Opinion Rant!
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 36,690
- Likes
- 118,800
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 4,651
- Likes
- 8,715
- AFL Club
- Brisbane
Too early? I appreciate the 'history' option is a little better than previous years. However, it still sucks. Surely it can't be too hard for them to ensure I can easily click on my team's page for each of my historical week or at least look at the trades made for each year.
C'mon! Shirley!!!
Also, please note - how freaking bad was my week 14? I was helping other people win in other leagues apparently... that's how bad it was.
I am really going to miss those extra trades too.
C'mon! Shirley!!!
Also, please note - how freaking bad was my week 14? I was helping other people win in other leagues apparently... that's how bad it was.
I am really going to miss those extra trades too.
I'll see you that and raise to the sub rule returning... the worst idea of all the horrific ideas the AFL has brought in over the last decade is returning. We will be celebrating zooper goals for the AFLX by the halfway point of the season at this rate...
HATE IT.
24 hour teams for round 1 is particularly horrible though.
HATE IT.
24 hour teams for round 1 is particularly horrible though.
Yeah I mean I didn't hate the possible introduction of a concussion sub, but a medical sub will be diabolical. Seems like that will just be abused by coaches and players - where is the line drawn on severity of injury required to use the sub? Who is making that call?
All of this days before the season starts, just an absolute farce.
All of this days before the season starts, just an absolute farce.
A medical sub makes sense to me, saying a concussion has more impact than an ACL on a team is just stupid but I think it should be a minimum of 2 rounds missed to use it though, so should only be used for severe injuries and if teams get gung ho then they get punished (concussion can be they clear the protocol as already in place).
Otherwise as you say, going to be exploited massively.
Still hate any sub though, just detest it for fantasy purposes and strongly dislike for actual football purposes and player development.
Otherwise as you say, going to be exploited massively.
Still hate any sub though, just detest it for fantasy purposes and strongly dislike for actual football purposes and player development.
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 4,651
- Likes
- 8,715
- AFL Club
- Brisbane
I don't like it, but think I understand the concussion rule. The AFL has to seem like it's killing that bravery notion and aspect involving concussion ... I don't think it actually changes anything though. Obviously, with normal injuries, the AFL will not be sued in the long run to the same extent as with concussions.
If the AFL were really serious about protecting the players and not the game and its wallet (which don't get me wrong, is bloody important too), surely they would introduce mandatory headgear rather than subs for players who are concussed.
Anyway, I guess it makes for an interesting curveball to be strategic about. I would prefer if the sub's points be distributed to the subbed player- but I guess others would detest such a rule. Strategically, I'd probably be more inclined to go with Fyfe and Kelly...
Edit: The recent rugby Guinness fantasy comp has had an interesting sub-rule. You select three subs and one of which, if they don't start but do come on during the game, will score triple points of whatever they score (also score triple negative, as I found out in round 3). If the player starts, then they just get half points (as do all of the normal subs). I hate it for Rugby, as it rewards those who know and follow the game a slight advantage over someone like me who can do well with a bit of stats and numbers with a good game tactic for starting players. I mean ... and I will go ahead, as this is a rant post... I actually am top scorer in my league, until you consider the 'super sub' where I have lost 300 points on my rival - needless to say I am in third. Apologies for an off-AFL-SC-topic rant. But for SC, actually, I do follow it far closer than the rugby these days at least I suppose.
Yeah nah yeah ... Any sub-rule sucks. Bring on the headgear.
If the AFL were really serious about protecting the players and not the game and its wallet (which don't get me wrong, is bloody important too), surely they would introduce mandatory headgear rather than subs for players who are concussed.
Anyway, I guess it makes for an interesting curveball to be strategic about. I would prefer if the sub's points be distributed to the subbed player- but I guess others would detest such a rule. Strategically, I'd probably be more inclined to go with Fyfe and Kelly...
Edit: The recent rugby Guinness fantasy comp has had an interesting sub-rule. You select three subs and one of which, if they don't start but do come on during the game, will score triple points of whatever they score (also score triple negative, as I found out in round 3). If the player starts, then they just get half points (as do all of the normal subs). I hate it for Rugby, as it rewards those who know and follow the game a slight advantage over someone like me who can do well with a bit of stats and numbers with a good game tactic for starting players. I mean ... and I will go ahead, as this is a rant post... I actually am top scorer in my league, until you consider the 'super sub' where I have lost 300 points on my rival - needless to say I am in third. Apologies for an off-AFL-SC-topic rant. But for SC, actually, I do follow it far closer than the rugby these days at least I suppose.
Yeah nah yeah ... Any sub-rule sucks. Bring on the headgear.
Last edited:
Disagree strongly on the headgear idea. As someone who has played American Football at a pretty high level the helmet does the complete opposite of protecting the head, it simply weaponises it even further and gives people a genuine sense of invulnerability despite having minimal protective benefits.
If the AFL was serious about the head injuries they'd stop rewarding any player who leads with the head or does anything to try and win free kicks with their head. Almost anyone who makes it as an elite athlete in a contact sport is going to have their competitiveness level biologically/instinctually at a much higher level than their self preservation level, to then incentivise players to take risks by rewarding it just makes that instinctive decision even easier.
One of the first things I was a taught as a young player was to get sideways through the ball to protect the head and neck, the AFL right now actually punishes players for attacking the ball in the safest way. They've essentially outlawed "self preservation" and instead made it all about "duty of care to others", duty of care to yourself is the easiest one to pull off and right now the AFL has made that the bad thing, two players protecting themselves is rarely going to end up with either injured.
Just look at the weekend where Sheppard breaks the rules of the sport to dive head first into a players leg and is rewarded, that kind of crap is why players will keep doing it. Selwood, Shuey, Walters and co are all going to keep buckling their knees and shrugging tackles into their heads, idiots are going to keep attacking the ball in the worst possible position head first because you quite simply increase your odds of winning the ball as long as the free kick is always going in your favour, take away the free kick and suddenly all those stupid things have no competitive advantage and just end up with you getting hit in the head and people don't like that when they've got nothing to gain for it!
It's a real pet peeve of mine. Talk about how the head is sacrosanct and then constantly incentivise players to put it at risk for free kicks in a sport where free kicks are super valuable.
If the AFL was serious about the head injuries they'd stop rewarding any player who leads with the head or does anything to try and win free kicks with their head. Almost anyone who makes it as an elite athlete in a contact sport is going to have their competitiveness level biologically/instinctually at a much higher level than their self preservation level, to then incentivise players to take risks by rewarding it just makes that instinctive decision even easier.
One of the first things I was a taught as a young player was to get sideways through the ball to protect the head and neck, the AFL right now actually punishes players for attacking the ball in the safest way. They've essentially outlawed "self preservation" and instead made it all about "duty of care to others", duty of care to yourself is the easiest one to pull off and right now the AFL has made that the bad thing, two players protecting themselves is rarely going to end up with either injured.
Just look at the weekend where Sheppard breaks the rules of the sport to dive head first into a players leg and is rewarded, that kind of crap is why players will keep doing it. Selwood, Shuey, Walters and co are all going to keep buckling their knees and shrugging tackles into their heads, idiots are going to keep attacking the ball in the worst possible position head first because you quite simply increase your odds of winning the ball as long as the free kick is always going in your favour, take away the free kick and suddenly all those stupid things have no competitive advantage and just end up with you getting hit in the head and people don't like that when they've got nothing to gain for it!
It's a real pet peeve of mine. Talk about how the head is sacrosanct and then constantly incentivise players to put it at risk for free kicks in a sport where free kicks are super valuable.
Wouldn't be "weaponised" in the sense that it is in American football but I do think it would give a false sense of protection that just further encourages the whole "lead with the head" trend we have going right now.
Those helmets do a bit but as you can see from the likes of McCartin and Ebert who've worn them unsuccessfully, they're not terribly effective at preventing concussions and for a lot of players they'd just be extra reasoning to take risks.
For mine taking away all reasons to put the head at risk should be the first priority. Even the dangerous tackle rule has led to a trend of players choosing not to brace and protect themselves and even jump into tackles which is further heightened by the ridiculous holding the ball interpretations where players are punished for having their arms free in the tackle (another thing that was among the first things I was taught as a junior), basically giving players a disincentive to have the arms free and an incentive to not protect themselves whilst being tackled, again springing from the duty of care instead of self preservation directives.
Those helmets do a bit but as you can see from the likes of McCartin and Ebert who've worn them unsuccessfully, they're not terribly effective at preventing concussions and for a lot of players they'd just be extra reasoning to take risks.
For mine taking away all reasons to put the head at risk should be the first priority. Even the dangerous tackle rule has led to a trend of players choosing not to brace and protect themselves and even jump into tackles which is further heightened by the ridiculous holding the ball interpretations where players are punished for having their arms free in the tackle (another thing that was among the first things I was taught as a junior), basically giving players a disincentive to have the arms free and an incentive to not protect themselves whilst being tackled, again springing from the duty of care instead of self preservation directives.
Yeah I don't disagree, I guess the point I was trying to make was I would have been OK with the concussion sub as there is already a structured set of protocols undertaken by a neutral on field doctor to deem a player fit to continue or not. That's a good, fair process that will provide consistent rulings and with little room to take advantage of. You upgrade that to "medical" and you complicate the whole process tenfold. It also has fewer implications for fantasy haha and we will see less substitutions in general.
But I do agree, it seems unfair to have a sub for concussion and not another game ending injury. Therefore no sub is the most simple and fairest option which is the answer I thought we came to 4 or 5 years ago when we abolished the thing!
But at the end of the day I would 100% rather see a concussion only sub than a medical sub, for both fantasy and football purposes. Ideally no sub at all.
But I do agree, it seems unfair to have a sub for concussion and not another game ending injury. Therefore no sub is the most simple and fairest option which is the answer I thought we came to 4 or 5 years ago when we abolished the thing!
But at the end of the day I would 100% rather see a concussion only sub than a medical sub, for both fantasy and football purposes. Ideally no sub at all.
Yeah, if it's going to be a medical sub I think it needs to be punitive to use it. Personally think can't play at any level for 2 weeks (roughly the same as concussion) would close the loophole ability for coaches and I'd probably throw in has to be cleared by an independent doctor and if the injury isn't found by said doctor then it becomes 6 weeks.
Totally agree, would much prefer not having the sub at all. Hate it.
Totally agree, would much prefer not having the sub at all. Hate it.