sue
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by sue
-
Insufficient intent - what an embarrassment -
Can't for copyright reasons of course. But mods, can I use an AI engine which produced this summary. Note all I did was ask it to summarise the articel at that URL. (compared to what facebook etc do stealing news copyright, this is nothing): The article from The Age discusses the impact of the AFL's rule changes introduced by former AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan, also known as "Hocking's Rule Changes", and argues that the league should reconsider or undo these changes. Here's a summary:The article cites statistics and data to support the claim that the rule changes have had a negative impact on the game. Specifically: 1. Increased congestion: The article notes that the rule changes have led to an increase in congestion in the middle of the ground, resulting in fewer clearances and more stoppages. 2. Decreased scoring: The data shows that the average score per game has decreased since the introduction of the rule changes, with teams scoring an average of 10.5 points less per game. 3. Increased injuries: The article suggests that the increased congestion and physicality of the game have led to an increase in injuries, particularly to the knees and shoulders. 4. Decreased pace: The statistics indicate that the game has become slower since the rule changes, with teams taking longer to transition from defense to offense. 5. Decreased fan engagement: The article suggests that the rule changes have led to decreased fan engagement, with attendances and TV ratings declining.The article argues that the rule changes were intended to improve the game by increasing scoring and reducing congestion, but the opposite has occurred. It suggests that the league should reconsider or undo the rule changes to improve the game and increase fan engagement.The article concludes by stating that the AFL should listen to the concerns of coaches, players, and fans and consider making changes to the game to improve its overall quality and entertainment value.
-
-
-
I reckon a lot of the media are doing precisely that.
-
Sometimes they AFL concedes the ump made a mistake. Not happened for us I suppose.
-
No it's still there. Try another browser perhaps
-
Some say making the umps real pros won’t change anything. Others say the rules need changing. if the umps are pros they might have some power to get the AFL to change the most difficult to judge rules.
-
Whatever you think of the standard and difficulty of umpiring, to deny the above is simply foolish. The umpires are amateurs in a professional multi-zillion $ sport. Too easily influnced by crowds and the latest direction from HQ (well, for a week or two anyway). At least make them real pros. Perhaps some supporters who imagine their teams are hard done by the umpires aren't as one-eyed/brainless as some 'more rational than thou' people are claiming. If big crowds influence umpires (which I think is undeniable, though not 100% of the time of course) then over time those paranoid supporters of smaller teams would have some confirmation of their suspicions.
-
-
25m penalty means nothing these days. Almost every mark or free leads to the voluntary giving up of 15-25m anyway and with the 'stand/5m' rule who knows where the mark is most of the time. Early in the season the players had started to learn how to behave - even the Geelong ones who are now back to their finest whinging. There was never any need for multiple penalities. If it had been enforced consistently all season, by now infingements would be as rare as hens' teeth. But expecting the AFL to be consistent? Good luck with that.
-
Someone at AFL HQ decided that allowing a bit of strong emotion is more valuable ($) than the pious hypocrisy they mouthed about stopping bad examples to kids and recruiting umpires. Seriously, what sort of code introduces a new 'rule', runs with it relentlessly for a few weeks, and then increasingly ignores it. But you watch them pull it out of their %%$# when it suits. And they call it a professional sport....
-
-
I think the AFL is crazy but surely it can't be that crazy? If you (blatantly) shove a player in the back and take the mark, that doesn't give you a free pass for the shove just because you took the mark. Why should head high contact via knee be a special case?
-
Contender: noun a person or group competing with others to achieve something: a presidential contender | the major contenders in the football championship. I'm basing my opinion on the dictionary. You can be a contender and not win. Now if you are interpreting it as a team which has a good chance of winning rather than just making up the numbers, my opinion is that losing by a combined total of a few points made us a "contender".
-
-
-
-
Another nnon-universal rule of the AFL. I am mystified by how far players can run when kicking-in after a behind. I'd assume they can't run more than 15m from the end of the goal square. Yet they often run much much further than that and it would be easy for the umps to judge given they have a 9m ruler nearby. Am I missing a rule?
-
-
-
-
A great letter and sums up what all of us feel. Good to see a player having the guts to say it. The only thing I disagree with is his remark about football acts and Maynard. But then, neither he nor (anonymous) I want to be sued for libel for saying something difficult to prove in court.
-
-
That is doubtless true, but how much less would that revenue be if there was no GWS or Suns? Surely if there are few members supporting those teams, there also aren't many in NSW/QLD watching those matches. So the extra profit to broadcasters must come from supporters of other teams being prepared to watch their own team play against almost anything. I guess that may be sufficient.
