What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scorpus

The Boys Are Back!
Day Off
Apr 16, 2014
32,765
71,995
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
I'd remove the interchange cap entirely and go back to the way it was when teams would have 150+ interchanges per match.

I have no hard evidence to support this, but feel the game was better from a skills and injury standpoint with unlimited interchanges, rather than forcing players to be fatigued through the cap.
 

Numero Uno

All Australian
Mar 28, 2019
602
762
AFL Club
West Coast
Fyfe is actually well liked at Fremantle and a good role model for the younger players despite the bulls**t and lies that some West Coast fans spew. There's more evidence to suggest he's respected than there is that he isn't. Look forward to the response of people telling me why I'm wrong 😀

standard response from any freo fan: blame West coast

If you think the source is WC fans then you are 'extremely ignorant'
 

Sparkle

Slightly different name. Same lame jokes
Oct 3, 2013
2,483
3,697
Springfield
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
DJRTP, REN, MIA, UTA
Rule changes I think would improve the game:
  • Remove the interchange cap and allow unlimited interchanges. Echoing what Scorpus said above, the game will be faster and the skills will improve if the players are less fatigued
  • Remove 6-6-6 and allow players to set up as they please
  • Re-introduce the 'third man up' rule. With TMU, players can knock the ball into wide open space to score, without it, ruckman just paddle it to their feet for another stoppage over and over again
  • Adjust the 'contact below the knees' rule to only pay a free kick when the umpire deems the slide to be one to deliberately cause injury or is dangerous, rather than simply going for the ball. Too often players are fairly fighting for the ball and a free kick is paid
 

Russian Demon

Premiership Player
Mar 26, 2015
3,296
4,165
AFL Club
Melbourne
Make the ground 50 longer and 30m wider on all grounds.

Remove all interchanges

Make all players drink 15 schooners on the weekend after their game.

That should bring back positional play
 

MadMundy

All Australian
Mar 29, 2019
875
1,488
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Arsenal, Glory, Bulls
standard response from any freo fan: blame West coast

If you think the source is WC fans then you are 'extremely ignorant'
Trust me I'm not blaming you, but I'm taking all of this from the fact that a lot of West Coast fans are the ones who say this to discredit Fyfe. If you have said sources that discredit this viewpoint, please feel free to provide the evidence and I'll admit I'm wrong mate.
 

Leon

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 13, 2004
5,899
6,320
Bound for Germany 2006!
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Harry's Heroes
Rule changes I think would improve the game:
  • Remove the interchange cap and allow unlimited interchanges. Echoing what Scorpus said above, the game will be faster and the skills will improve if the players are less fatigued
  • Remove 6-6-6 and allow players to set up as they please
  • Re-introduce the 'third man up' rule. With TMU, players can knock the ball into wide open space to score, without it, ruckman just paddle it to their feet for another stoppage over and over again
  • Adjust the 'contact below the knees' rule to only pay a free kick when the umpire deems the slide to be one to deliberately cause injury or is dangerous, rather than simply going for the ball. Too often players are fairly fighting for the ball and a free kick is paid



Very well said, I have been harping on about these rule changes being terrible for years :thumbsu:
 

Freshwater

Club Legend
Oct 30, 2014
1,643
2,985
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Rule changes I think would improve the game:
  • Remove the interchange cap and allow unlimited interchanges. Echoing what Scorpus said above, the game will be faster and the skills will improve if the players are less fatigued
  • Remove 6-6-6 and allow players to set up as they please
  • Re-introduce the 'third man up' rule. With TMU, players can knock the ball into wide open space to score, without it, ruckman just paddle it to their feet for another stoppage over and over again
  • Adjust the 'contact below the knees' rule to only pay a free kick when the umpire deems the slide to be one to deliberately cause injury or is dangerous, rather than simply going for the ball. Too often players are fairly fighting for the ball and a free kick is paid
Third man up wasn’t even a rule. Once the ball was bounced, game on, within normal rules. 36 men could go up theoretically? But the AFL in their ‘superior wisdom’ love to micro manage how the game is played. Now we have more time before a throw up and then more congestion afterwards.
 

Javelin

All Australian
Jun 6, 2013
798
1,009
AFL Club
West Coast
I don't mind the third man up rule, just the way it's policed/implemented. You have to protect your rucks, both from physical harm and as a species. Third man up threatens their usefulness, so a rule to protect that is a good thing. But to have to nominate ruckmen is just dumb. Everyone knows who the ruckmen are and they should be allowed to compete one-on-one. If a third person gets involved, call a free against their team and move on. As for blocking mids who "were competing for the ruck", they can get stuffed. They shouldn't be competing and a block on them shouldn't be judged any differently than if they were running past the contest.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jatz14

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 13, 2011
5,670
5,623
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Glory W-League
I don't mind the third man up rule, just the way it's policed/implemented. You have to protect your rucks, both from physical harm and as a species. Third man up threatens their usefulness, so a rule to protect that is a good thing. But to have to nominate ruckmen is just dumb. Everyone knows who the ruckmen are and they should be allowed to compete one-on-one. If a third person gets involved, call a free against their team and move on. As for blocking mids who "were competing for the ruck", they can get stuffed. They shouldn't be competing and a block on them shouldn't be judged any differently than if they were running past the contest.
I like that idea a lot. The whole reason for nominations was because it let players know who couldn't be blocked. Make the rule that pre designated ruckmen cannot be blocked, then anyone can contest the ruck, but if your not a ruckman and your path was impeded, bad luck.

It's an incentive to have your rucks ruck.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
 

flamingEMBERS

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 8, 2011
9,123
7,481
AFL Club
West Coast
Rule changes I think would improve the game:
  • Re-introduce the 'third man up' rule. With TMU, players can knock the ball into wide open space to score, without it, ruckman just paddle it to their feet for another stoppage over and over again
  • Adjust the 'contact below the knees' rule to only pay a free kick when the umpire deems the slide to be one to deliberately cause injury or is dangerous, rather than simply going for the ball. Too often players are fairly fighting for the ball and a free kick is paid
I don’t think anyone is going out there trying to injure a player while sliding in. Removing the action altogether reduces the chances someone is going to be horribly injured. Players need to adapt and keep their feet.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Hard Ball Get

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 21, 2005
23,169
13,549
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
The issue with the sliding rule is people don't understand it and it is not umpired how it was intended to be umpired when it was introduced.

It shouldn't be considered a free if there's contact below the knees. Only if someone slides in and takes out the legs front on. If it's not a slide it shouldn't be a freak kick.
 

big_e

Premiership Player
Apr 28, 2008
4,858
12,533
Your Wi-Fi
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers, 76ers
I don't mind the third man up rule, just the way it's policed/implemented. You have to protect your rucks, both from physical harm and as a species. Third man up threatens their usefulness, so a rule to protect that is a good thing. But to have to nominate ruckmen is just dumb. Everyone knows who the ruckmen are and they should be allowed to compete one-on-one. If a third person gets involved, call a free against their team and move on. As for blocking mids who "were competing for the ruck", they can get stuffed. They shouldn't be competing and a block on them shouldn't be judged any differently than if they were running past the contest.
Teams nominate rucks to take the centre bounce, it's just extending that rule to everywhere else on the ground.
 

TripleJay

Debutant
May 16, 2017
98
232
AFL Club
West Coast
Such as? (genuinely interested as I try to avoid any footy media outside the actual games themselves)
The one that stands out was during the Israel Folau scandal, how well Rugby Australia management handled it came up on 360.

I thought Scott spoke pretty measured and eloquently on the topic(maybe this was driven by the fact Gary Ablett was on the periphery of the issue). He talked about how big organisations are always going to have to deal with these "Black Swan" type events, which is a reference to the "Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_the_Highly_Improbable). A book I think is a worthwhile read, impressed to hear a footy coach drop a reference, albeit indirectly.
 

jatz14

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 13, 2011
5,670
5,623
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Glory W-League
Can you show me one instance where an umpire has gone to the centre circle and asked each team who their designated ruckman is?
The guy in the circle is the designated ruckman.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
 

Javelin

All Australian
Jun 6, 2013
798
1,009
AFL Club
West Coast
The guy in the circle is the designated ruckman.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
I know that, just as I know who will be contesting the ruck around the ground. My question was, if the umpire needs to designate ruckmen around the ground, why doesn't he do it at a centre bounce? big_e said the centre bounce ruck designation is merely being extended around the ground, and I'm highlighting how that isn't the case.
 

jatz14

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 13, 2011
5,670
5,623
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Glory W-League
I know that, just as I know who will be contesting the ruck around the ground. My question was, if the umpire needs to designate ruckmen around the ground, why doesn't he do it at a centre bounce? big_e said the centre bounce ruck designation is merely being extended around the ground, and I'm highlighting how that isn't the case.
The ball is in the Eagles forward line and Oscar Allen and Jack Darling are in the vicinity of a ball up. Darlings opponent has body on, as he should, opposition ruckman lines up to jump against Allen.

Allen doesn't move, Darling makes a theatrical show of trying to jump for the ruck.

Free kick Darling, blocking out in the ruck contest, right in front.

That was what was starting to happen as a strategy, that is why rucks nominate.

Most teams have one ruck, keep them away from forward half ruck contests, use makeshift ruckman forward, but keep switching.

Deep forward, Eagles could use Allen, Waterman, Darling, Kennedy, s**t, they could even have Ryan jump for it.

Bit of a problem for a defender if you don't know if your direct opponent is going to compete in the ruck or not.

How long until teams are running drills around ruck contests where they decide on the fly, which player is going for the ruck based on which player is the most blocked, and therefore most likely to draw a free?

Because I think that is why the nomination rule came in, teams were already doing just that.

You do nominate in the centre square, entering the circle is nominating, raising your hand as well is superfluous. Nominating around the ground is essentially replacing the circle with a hand raise.

I suppose the umps could carry a spray can and spray a circle at every ball up, don't think it would do much for game flow though.

This is why the previous idea is good. If Eagles have to nominate Allen as a backup ruck pre game, then only he and the number one ruck cannot be blocked. Darling can take a ruck if he wants, but if he is blocked, play on.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
 

Billy ray

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 10, 2013
9,399
14,022
The Valley near the Alley
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Most finals football is underwhelming
Maybe the season should be 17 games. And then have a top 4 finals system but each finals game is best of three.
Season will be same length more or less but at least the best of the best are involved in finals series.
 

Back One Out

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 2, 2015
12,721
21,122
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
G.A.G.F.
The issue with the sliding rule is people don't understand it and it is not umpired how it was intended to be umpired when it was introduced.

It shouldn't be considered a free if there's contact below the knees. Only if someone slides in and takes out the legs front on. If it's not a slide it shouldn't be a freak kick.
False.

Plenty of players have received knee injuries from opponents diving head/shoulders first into their legs. Probably more prevalent than injuries from opponents sliding in. Doesn't have to be front on either. Injuries just as likely to occur with a player crashing in from the side.

The issue with the "sliding rule" is that it is only one component of the Rough Conduct law. People get this confused with the "forceful contact below the knees" rule. They are different. The sliding rule refers to ANY contact which eventuates from the slide: knees or boots into the opponent's midriff, legs, arms or head... Wherever... (Think of Adam Goodes and the way he used to slide into contests.)

Commentators like Carey, Kingy, Roosy and Richo persistently spread misinformation about this rule. It bugs me that people don't take the simple step of googling the AFL laws and educating themselves about the rules of the game.


17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:

(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;

(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action;

(c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;

(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury
 
Last edited:

Top Bottom