• PRE should be functioning as per usual. Please email admin@puntroadend.com to report anything odd that is occuring over the next few days as we settle a few database issues.

How Malcom Blight plans to “fix” the AFL

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
19,504
404
Melbourne
i went to the Geelong game with 3 other mates and the topic of an extra premiership point if you kick 100 points came up. the consensus was a unanimous yes. But I personally think 100 points is too low. it should be kicking 20 goals.
 

Mac

Tiger Superstar
Sep 16, 2003
2,433
143
Last year Richmond scored over 100 points more that the Cats, and I still don't like the idea. I bet they would have voted differently then, when they were a defensive yawnfest of a team. What are your mates on? Blightwatch Koolaid? Such shortsightedness is what damages things that really didn't need fixing in the first place.

How does it work anyway? What happens if you lose by scoring over 100 points? Surely you wouldn't get a bonus point then?
Lose in west on a dry day 105 v 100 and get a point, but the next game is 99 v 34 on a wet day in Melbourne. The winner has thrashed the opposition and no extra point.
If it's just for the winners, then that's just as unfair. 143 v 138 and no extra point.

Absolutely pointless (excuse the pun) concept. The % allowance already takes scoring into account.

Talk of it also contradicts the AFL's already contradictory dialogue of "yeah, but scoring wasn't the only aspect of these new rules. It was all about the look of the game to the eye and we reckon our new rules make it look good despite the low scoring". So if all that is true, they can't then go back down the path of Higher Scores = Better Looking Game and not sound like complete idiots....oh, wait...


And...

Do we not like our game? My vote is for those who don't like it, go and watch another sport rather than trying to revolutionise this one all the damn time - that includes folks like Blight who have been around the game for years. If you don't like it anymore, go and do something else.

I've heard footy (afl) fans bemoaning soccer. "Ah, what the problem with soccer is ya see, is not enough scoring! What ya gotta do is get rid of the off side rule and blah blah blah..." No! Then it will be a different sport to the one that people have loved for years. If you don't like the lack of scoring in soccer....don't watch it! Because you know what? You're not the only person in the world and people with different opinions like that game and the way it's played and all the nuances of the rules that make that game unique. You don't remove the off side rule, remove the net, add behind posts, allow the players to touch the ball and allow for tackling....if that's the sort of game you'd prefer, I can think of one that looks just like it. If you DON'T like that kind of game....then stop tinkering with the rules of said game!!

Geez! the EGOS and ARROGANCE of all these people (current media and experts and ex players, etc) suggesting changes, and improvements, and additions, and what'ifs and....and....and Geez! Who the hell do these A-holes think they are that they should have the RIGHT to make their stinking mark on the game?? These people are NOT the game FFS! The need to get over themselves and stop wrecking it!
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
3,791
454
Mac said:
Last year Richmond scored over 100 points more that the Cats, and I still don't like the idea. I bet they would have voted differently then, when they were a defensive yawnfest of a team. What are your mates on? Blightwatch Koolaid? Such shortsightedness is what damages things that really didn't need fixing in the first place.

How does it work anyway? What happens if you lose by scoring over 100 points? Surely you wouldn't get a bonus point then?
Lose in west on a dry day 105 v 100 and get a point, but the next game is 99 v 34 on a wet day in Melbourne. The winner has thrashed the opposition and no extra point.
If it's just for the winners, then that's just as unfair. 143 v 138 and no extra point.

Absolutely pointless (excuse the pun) concept. The % allowance already takes scoring into account.

Talk of it also contradicts the AFL's already contradictory dialogue of "yeah, but scoring wasn't the only aspect of these new rules. It was all about the look of the game to the eye and we reckon our new rules make it look good despite the low scoring". So if all that is true, they can't then go back down the path of Higher Scores = Better Looking Game and not sound like complete idiots....oh, wait...


And...

Do we not like our game? My vote is for those who don't like it, go and watch another sport rather than trying to revolutionise this one all the damn time - that includes folks like Blight who have been around the game for years. If you don't like it anymore, go and do something else.

I've heard footy (afl) fans bemoaning soccer. "Ah, what the problem with soccer is ya see, is not enough scoring! What ya gotta do is get rid of the off side rule and blah blah blah..." No! Then it will be a different sport to the one that people have loved for years. If you don't like the lack of scoring in soccer....don't watch it! Because you know what? You're not the only person in the world and people with different opinions like that game and the way it's played and all the nuances of the rules that make that game unique. You don't remove the off side rule, remove the net, add behind posts, allow the players to touch the ball and allow for tackling....if that's the sort of game you'd prefer, I can think of one that looks just like it. If you DON'T like that kind of game....then stop tinkering with the rules of said game!!

Geez! the EGOS and ARROGANCE of all these people (current media and experts and ex players, etc) suggesting changes, and improvements, and additions, and what'ifs and....and....and Geez! Who the hell do these A-holes think they are that they should have the RIGHT to make their stinking mark on the game?? These people are NOT the game FFS! The need to get over themselves and stop wrecking it!
Nice Mac. One day they'll go too far.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Re: How Malcom Blight plans to “fix” the AFL

Ian4 said:
i went to the Geelong game with 3 other mates and the topic of an extra premiership point if you kick 100 points came up. the consensus was a unanimous yes. But I personally think 100 points is too low. it should be kicking 20 goals.
It makes sense on a standardised playing field. Unworkable with different dimensions and conditions, however.

Say you're in 9th place and four points behind Geelong before the last game, which is at Geelong. There's no way known they're not going to water the **** out of the ground so you don't knock them out of the finals by virtue of a bonus point.
 

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
18,430
632
Woooo! Massive Mac attack launched from behind the bleachers. Quality rant Mac, well done.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
Mac is so right, stop fiddling with our game.

I really hate the 6-6-6 rule because one of the fundamentals of Australian Rules Footy is that players do not have to play in any particular position, this remains a big distinguishing factor which makes our game special.

DS
 

Tony Braxton-Hicks

It's Tiger Time!
Aug 10, 2004
9,080
609
The Playboy Mansion
DavidSSS said:
I really hate the 6-6-6 rule because one of the fundamentals of Australian Rules Footy is that players do not have to play in any particular position, this remains a big distinguishing factor which makes our game special.
One of the fundamentals of Australian Rules Footy is that players can be all shapes and sizes. This remains a big distinguishing factor which makes our game special, but the current interchange rules bias the playing pool to athletes over fatties with better skills and decision-making capabilities.

Stop fiddling with their Mac 'n Cheese.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
35,003
1,558
Tony Braxton-Hicks said:
One of the fundamentals of Australian Rules Footy is that players can be all shapes and sizes. This remains a big distinguishing factor which makes our game special, but the current interchange rules bias the playing pool to athletes over fatties with better skills and decision-making capabilities.

Stop fiddling with their Mac 'n Cheese.
Whereas I think the increase in interchange over the years has helped ruin our game. When Malthouse hit 150 rotations in a game or something. Drastically reduce the interchange and the athlete won't help much in the quarter. When everyone is fatigued, a footballers brain will beat a tan record holder
 

Born_a_Tiger78

Tiger Cub
Jul 16, 2008
123
2
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
It makes sense on a standardised playing field. Unworkable with different dimensions and conditions, however.

Say you're in 11th place and four points behind Geelong before the last game, which is at Geelong. There's no way known they're not going to water the sh!t out of the ground so you don't knock them out of the finals by virtue of a bonus point.
Edited for pending administrative foolishness.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
Baloo said:
Whereas I think the increase in interchange over the years has helped ruin our game. When Malthouse hit 150 rotations in a game or something. Drastically reduce the interchange and the athlete won't help much in the quarter. When everyone is fatigued, a footballers brain will beat a tan record holder
This is so easy to fix - 3 on the bench.

DS
 

23.21.159

A Tiger in Denmark
Aug 9, 2003
5,033
189
Denmark
www.dafl.dk
I still don't know why they got rid of the sub rule.

As for the extra match point for getting to 100 win, lose or draw ... you just have to be careful when offering up varying amounts of match points for different games.
It leaves the comp wide open for collusion.
Just watch a couple of teams kick the ball around for a half letting each other get to about 70 and then playing for keeps in the second half ... particularly towards the end of the season.
I can't believe people who have been involved in high level professional sport all their lives can advocate such nonsense.
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
19,504
404
Melbourne
23.21.159 said:
I still don't know why they got rid of the sub rule.
agree. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

23.21.159 said:
I can't believe people who have been involved in high level professional sport all their lives can advocate such nonsense.
don't they give bonus points in Rugby if they score a certain amount of tries? they also have them in the sheffield shield as well.
 

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
5,978
432
Ian4 said:
agree. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

don't they give bonus points in Rugby if they score a certain amount of tries? they also have them in the sheffield shield as well.
I think Rugby its linked to tries scored but its relative to the margin.

"1 "bonus" point for winning while scoring at least 3 more tries than the opponent. 1 "bonus" point for losing by no more than 8 points "

Just linking it to total points cored is nonsensical. There may be an argument for linking it to margin but for mine its a dumb thing to bring in, but if they did it has to relate to margin and not just total score.
 

Mac

Tiger Superstar
Sep 16, 2003
2,433
143
Netball has a bonus point system.

https://nsw.netball.com.au/suncorp-super-netball/bonus-points-for-super-netball/

I wouldn't want to see this for the afl....but at least it's based on some form of logic. The work group that recommended it also used a range of data, fan feedback and a survey of players coaches and administrators. So that's good for netball and seems to have come from a well thought out process.

Also, netball has strict positions and rules that are weighted heavily in favour of attack. It's one of the few sports that is built on almost a purely attacking mindset first, then defense rather than the other way around. Take it in turns to score, if you miss you get left behind. Footy is quite different to that in that the start after each goal is based on winning the ball again and not taking turns.

This first to 100 points as mentioned above is nonsensical and just feels like an 'out of left field' brainstorm idea that isn't based on anything but gut feel from people that think scoring is the be all and end all of a sport. Doesn't seem to be much other thought or research put into it, but that's how the AFL is rolling at the moment.

Sport is about the competition. The score is a only meant to be measure of that. The score isn't supposed to be the driver of what the sport is all about.