“Rules on the run … again.”
So. Let’s talk about the new rules. Designed to increase scoring and the flow of the game. Instead, eight weeks in, most games have been congested slogs, and scoring is at its lowest point for 52 years.
A rule change brought in by the AFL appears to have had an unintended consequence. Who would have thought huh?
AFL needs to realise that whatever ‘directives’ they give to umpires aimed at influencing how the game is played is never, ever going to work.
They need to stop fantasizing over their selective, wet dream recollections of how good footy was “back in the day” and let the game take its natural course, which has always shifted from offensive to defensive styles. What they should be worried about, as it effects every fan’s enjoyment of the game is the fecking inconsistent standard of the umpiring itself.
Would I like to see a FF kicking 80-100 goals a season from time to time, absolutely, but it simply isn’t going to happen considering the complex defensive systems and the level of fitness modern professional footballers possess.
And historically it’s only happened 60 odd times, and many of those would have been in the same season. It wasn’t until a rule change (last touch out of bounds) in Coventry’s times which allowed the feat to be achieved in the first place.
Let’s talk about The AFL Double Standards on page 22 of the Herald Sun on Monday the 13th.
Where an “very senior employee” of the AFL gave character evidence for a sexual offender so they could obtain a Working With Children permit. The applicant an umpire was described by the AFL employee as “a stalwart” of the game who had been a mentor to young players for “seven or eight” years before his 2013 disqualification.
His first offence dates back 1983, when, as a 21 year old, he was charged with having sex with a 15 year old girl, who fell pregnant. He claimed he thought she was older.
In 2009, he was refused a Working With Children permit - a decision VCAT then overturned.
But in 2010, he followed and propositioned a woman, and in 2011, he pleaded guilty to wilful and obscene exposure and stalking. He was placed on the sexual offender’s register, but that was rescinded after an appeal to the County Court. Because of those charges, he lost his Working With Children permit. This time his appeal to VCAT, in 2013 was dismissed.
In 2014, he was again accused of wilful and obscene but, he claimed he had been urinating in a bush and the charges were dismissed.
Both the applicant and the “very senior person” in the AFL have had their identities suppressed. The applicant to save him embarrassment and the AFL employee so that he won’t be accountable for supporting the sexual offender with character evidence - evidence that had weight because of his senior standing with the AFL.
VCAT vice-president Ian Proctor, in approving a Working With Children permit for the man, found there was now “no likelyhood of future threat to a child by him.” “Public interest is not in my view served by saying once a person has taken a wrong turn, that person can never be redeemed.”
Just wondering if this sexual predator has been castrated or is on injections now. How can Ian Proctor can be so certain this man will NOT re-offend again. And; in any event no one who created opportunity for the man if he does re-offend, will accept any responsibility.
This is no different than putting a fox in charge of the hen house. I am concerned. I would be even more concerned if I had young children playing AFL.
I think it’s fairly well established that the AFL industry embraces recidivists
But they did so much research…
Anyway I’m virtually certain the desire for increased scores is entirely revenue driven. The networks want more ads, the AFL can demand more licensing $ if they give them more ads.
The AFL will keep ■■■■■■■ with the game until they achieve this goal or kill the golden goose.
For mine the emphasis placed on scoring and speed is misplaced. What makes Australian rules great and unique is the contest. You have to win the ball over and over and over again. Other codes are much closer to a turned based structure. In Aussie rules the game starts with a contest to win possession, not with a side a already in possesion.
The AFL just needs to accept the natural strategic eb and flow and evolution of the game. The more the administrators keep their noses out of it the better of the game will be imo.
Can imagine the glowing reference the AFL gave its integrity person Clothier when it offloaded him to run the IAAF integrity unit - probably drew the IAAF attention to the Federal Court documents to demonstrate his suitability.
Of that there is no doubt Ivan, … it’s all about the ad’s and $$$.
Which is why it’s so fekking glorious and satisfying that it’s completely backfired and given them way less revenue than last year. Fk 'em. Maybe this will teach them to stop trying to manipulate things (it won’t).
It’s almost like the Footy Gods are smiting them for their screwing with the game for blatant profiteering purposes.
The afl doesn’t get less revenue, it’s seven who suffer. Where it affects them is in the next broadcast rights deal, particularly if as rumored seven makes a loss afl as it is
That’s who I mean in the main. They would have been the ones to initiate this, … but also the AFL got on board because, as Ivan said, . if they get more ad buy, they can then charge more for the rights next time around, … so it’s essentially both.
There’s that and people’s enjoyment / likelihood to go to/ watch the games which again is about $$$.
The problem is every coach has a plan to limit scoring of the opposition both with ball in hand and without.
They don’t care if it’s 5 goals vs 6 if they win the game
Thing is, I personally don’t mind the low scoring games this year, … well most of them anyway have been tight engrossing contests and ultimately winding up with an exciting finish. A few times It’s felt like I was watching a early 80’s old fashioned Windy Hill or Vic Park Mud wrestle, … but without the mud.
Low scoring creates greater tension around when there is a shot for goal or those one percenters that impact a game. It’s creates drama
Soccer isn’t the world’s most followed sport because it’s high scoring, it creates drama when there is scoring
This is a fair bake…
This article nails it. About time someone called the AFL out. I was coming in here to post it myself.
This tweet probably demonstrates why this type of article hasn’t come up sooner:
FARK THE AFL ADMINISTRATION
Clubs may be asked to bid for AFLX licences
Jake Niall May 14, 2019 — 9.07pm
The AFL is keen to continue with AFLX, and has raised the possibility of clubs bidding for licences to play in the modified form of the game.
In a meeting with clubs on Tuesday, AFL boss Gillon McLachlan also raised the prospect of clubs only participating in AFLX if they wished and thus limiting the numbers of teams for the short-form of football.
The bidding for licences could be along the lines of clubs bidding for AFLW teams, where there is a finite number of places and clubs would decide whether they wished to pursue it and make a bid or not.
McLachlan suggested that there were many options for the future of AFLX – which has been held in pre-season – and it had to be decided whether it was club-based or with the all-star concept that was used in February, and whether it was designed for international exposure.
Presenting at a meeting of club chief executives, McLachlan outlined these options for AFLX, with the overriding point being that the AFL wished to keep that low-contact, modified and short form of the game continuing in future.
AFLX has attracted a mixture of derision and support, with much of the media critiquing negative, but the players who participated this year generally positive, when the all-star team concept was used.
The AFL’s football chief Steve Hocking, meanwhile, told the meeting that he felt the game was improved by the nine rule changes, although Hocking acknowledged – in response to a question – that he had thought the rules would increase scoring, which has declined further thus far.
Hocking told the clubs he felt the game was more open and that it had a better feel.
He said there had been a marked increase in scoring in the first minute after a centre bounce, in what would be caused by the six-six-six rule this year.
The meeting of CEOs was also notable for the screening of a documentary on Adam Goodes and the booing that saw the champion sit down for a period in the 2015 season.
The clubs’ reaction to the documentary, The Final Quarter , was described as sober, in what was seen as an education for those who saw it.
One of the major talking points of the meeting was the soft cap for football department spending.
There was significant support for consolidating the soft caps of both men’s and women’s football in the AFL, though obviously this would mean a different cap for clubs that did not field AFLW teams.
The meeting also discussed the expansion of AFLW and women’s football.
Redevelopment plans for Marvel Stadium were also discussed.
You just know we’ll bid $2m and take the funding from the football department
Welcome to Essingxon - Your Experts in AFLX a made up game developed by really stupid people.
My goodness. I hope we just don’t bid at all and claim we lost the email…