Is the game currently in crisis?

[PaytonPlace]

It's interesting, I'm still emotionally all in on our boys, but have lost interest in attending or watching "neutral" games

I've lost interest in the game, and I have a lot of younger friends who simply aren't interested in football at all - they watch the NBA, and wouldn't cross the road to see the AFL.

Jeff Gieschens "explanation" of what is a push and KBs deliberate trolling this morning are symptomatic of the utter arrogance of the people who run the game. It is amazing to me the disrespect the fans are shown by the AFL (you are copying us, and I know, having grown up with Roger Goodell and David Stern back home...)

Think someone nailed it above - it's a corporation rather than a game now, but one day they are going to turn around and find everyone buggered off to do other things with their time...

[Life Long Saint]

Because they are different just as hands in the back for a mark is paid differently to hands in the back when just running for the ball.

But they are not different.
The player is deliberately trying to put the ball out of play.
Did he mean for it go OOB? No! So his intent wasn't to put the ball OOB. So the act is not deliberate.
No wonder fans get frustrated.

If he missed the behind than it is bad luck. They are different. You may not like it but that has been happening for years even before the free for a deliberate behind.

Yes, it has been but it now highlights how ridiculous the rules are.
Pay deliberate OOB or don't pay it. But pay it the same way as a deliberate behind (or vice versa).
Would simplify the process immensely.

[plugger66]

But they are not different.
The player is deliberately trying to put the ball out of play.
Did he mean for it go OOB? No! So his intent wasn't to put the ball OOB. So the act is not deliberate.
No wonder fans get frustrated.

If he missed the behind than it is bad luck. They are different. You may not like it but that has been happening for years even before the free for a deliberate behind.

Yes, it has been but it now highlights how ridiculous the rules are.
Pay deliberate OOB or don't pay it. But pay it the same way as a deliberate behind (or vice versa).
Would simplify the process immensely.

No that would cause a 300 page thread. I would have thought it is pretty simple. If you go for a point and missit is deliberate. It really isnt that hard to work out.

[sippo]

If he missed the behind than it is bad luck. They are different. You may not like it but that has been happening for years even before the free for a deliberate behind.[/quote]
Yes, it has been but it now highlights how ridiculous the rules are.
Pay deliberate OOB or don't pay it. But pay it the same way as a deliberate behind (or vice versa).
Would simplify the process immensely.[/quote]


No that would cause a 300 page thread. I would have thought it is pretty simple. If you go for a point and missit is deliberate. It really isnt that hard to work out.[/quote]


But it is hard to work out because the INTENTION (and thats what the umps consider) was to knock it through for a point, not out of bounds!!... ohh dear and what about if it takes a wierd bounce and hits the point post??

[plugger66]

If he missed the behind than it is bad luck. They are different. You may not like it but that has been happening for years even before the free for a deliberate behind.

Yes, it has been but it now highlights how ridiculous the rules are.
Pay deliberate OOB or don't pay it. But pay it the same way as a deliberate behind (or vice versa).
Would simplify the process immensely.[/quote]


No that would cause a 300 page thread. I would have thought it is pretty simple. If you go for a point and missit is deliberate. It really isnt that hard to work out.[/quote]


But it is hard to work out because the INTENTION (and thats what the umps consider) was to knock it through for a point, not out of bounds!!... ohh dear and what about if it takes a wierd bounce and hits the point post??[/quote]


Bad luck. Thats the risk they have been taking since deliberate was a rule. Nothing to do with the change in the rule for a deliberate point. I cant see the fuss. nearly the easiest rule in the AFL.

[Life Long Saint]

I would have thought it is pretty simple. If you go for a point and missit is deliberate. It really isnt that hard to work out.

But if you don't miss then it's OK unless you're under no pressure then it's not OK or if you're under pressure and your hand is knocked and the ball hits the behind post then it's deliberate again.

[plugger66]

I would have thought it is pretty simple. If you go for a point and missit is deliberate. It really isnt that hard to work out.

But if you don't miss then it's OK unless you're under no pressure then it's not OK or if you're under pressure and your hand is knocked and the ball hits the behind post then it's deliberate again.

Yep thats the risk. Just like trying to tackle properly and the guy you tackle propels forward. One of the simplest rules around.

[sippo]

]


]


But it is hard to work out because the INTENTION (and thats what the umps consider) was to knock it through for a point, not out of bounds!!... ohh dear and what about if it takes a wierd bounce and hits the point post??[/quote]


Bad luck. Thats the risk they have been taking since deliberate was a rule. Nothing to do with the change in the rule for a deliberate point. I cant see the fuss. nearly the easiest rule in the AFL.[/quote]

So we can therefore take "intention" out of the equation then??, as apparently its "bad luck". So he DELIBERATELY tries to hit it through for a point, but it bumbles the wrong side of the post...thats right is it?????.

[plugger66]

]


]


But it is hard to work out because the INTENTION (and thats what the umps consider) was to knock it through for a point, not out of bounds!!... ohh dear and what about if it takes a wierd bounce and hits the point post??

Bad luck. Thats the risk they have been taking since deliberate was a rule. Nothing to do with the change in the rule for a deliberate point. I cant see the fuss. nearly the easiest rule in the AFL.[/quote]

So we can therefore take "intention" out of the equation then??, as apparently its "bad luck". So he DELIBERATELY tries to hit it through for a point, but it bumbles the wrong side of the post...thats right is it?????.[/quote]


Yes and it has been the same for as long as we have had deliberate. One of the most basic rules in a game that has difficult rules.

[sippo]

One of the most basic rules in a game that has difficult rules.


...but if its open to interpretation how can it be a basic rule?? Its either a rule or not.

[plugger66]

One of the most basic rules in a game that has difficult rules.


...but if its open to interpretation how can it be a basic rule?? Its either a rule or not.

Its actually not open to any interpretation. If you try and knock it threw for a point and miss and it goes OOB its delberate. Its that simple.

[Zed]

I don't think the game is in crisis.

Saintsational is in crisis. Where have all the regular posters gone. It's borderline boring right now.

Think this is the quietest I have seen it during a season ever. Normally only this quiet in the off season.

[plugger66]

I don't think the game is in crisis.

Saintsational is in crisis. Where have all the regular posters gone. It's borderline boring right now.

Think this is the quietest I have seen it during a season ever. Normally only this quiet in the off season.

Think this may be a great myth that people think. 18 pages since round one this year. 10 pages for the same period last year.

[Zed]

I don't think the game is in crisis.

Saintsational is in crisis. Where have all the regular posters gone. It's borderline boring right now.

Think this is the quietest I have seen it during a season ever. Normally only this quiet in the off season.

Think this may be a great myth that people think. 18 pages since round one this year. 10 pages for the same period last year.

Well there you go. It Just seems like the last few weeks have been quieter or maybe we are spending more time discussing the same topics over and over.

[perfectionist]

We haven't won a flag in 46 years. How much of a crisis do you want?

[sippo]

One of the most basic rules in a game that has difficult rules.


...but if its open to interpretation how can it be a basic rule?? Its either a rule or not.

Its actually not open to any interpretation. If you try and knock it threw for a point and miss and it goes OOB its delberate. Its that simple.

BUT the umpire HAS to adjudicate, on the INTENT, thats the rule. Bit like if a bloke kicks the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the ump has to judge on what his INTENT was. What if the umpire "thinks" his intent was to go for a behind but it hit the point post...can he make a decision that its a throw in?

[plugger66]

One of the most basic rules in a game that has difficult rules.


...but if its open to interpretation how can it be a basic rule?? Its either a rule or not.

Its actually not open to any interpretation. If you try and knock it threw for a point and miss and it goes OOB its delberate. Its that simple.

BUT the umpire HAS to adjudicate, on the INTENT, thats the rule. Bit like if a bloke kicks the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the ump has to judge on what his INTENT was. What if the umpire "thinks" his intent was to go for a behind but it hit the point post...can he make a decision that its a throw in?

No not unless the umpire makes a mistake.

[saintspremiers]

We haven't won a flag in 46 years. How much of a crisis do you want?

Well as long as Murdoch is alive the whole world is in crisis eh perfectionist???!

[Dis Believer]

One of the most basic rules in a game that has difficult rules.


...but if its open to interpretation how can it be a basic rule?? Its either a rule or not.

Its actually not open to any interpretation. If you try and knock it threw for a point and miss and it goes OOB its delberate. Its that simple.

BUT the umpire HAS to adjudicate, on the INTENT, thats the rule. Bit like if a bloke kicks the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the ump has to judge on what his INTENT was. What if the umpire "thinks" his intent was to go for a behind but it hit the point post...can he make a decision that its a throw in?

bulls***. The rule is that it is deliberate. That doesn't require any interpretation of intent on the part of the umpire whatsoever. it's about the most clearcut thing left in the game (which means KB and his band of cohorts will probably change it soon). Can't believe I have to side with p66, on this.

And the OP answer is yes - the game is in crisis. We have a team playing with players that took known banned substances last year and the head of the competition is meeting their sponsors and publicly calling for other clubs not to spread rumours !! We have an umpires boss going on TV to explain degrees of extension of the arms to constitute a push in the back and the use of "bumper bars"!! Which is apparently all news to the guys playing and coaching in the competition !! And then we have the same fat dictator exborting that there WILL be further changes to the rules in a year from now, for no good reason that anyone can spell out, and despite calls from all the teams competing that they don't think interchange caps will be good for the players injury rates or the game as a spectacle!!

Our game is tribal, parochial and an inherent aprt of our community identities. An early part of the conversation between men (particularly) that meet for the first time is which football team each follows - it is part of our identitiy. That is what makes it the goose that lays the golden egg, people are born to it and support no matter what. That has had the unfortunate effect of allowing the current administration to treat the AFL as their personal fiefdom, as no matter what they have done, the game has continued to flourish in terms of what matters most to them - commercial KPI's and end of year bonuses.

But think of the game in terms of the rock formations along the Great Ocean Road (where BT reliably and regularly informs us that Jack Steven hails from). The ocean has been washing against those formations for hundreds of thousands years (originally creating them) and they have looked spectacular. Every time those waves wash against those formations, they remove tiny specs of the rock that makes them, They still all look great but they are also weakened, and every so often one collapses. If the constant action of rule change "tinkering" and commercial expediency taking precedence over good governance then the game will eventually collapse under the cumulative effect.
They made a motza when times were at an all time high economically and most people had money tto spare - under those circumstances anyone could make money (and did). Now times are tougher, people are having to chose where discretionary income goes, and the AFL is starting to feel the effect. If you disenfranchise grass roots supporters by making them feel it is no longer the game they grew up with and love, then the corporates and media will soon lose interest - they (and their money) are only there because of ratings and brand association. The whole thing is a house of cards built on a foundation of grass-roots support. The AFL would do well to remember the foundaion on which it is built, before it is to late.

[stevie]

Great pot TB.

Take a look at cricket as an example of disinterest in a sport.

Years ago I loved cricket. Would watch Test matches right though if possible. The one dayers were ok. But I can pimpoint when I started disliking cricket when Steve Waugh and his team were dominating. World cricket standards had tumbled - the West Indies was suffering as soccer and basketball became more alluring to youngsters over there. The sledging tactics by the Aussie became annoying and arrogant. I recall readig that a lot of older fans didn't like the way the game was headed.

It used to annoy me too that guys like Hayden and Langer were getting baggy greens because the standard of opposition was below par. It's even worse now! None of the current crop would have got a game in the 80's. Ponting for sure but he's gone.

20/20 is the bottom of the barrel as far as sport goes. Meaningless, vacuous. And I noticed last year that when the legit cricket - the Tests - were on, no one in the community around me even mentioned it. Only diehard fans would watching it. I haven't watched it n TV for years.

Anyway my two bobs worth. No doubt will stir up some silt lol

[plugger66]

Great pot TB.

Take a look at cricket as an example of disinterest in a sport.

Years ago I loved cricket. Would watch Test matches right though if possible. The one dayers were ok. But I can pimpoint when I started disliking cricket when Steve Waugh and his team were dominating. World cricket standards had tumbled - the West Indies was suffering as soccer and basketball became more alluring to youngsters over there. The sledging tactics by the Aussie became annoying and arrogant. I recall readig that a lot of older fans didn't like the way the game was headed.

It used to annoy me too that guys like Hayden and Langer were getting baggy greens because the standard of opposition was below par. It's even worse now! None of the current crop would have got a game in the 80's. Ponting for sure but he's gone.

20/20 is the bottom of the barrel as far as sport goes. Meaningless, vacuous. And I noticed last year that when the legit cricket - the Tests - were on, no one in the community around me even mentioned it. Only diehard fans would watching it. I haven't watched it n TV for years.

Anyway my two bobs worth. No doubt will stir up some silt lol

Completely off topic but how could you be annoyed that Hayden and Langer got baggy green caps. 2 of our greatest openers ever. Dont care what the oposition was like because we all say the past was better even if we didnt see them play.

By the way crowds this year suggest it isnt footy isnt in to much of a crisis considering we have 2 games a week hardly anyone attends. I know it isnt an excuse for our game but you have to laugh how the NRL have handled the drug situation. Well actually i dont think they have handled it at all. Things could be better in our game thats for sure but I reckon you could nearly say that every year.

[stevie]

Hayden failed in his first games because the opposition was still valid. When he got another game a few years later he as able to perform against weaker teams. Good luck to him, I know you can only play against whoever is on the other side but he was lucky to get another chance and lucky to be born in that era. Not just him, quite a few of his team mates. Anyway enough from me

[plugger66]

Hayden failed in his first games because the opposition was still valid. When he got another game a few years later he as able to perform against weaker teams. Good luck to him, I know you can only play against whoever is on the other side but he was lucky to get another chance and lucky to be born in that era. Not just him, quite a few of his team mates. Anyway enough from me

Totally disagree but lets talk footy.

[sunsaint]

Anyway my two bobs worth. No doubt will stir up some silt lol

has nothing to do with the people running both the afl or cricket
your decline in interest of both codes will EXACTLY match the success of the saints and the aussie cricket team

[BigMart]

I think your view on cricket is shortsighted.....

In Australia Cricket is in a performance lull ....... World wide it has never been more popular