Is footy boring now?

[LostDoggy]

I'm not sure if others feel the same way, but I don't enjoy watching footy as much as I did in the past. I was just watching the 2006 elimination final and I just loved how free flowing the game was. There weren't huge packs of players around the ball it was a real spectacle to watch. Does anyone here feel the same way? I mean I still love going to the footy and watching the dogs play, but I don't find myself enjoying matches as I did in the past.

[Mantis]

I'm not sure if others feel the same way, but I don't enjoy watching footy as much as I did in the past. I was just watching the 2006 elimination final and I just loved how free flowing the game was. There weren't huge packs of players around the ball it was a real spectacle to watch. Does anyone here feel the same way? I mean I still love going to the footy and watching the dogs play, but I don't find myself enjoying matches as I did in the past.

I feel the same, especially when you are watching the lower ranked teams play. I thought the St.Kilda v Carlton game last Friday was an excellent game to watch, but these types of games have been few and far between over the past 2 or 3 years.

I enjoy watching us play. Over the past month we have added an even tougher edge to our defensive & contested game, but are still playing with an attacking flair when we get the ball in space that we all enjoy watching.

[aker39]

I enjoy watching the most attractive team in the competition.

I have certainly watched less football where the bulldogs are not involved.

[LostDoggy]

I love watching the doggies play and Geelong are good to watch too. The crows and Sydney should be done for bringing the game in down though.

[Happy Days]

I love watching the doggies play and Geelong are good to watch too. The crows and Sydney should be done for bringing the game in down though.

Bit stiff, have you watched them recently?

The Crows v Dons game was an absolute ripper.

[LostDoggy]

Not for me.

Compared to the last couple years I watch more footy if anything. 4-5 Games per round.
Saints/Carlton was a ripper this weekend. Real hard contested game, and you get at least one of these a week.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I ...


... oh, bugger it, you all know what I think.

[The Coon Dog]

I ...


... oh, bugger it, you all know what I think.

I was even going to look for your write up of our practice match v St.Kilda, but just couldn't be bothered.

[bornadog]

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).

[Desipura]

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).

Not even if we needed Essendon to beat Melbourne in round 22 to ensure we get in the 8?

[bornadog]

Not even if we needed Essendon to beat Melbourne in round 22 to ensure we get in the 8?

I do watch some games, maybe a quarter, but as I said very little of other games..

[Go_Dogs]

Anderson Ball is still the best game in the world. But perhaps not as good as AFL used to be. I actually enjoy watching most matches, more so for individuals as some teams play pretty monotonous football.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Anderson Ball is still the best game in the world. But perhaps not as good as AFL used to be. I actually enjoy watching most matches, more so for individuals as some teams play pretty monotonous football.

Some of the stuff the players can do continues to astonish me; then Anderson and Demetriou take all the credit for the games popularity.

How good could these blokes be if they were allowed to play? Mind-boggling.

[mighty_west]

I don't think the game is that boring, some games here & there definatly are, but then, there were some shockers in the 80's & 90's as well.

I'm just as excited to watch the Dogs play as i ever have been, and i'll watch bit's & pieces of some other games, but then, i have always done that.

[The Underdog]

I don't think any amount of messing with the rules can ever take away the joy of watching a Rob Murphy, Gary Ablett or Daniel Motlop when they do something that just takes your breath away (as opposed to the times when Motlop does absolutely nothing to take your breath away). The skill of the game will always be a joy and the players keep getting more and more skilful, however the fitness of the players, the rules and the tactics of the game often make it less enjoyable. Players just couldn't do the running 25 years ago that they do now so any team trying to zone then run forward back then, would have been buggered by half time, Anderson and Demetriou keep changing the rules to make it more of a spectacle but in doing so take away most of the enjoyment and coaches as they should, will do anything they can to win although it's led to us watching games that look like elongated circle work.

But then I see the first game of a guy like Naitinui on Saturday (I was stuck in a hotel room in Mildura with a sick 2 year old and no Foxtel, ok) and you just get excited about what this guy might be and what he might do, especially if he learns to kick and it reminds you what the game is capable of .

[mighty_west]

I don't think any amount of messing with the rules can ever take away the joy of watching a Rob Murphy, Gary Ablett or Daniel Motlop when they do something that just takes your breath away (as opposed to the times when Motlop does absolutely nothing to take your breath away). The skill of the game will always be a joy and the players keep getting more and more skilful, however the fitness of the players, the rules and the tactics of the game often make it less enjoyable. Players just couldn't do the running 25 years ago that they do now so any team trying to zone then run forward back then, would have been buggered by half time, Anderson and Demetriou keep changing the rules to make it more of a spectacle but in doing so take away most of the enjoyment and coaches as they should, will do anything they can to win although it's led to us watching games that look like elongated circle work.

But then I see the first game of a guy like Naitinui on Saturday (I was stuck in a hotel room in Mildura with a sick 2 year old and no Foxtel, ok) and you just get excited about what this guy might be and what he might do, especially if he learns to kick and it reminds you what the game is capable of .


It's interesting you say that players couldn't do the same running 25 years ago, which is true, the fitness levels these days is unbelievable, yet you get those nimrods that say players are soft for being interchanged so often......go figure!

[bornadog]

yet you get those nimrods that say players are soft for being interchanged so often......go figure!

I have never heard anyone say that. The game is also tougher than the old days. The old days, cowards would whack some one when they weren't looking. The tackling these days is ferocious.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I have never heard anyone say that. The game is also tougher than the old days. The old days, cowards would whack some one when they weren't looking. The tackling these days is ferocious.

The game is tougher now than ever - but I still hate the way they've killed off the bump.

[LostDoggy]

I definitely watch less footy then I used to, though that's probably a good thing. I cannot honestly recall sitting through an entire match that didn't have the Bulldogs playing this year, in the past I've watched replays of teams I didn't particularly like watching that I'd seen live on TV the night before. I don't know that it's because of the rule changes or anything, just me not enjoying it quite as much- still enjoy watching the Bulldogs just as much though. However, I do notice myself hating the commentary and footage in general a lot more then I previously did.

[hujsh]

Have been watching less footy. In 05/06 watched almost every FTA game. Now I see a quarter or two and go off to do other things (might listen on the radio though)

[SonofScray]

The game is tougher now than ever - but I still hate the way they've killed off the bump.

I agree. They have all but outlawed the bump, which IMO is a highlight of the game. We see fewer speccies because the ball is delivered more precisely and we rarely see a player get taken out as he chases an opponent, or in a 50/50 contest in the open. Those two types of play light up a crowd more than any other and its a shame we see so little of it now.

[mighty_west]

The game is tougher now than ever - but I still hate the way they've killed off the bump.

But they haven't killed off the bump, players can still bump, Boyds bump on Carr was a beauty, Akers the other week v the Swans, you just can't pick players off ala Byron Pickett or King on Power last week or go the head.

You don't want players taken out and never playing again, like Pickett did to Brendon Krummell, i was just about to jump the fence when Pickett picked off Chris Grant.

[Mofra]

The game is also tougher than the old days. The old days, cowards would whack some one when they weren't looking.
Agree x 2.

Firstly, the average collision speed is much higher, therefore much harder. Just looking at the injuries sustained these days (fractured eye sockets, depressed cheekbones etc), the serious facial injuries tend to be a little more prevalent these days, a product of the increasing speed of the game.

Secondly, I think it is tougher to take a hit and not retaliate than it is to lose your nut & whack some bloke. I am amazed at guys (looking at you Dale Morris) who continually risk injury by standing in front of charging packs, stand their ground, and take a hit from behind to effect a spoil. I think that's really bloody tough, risking kidney & injury to follow a team direction.

Everitt for example a couple of weeks back at Willy, he copped a massive hit from behind and hit the deck harder than almost anyone I've seen (except for maybe Monty in the 06 Prelim). He got up straight away & kept competing. I was impressed.

[LostDoggy]

Agree x 2.

Firstly, the average collision speed is much higher, therefore much harder. Just looking at the injuries sustained these days (fractured eye sockets, depressed cheekbones etc), the serious facial injuries tend to be a little more prevalent these days, a product of the increasing speed of the game.

Secondly, I think it is tougher to take a hit and not retaliate than it is to lose your nut & whack some bloke. I am amazed at guys (looking at you Dale Morris) who continually risk injury by standing in front of charging packs, stand their ground, and take a hit from behind to effect a spoil. I think that's really bloody tough, risking kidney & injury to follow a team direction.

Everitt for example a couple of weeks back at Willy, he copped a massive hit from behind and hit the deck harder than almost anyone I've seen (except for maybe Monty in the 06 Prelim). He got up straight away & kept competing. I was impressed.

Agreed x 3. It's a lot tougher to put your body on the line for your team than it is to take some cheap shot.

[LostDoggy]

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

At times it can look like watching the local under 10's with all the players around the ball. How many times do you see players go backwards or sideways because they look up to see the forward half devoid of players.

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.

[LostDoggy]

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

At times it can look like watching the local under 10's with all the players around the ball. How many times do you see players go backwards or sideways because they look up to see the forward half devoid of players.

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.

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.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

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!!!

[ledge]

Go back to positions and one on one contests i say.

[ledge]

Hey theres an idea what about coaches cards that when you turn them the jumper colour changes .

[bornadog]

Go back to positions and one on one contests i say.

too late, the coaches have tactics now.

[Sockeye Salmon]

But they haven't killed off the bump, players can still bump, Boyds bump on Carr was a beauty, Akers the other week v the Swans, you just can't pick players off ala Byron Pickett or King on Power last week or go the head.

You don't want players taken out and never playing again, like Pickett did to Brendon Krummell, i was just about to jump the fence when Pickett picked off Chris Grant.

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.

[comrade]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:D