17 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Keep in mind attendance numbers at NRL are laughable compared to AFL

League is essentially a TV game now.

But that has always been the case

New information here bub

I'll ask you as well ... do you know people that have dropped off watching the game?  Wall-to-wall down to 'selected' games does matter.

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

But that has always been the case

New information here bub

I'll ask you as well ... do you know people that have dropped off watching the game?  Wall-to-wall down to 'selected' games does matter.

yes, the drop off is quite large, macca

one definite reason would be the reduction of games broadcast on fta (large shift percentage wise)

another reason would be the terrible selection of teams/timeslot for fta. the carlton debacle turned many away

beyond that i could only guess

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 10:35 AM, daisycutter said:

like gil's comment "we will not be influenced by broadcasters".........yeah right

How very cynical of you dc!!

Off course Gil's foremost concern would be for the fans and the good of the game.

17 minutes ago, Macca said:

But that has always been the case

New information here bub

I'll ask you as well ... do you know people that have dropped off watching the game?  Wall-to-wall down to 'selected' games does matter.

Most I know only watch their own team. Still do 

Who wants to watch crap games like Carlton etc ?

Tv numbers can be rubbery. Without absolute context ....

Personally I often turn the Friday night game off at half time.

Rarely watch the Sunday afternoon game.

Like the Thursday and Saturday night games. Will quite often turn the sound down as I find the commentary grating....especially Bruce

On 3/5/2019 at 11:04 AM, ManDee said:

The beauty of football is the football. We do not need fireworks or half time entertainment. We need more football. The best sporting event I have been to was watching the under 19's the reserves and the 1st's  play footy, what a day! No fireworks, no imported Americanisation, no meatloaf other than my mums sandwiches and don't forget the McLelland Trophy.

Excellent summary.

Gil says last year was the best day in sport he's seen.

Apart from the game, that was because someone finally booked a fabulous pre-game performer - Jimmy Barnes,

 

and the National Anthem was the best ever, sung without backing music by the beautiful voice of Mahalia Barnes.

That is the gold standard fro future GF's.

use these 2 each year from now on. It will become a tradition quickly

21 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yes, the drop off is quite large, macca

one definite reason would be the reduction of games broadcast on fta (large shift percentage wise)

another reason would be the terrible selection of teams/timeslot for fta. the carlton debacle turned many away

beyond that i could only guess

Ah ...context

Btw...let's not confuse h/a viewing with the GF.

There maybe a temptation by some to develop a strawman argument where h)a droppoff supports a switch in GF time.

That would be complete [censored].

20 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yes, the drop off is quite large, macca

one definite reason would be the reduction of games broadcast on fta (large shift percentage wise)

another reason would be the terrible selection of teams/timeslot for fta. the carlton debacle turned many away

beyond that i could only guess

All sound reasoning dc

The feedback I get (and I talk to a stack of people about footy) is that many say that they hate congested footy.

And the AFL hasn't brought in all these new rules for the sake of it either ... they know that they've got a viewership problem and they are trying to fix it

And they've got my support because when I watch neutral games I only watch those games for the aesthetic qualitities.  Scramble ball/congested footy is ugly to my eyes.

For the myriad of keen watchers there is no issue.  But the keen ones aren't the problem ... most here (on this site) I'd describe as keen.

Night GF is related as the broadcasters need to bring in greater revenues. May or may not happen.

51 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Most I know only watch their own team. Still do 

Who wants to watch crap games like Carlton etc ?

Tv numbers can be rubbery. Without absolute context ....

So you don't know anyone who watches neutral games?  Do they like the sport at all?

Doesn't seem like they do

TV footy needs neutral supporters by the way ... without neutral support,  it won't rate.

Edited March 6, 20196 yr by Macca

1 hour ago, Macca said:

So you don't know anyone who watches neutral games?  Do they like the sport at all?

Doesn't seem like they do

TV footy needs neutral supporters by the way ... without neutral support,  it won't rate.

I myself night watch a game that's supposedly neutral as you say. Very few.

You have a problem with that ? really ??

If so... it's all yours...

The biggest influence on watching tv...is the bleeding obvious...access.

Since going (in the main ) to pay for view, slot of punters/ average folk vote with their limited wallets.

It's just footy.

6 hours ago, hemingway said:

............................

Here's an idea.

If the AFL wanted to show that public opinion matters to their deliberations, why not take a poll of the membership of all AFL clubs, the poll commissioned by the AFL but run by an independent body that could verify the process and the accuracy of the result. 

Of course Ernest, but we all know it will never happen, because:

a)  it makes too much sense for the AFL to cope with;

b)  the polls would tell them that club members would vote overwhelmingly for the status quo, and they couldn't cope with that either;

c)  'democracy' (or anything approaching it), is not a word in the AFL lexicon.

I always watch the D's no matter what the standard (just complain later). I'll watch any other game if it is a good flowing exciting match.

I think a lot of people turned off the game when keeping off-football was the rage. In its infancy that was often slow, boring, bruise free football - and for good reason people turned away. 

Then congestion football tended to thwart the keepings-off style and many more fans were lost.

In more recent times teams like Richmond (spit!) initiated a style of game that was exciting to watch - and others, including the D's, have produced their own versions that have made watching footy so much more enjoyable. 

Like most things in nature, natural selection generally works out in the end - it just takes a bit of time. In the case of football,  it is also the  desire and quality of the coaches to produce a winning formula that has the satisfaction of the viewing public - who essentially pay at least part of their salaries (us!) - as a prime factor in their plans. 

Imagine a film director making a film that didn't consider the viewing audience. He wouldn't be allowed to make another.

Perhaps if we had more intelligent coaches, we wouldn't need the Gils of our world interfering with our game so much.  

The AFL TV fixture is a lop sided disgrace these days favouring the clubs with the most supporters.
They forked up by gifting Carlton prime time games the last couple years for a start.
Hope Essendon who got the gift this year after a mediocre season last year prove to be a similar flop.
Other than that the congested nature of the game these days is garbage to the eye.
I'll sit through ours but I never bother sitting through anyone elses anymore.

3 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

I think a lot of people turned off the game when keeping off-football was the rage. In its infancy that was often slow, boring, bruise free football - and for good reason people turned away. 

Then congestion football tended to thwart the keepings-off style and many more fans were lost.

 

3 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

Like most things in nature, natural selection generally works out in the end - it just takes a bit of time.

... and a TV remote control.

............................

And I guess... once play-station games came along, live was live.

14 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

I always watch the D's no matter what the standard (just complain later). I'll watch any other game if it is a good flowing exciting match.

I think a lot of people turned off the game when keeping off-football was the rage. In its infancy that was often slow, boring, bruise free football - and for good reason people turned away. 

Then congestion football tended to thwart the keepings-off style and many more fans were lost.

In more recent times teams like Richmond (spit!) initiated a style of game that was exciting to watch - and others, including the D's, have produced their own versions that have made watching footy so much more enjoyable. 

Like most things in nature, natural selection generally works out in the end - it just takes a bit of time. In the case of football,  it is also the  desire and quality of the coaches to produce a winning formula that has the satisfaction of the viewing public - who essentially pay at least part of their salaries (us!) - as a prime factor in their plans. 

Imagine a film director making a film that didn't consider the viewing audience. He wouldn't be allowed to make another.

Perhaps if we had more intelligent coaches, we wouldn't need the Gils of our world interfering with our game so much.  

If a coach wants to be paid, he needs to have his team win. He doesn't get paid to make the game look pretty. That's why we need the "Gils of this world" because someone who doesn't get rewarded solely for winning can look after the aesthetics of the game.

We don't yet know whether the new rules will work, but I take comfort that for the first time I can remember, the AFL has approached the rule changes strategically, rather than making piece-meal changes.  

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If a coach wants to be paid, he needs to have his team win. He doesn't get paid to make the game look pretty. That's why we need the "Gils of this world" because someone who doesn't get rewarded solely for winning can look after the aesthetics of the game.

We don't yet know whether the new rules will work, but I take comfort that for the first time I can remember, the AFL has approached the rule changes strategically, rather than making piece-meal changes.  

The AFL are late to the party though ... if they were ahead of the game then this conversation doesn't even exist.

The explosion of rotations led to where we are now but the new rule changes does address the issue from a different direction

Reminds me of the introduction of the diamond in the early 70's to counteract the congestion we saw in the late 60's

The VFA went to 16 a side in the early 50's for the same reason.

11 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

The AFL TV fixture is a lop sided disgrace these days favouring the clubs with the most supporters.
They forked up by gifting Carlton prime time games the last couple years for a start.
Hope Essendon who got the gift this year after a mediocre season last year prove to be a similar flop.
Other than that the congested nature of the game these days is garbage to the eye.
I'll sit through ours but I never bother sitting through anyone elses anymore.

Refreshingly honest FE ... should be more of it.

Others are saying that there is nothing wrong with footy but are also saying that they only watch their own team play.  Their acquaintances the same.

Which of course makes no sense

Tough love can work but and the soft approach is often doomed to fail ... sitting on ones hands achieves nothing

The good news is that the new rules are a good first step to fixing the sport

Leigh Matthews can see no downside to 6-6-6 and he should know

Edited March 6, 20196 yr by Macca

57 minutes ago, Macca said:

The AFL are late to the party though ... if they were ahead of the game then this conversation doesn't even exist.

The explosion of rotations led to where we are now but the new rule changes does address the issue from a different direction

Reminds me of the introduction of the diamond in the early 70's to counteract the congestion we saw in the late 60's

The VFA went to 16 a side in the early 50's for the same reason.

Sort of. But if the AFL made rule changes before the problem was visible, supporters would complain about the AFL making unnecessary rule changes. Even if we were to say that the AFL sat on their hands too long before making changes, there would be others who believe the game should be have been given more time to "fix itself" without interference. 

47 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Sort of. But if the AFL made rule changes before the problem was visible, supporters would complain about the AFL making unnecessary rule changes. Even if we were to say that the AFL sat on their hands too long before making changes, there would be others who believe the game should be have been given more time to "fix itself" without interference. 

The rotation numbers should have been capped 20 years ago ... and those in charge are supposed to be ahead of the game.  That is their job.

In Soccer and Union there are no rotations and in League it is 8 maybe 10 per team (for the entire game)  Footy went to 160+ per team.   Custodians failed.

And I am not late to the party either ... been saying the same thing for years now.  Finally,  something is being done about it.

Edited March 7, 20196 yr by Macca

On 3/5/2019 at 11:28 AM, Little Goffy said:

The ultimate plan - a night grand final, played in Sydney, so that people are leaving the stadium as the lock-out laws come into effect.

Flippant yes, but also does kind of bring up one of the problems with a night grand final. No families get to be part of the after-game celebrations, which would start at 11pm.

This very thing has been on radio in the last few days as the downside of the NRL night grand final.

Kids can't go as it finishes so late (and it's a "school night" in NSW).

Country folk can't go as they face a long drive into the wee hours or face staying overnight = more $$$

Your average die-hard supporter/family numbers are reduced and it becomes a corporate-only event.

They've got extra transport challenges in Sydney but the writing is on the wall. A night grand final is another middle finger to the people who made the game the attractive TV proposition that it is.

9 hours ago, Macca said:

The rotation numbers should have been capped 20 years ago ... and those in charge are supposed to be ahead of the game.  That is their job.

In Soccer and Union there are no rotations and in League it is 8 maybe 10 per team (for the entire game)  Footy went to 160+ per team.   Custodians failed.

And I am not late to the party either ... been saying the same thing for years now.  Finally,  something is being done about it.

Did I miss something about a further reduction in rotations, hidden in the mindless plethora of rule changes?

23 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Did I miss something about a further reduction in rotations, hidden in the mindless plethora of rule changes?

Not sure ... think it might still be 90 per team MC.  I still don't know why teams can't make do with about 20.

Might be a OHAS issue now or at least the threat of.  The interchange is now primarily used to rest players and that was never what it was designed for.

13 hours ago, monoccular said:

Did I miss something about a further reduction in rotations, hidden in the mindless plethora of rule changes?

I don't think there's been a "mindless plethora of rule changes", but I agree there's been a mindless plethora of discussion about the potential impact of rule changes. Not on Demonland, of course.

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree there's been a mindless plethora of discussion about the potential impact of rule changes. Not on Demonland, of course.

Only intelligent, informed, learned, respectful discussion on DLand.