collingwood to paying $300k a year to play for them, I still think they shouldn't have traded him in. Increasingly injury prone and getting slower and slower by foot, I think Treloar could be retired by 30 or 31.

That's not to say Collingwood won these trades. The club's inability to get anything of note in return for these players is still a failure.

Completely agree about the Dogs and Treloar. Do they REALLY need him in their midfield? Should have spent capital elsewhere to improve their weak defence or forwardline.
 
Mar 2, 2015
18,940
33,922
AFL Club
Hawthorn
If a player is perpendicular to the boundary and kicks it over the line, then I have no issue it. But players hacking the ball forward or even kicking for touch down the line should not be penalised. My argument has always been in those instances, the primary intent is to get the ball out of the immediate area. I actually miss players that could kick it forward and get it to roll out. And as a life long defender, I reckon it's only fair that the backs have this option. Forwards don't get penalised for shots on goal that roll out of bounds.
The intent of the DOOB rule is to reduce the number of stop plays and minimise congestion wherever possible.
Keep the game flowing and entertaining.

If you give AFL footballers the option of kicking the ball down the line and out of bounds, they will take it.

The game is infinitely better as a result of this harsher DOOB interpretation
Try not to worry about the 2 or 3 times when players are penalised and think about the overall effect this rule has on the game

Even when players are penalised, it isn't such a big deal. DOOB is one of the least dangerous free kicks to concede. A player has no options available so he boots the ball 40 or 50m down the field and out of play. All of his teammates are still back behind the ball in defensive positions. The opposition get possession of the ball via a free kick, but they have no easy route to scoring a goal.

In terms of the general play (not the individual action) it's usually a "just" free kick, in my opinion. Team A had possession, but nobody in good position forward of the ball to receive, so they gained territory and killed the play. So ump intervenes and the other team gets possession. Fair enough, I reckon.
 

The Passenger

The passenger, I am...
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Sensible Type WCE Wings Guernsey
Mar 25, 2003
35,681
28,332
30 years goes back to 1992.
The game was still very enjoyable then and for most of mid 90's as a spectacle. It more towards end of 90's with the added interchange spots and more prolonged flooding to go with it, that some of the spectacle diminished.
There's been a huge increase in fitness levels across the board too. Obviously we've always had super fit player in the game (Crawford, Cousins, Harvey from that 90's/00's era) but nowadays it's near impossible to make it in the big time without a strong cardio system. There's always exceptions but they are few and far between now, whereas 30 years ago most teams would have 3 or 4 blokes on the field who were pure footballers and - from a physical perspective - wouldn't stand out in a park football team.

Kind of ironic that an increase in performance is actually one of the key drivers behind the decline of the spectacle.*

The huge increase in interchanges is another factor. I would be fully supportive of the interchange cap reducing season by season and settling at 40 later in the decade. I do think it needs to get down somewhat slowly otherwise you risk an absolute spate of soft tissue injuries.

When players fatigue and/or need to keep their hand on the throttle to conserve energy for a four quarter effort you will see players able to move the ball easier and their skills coming to the fore. Admittedly fatigued players are more likely to commit skill errors which aren't great for the game but I think there is a balance there to be found.

The balance of skills, fitness and athleticism was at its best just after the game went professional.

The other reason for the decline in quality of spectacle is that honestly I don't think there is enough talent in the country to sustain 18 professional AFL teams all whilst having serious competition with about half a dozen other major sports.

I must say I do enjoy how much more tactical the game is now compared to previous eras. The game is much more complex than it's ever been and for tactic junkies there's a lot of joy in deciphering what's happening. I'd have to concede a lot of those tactics are only possible because the players are as fit as they are. For instance zoning is a genuine "only as strong as your weakest link" tactic that would have been very hard for most 90's teams to pull off. But coaches aren't ever going back to the "get it and kick it long" days so there will always be a complex level of thinking around the game now.

I've seen the suggestion of changing to 16 players but I think that is a last resort.

For all the above, I've thought the first 11 games of 2022 have been amongst the most enjoyable for probably a decade. But the real test of that comes when the weather turns pretty s**t in May.

* For rugby union fans they'd recognise the same thing as well where bigger bodies and fitter players mean the defences just don't break down and the game as a spectacle has become really tough to watch (inb4 rugby union was always s**t to watch).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back