An Ode to Ugly Footy

[giant]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/we-all-suffer-when-misguided-prophets-play-god/2005/11/28/1133026405677.html

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet by our perennial media watchers but I think it's another excellent article from Richard Hinds so I thought I'd do the honours (when he goes easy on the sarcasm Hinds is comfortably the best AFL journo in Sydney (I know, damned with faint praise) but also one of the better commentary guys anywhere).

I think he makes an excellent point here. Personally, this year, I loved the Melbourne/Freo shoot-out (24 goals to 22 or some such) - two skilful sides going for it & playing aggressive offensive footy.

But just as much I loved the Crows/Swans game at Footy park (except the result) coz it was two tuff desperate sides playing accountable footy where every kick & handball (let alone goal) was earnt the hard way.

Hinds' point is that we shouldn't have to two choose between these two styles - footy should be big enough to accomodate both of them. The AFL with these new rules seems to have made a kneejerk reaction to a side winning the flag that myth would have it plays only one of these styles. As a result, we could be watching a very different style of game next year & one that may not necessarily represent what all of us thinks of when think "footy".

In isolation most of the rules seem not inappropriate - the Lloyd rule seems acceptable altho I've know idea whether 30 secs is the right time; happy to see them be tuffer on delib OOB & holding at stoppages; etc - but it's the combination that could greatly change the way the game is played.

Let me say I won't be crying if I see less boundary throw-ins and less bounce-downs at Swans' games - the endless stoppages can be painful even if you love the boys. But what I don't want to see is the basketball style game that Hinds describes.

What do we think? Are we being too protective of our beloved Swans and their "ugly" football? Or is ok to love tough hard footy slogs just as much as the shoot-outs?

[NMWBloods]

"Witness basketball, where the ball goes from hoop to hoop with such ease that only the most spectacular score breaks the monotony."

I hate it when people who know nothing about basketball attempt to make informed comments on it...

"One aspect that set this year's grand final apart was the premium on every goal."

This seemed rather a weak attempt to explain something that wasn't there. The GF this year was exciting because we won it and because it was close. Wasn't exactly a great demonstration of AFL skills though.

"At the same time, the self-sacrificial acts that stopped opposition thrusts, players hurling themselves recklessly at opponents or into packs, were far more memorable than the cheap scoring in lesser contests. Remove the packs and you also remove these acts of heroism."

In the past we were able to get both "acts of heroism" and goals. They don't need to be mutually exclusive. Just because a team scores 15 goals doesn't make the goals cheap or easy - might simply mean the players and team are skilled at converting.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
In the past we were able to get both "acts of heroism" and goals. They don't need to be mutually exclusive. Just because a team scores 15 goals doesn't make the goals cheap or easy - might simply mean the players and team are skilled at converting.

I think the point he was making is that increased umpiring wont improve the scoreline.

I tend to agree.

[goswannie14]

I think the main problem is that Demetriou wants to control everything. He has to realise that the AFL is bigger than him, and that it is not all about him, but about the clubs and the players. We will continue to see these sorts of changes etc whilst this guy is in control, but no further expansion of the "rest of Australia" part of the league that, (even as a Victorian, I have to admit) is Victorian centric.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
I think the point he was making is that increased umpiring wont improve the scoreline.

I tend to agree.

None of the three rule changes are really increased umpiring and I don't see how they will be negative.

* Kick-in after a behind can be taken immediately, before goal umpire waves flag.
* Mark or free kick in the goal square to be taken directly in front of goal.
* Time immediately stopped when umpire crosses his arms for a bounce and resumed when ball is bounced.

Also, what's the problem with these rules?

* Stricter interpretation on players kicking the ball deliberately out of bounds.

* Crackdown on players scragging opponents going for the ball.

* Fifty-metre penalty to be awarded more quickly.

* Ball to be thrown in from the boundary more quickly.

* Stricter policing of holding or blocking in marking contests.

* Reduced tolerance on holding players up after mark or free kick (punished by 50-metre penalty).

[Legs Akimbo]

Good call Giant,

I don't know of other sports that change their rules like underwear (once a year, whether needed or not). Personally, I find the sort of game that Demetriou promotes to be lifeless and sterile. The Dockers are the leading proponents of this style.

The successive rule changes since the Fat Controller has come on board the AFL express serve to remove the man-on-man contests from the game and increase umpire involvement. Is the much cited increase in the number of ball-ups over the last 10 years a result of the evolution of team playing styles or increased intervention from umpires? Having watched a few games from the eighties recently, I think the latter. I think they used to let it go longer in the packs which gave players more time and incentive to get the ball out. Now, in their haste to get the ball moving, the umpires tend to react and intervene to make a ball up or award a free kick for some minor and unintended and infringement. Have the number of frees awarded increased?

So the reaction from the AFL is to further increase the level of umpire involvement and petty free kicks -which is what a lot of people really don't like about AFL.

I have all of Sydney's final campaign on tape and I haev watched the Geelong, St Kilda games and GF quite a few times. The one that stands out as the best game - is the final against Geelong. In the last quarter, with only minutes to go, Ablett knocks the ball from the HF boundary line towards the forward pocket. Baz then slippers it away from the boundary towards the goal where a massive pack of players fights for what seems like minutes to take clean possession. Commentator Hutchinson gasps, "Sydney need a hero". As the enthralling contest plays out across the goal face to the penultimate bouncedown, Malcolm Blight, up to now a critic of our team, simple says

'How good was that.'

Well,you can kiss this all good-bye because there were at least 4-5 'free-kicks' that would have been awarded under this new 'regime'.

Andrew Demetriou, stop @@@@ing up our game!

[Lucky Knickers]

I'm assuming the rule changes were tested in the pre-season this year. Is this correct? I was overseas so am curious as to whether they worked any noticeable difference on the game.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
The successive rule changes since the Fat Controller has come on board the AFL express serve to remove the man-on-man contests from the game and increase umpire involvement. Is the much cited increase in the number of ball-ups over the last 10 years a result of the evolution of team playing styles or increased intervention from umpires? Having watched a few games from the eighties recently, I think the latter. I think they used to let it go longer in the packs which gave players more time and incentive to get the ball out. Now, in their haste to get the ball moving, the umpires tend to react and intervene to make a ball up or award a free kick for some minor and unintended and infringement.

I tend to agree with this to some extent. The fiddling by the AFL with the rules over the past decade have contributed to the reduction of the game as an interesting spectacle (as well as changes in playing style). Still, given where it is, I think some further changes in rules and interpretations are necessary.

For people who don't think the rules should be changed, should we also go back to a free kick for all out of bounds, flick passes, 19 men and no interchange, etc etc?

I have all of Sydney's final campaign on tape and I haev watched the Geelong, St Kilda games and GF quite a few times. The one that stands out as the best game - is the final against Geelong. In the last quarter, with only minutes to go, Ablett knocks the ball from the HF boundary line towards the forward pocket. Baz then slippers it away from the boundary towards the goal where a massive pack of players fights for what seems like minutes to take clean possession. Commentator Hutchinson gasps, "Sydney need a hero". As the enthralling contest plays out across the goal face to the penultimate bouncedown, Malcolm Blight, up to now a critic of our team, simple says

'How good was that.'

It was fantastic because the game was so close, it was final and there were only seconds to go.

If it had been the second quarter and the score was 4 goals to 2, it was repeated over and over again, it wouldn't be so exciting.

Well,you can kiss this all good-bye because there were at least 4-5 'free-kicks' that would have been awarded under this new 'regime'.

Certainly we don't want too many free kicks, but we also need to be careful that the game doesn't turn into a rugby scrum.

One of the key differences to the game in the 80s and prior is that players tended to stay roughly in their positions. Now they follow the ball everywhere, so like U12 football, you often get 20-30 guys around the ball and huge areas of the ground empty. This makes for ugly football.

[Doctor J.]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[BI hate it when people who know nothing about basketball attempt to make informed comments on it...

[/B]

Do you now? And just how do you know that Mr. Hinds knows nothing about basketball?

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, the comment is quite valid. Witness what makes the highlight reel. Is it the run of the mill lay up, or is it the slam dunk?

Care to give the great unwashed of this board an insight into your obviously vast knowledge of the game.

[NMWBloods]

Basic shots and lay ups may not make the highlight reel, but that doesn't make them monotonous. A comment like his makes it pretty clear he doesn't follow basketball particularly closely.

[Legs Akimbo]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Certainly we don't want too many free kicks, but we also need to be careful that the game doesn't turn into a rugby scrum.

Here's an alternative theory. Folks with a rugby background find a close and physical contest more gratifying than watching skinny guys endlessly running up one wing and running down the other and a blown out scoreline. I don't have a rugby background, being a Victorian, but I really hate this style of footy. It's like 'fast food footy' gives you a initial thrill, but after a while it all tastes the same. That's what worries me most - the unstated intention to homogenise the way the game is played. At least there is now variation in style - witness West Coast vs. Sydney.

The other point is that rule changes seem to beget rule changes because there are usually unintended consequences. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.

[liz]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
Here's an alternative theory. Folks with a rugby background find a close and physical contest more gratifying than watching skinny guys endlessly running up one wing and running down the other and a blown out scoreline. I don't have a rugby background, being a Victorian, but I really hate this style of footy. It's like 'fast food footy' gives you a initial thrill, but after a while it all tastes the same. That's what worries me most - the unstated intention to homogenise the way the game is played. At least there is now variation in style - witness West Coast vs. Sydney.

I, too, find non-contested, non-defensive, high-scoring shoot outs dull as ditchwater (unless the Swans are rolling someone). For me football is about the contest, the wearied bodies throwing themselves back into the fray time and time again, relentless pressure and fearless spoiling just as much as it is about high marks, players breaking the lines and miraculous snaps at goal.

Indeed, it is the former category of characteristics that enhance the enjoyment of the latter - because they are not easily done and therefore "mean something" when they are achieved.

David Williamson has described Aussie Rules as one of the best dramas going around. Games can be radically different, each unfolds in its own peculiar way, and very often how a game starts and how it finishes are completely different.

The Gabba game in round 3 this year is a classic example - fierce, defensive, taxing for the first half, opening up slightly in the third term with one team gaining an ascendancy, and then a final quarter finale with the previously in-control team dead on its legs, desparately trying to withstand a last ditch barrage from its opponent. Yes, there were fumbles and skill errors, especially early, and missed shots at goal. But for pure drama it was fantastic and the good guys came through in the end.

My belief is that whatever style teams choose to play, the better team normally wins through in the end. Why try to homogenize rather than relish the unpredictability and variety?

[Doctor J.]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Basic shots and lay ups may not make the highlight reel, but that doesn't make them monotonous. A comment like his makes it pretty clear he doesn't follow basketball particularly closely.

Huh??

By definition, basic shots and boring layups are monotonous. They happen all the time in basketball.

Still don't see how you can draw the conclusion that he doesn't follow basketball closely. You have given him that label on the basis of one line in a 2 page article. Bit of a long bow.

[NMWBloods]

You don't get many "boring" lay ups. The players may score a lot, but it's not the case that most of the shots are "easy". Given he thinks that basketball is boring except for the "most spectacular shots" it tends to indicate that he doesn't follow basketball closely.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You don't get many "boring" lay ups. The players may score a lot, but it's not the case that most of the shots are "easy". Given he thinks that basketball is boring except for the "most spectacular shots" it tends to indicate that he doesn't follow basketball closely.

Basketball could be simplified by changing the length of the game to 30 seconds and rolling a dice for the starting scores.