AFL: a non-contact sport.

Post by **Earthfriend** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:35 am

I did a quick search and couldn't find this topic already discussed - if it has been, mea culpa.
Okay, so let me admit my bias straight up; I'm a Hawks fan.

But that only adds to my disappointment at the Tribunal's most recent attempt to turn Aussie Rules into a non-contact sport.

www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985 ... 42,00.html

Is it just me, or does everyone who saw Franklin's bump on Cousins think the same thing: that it was just a good, hard, fair hip-and-shoulder? (Actually I know it's not just me. Both Luke D'Arcy and Victorian Police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland think Buddy should have got off.) Yes, Lance made contact with Ben's head, but it was hardly intentional, and quite obviously a result of the height difference between the two players.

Don't mistake me, I'm all for protecting the man with his head over the ball. But lately it's being taken to ridiculous extremes by the AFL Tribunal. It is supposed to be a contact sport, after all. Rodney Grinter would be turning in his grave! (If he was dead, that is.)

Okay, rant over. Anyone else feel the need to vent?

Post by **StevieG** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:18 am

LOL! Actually I didn't see the 'bump', but I think AFL has changed dramatically over the last 5 years. It certainly ain't as tough in general!

It is much more professional, and the skill level has increased hugely. This has brought more gamesmanship into it - like playing for the free kick, making more of an injury than it really is etc. It's still a tough game, but much faster now, much more quick handballs, and more (that I've noticed) exaggerating a push in the back, holding without the ball etc. I personally think Geelong are some of the main offenders here - but I don't watch every game, so can't say for certain.

Post by **SleeplessOne** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:12 pm

Buddy would have got 1 week with an early plea; Hawthorn rolled the dice and he got 2.
Thought they were silly to appeal, they should be able to roll Essendon with or without Buddy to get into the finals, now they'll miss him for the first week of finals if they happen to make it.
Either way I'd be backing your team to win both games Earthfriend !

Post by **StevieG** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:14 pm

I reckon the Hawks will be a bit nervous - Essendon knocked over the Saints! (but then got trounced by Freo).

The game of the round could be Collingwood and Western Bulldogs... the doggies fresh from taking care of Geelong. But I think the pies will be too strong.

Post by **Earthfriend** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:47 pm

Maybe you're right SleeplessOne, and the Hawks should have just accepted the one match ban, but the point is he shouldn't have been reported in the first place! (I think they appealed because it looks like Roughhead will also miss this weeks game, ie; no big target up front.)

It's almost as if the AFL want to outlaw the hip and shoulder, but they don't dare do it for fear of the reaction, so little by little, they will just make the practical application of it so difficult that it will vanish from the game. For someone like me, who grew up on footy in the 70's, it's Wrong and Incredibly Sad. Why, back in my day, Buddy would have been given a medal....(okay, so maybe I am sounding a bit like an old fuddy-duddy here.)

And I agree with you StevieG that the game has got more professional - certainly the money involved has skyrocketed. Player conduct and training, the speed of the game, the level of fitness required to play it at the elite level; all these facets of the game have changed - and improved, for the most part.

The notable exception would be kicking (particularly for goal), imo. Too many full time, highly paid full forwards, miss kicks that my 7 year old could make. Hell, if Richo (for example) worked for me, he'd have been fired years ago for stuffing up too many no-brainers (and because he plays for Richmond).

But I digress (as is my wont). In news just to hand, it appears Hawthorn is going to appeal the tribunal's decision. Good on 'em, I say, but if they fail, does that mean Buddy will cop further punishment? And isn't there something inherently wrong with a system that punishes you for simply trying to defend yourself? Don't argue, accept your punishment and we'll let you off lightly; but dare to question the Almighty AFL and we'll slap you down, hard. The AFL has become far, far to precious.

Post by **StevieG** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:09 am

He he! Nice to see an AFL thread here!

The other area I just thought of that I don't like that much is the 'winding down the clock' side of things - short passes around the back line. Indirect play - back in 'the day', it was long bombs, and while I agree that this isn't the most effective way of getting goals, I think they've probably taken the short game too far, and aren't direct enough. A couple of years ago I couldn't watch a Sydney game because of the way they played - it was a nightmare to watch!

Post by **SleeplessOne** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:06 am

It's almost as if the AFL want to outlaw the hip and shoulder, but they don't dare do it for fear of the reaction, so little by little, they will just make the practical application of it so difficult that it will vanish from the game. For someone like me, who grew up on footy in the 70's, it's Wrong and Incredibly Sad. Why, back in my day, Buddy would have been given a medal....(okay, so maybe I am sounding a bit like an old fuddy-duddy here.)

yup, agree there Earthfriend, the game's not the same as the one I grew up with either, and I too lament this. Nonetheless seeing the Franklin/Cousins incident I immeadiately thought an offer of 1 week with an early plea was a good deal in today's ultra-sanitised version of the game. My whole family apart from myself follow Hawthorn, and they are seething that Buddy got rubbed out, but if it was one of my team's players I would have been happy for my club to take the 1 week and be ensured of the player being available for the finals.
Either way it was a gamble though : accept the decision and maybe the Hawks will lack the firepower to overcome Essendon; appeal the decision and maybe the Hawks will be without their key forward for both round 22 and a final should they defeat the Bombers.

In news just to hand, it appears Hawthorn is going to appeal the tribunal's decision. Good on 'em, I say, but if they fail, does that mean Buddy will cop further punishment?

good question, not sure of the answer, all I know is that it will cost Hawthorn $5000 to appeal, of which they will get $2,500 back if successful ..

Post by **Earthfriend** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:22 am

Yes, I just read today's Hearld, where that point, along with some of the things I raised in my above rantings, were addressed. (Seems Dermie agrees with me that the bump is on the way out. Demetriou denies that, of course; what else would he say?)

StevieG wrote:A couple of years ago I couldn't watch a Sydney game because of the way they played - it was a nightmare to watch!

It wasn't pretty, agreed, but it won them a premiership, didn't it? I remember Demetriou criticising the way Sydney played at the time, only to have to eat his words when they made the finals, then took the Cup. Still and all, it wasn't what I'd call 'good' footaball - certainly not entertaining to watch.

Okay, on a more positive note, tips for the Grand Final any one? The Bulldogs and the Pies have found great form at the right time, but can anyone really tip against the Cats? Surely they wouldn't let another premiership escape their claws? (Of course they would. And stop calling me Shirley.)

I'm going to tip the Cats, with StKilda to do as they have always done - almost reach the finish line and then choke.

Post by **StevieG** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:30 am

I'm not a fan of Demetriou.

It's a tough one this year. I think the Cats will rise to the occasion, but the Pies have their best chance this year (as long as the wobbles don't happen). The Saints looked awesome until the last 2 weeks.

Hmm, I didn't predict, did I! OK, here's my winner......

.... St Kilda, for the 2nd time in their history!!

Post by **SleeplessOne** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:31 am

Okay, on a more positive note, tips for the Grand Final any one? The Bulldogs and the Pies have found great form at the right time, but can anyone really tip against the Cats? Surely they wouldn't let another premiership escape their claws? (Of course they would. And stop calling me Shirley.)

Tricky one EF; obviously Collingwood and the Bulldogs are the form teams of the comp and StKilda have had an eye-opening season.
The Cats are in trouble, injuries, a lack of on-field cohesion and general exhaustion are setting in ..

The winner will come from the Pies, Saints and Bulldogs IMO.

Cats will have too many half-fit players in the line-up come finals time; Johnson, Chapman, Harley, Kelly (if he plays) and Ottens aren't match-fit, let alone ready for finals. The others that have been left to carry the load such as Ling, Corey, Enright, Bartel etc won't have much left in the tank after a long H&A season.

Adelaide should be thereabout too and should be aiming to win at least one final; I reckon they're alright ...

Dogs or Saints for mine in the big one - please no Pies !

Post by **Earthfriend** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:20 am

But if you had to pick, O SleeplessOne, who would it be? Dogs or Saints?

As for Adelaide, just to make the Grand Final from the bottom 8 would be an achievement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any team has won without finishing in the top 4 since the introduction of the 8.

You're right about the injury worries for the Cats of course, but I still think they will be the ones to beat.

And you are SO right about the Pies. Ye Gods, if ever there was a team one either loves or hates...and I don't love 'em.

Post by **SleeplessOne** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:43 am

As for Adelaide, just to make the Grand Final from the bottom 8 would be an achievement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any team has won without finishing in the top 4 since the introduction of the 8.

Adelaide did it from 5th in 1998 (and 4th in 1997) ...

But if you had to pick, O SleeplessOne, who would it be? Dogs or Saints?

ummmm ... Saints...

Post by **StevieG** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:11 am

So that's 2 Saints and 1 Cats. It will be interesting to see...

and I have to admit I'm a pies supporter, started going for them in 1980 - sorry!

GO THE MIGHTY PIES!!!!!!!!!

You're right - you either love em or hate em!

Post by **SleeplessOne** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:07 am

Buddy ban stands; 2 weeks.

Post by **Earthfriend** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:05 am

Bugger.

Oh, and StevieG! The horror, the horror! We were getting on so well, too...*sigh*

Post by **StevieG** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:17 am

Sorry Earthy, I was reluctant to admit it!!

At least you're not a Blues fan - then we'd be in trouble!

Post by **Earthfriend** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:04 am

LOL! You're not wrong - my dish pig is Carlton, and my first year is Collingwood. Oh, the fun we have!

Here's hoping Kennet doesn't convince the boys to go to the Supreme Court. I don't agree with the Tribunal's descion, but time to cop it on the chin and focus on tommorrow's game.

Post by **StevieG** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:24 am

That would be fun!! I've handed out a few 6 packs over the years, but thankfully this year have received more than I've handed out. Have one on the Doggies v Pies tomorrow...

I thought I heard that they're not going to go to the Supreme court. But maybe they haven't decided yet? Anyway, as you say, time to get on with it.

Post by **Earthfriend** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:30 am

Dogs v Pies is definitely the game of the round, for mine. Should be an absolute cracker! With so many crucial match-ups, it's got the makings of an arm-wrestle. I've tipped the Dogs, but it could go either way.

Post by **Earthfriend** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:41 am

Well, we competed well for half the game, anyway. Final score Essendon 116, Hawthorn 99.

Congrats Essendon, and good luck trying to keep Lloyd from being rubbed out, just like Buddy. (Oh, yeah, AFL Tribunal; lets see you rub out another key forward for making unintentional head contact. Idiots.)

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch