Is Modern Footy Boring!

[Cyberdoggie]

Thought i'd raise this topic,
probably not the best timing as i've just witnessed us get a pantsing from the old enemy.


Basically what i'm getting at is that i'm finding this new wave style of football with the forward press very dull and boring.

Perhaps it's the lack of any forward structure where a key forward would provide a lead, take a strong mark against his opponent and then line up and take a shot.

I find most of the goals today are from fast breaks from 1 side if they manage to penetrate the zone, and as the the numbers push forward it becomes a game of cat and mouse to isolate the extra numbers, then walk into an open goal or take a shot.

If a key forwards role is to now just be one of a number of players that sit slightly forward of the play and not an actual forward target then i think they have invented a different game because it doesn't resemble anything that i want to watch.

The dogs game may of just been an anomoly but after trying to watch the saints v cats game i fear that this will become the norm before too long, and i'm afraid it will kill football as i know it if this is the case.


Thoughts?.......Perhaps i am reading it wrong.

[Cyberdoggie]

Mods if this should be in the AFL forum please feel free to move it,
Just realized this after i posted it.

[LostDoggy]

For me when the western bulldogs lose it's boring. Don't care how we win games.

[Cyberdoggie]

For me when the western bulldogs lose it's boring. Don't care how we win games.

So if we played a game like Geelong and Stkilda did everyweek, but as long as we won it would be ok?

[Sockeye Salmon]

So if we played a game like Geelong and Stkilda did everyweek, but as long as we won it would be ok?

Nope.

I'm with you on this one, CD.

Footy is boring as batshit and if it wasn't for the Dogs I wouldn't bother with it.

The players are incredibly skilled and amazing athletes but the game itself is pure crap.


Friday night was as bad a game as I've ever had the misfortune to watch (although there might have been a good patch somewhere in the middle but I wouldn't know because I was having a little nap).


Bumping has become practically impossible without getting suspended, you can't take possesion or you run the risk of being gang-tackled and done for HTB, and you can't try to gain a few metres for your team when you're under pressure for fear of it going OOB.


Now I follow the footy pretty closely but there would have easily been more than a dozen instances on the weekend where the whistle went and I had to look at the umpire to see who's free it was, then even after watching the replay I had no idea what it was for.


This is not an umpire bashing exercise, it's not their fault. The game has become un-umpirable.


The single biggest issue is that defenders can't defend, they're impotent.

It started by penalising a player for diving on the ball, then deliberate OOB, then hands in the back and chopping the arms, then deliberate rushed behinds.

All designed to make it easier for forwards.

Now it's so hard to defend that coaches have to drop players behind the ball because even the best defender in the world can't stop a gumby one-on-one.

[always right]

If you watched St Kilda and Geelong play you would have been bored into a comatose state.

If you had watched the Adelaide v hawthorn match your faith in footy would have been restored.

If I was an Essendon supporter yesterday I would heve been pretty excited about the state of footy.

[Cyberdoggie]

If you watched St Kilda and Geelong play you would have been bored into a comatose state.

If you had watched the Adelaide v hawthorn match your faith in footy would have been restored.

If I was an Essendon supporter yesterday I would heve been pretty excited about the state of footy.

I saw bits of the carlton and richmond game, as well as the adelaide v hawks game and i admit it wasn't as bad as the other two games.

Taking my WB blinkers off i just found the lack of 1 on 1 contests and the inevitability of the forward play so dull.

When Essendon would get the ball off us they would just handball it around, move forward in a pack, work out they had an extra person running forward than we did running back, draw that player and run into the goal.
It was like watching school children play where 1 kid is twice the size of all the others and he just picks it up and runs the length of the ground, but a whole team of them doing that.
Obiviously this was working for them and they didn't need to do much else but i found that without players up forward working to provide a lead when their team mates have the ball up the ground, and some good duels between a key forward and key defender where they battle it out, try and get the jump on the other on the lead or out muscle each other, then there was just nothing to watch.

Same when we went forward, how often would someone like gia or griffen end up with the ball on the wing and realize that because of the forward press, there is no forwards leading up at them. So they just slow down wait for numbers, chip it around to isolate someone for an easy mark.

Boring!

[LostDoggy]

The fish rots from the head

[bornadog]

Nope.

I'm with you on this one, CD.

Footy is boring as batshit and if it wasn't for the Dogs I wouldn't bother with it.

The players are incredibly skilled and amazing athletes but the game itself is pure crap.


Friday night was as bad a game as I've ever had the misfortune to watch (although there might have been a good patch somewhere in the middle but I wouldn't know because I was having a little nap).


Bumping has become practically impossible without getting suspended, you can't take possesion or you run the risk of being gang-tackled and done for HTB, and you can't try to gain a few metres for your team when you're under pressure for fear of it going OOB.


Now I follow the footy pretty closely but there would have easily been more than a dozen instances on the weekend where the whistle went and I had to look at the umpire to see who's free it was, then even after watching the replay I had no idea what it was for.


This is not an umpire bashing exercise, it's not their fault. The game has become un-umpirable.


The single biggest issue is that defenders can't defend, they're impotent.

It started by penalising a player for diving on the ball, then deliberate OOB, then hands in the back and chopping the arms, then deliberate rushed behinds.

All designed to make it easier for forwards.

Now it's so hard to defend that coaches have to drop players behind the ball because even the best defender in the world can't stop a gumby one-on-one.

The AFL admisitrators have spoilt what is the best game in the world. These stupid rule changes have ruined the spectical. Mark my words, the sub rule will change again and we don't even know why they introduced a sub?

As you say SS its over officiated and we can't even blame the umps as they are carrying out what Vlad and his side kick ask them to do.

[LostDoggy]

So if we played a game like Geelong and Stkilda did everyweek, but as long as we won it would be ok?

Yepp don't care about others clubs or the game itself.

[LostDoggy]

I've been saying for the last 2 seasons that StKilda is the most boring team we've seen since i can remember.
They are (or have been) a good side, but easily the team most likely to wonder what the lawn bowls on ABC is up to.
It is a shame too, with the midfield they have they could be a very entertaining running/scoring team. The worst is they have the ability to suck the life out of the opposition brining them down to their boring system.

[SonofScray]

Agree with a lot of what is being said. On one hand I don't care much for the game, its the Club I worry about and invest in, if we were playing tiddly winks that's what I be talking about. If we winning, its all good.

Aussie Rules is an ordinary game really, the players cannot execute the skills required at a level you'd expect from professionals. Compare the mastery of a skill set between the AFL and most other professional leagues worldwide and we rate very poorly. Beyond that the tampering of the rules has made it tough to follow at times and certainly encouraged a style of play that just isn't exciting.

[mjp]

Aussie Rules is an ordinary game really, the players cannot execute the skills required at a level you'd expect from professionals. Compare the mastery of a skill set between the AFL and most other professional leagues worldwide and we rate very poorly.

I'll bite.

Like WHAT other professional leagues?

[mjp]

The AFL admisitrators have spoilt what is the best game in the world. These stupid rule changes have ruined the spectical. Mark my words, the sub rule will change again and we don't even know why they introduced a sub?


The sub was introduced as an injury reduction measure, one of the supposed 'pillars' of the rules of the game committee. The idea is that teams will be forced to leave players on the ground longer, meaning collisions will not occur at the same velocity...



As you say SS its over officiated and we can't even blame the umps as they are carrying out what Vlad and his side kick ask them to do.

Over officiated? Not sure about that. The number of free kicks is not the problem (back in the 60's/70's free kick counts in excess of 80 - with just one umpire - were commonplace). There have been some rule changes that have made life difficult for everyone to understand what they are supposed to do.

[LostDoggy]

Agree with a lot of what is being said. On one hand I don't care much for the game, its the Club I worry about and invest in, if we were playing tiddly winks that's what I be talking about. If we winning, its all good.

Aussie Rules is an ordinary game really, the players cannot execute the skills required at a level you'd expect from professionals. Compare the mastery of a skill set between the AFL and most other professional leagues worldwide and we rate very poorly. Beyond that the tampering of the rules has made it tough to follow at times and certainly encouraged a style of play that just isn't exciting.

This is a good post.
Apart from the "rate very poorly" part.
I too am more of a club follower than a game fan.
Also I think the league is far too wrapped up in changing the rules than letting the guys play the game.
I'm all for eliminating any punches thrown but some of the contacts that go on report are a joke. It's a contact game for gods sake.

[Dazza]

We played like a team from yesteryear on the weekend. Long bombs to contests. Look where it got us.

I don't find the game boring at all. The Geelong/Saints game was really bad but most saints games in general are shocking.

What I'm starting to think though is structure/gameplan is now becoming more important than talent. If you have 22 fit players committed to a gameplan you have every chance of beating a team with much better talent in it. I think collingwoods gameplan flatters some of it's players and the saints have around 6 genuine stars and the rest aren't great at all yet they've played off in the last 2 grand finals.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Agree with a lot of what is being said. On one hand I don't care much for the game, its the Club I worry about and invest in, if we were playing tiddly winks that's what I be talking about. If we winning, its all good.

Aussie Rules is an ordinary game really, the players cannot execute the skills required at a level you'd expect from professionals. Compare the mastery of a skill set between the AFL and most other professional leagues worldwide and we rate very poorly. Beyond that the tampering of the rules has made it tough to follow at times and certainly encouraged a style of play that just isn't exciting.

I'm not sure that's quite fair. I can't think of any other professional sports that has the combination of way's to distribute the ball, the 360 degree direction of vision required, constant movement of players, number of players on the field, size of ground, not to mention the number of rules players have to consider, all at high speed and and with the expectation to execute within split seconds and with the threat of high impact collisions.

These variables alone make me think that players at the elite level of AFL deliver their skills at a very high level, and by and large in an entertaining manner.
I occasionally watch old replays of games from the 70's & 80's and find myself quite bored, by the lower skills and lack of advanced tactics.

[LostDoggy]

I occasionally watch old replays of games from the 70's & 80's and find myself quite bored, by the lower skills and lack of advanced tactics.

Yeah, but back then you could smack someone when all else failed. That was entertaining!

[EasternWest]

I love footy.

I hate Saints footy.

But I love footy.

[Flamethrower]

I watched parts of all 8 games over the weekend.

Two games were painful to watch - Geelong v St Kilda and Essendon v Dogs

The other 6 were considerably better. Even Collingwood's demolition of Port was an entertaining game, with the final score flattering the Pies.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Yeah, but back then you could smack someone when all else failed. That was entertaining!

I only said I was bored by the lower skill levels and lack of advanced tactics back then, not the pugilistic entertainment.

It's funny, but growing up in the 70's and watching the gam evolve, I never thought through any of these periods that the game was boring. It's only on reflection and seeing old footage of gmaesfrom then that I see how tedious the actual game could be.
It seemed to endlessly revolve around get ball, kick ball then rinse and repeat like a game of forcem' back.

[Cyberdoggie]

All the changes and rule interpretations haven't bothered me so much, but what i witnessed on the weekend by Essendon in particular disturbed me.

If football in the future is to be played in this example where the forwards start high and run towards goal to get the ball, and not lead out from from the goals, then i'll switch off.

[Mantis]

One of my pet hates is the zone implemented when the opposing team kicks out after a behind.... I can't stand it.

[Sedat]

If football in the future is to be played in this example where the forwards start high and run towards goal to get the ball, and not lead out from from the goals, then i'll switch off.
Wayne Carey was doing this 15 years ago, the big difference being he didn't have 3-4 defenders hanging off him, and his mids didn't have to navigate through a Tokyo Subway just to distribute the ball into forward 50

[LostDoggy]

I didnt like it when the crows were in their defensive era but St Kilda are atrocious to watch and take the cake of what the AFL should stamp out.

I was pretty pumped in the first quarter against Essendon, that was pretty exciting. I would have enjoyed the rest of the game if I was an Essendon supporter or even a neutral.

Maybe the press/zone is an issue, maybe there should be a requirement of a minimum number of players in the forward/back 50/half. I definately dont see how this sub rule has improved watchability...

[Remi Moses]

Personally I don't subscribe to the notion that Footy is Boring now and so wonderful previously. Yes there is awful spectacles but there were turgid games in the good ol' days,what you get now with the massive media saturation is that the poor games are out there for viewing.The old days we got the match of the day and 10 min of 2 games,coaches also get access to so many other sports now that they can pick things they like and implement them

[westdog54]

I didnt like it when the crows were in their defensive era but St Kilda are atrocious to watch and take the cake of what the AFL should stamp out.

I was pretty pumped in the first quarter against Essendon, that was pretty exciting. I would have enjoyed the rest of the game if I was an Essendon supporter or even a neutral.

Maybe the press/zone is an issue, maybe there should be a requirement of a minimum number of players in the forward/back 50/half. I definately dont see how this sub rule has improved watchability...

As much as the press/zone is an issue, the last thing we need is another difficult to enforce rule change. The field is too big and player movements too difficult to monitor to make this workable. With the exception fo Netball I can't think of another sport that restricts movement of players in this way. Offside rules are a different story but to have a line on the field that only certain players can cross would be overkill. In some ways fans need to make up their mind, do we want the rules left alone or not?

Part of the problem is that many rule changes that have come in have been staggering over-reactions to minor issues. Rushed behind rule: Came in after Joel Bowden walked four behinds across the line late in the game to run down the clock. Interchange Rule: hurriedly introduced, poorly thought out rule following the Jesse White Drama. Hands in the back rule: Don't even know what prompted it but again, staggering overreaction that has turned umpires into bigger villains that they already were.

My biggest bugbear so far as rules goes is the one related to head high contact when a player's head is over the ball. Dont get me wrong, the Byron Pickett bump a few years back was very untidy and downright dangerous. But the resulting crackdown on head high contact has led to players leading with their head when they take possession instead of standing up and trying to run with or dispose of the ball. I've siad it before in other threads but I think the 'Duty of Care' with head high contact starts with the victim, and that 'incidental' head high contact should be treated as such.

The bump isn't dead but it takes a level of skill so precise to make sure there is no head high contact that it almost becomes not worth it. Byron Pickett's bump on Brendan Krummel a few years back is one of the best legitimate bumps I've seen whilst watching this game. Nowadays he'd get rubbed out for it, which is a crying shame because he was contesting the ball and there was absolutely no malice there.

[Sockeye Salmon]

My biggest bugbear so far as rules goes is the one related to head high contact when a player's head is over the ball. Dont get me wrong, the Byron Pickett bump a few years back was very untidy and downright dangerous. But the resulting crackdown on head high contact has led to players leading with their head when they take possession instead of standing up and trying to run with or dispose of the ball. I've siad it before in other threads but I think the 'Duty of Care' with head high contact starts with the victim, and that 'incidental' head high contact should be treated as such.

The bump isn't dead but it takes a level of skill so precise to make sure there is no head high contact that it almost becomes not worth it. Byron Pickett's bump on Brendan Krummel a few years back is one of the best legitimate bumps I've seen whilst watching this game. Nowadays he'd get rubbed out for it, which is a crying shame because he was contesting the ball and there was absolutely no malice there.

I absolutely agree and disagree with you at the same time.

I hate the high contact interpretation. Not because 'the game has gone soft', it's not, it's probably harder than ever, but because a skill of the game has been removed.


The ridiculous thing is the rule is exactly right! Accidental high contact is not a report, it's a free kick, and we get 15 of them a game. There is no rule that says you have to keep your feet on the ground and no rule that says you can't run past the ball.


I hate how the defenders of the rule always come up with "do we want another Neil Sasche". Of course we don't, but we have a rule for that, "high contact to a player with their head over the ball". The vast majority of players getting sited are for "unduly rough play" because they aren't breaking any other law. Unduly rough play was brought in for act not covered by specific offenses, perhaps throwing an opponent into the fence or hitting him over the head with an iron bar.

The other one that should be punished - and Matthew Scarlett got a week for it this round - is a bump on "someone who is not reasonably expecting contact". If you bump an opponent (forcefully enough to justify a report) while he is watching the play up the other end of the ground you deserve to get rubbed out, it's a cheap shot. Pickett's bump on Krummel wasn't a fair hip and shoulder, it was a cheap shot on a bloke who wasn't looking.

[Sedat]

Interchange Rule: hurriedly introduced, poorly thought out rule following the Jesse White Drama.
My personal favourite Adrian Anderson new rule change was the post-it note interchange system, and the notion of players requiring written permission to take to the field :rolleyes:

[westdog54]

I absolutely agree and disagree with you at the same time.

I hate the high contact interpretation. Not because 'the game has gone soft', it's not, it's probably harder than ever, but because a skill of the game has been removed.

No argument there. The game is by no means 'soft'.


The ridiculous thing is the rule is exactly right! Accidental high contact is not a report, it's a free kick, and we get 15 of them a game. There is no rule that says you have to keep your feet on the ground and no rule that says you can't run past the ball.

Fair argument, but why is accidental high contact not treated like ducking your head in a tackle? If you lead with your head towards an opponent with no attempt whatsoever to avoid the contact I don't think a free kick should be paid


I hate how the defenders of the rule always come up with "do we want another Neil Sasche". Of course we don't, but we have a rule for that, "high contact to a player with their head over the ball". The vast majority of players getting sited are for "unduly rough play" because they aren't breaking any other law. Unduly rough play was brought in for act not covered by specific offenses, perhaps throwing an opponent into the fence or hitting him over the head with an iron bar.

The other one that should be punished - and Matthew Scarlett got a week for it this round - is a bump on "someone who is not reasonably expecting contact". If you bump an opponent (forcefully enough to justify a report) while he is watching the play up the other end of the ground you deserve to get rubbed out, it's a cheap shot. Pickett's bump on Krummel wasn't a fair hip and shoulder, it was a cheap shot on a bloke who wasn't looking.

As far as I'm concerned if Krummel wasn't looking, it was because of Tunnel Vision, not because it was a cheap shot behind the play. Scarlett's bump wasn't anywhere near the play. Pickett's was 2 metres from the ball.

Agree with you on the 'Rough Conduct' argument, its the AFL's 'we can't get them for anything else so we'll hit them with this' charge.

Whilst were talking of charges, the fact that Jarrad Waite did not go up for his back heel kick is a dead set disgrace.

[The Underdog]

There's certainly elements of the current game which are more frustrating to watch.
The current interpretation of holding the ball (which I completely blame on the rules of the game committee and not on the umps) is a farce. They should automatically make it that if you are tackled and held up, the other team gets a free kick, because that is how it currently works 50% of the time. Prior opportunity counts for nought, nor does having a realistic chance of disposing of it. At least if they made it official you'd know what to expect. Then they can get rid of those pesky stoppages they hate so much.

[Sockeye Salmon]

There's certainly elements of the current game which are more frustrating to watch.
The current interpretation of holding the ball (which I completely blame on the rules of the game committee and not on the umps) is a farce. They should automatically make it that if you are tackled and held up, the other team gets a free kick, because that is how it currently works 50% of the time. Prior opportunity counts for nought, nor does having a realistic chance of disposing of it. At least if they made it official you'd know what to expect. Then they can get rid of those pesky stoppages they hate so much.

In the last quarter Sunday Liam Picken jumped to take possesion and was tackled before he hit the ground.

[Sedat]

In the last quarter Sunday Liam Picken jumped to take possesion and was tackled before he hit the ground.
I'd go a step further and say that he was tackled at the very instant he jumped to take possession of the ball. Well before he landed back on his feet, he had an opponent bear-hugging him and refusing to allow the ball to get free. Quite possibly the worst umpiring decision I've ever seen (at least excluding decisions from Shane McInerney). But we all know that umpires are red-hot on HTB early in every season, and by Round 15 you have to hatch it to be penalised for HTB.

[LostDoggy]

One of my pet hates is the zone implemented when the opposing team kicks out after a behind.... I can't stand it.

My Pet Hate too Mantis. Just man up and make their backmen account for something instead of saying"Here I'll let you take the ball Free of Charge to the Centre line"
Hope the game isn't now like Monopoly

[westdog54]

My Pet Hate too Mantis. Just man up and make their backmen account for something instead of saying"Here I'll let you take the ball Free of Charge to the Centre line"
Hope the game isn't now like Monopoly

Take the ball Free of Charge to the Centre line?

Do you watch how a good foward press works nowadays? You've got to be good to get outside your defensive 50. If you make it to the centreline you're probably going to end up with an end to end goal.

[Cyberdoggie]

In the last quarter Sunday Liam Picken jumped to take possesion and was tackled before he hit the ground.

That was disgraceful that decision.

If i can be biased for one second i think we got very hard done by by the umpires in particular with some of the holding the ball or man decisions.

We also got 3 goals officially (i counted 4) against us from free kicks.
That kind of annoyed me a little as well.

[The Underdog]

In the last quarter Sunday Liam Picken jumped to take possesion and was tackled before he hit the ground.

That was one of the ones that got me thinking about it. It's completely counter to what the rule should be and it just makes it more frustrating because it is enforced so randomly.

[Mantis]

My Pet Hate too Mantis. Just man up and make their backmen account for something instead of saying"Here I'll let you take the ball Free of Charge to the Centre line"
Hope the game isn't now like Monopoly

My problem is more to do with the fact that all players from the opposing team are in one half of the ground to implement this zone... it just makes for ugly footy.

[1eyedog]

I love footy. I was on the edge of my seat for most of last Friday night (Geelong v St. Kilda). The third and last quarters were like new chapters of a good book.

Beer helps too.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I love footy. I was on the edge of my seat for most of last Friday night (Geelong v St. Kilda). The third and last quarters were like new chapters of a good book.

Beer helps too.

If you liked last Friday night's game you drank way too much beer.

[Mofra]

If you liked last Friday night's game you drank way too much beer.
Or the right amount ;)

[1eyedog]

If you liked last Friday night's game you drank way too much beer.

It's a combination of the beer and an already boring life SS. Footy is like pizza to me even when it's pretty ordinary it's still pretty good.

I don't see the difference between last Friday's game and games in the mud 15 years ago. I like static games even when skills are down it's a real tug of war that I appreciate. Waiting for a goal the anticipation can build like a soccer match (no I'm not comparing) and when a goal is kicked it has a huge bearing on a low scoring contest.

Skills were atrocious last Friday night but the endeavour was there, I appreciate a contest first and foremost and that's what we got.

[AndrewP6]

I love footy. I was on the edge of my seat for most of last Friday night (Geelong v St. Kilda). The third and last quarters were like new chapters of a good book.

Beer helps too.

I fell off the edge of my seat. But that had more to do with the enormous amount of vodka in my bloodstream, than the tripe served up in that game. :)

[bornadog]

It's a combination of the beer and an already boring life SS. Footy is like pizza to me even when it's pretty ordinary it's still pretty good.

I don't see the difference between last Friday's game and games in the mud 15 years ago. I like static games even when skills are down it's a real tug of war that I appreciate. Waiting for a goal the anticipation can build like a soccer match (no I'm not comparing) and when a goal is kicked it has a huge bearing on a low scoring contest.

Skills were atrocious last Friday night but the endeavour was there, I appreciate a contest first and foremost and that's what we got.

Yeah watched many games in the 70s and 80s in the wind and rain and mud at Western Oval. One of my favourites was 1985 when we beat the hawks in the slosh. Super's big torp with a wet and muddy ball won us the game.

[Ghost Dog]

It's a combination of the beer and an already boring life SS. Footy is like pizza to me even when it's pretty ordinary it's still pretty good.

I don't see the difference between last Friday's game and games in the mud 15 years ago. I like static games even when skills are down it's a real tug of war that I appreciate. Waiting for a goal the anticipation can build like a soccer match (no I'm not comparing) and when a goal is kicked it has a huge bearing on a low scoring contest.

Skills were atrocious last Friday night but the endeavour was there, I appreciate a contest first and foremost and that's what we got.

I'm with you. I really enjoyed it.

[1eyedog]

Yeah watched many games in the 70s and 80s in the wind and rain and mud at Western Oval. One of my favourites was 1985 when we beat the hawks in the slosh. Super's big torp with a wet and muddy ball won us the game.

Indeed. Those conditions separarted the men from the boys. remember Hawk being a class above everyone else when it got sloppy.

It takes good players in trying conditions to get teams over the line. For me last Friday night those two players were Wojo for his ability to break lines (his goal was inspirational to the team) and Riewoldt, who nearly won the Saints the game. Last Friday was if nothing else an interesting game of football, two warriors circling each other with the knowledge that neither warrior was really good enough to beat the other. Both were evenly matched and they just bludgeoned each other. That Geelong could win with no Ablett, Ling, Chapman or Selwood showed a lot of character to me. That club earned more brownie points with me last Friday night than any home and away season win I have seen them play (and I'm originally from Geelong).

As an anaology to highly skilled and fast paced tempo footy with static footy, I like draughts but I also like chess.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Indeed. Those conditions separarted the men from the boys. remember Hawk being a class above everyone else when it got sloppy.

It takes good players in trying conditions to get teams over the line. For me last Friday night those two players were Wojo for his ability to break lines (his goal was inspirational to the team) and Riewoldt, who nearly won the Saints the game. Last Friday was if nothing else an interesting game of football, two warriors circling each other with the knowledge that neither warrior was really good enough to beat the other. Both were evenly matched and they just bludgeoned each other. That Geelong could win with no Ablett, Ling, Chapman or Selwood showed a lot of character to me. That club earned more brownie points with me last Friday night than any home and away season win I have seen them play (and I'm originally from Geelong).

As an anaology to highly skilled and fast paced tempo footy with static footy, I like draughts but I also like chess.

I thought it was more like Muhammad Ali vs. the Japanese wrestler who lay on his back and tried to kick Ali in the shins.

[Twodogs]

My pet hate with rules ATM is the deliberate out of bounds rule. If a player kicks the ball 40-50 metres and the ball rolls OOB then how can the unpire judge what the player's intent was?

It happened to Dale Morris on sunday. He kicked the ball and it rollled out of bounds. Immediatly the Essendon players all ran to the field umpire making the signal for a free kick and sure enough the umpire played it. Morris' kick went near enough to half a dozen players for them to take possesson but because none of them did he was penalised.

Why cant we let defender's defend?

[EasternWest]

My pet hate with rules ATM is the deliberate out of bounds rule. If a player kicks the ball 40-50 metres and the ball rolls OOB then how can the unpire judge what the player's intent was?

It happened to Dale Morris on sunday. He kicked the ball and it rollled out of bounds. Immediatly the Essendon players all ran to the field umpire making the signal for a free kick and sure enough the umpire played it. Morris' kick went near enough to half a dozen players for them to take possesson but because none of them did he was penalised.

Why cant we let defender's defend?

I still think about Akermanis in the 2009 PF. Booted it 60 metres clear from defense, and it ran over the line and he got pinged for it. No question it was deliberate, but he had nowhere else to go.

We allow players under pressure to rush behinds. Why can't a player under pressure, with no other realistic option than to boot it forwards, go for the line?

[Sockeye Salmon]

I still think about Akermanis in the 2009 PF. Booted it 60 metres clear from defense, and it ran over the line and he got pinged for it. No question it was deliberate, but he had nowhere else to go.

We allow players under pressure to rush behinds. Why can't a player under pressure, with no other realistic option than to boot it forwards, go for the line?

I saw Scott West in a game v St. Kilda where he was running out of D50 and ahead of him were 3 St. Kilda players. West kicked a 60m torp (on the run) that landed between them on it's point and rolled end-over-end another 20m and came to rest 1 foot over the boundary. Yep, he got done for it.

It was either the most atonishing piece of skill to pull it off or it was just a kick and hope. If it was the former it is a disgrace that we would punish such skill; if it was the latter, how could it be intentional?


Surely when you are caught against the boundary, getting yardage for your team is a good thing?

[EasternWest]

I saw Scott West in a game v St. Kilda where he was running out of D50 and ahead of him were 3 St. Kilda players. West kicked a 60m torp (on the run) that landed between them on it's point and rolled end-over-end another 20m and came to rest 1 foot over the boundary. Yep, he got done for it.

It was either the most atonishing piece of skill to pull it off or it was just a kick and hope. If it was the former it is a disgrace that we would punish such skill; if it was the latter, how could it be intentional?


Surely when you are caught against the boundary, getting yardage for your team is a good thing?

My thoughts exactly.

[1eyedog]

I thought it was more like Muhammad Ali vs. the Japanese wrestler who lay on his back and tried to kick Ali in the shins.


That's very good

[LostDoggy]

I still think about Akermanis in the 2009 PF. Booted it 60 metres clear from defense, and it ran over the line and he got pinged for it. No question it was deliberate, but he had nowhere else to go.

We allow players under pressure to rush behinds. Why can't a player under pressure, with no other realistic option than to boot it forwards, go for the line?

There is the answer! The AFL need a min distance rule like marking the ball or bounce distance for how far a defenceive kick can travel before going out of bounds. Provided it is delivered to no one.

[mjp]

I still think about Akermanis in the 2009 PF. Booted it 60 metres clear from defense, and it ran over the line and he got pinged for it. No question it was deliberate, but he had nowhere else to go.

We allow players under pressure to rush behinds. Why can't a player under pressure, with no other realistic option than to boot it forwards, go for the line?

But you admit it was deliberate - and it was paid as deliberate...I don't get your argument.

Getting the ball over the line is still an advantage to the defending team as long as they chase and stand the mark...it slows things down and allows the opposition to be manned up.

Kicking it out is still an option, but you might get pinged for it. Keeping it IN is another realistic option - but of course with a potentially worse outcome.

[EasternWest]

But you admit it was deliberate - and it was paid as deliberate...I don't get your argument.

Getting the ball over the line is still an advantage to the defending team as long as they chase and stand the mark...it slows things down and allows the opposition to be manned up.

Kicking it out is still an option, but you might get pinged for it. Keeping it IN is another realistic option - but of course with a potentially worse outcome.

And how many times are there when clearly deliberate OOB's aren't called? Can I ask if you (if you remember the incident) thought Aker was hard done by on that one?

The rule as it stands leaves no room for a player with no options to seek that sanctuary, when they should be able to.

I'm not saying any line should be an option, but in cases such as that, when there's clearly nowhere to go, and the distance gained is substantial, then it should be thrown in.

[bornadog]

And how many times are there when clearly deliberate OOB's aren't called? Can I ask if you (if you remember the incident) thought Aker was hard done by on that one?

The rule as it stands leaves no room for a player with no options to seek that sanctuary, when they should be able to.

I'm not saying any line should be an option, but in cases such as that, when there's clearly nowhere to go, and the distance gained is substantial, then it should be thrown in.

Absolutely agree with you.

How about when the ball is kicked to a contest and the defender punches the ball out of bounce. Its never called deliberate, but we all know it is deliberate. The whole rule is another joke. That kick by Aker in the prelim cost us a goal as the ball was then taken all the way down and Reivolting kicked a goal.