Is footy boring now?

[comrade]

Re: Is footy boring now?

Not much I don't agree with, SS - well said.

The Welsh one is another example.

Crouch was trying to tackle Ward and Welsh laid the perfect shepherd/bump. Crouch would've assumed contact was on it's way, Welsh hit him straight down the middle, but in the action of bumping Crouch's head 'slumped' into his shoulder.

Nothing malicious, just an attempt to clear the path for his team mate in as fair a manner as possible (Welsh couldn't just sling him away).

[AndrewP6]

Re: Is footy boring now?

This is exacly the kind of thing I want to argue against.

We currently have two rules in place (and have had for some time) that are right and proper:

* A player cannot make forceful front-on contact to the head.

No-one wants to see someone paralysed so the player with his head over the ball must be protected.


* A player cannot bump an opponent more than 5 metres off the ball or when the player is not expecting (or should not reasonably be expecting) contact.

Steven King took out Sam Power off the ball when Power had no reason to expect contact and King got rubbed out - so he should have. This is correct - bye-bye Byron Pickett arguement.


These are the two rules we have in place to protect players from thugs. The rules are perfectly adequate and easy to adjudicate.


My beef is the all-encompassing "Rough Play" rule.

This rule means if anyone gets hurt, even a blood nose, then someone has to be in trouble - especially if the media jump over it (important consideration, not as serious an offense if it happens in the Sunday twilight game).

This rule should be for serious but unusual stuff that is not covered elsewhere - throwing an opponent into the fence or something like that.


Robert Murphy's bump on Xavier Ellis last year should not have been reportable - a free kick for high contact, certainly, but not a report. Ellis was expecting contact (or should have been, the ball was 1 metre in front of him) and did not have his head over the ball.

Murphy's arm was tucked in and the contact was with the shoulder.


The cries from the media are bollocks.

"He ran past the ball" So what? There is no obligation on a player to go for the ball. Sheparding is still legal.

"He left the ground" Also not relevant. There is no obligation on players staying on the ground. In fact if a player the size of Gia was to bump a player as big as Koschitzke and didn't jump off the ground, it would be impossible for him to make shoulder-to-shoulder contact and would probably result in a shoulder to the head and a big headache.


In a game that moves at a million miles an hour, we expect players to judge their bumps to within an inch. It's not realistic.

Very well put...

[AndrewP6]

Re: Is footy boring now?

I am actually enjoying footy the last couple of years. I was worried a few years ago about the intrusion of flooding on the game, however I feel coaches have responded well and the attacking flair of the game has rebounded well.

The one element of the game that I find frustrating is the standard of umpiring.
I feel that more than ever umpires are imposing themselves on the game to it's detriment.
I think that the umpires also are naive and often get sucked in by clever players eg Marc Murphy, Brett Kirk & Joel Selwood (as but 3 examples) who throw their arms and head back and suck an umpire into giving a free kick when there is none.

The fact that umpires have their own set of footy cards, tends to confirm my dread that they are becoming personalities in their own right.

Umpire footy cards??????

FFS I can't imagine as a kid going to school with my footy cards and having the temerity to ask to swap my Ray-Ray Chamberlain or McLaren double for a dodgy old Andrew Demetriou card let alone a Simon Madden or Kelvin Templeton card!!!

As the old Meatloaf song goes, "You took the words right out of my mouth"...

(But there was no kissing involved...)

[AndrewP6]

Re: Is footy boring now?

Yeah it's like watching an Auskick match these days. Everyone is around the ball. Why has this happened? Is it because of cluster zones? You don't see that true one on one footy anymore. I watched the 2006 elimination final against Collingwood and it was awesome to watch because there weren't 25 players around the ball.

I actually like it this way...never saw the point of having players in the back line when the ball is 100 metres away.

[AndrewP6]

Re: Is footy boring now?

The game is tougher and there are more collisions. It is though very sanitized. Over umpired. And at times farcical

Could not believe to hear that Carlton got a please explain because Judd was spitting blood on the sidelines. Also that player that got his shoulder popped back in. AFL asked that club which escapes me for a please explain why they did it on the field.

I use to salivate over the matchups for games to see which superstar would come out on top. Seeing gun full backs V gun full forwards was great. Now we have players getting back dropping in the hole. Players who are third man up to create a two on one contest. Just no matchups these days. Would love to see Cooney and Judd go head to head. Fev on Scarlett for another. Skill beating Skill not fitness and numbers beating the best players.

I am in favour of the please explain for Carlton. Rules are clear when it comes to blood. Player must leave the playing area. In Judd's case, there was A LOT of blood, coming from several orifices ( what a great word!) and I wouldn't want to be a player around that. Also creates a bad situation for kids watching - I wouldn't necessarily want my kids to watch that happening. The guy with the shoulder might be a bit different, but with all the professionalism the game now involves, these incidents were "old school", and out of place. Fine, be tough, but when it's an obvious, bloody injury, get him off, get medical treatment, and if possible, get him back out there. If the bleeding can't be stopped, he stays off. That includes coughing it up. Imagine the uproar if a player sustains a serious (or heaven forbid, life threatening) injury because he was allowed to stay on and play hurt.

In the case of contests, I think skill still wins out. Put the best runner in the middle, he's useless unless he has the fundamentals (and more!).

[AndrewP6]

Re: Is footy boring now?

I love watching the dogs and watch very little other footy. I prefer watching games live but would never attend an AFL game not involving the Dogs, or the Pups (Willi games).

Me too.... but Willi is a bit far away for me...

[mighty_west]

Re: Is footy boring now?

This is exacly the kind of thing I want to argue against.

We currently have two rules in place (and have had for some time) that are right and proper:

* A player cannot make forceful front-on contact to the head.

No-one wants to see someone paralysed so the player with his head over the ball must be protected.


* A player cannot bump an opponent more than 5 metres off the ball or when the player is not expecting (or should not reasonably be expecting) contact.

Steven King took out Sam Power off the ball when Power had no reason to expect contact and King got rubbed out - so he should have. This is correct - bye-bye Byron Pickett arguement.


These are the two rules we have in place to protect players from thugs. The rules are perfectly adequate and easy to adjudicate.


My beef is the all-encompassing "Rough Play" rule.

This rule means if anyone gets hurt, even a blood nose, then someone has to be in trouble - especially if the media jump over it (important consideration, not as serious an offense if it happens in the Sunday twilight game).

This rule should be for serious but unusual stuff that is not covered elsewhere - throwing an opponent into the fence or something like that.


Robert Murphy's bump on Xavier Ellis last year should not have been reportable - a free kick for high contact, certainly, but not a report. Ellis was expecting contact (or should have been, the ball was 1 metre in front of him) and did not have his head over the ball.

Murphy's arm was tucked in and the contact was with the shoulder.


The cries from the media are bollocks.

"He ran past the ball" So what? There is no obligation on a player to go for the ball. Sheparding is still legal.

"He left the ground" Also not relevant. There is no obligation on players staying on the ground. In fact if a player the size of Gia was to bump a player as big as Koschitzke and didn't jump off the ground, it would be impossible for him to make shoulder-to-shoulder contact and would probably result in a shoulder to the head and a big headache.


In a game that moves at a million miles an hour, we expect players to judge their bumps to within an inch. It's not realistic.

I agree with most of that, leaving the ground shouldn't make a difference, however, if you strike the head, you should be in strife, just like a player can do without leaving the ground, smaller players can still leave the ground yet hit the body, that should be fine.

Same goes with running past and bumping a player in play, although, i laugh sometimes on how far away "in play" can be, remember Barry Hall in that final!!!!

I'm just not a fan of players bumping the head, the body is fair game as far as i am concerned, and it wouldn;t be that hard to teach players to bump low, even at pace, to simple crouch a touch and make contact, it's not hard to do.

The Gia incident was fine, a clash of heads is accidental, and players SHOULD NOT be reported & suspended or fined for an accidental clash, that goes with ump bumps that are clearly accidental, those are a disgrace, but thats for another argument.

But to say the bump has completely gone, is simply wrong!

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Is footy boring now?

if you strike the head, you should be in strife

So any contact to the head is a report?

There's about a dozen free's a game for high contact, which one's are reports?

[mighty_west]

Re: Is footy boring now?

So any contact to the head is a report?

There's about a dozen free's a game for high contact, which one's are reports?

A hip & shoulder to the head.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Is footy boring now?

When the players are allowed to display the magnificent skills this amazing game can inspire footy is terrific to watch. But when they have to play by the rules of Umpireball, where any move they make is open to the subjective interpretation of the umpires, who are empowered to determine a player's intent and rule accordingly, it becomes tedious and arbitrary, and it loses its flow. Without myriad rules a match would find its own balance.

Too many tiggy-touchwood rules stifle the natural development of the game, particularly when those rules are imposed for disciplinary reasons and are unrelated to the play. A 50 metre penalty for a late tackle is fine, but the same penalty for daring to impugn an umpire's judgment is pedantic and punitive.

People never used to ask whether footy was boring, because they knew what footy was. Now the AFL in their inestimable wisdom have decided that the game is a product to be engineered so that bums go on seats, and little Sniffy is not lost to soccer because Mummy thinks footy is a 'rough game'.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Is footy boring now?

When the players are allowed to display the magnificent skills this amazing game can inspire footy is terrific to watch. But when they have to play by the rules of Umpireball, where any move they make is open to the subjective interpretation of the umpires, who are empowered to determine a player's intent and rule accordingly, it becomes tedious and arbitrary, and it loses its flow. Without myriad rules a match would find its own balance.

Too many tiggy-touchwood rules stifle the natural development of the game, particularly when those rules are imposed for disciplinary reasons and are unrelated to the play. A 50 metre penalty for a late tackle is fine, but the same penalty for daring to impugn an umpire's judgment is pedantic and punitive.

People never used to ask whether footy was boring, because they knew what footy was. Now the AFL in their inestimable wisdom have decided that the game is a product to be engineered so that bums go on seats, and little Sniffy is not lost to soccer because Mummy thinks footy is a 'rough game'.

This is all true.

The bolded bit has always frustrated me. If little Sniffy isn't allowed to play football because it's too rough, little Sniffy is never going to stick at it past U10's anyway.

Let him join the chess club and move on.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Is footy boring now?

When the players are allowed to display the magnificent skills this amazing game can inspire footy is terrific to watch. But when they have to play by the rules of Umpireball, where any move they make is open to the subjective interpretation of the umpires, who are empowered to determine a player's intent and rule accordingly, it becomes tedious and arbitrary, and it loses its flow. Without myriad rules a match would find its own balance.

Too many tiggy-touchwood rules stifle the natural development of the game, particularly when those rules are imposed for disciplinary reasons and are unrelated to the play. A 50 metre penalty for a late tackle is fine, but the same penalty for daring to impugn an umpire's judgment is pedantic and punitive.

People never used to ask whether footy was boring, because they knew what footy was. Now the AFL in their inestimable wisdom have decided that the game is a product to be engineered so that bums go on seats, and little Sniffy is not lost to soccer because Mummy thinks footy is a 'rough game'.

Brillant 50th post. Close to a post of the year nominee. Agree with Sockeye on the issue of parents too. What happened to playing footy being a right of passage for kid and young bloke. I wasn't much skilled myself, but it was a right of passage for me none-the-less, an experience which over-protective parents are depriving their kids of while the play soccer without 'scoring'. News flash, life is a competition so start scoring, and life does involve conflict and hard work either physically and/or psycholgically. The sooner the younger generations start to understand this the better. Mollycodling kids isn't the answer, nor is artificial redesign by the AFL of the rules for these parents the answer. But realistically, the game moved past the 'average man' a long time ago. It is about dollars and participation rates and I guess you have to suck it up or become frustrated and lost to footy (at AFL level anyway).

[Twodogs]

Re: Is footy boring now?

People never used to ask whether footy was boring, because they knew what footy was. Now the AFL in their inestimable wisdom have decided that the game is a product to be engineered so that bums go on seats, and little Sniffy is not lost to soccer because Mummy thinks footy is a 'rough game'.

I'm 45 and I can remember people in the '70s complaining that footy was boring and it wasnt like it used to be. It's nothing new.

[Bornadog]

Re: Is footy boring now?

I'm 45 and I can remember people in the '70s complaining that footy was boring and it wasnt like it used to be. It's nothing new.

Yeah, bring back the place kick