What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

yodellinhank

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 22, 2008
10,789
11,381
Geelong
AFL Club
Essendon
Flick handballs should be illegal.

Players should be told that they will be losing the benefit of the doubt when it comes to umpire interpretation of correct handballs = If it doesn't look like a classic handball and you cannot be certain it was a handball then the umpire should pay a free kick for incorrect disposal.

This will create some injustices at first, but it will stamp out incorrect handball technique and eradicate the flick handball which has become an epidemic. (I mean the quick flick of the ball which is both hands moving with the ball in the same direction at the same speed (basically a throw) and not the ball being propelled by the fist).

Once the current trend changes the umpires can go back to being less strict.
Used to be called the Crow-Throw
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MC Extra Dollop

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 17, 2006
20,948
17,424
AFL Club
Geelong
The under 21 and 10 game rules have been around forever, haven’t they? I think they worked very well in the late 1990s and 2000s, when recruitment was almost exclusively focused on 17 and 18 year olds in the National Draft. They probably need a review now that lists are slightly larger and recruiting options are wider.

The flip side to the good young player in the bad team making their name is the mature age recruit who is ineligible, despite cementing a spot in a very good side. Harry Taylor, Tim Kelly and Dane Rampe come immediately to mind.

The suggestion that votes be progressive throughout the season is a very good one.
I guess I feel like the Michael Barlow/Tim Kelly types get recognised at the AFLPA awards as the best first year player. Of course it's often the same player winning both awards, but I wonder if you didn't have both and just made it an award for the best first year player it might become a bit unfair to the teenagers, going up against ready made players in their mid-20s.
 

iluvparis

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2005
27,208
19,178
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
I think the qualifications they have are pretty good. Under 21 at 1 Jan or <10 games at the start of the season, means it won't always just be the top five pick in the worst team whose position is never under threat and who can collect his 30 touches without anyone worrying about locking him down.

My issue with the Rising Star is the poor voting system (assuming it hasn't been changed): just a panel giving 5-4-3-2-1 at the end of the year, how lazy can you get? They should go round by round with 5-1 for the best five perfomances from the eligible players that round.

People will think that this is just Hawthorn/Clarko bashing, but his motivation tactics before the GWS game had sweet FA to do with the result. It was just a bit of fun/silly buggers stuff that the AFL saturated media has flogged like a dead horse, so they have something to write about.

"Clarko the master motivator..." he's a brilliant football mind, the best coach of the past 30 years, but stuff like that doesn't make a difference at the elite level. Under 16s, yeah maybe something like that would work. I haven't watched 360 or read any of his columns this week (or this year, really) but I bet Robbo absolutely loved it. That probably says enough.
You have just come up with a voting system that rewards the exact same players you don't want to win the award.
 

MC Extra Dollop

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 17, 2006
20,948
17,424
AFL Club
Geelong
You have just come up with a voting system that rewards the exact same players you don't want to win the award.
No, you've just misinterpreted my post. What I'm saying is that if you just make the criteria strictly for the previous year's draftees, you limit the potential winners to players who - due to being very early draft picks - are ready to play immediately and who are also probably going to a weak club where they will get the opportunity to play immediately and have little pressure to keep their spot if they have a bad run of form.

I think the age and games played eligibility criteria opens the award up to players besides just the top rated under 18s who were ready to contribute immediately (it gives a player like Gryan Miers who was picked later in the draft an opportunity to spend a year or two in the VFL to build to the standard).

If the best player on performance from round 1-23 is a kid from the Suns who kicked 35 goals or averaged 25 disposals, so be it. A round by round voting system is far more likely to get the deserving winner than - what is it? - nine people voting for their top five at the end of the season. It's just an incredibly lazy way of doing it.
 

iluvparis

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2005
27,208
19,178
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
No, you've just misinterpreted my post. What I'm saying is that if you just make the criteria strictly for the previous year's draftees, you limit the potential winners to players who - due to being very early draft picks - are ready to play immediately and who are also probably going to a weak club where they will get the opportunity to play immediately and have little pressure to keep their spot if they have a bad run of form.

I think the age and games played eligibility criteria opens the award up to players besides just the top rated under 18s who were ready to contribute immediately (it gives a player like Gryan Miers who was picked later in the draft an opportunity to spend a year or two in the VFL to build to the standard).

If the best player on performance from round 1-23 is a kid from the Suns who kicked 35 goals or averaged 25 disposals, so be it. A round by round voting system is far more likely to get the deserving winner than - what is it? - nine people voting for their top five at the end of the season. It's just an incredibly lazy way of doing it.
But a round by round system is going to reward the type of player who gets a game every week because his club is poor and does an ok job every week because he is ok relative to the rest of the rubbish team he is at - that is the exact type of player you said you didn't want to win the award.
 

Johnny Karate

All Australian
Apr 13, 2015
812
1,986
AFL Club
Melbourne
I agree that the AFL should make decisions that benefit grass roots football. However, a lot of grass roots football clubs get themselves into strife by wasting money on hacks. Grass roots football clubs should focus on representing their communities and be welcoming and inclusive to all players rather than going hammer and tong, blowing the money of junior members in trying to win some s**t competition that they’re in.
 

MC Extra Dollop

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 17, 2006
20,948
17,424
AFL Club
Geelong
But a round by round system is going to reward the type of player who gets a game every week because his club is poor and does an ok job every week because he is ok relative to the rest of the rubbish team he is at - that is the exact type of player you said you didn't want to win the award.
It probably goes without saying that it should go to a player who plays every game, or at least, who doesn't get dropped.

I don't want any player not to win the Rising Star. I'm just saying it would be a bit boring if it was limited to first year players because the same type of player would win most years. I like that it can go to a second or third year player, or someone who was overlooked in one or two drafts.
 

Duskfire

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 30, 2007
6,373
4,749
Perth
AFL Club
Geelong
Do you have a twin brother named Brad?
Nah it’s got nothing to do with Geelong. If the Cats can’t win after the bye for whatever reason when no one else has an issue they don’t deserve to win s**t.

I just hate the anticlimax. The dead period. It would be like watching a tv show and the episode ends just before a massive battle, and then the episode after that is just useless filler. Would much rather go straight into the finals.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
50,422
52,402
AFL Club
West Coast
Yeah I don't love it either given the (potential) excitement when Rd 23 determines the order of the top 8 and then no footy until the following Thursday. Why the AFL have a bye round and a floating Rd 23 fixture I do not know. Unless you are going to have it like the Premier League with 9 games running at once (or at least all those that impact the top 8) just do the fixture ahead of time.

Not sold on the impact it has on participating teams. Obviously it helped the Bulldogs in 2016 who had players coming back but having bye-win-bye-prelim-GF didn't seem to hurt us last year. Both grand finalists in 2017 followed the same path.
 

Underarm

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 13, 2011
7,760
8,218
AFL Club
Richmond
The West Coast Eagles are a better chance of winning the flag if NicNat doesn’t make it back from injury this year.
A really bold play would have been to trade Nic Naitanui and keep Lycett at the end of last year. A team like the Giants or St Kilda would have given them a fortune for him, despite the fact that he is so injury prone.
 

HTPunter

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2014
4,830
5,427
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I don't understand why anyone cares about the Rising Star eligibility rules. There has to be a subjective cut off somewhere, who gives a s**t if a 24 year old can't win it?
 

bitadash

Senior List
Mar 25, 2011
159
190
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Liverpool, Calgary Flames, Renault
Disclaimer - I actually like Frematle FC. (Some of their fans just need to stop worrying about every little thing that doesnt go their way...)

Anyways;
Nathan Fyfe is up with Tex as the worst captain in the AFL.
GUN, no doubt, one of my faves. But watching and listening to him fake leadership irks me to no end (the interview with Bob steeled that for me). Alex Pearce should get the gig if he can get on the park.
Let fyfe run round and dominate. The only leading that he needs/should do for that club is on field.
 

Rotayjay

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 28, 2014
7,779
13,609
Adelaide, South Australia
AFL Club
Adelaide
I'm not sure Dunstall would be a star in today's footy. At 188cm and 100kg he was an ideal FF in the 80s and 90s. When he wasn't kicking goals he wasn't a high possession player and his career high for tackles was 23 in a season. Plugger was a bit bigger at 191cm, Ablett Sr only 185cm but spent most of his career not playing at FF so was more like a high marking, more athletic version of Robbie Gray. I think Plugger would still be a top key forward without kicking 100 each year and Ablett would be a Fyfe/Martin level star that gets people through the gates.

Back to Dunstall, the modern game doesn't allow the same lead-mark-goal-repeat channels that it used to. Franklin is 20 games ahead and 280 shots for goal behind and is daylight ahead of the nearest current player for goals and scoring shots. Kennedy and Riewoldt aren't far off Dunstall in games played and have had about half as many shots for goal. Different game. If Dunstall played today I'd expect that his coaches would want him to be more like 85-90kg and capable of covering a lot more ground so he wouldn't be as strong in contests. Would he have that aerobic capacity within him I don't know, but Tory Dickson is the only 80s style forward I can think of to kick 50 goals recently and his accuracy is absurd. If Dunstall was running 10-15km a game Richo-style and having shots from 45 on an angle could he still convert at 66%? We had Ben McKinley lead our goalkicking one year with 42 in 18 games and he had 80s/90s forward written all over him. Just wasn't big enough for 2010s footy and could never build the tank to compete with guys like LeCras, Nicoski, Embley who offered more in other areas.

So yeah, Dunstall is a 'tweener for me. Not saying he definitely couldn't be a star, but I think being a less talented but taller and more athletic player gives you the better chance.
This kind of post is basically the reason I read Bigfooty. Great to have discussions about history, player and team comparisons, changes in the game etc.
 
Top Bottom