It's official, Hocking and the AFL are dumb-arsed, half-baked clowns who are trying to stuff the game | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

It's official, Hocking and the AFL are dumb-arsed, half-baked clowns who are trying to stuff the game

OldTiger1967

Tiger Rookie
Jun 3, 2017
230
200
Rule changes are a necessary evil.

The over reliance on defensive game plans has stifled the game. Remember our game against the Swans this year - an appalling spectacle. And how many of us complained about the Swans tactics that day?

Teams that have little chance of winning clog up the game and turn it into a mobile wrestling rugby type of football.

The sad part of these new rules is I have doubts as to how they will alleviate this game clogging tactic.

The only way IMO is to bring back the requirement of true stamina. A stamina to last the distance of a traditional 25 minute plus time on quarter. The player fatigue in the last 7 to 10 minutes of each quarter would open up the game as the scraggers and field clogging tactics would come unstuck as defensive players dropped off their opponents.

But to bring back the longer traditional quarters of 25 minutes plus time on would require two events to happen -

1. Those TV Stations that televise our game would have to allocate 150 minutes per game in their Scheduling - highly unlikely (add another 30 minutes for advertisements and you got 3 hours taken out of their schedule)

2. The AFL HQ executives would have to admit they were wrong when they reduced the quarters from 25 minutes to 20 minutes (plus time on)

Which means it will never happen.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
19,548
2,341
I'm not one for rule changes, but Sheedy's 12 proposed changes make a hell of a lot more sense than that garbage Hocking keeps spewing up year after year...

Not a complete idiot all the time the old Sheeds.
Probably don't need that many rule changes all at once, reckon the maggots, players and coaches would all be confused. Fans would just keep yelling BAAAAALLLLLLLL as we're the only ones who really know what's going on.

Maybe SHocking should go sit in the corners with the old dunce's cap on until he clears out the brain farts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Tenacious

Tiger Champion
May 19, 2008
4,196
1,265
Reckon I’d check out if they went to 16 side too. Not the game I played.

The AFL game of today is obviously not the game you played - and not the game most people will have played.
Its not even the same game as was played in the AFL - be it 5 or 10 or 20 years ago.
Now that ain’t a problem for those preferring to watch a close congested defensive and low scoring style of footy.
Winning a few flags and lots of games can gloss over the “look” of the footy being played.
Like many I‘ve been going to games for decades and won’t stop now - but the reality for me is that the actual game itself is not the spectacle it was.
Happy to take flags over style any day but wouldn’t mind both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

waiting

Tiger Legend
Apr 15, 2007
9,699
4,189
melbourne, victoria
I may be biased due to us winning 3 cups in 4 years, but really, what is "wrong with the game"? Serious question.

So many commentators have praised Richmond's game style and talk about how good to watch we are.

I understand that few teams play like us (a couple have or are trying), but really, what is wrong with the game?
Is the game too slow? (Not from my perspective)
Are there more stoppages than ever?
Is scoring worse than ever or trending down?
Are higher scores the goal?

What are they trying to achieve?
Richmond is the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

waiting

Tiger Legend
Apr 15, 2007
9,699
4,189
melbourne, victoria
Rampant high scoring games like in the seventies, eighties or nineties where absolute floggings of crap teams was de rigueur. Without the elbows or smacks to the head of the good old days of course.
Pretty sure Sydaknee scored over 200 points a game for three games in a row way back when they were still known as Souf Smelbourne / Sydaknee to fans n played as the Broadcast game every Sunday.

There was stuff all in the way of defensive tactics n when a side brought the can opener out during games things got ugly and boring in a big hurry. At least with a defensive game crap sides can often still be within three or four goals for most of a game n a lucky bounce or streaky kick will keep the game on an edge right till the end.
The Hafey era when he had ‘tight pants Capper.. they were a high scoring team for a while.
 

momentai

Tiger Champion
Jul 24, 2004
3,583
224
Melb
There was some concern early on that the proposed rule changes would hurt the Tigers, and favour Geelong.
Now as we are only waiting on the length of quarter decision, it seems like the changes will help.
22 home and away games, fewer rotations and probably a return to 20 minute + quarters, all tick.
And the man on the mark changes appear to be made to order for quick, restless, adventure seekers.
We will smash the Geelong defence and by seasons end they will be wandering around deep in thought like our friends at Adelaide and GWS.
 
Last edited:

Long Lost Hernaman

Tiger Rookie
Oct 19, 2007
402
82
I'm in the camp that says leave the game alone. Trends in the game and style of play come and go.

I dont think the AFL understands that people love the game and love their clubs but at best are ambivalent about the AFL itself, and many see it for the bloated self congratulatory organisation it is.

Instead of rule tinkering and so many of the other things the AFL does to justify its own existence and bonuses for its executives, I'd rather it focus its attention on the footy heartland, which in my eyes it has perenially ignored: participation rates and the health of country and junior footy and footy clubs in the traditional states.

I want the AFL clubs to stand up. The clubs are the primary stakeholders and have the power to shape the commission, yet for the main part they cop whatever is handed out by the AFL because of the culture of fear and loathing - City Hall is a petty, vindictive beast.

Rant over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

frickenel

Tiger Superstar
Jul 30, 2003
2,252
787
Chirnside Park
www.planetecho.com.au
If you go back and watch games from the 70's and 80's, it's nothing to see a player 10m from the contest standing with his hands on his hips just watching, possibly from fatigue but also possibly because now the intensity and scrutiny of intensity is far greater.

The reality is that Richmond do play an exciting brand of footy. This year we had to contend with teams parking themselves inside our forward 50 hoping to springboard out into their open forward line. That made a lot of our games hard to watch. We keep a spare back, but we don't park the team back.

The AFL has to get it out of their mind that we are going to see each team kick 20 goals in a game. Players now cover way more ground thyan they used to. If you limited interchange to 10, which is probalby about the number you had in a game right up to the late 90's you still will not get high scores, because players are o much fitter now.

Think back to our side in 1995. We used Stuart Maxfield as a second half shock weapon. He pretty much didnt get onto the ground in the first half in a lot of games. Imagine using your interchange like that today!

If they wantto de-congest the game, maybe they should take out the first 4 rows of seats at the MCG and expand the ground. Take out 15 rows at the SCG, and bulldoze the stands on the wings of Kardinia Park and move the boundary line 40m back where it's supposed to be. Maybe that will help.

Maybe the solution is to give prime time viewing to the teams that actually score. If you want to coach like Ross Lyon, then you don't get seen on TV and don't get any sponsors. The Pies get prime time no matter how putrid their game plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jonesracing82

Tiger Champion
Sep 30, 2011
3,114
960
Rule changes are a necessary evil.

The over reliance on defensive game plans has stifled the game. Remember our game against the Swans this year - an appalling spectacle. And how many of us complained about the Swans tactics that day?

Teams that have little chance of winning clog up the game and turn it into a mobile wrestling rugby type of football.

The sad part of these new rules is I have doubts as to how they will alleviate this game clogging tactic.

The only way IMO is to bring back the requirement of true stamina. A stamina to last the distance of a traditional 25 minute plus time on quarter. The player fatigue in the last 7 to 10 minutes of each quarter would open up the game as the scraggers and field clogging tactics would come unstuck as defensive players dropped off their opponents.

But to bring back the longer traditional quarters of 25 minutes plus time on would require two events to happen -

1. Those TV Stations that televise our game would have to allocate 150 minutes per game in their Scheduling - highly unlikely (add another 30 minutes for advertisements and you got 3 hours taken out of their schedule)

2. The AFL HQ executives would have to admit they were wrong when they reduced the quarters from 25 minutes to 20 minutes (plus time on)

Which means it will never happen.....
#1 isn't even an adjustment that is needed, pre/post game the hosts on ch7's coverage obsess over the sound of thier own voices, even cutting press conferences short to talk among themselves on camera. the coverage itself goes for long enough for 25mins + time on games as it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
3,976
4,429
Melbourne
Like many I‘ve been going to games for decades and won’t stop now - but the reality for me is that the actual game itself is not the spectacle it was.

I'd have to take issue with this. Yes, some games were a spectacle back then. But, just as we complain about the Richmond v Sydney game this year, remember back to games where 2 lowly teams played on some quagmire at a suburban ground back then? Thing is, there were no TV cameras at those games as only a couple of games were replayed in the evening, so we can never compare - even if they were filmed, the film has been long thrown away. They might have kicked a few more goals back then but some of the games were woeful, just as they are now.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Tenacious

Tiger Champion
May 19, 2008
4,196
1,265
I'd have to take issue with this. Yes, some games were a spectacle back then. But, just as we complain about the Richmond v Sydney game this year, remember back to games where 2 lowly teams played on some quagmire at a suburban ground back then? Thing is, there were no TV cameras at those games as only a couple of games were replayed in the evening, so we can never compare - even if they were filmed, the film has been long thrown away. They might have kicked a few more goals back then but some of the games were woeful, just as they are now.

DS

Just to be clear DS - in my earlier post I was comparing the “close congested defensive and low scoring style of footy” of today’s game to the style of early eras. I was making a general point about the spectacle of the general style of play - not that individual games at any time may or may not have been spectacular/woeful to watch.

FWIW I prefer a more open free flowing style over that with 30+ players and the ball confined to one small section of the ground - but each to their own.
My main preference though is more flags.
 

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
8,407
4,229
I don't have the stats, but it would be interesting to see the stats per year of average score per team, but then average score per team once you remove wins of over say 50 points. Thrashings are not interesting to watch, just ask neutrals which of the last 2 GF's they preferred and found more engaging, our 90 point thrashing of GWS or the much closer one against Geelong. Similar with the West Coast / Collingwood final. I'll bet no neutral picks the 2019 GF.

The public will always want close games over thrashings so if (and I'm not saying they were) but average scores were impacted by more thrashings, then we should exclude them from the data. That isn't the footy we want either.
 

fastin bulbous

I Dig Syd
Mar 30, 2010
2,564
1,169
Darwin
There is no dedicated thread so I’ll say it here - I’m a bit revolted that the AFLPA have allowed a reduction in 1st year player’s wages. It stinks of selfishness. A sliding scale of wage reductions would be much more logical and workable. The big heads on 800 and above all take a big hit. 300 - 800 take a medium hit. 100 - 300 take a small hit. Rookies and first year players are left to be able to support themselves and their families with no hit. What are the aflpa there for if not to ensure the small guy gets looked after?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users

zippadeee

Tiger Legend
Oct 8, 2004
33,487
8,462
I don't care, as long we continue to slap the opposition, no rules they have introduced have bent us over just yet....