Please don't put 'soft' and 'AFL' in same sentence

AFL In the 80s was tougher but it never was and never will be tougher than real football Rugby Union and Rugby League they are the only two sports that are at all tough. You get all the same injurys playing AFL at school were you can't tackle yet those same schools have BANNED rugby league and union what does that say for the babyish sport of AFL

@ JVGO: Yet any slightly experienced reader on AFL threads would know this 'Peter Wilson' usually comments on Australian Football being not as 'tough' or 'international' as Rugby; never a mention of Soccer.

Did the AFL get a "heads up" that this program was coming (with Australian content at the end) and so rush thru the concussion rule just before the season started.

A timely program for AFL, NRL & Super 15 rugby on head injuries in American football goes to air on 4 Corners next Monday 23 May at 8:30pm on ABC1. It's called "Brain Explosion" ... "Some have described it as the sports equivalent of an arms race. No matter what the code, all coaches want their players bigger and faster, capable of handing out and taking physical punishment. This week Four Corners and PBS Frontline go inside American high school football to look at the impact this arms race is having on players, focusing on the latest research into brain injury. The news for sports stars and sports fans is sobering. "... http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3221310.htm?site=sport&section=all

I am a fan of the NRL but living in the northern States you get used NRL journalists bagging AFL eg being called gay or soft by “tough” journalists (generally by people that dont play any code). I usually just bide my time after stories like these eg NRL journalist Mascord wrote in 2006 that RL was booming in Russia because 30K attended a RL international in St petersburg? against the US. That sounded too impressive to be true so I checked – apparently the 5? rouble entry fee was a ticket in a lottery in a car and the game was held in the poorest parts of the city so hence a big crowd. As reported on the Roar previously – RL is doing it tougher in Russia now – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league_in_Russia “By mid 2009 the three major clubs of Russian Rugby League had moved over to Rugby Union as a result of government pressure to achieve results in rugby union sevens, newly designated as an Olympic Sport. These clubs were Kazan Arrows, Dinamo Moscow and the champions for the past eight years, Lokomotiv Moscow.[1][2] Russian Ministry of Sports order number 21 dated January 20, 2010 expelled the Rugby League from the State Register of Sports of Russia.”

Hands up who amongst AFL supporters thinks AFL is 'tougher' or 'harder' or more 'brutal' than RL. This article is claiming nothing of the sort merely suggesting that AFL is not 'soft' in the terms defined by it's own nostalgic supporters. Two different games all together, the only commonality between them is the ball is not round and they are both contact sports. I am 181cm and about 82kg. My body type was perfect for a game that relies on a combination of stamina, speed, athletic ability and average strength. There were plenty of positions on the field for me in AFL at an amateur level and I did ok. With that same body type there is no way in hell I could compete in RL or especially RU. There is maybe one spot at wing but while I possessed excellent stamina and above average speed in an out and out sprint there would be many who would beat me. The point is that no AFL supporter has ever claimed that AFL is tougher than RL. The argument is that the game is not soft, even considering the recent sanitisation. I know I felt every knock and bruise for the next four days when I played and there were plenty of times when contact occurred between players that had after effects far more serious than feeling sore for a few days. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store

Don't know about the Swans picture being used on this article! It's not even a recent image! O'Loughlin - retired, Barry Hall - Western Bulldogs, Darren Jolly - Collingwood. Goodes is the only one left there! Sydney is anything but soft. Kevin Jack, Jude Bolton, Mummy, they're all ferocious in the stoppages.

Not Nick - Jack!!

Macca, I saw it and, like you, I still don't know why Nick got the free - apart from the fact it was Nick. In the same game Hudson was cited, presumably for rough play, in a marking contest. The Richmond player leapt to mark the ball. Hudson, a fraction late, also leapt and made contact as the mark was completed. He was reported, I believe, at the time. If you watch it, both the Richmond player and Hudson are already in the air and the ball has not yet arrived. Surely Hudson is entitled to compete in that situation without worrying about possible post-match penalties. In truth, I suspect the problem is the blanket television coverage of all games. Umpires are unsure of themselves and do want a please explain on Monday morning so everything goes in the book to be safe. The player, meanwhile, must deal with the stress of possible suspension until the charge is thrown out or confirmed. Take away the television and many of the more obtuse umpiring involvements disappear - but who's going to vote for less television coverage?

Not as tough as when men were men and women knew their place. Bring back the biff! I have to laugh about the soccer weenies carrying on. No non or limited contact game will ever be as tough as the contact football codes whether that be AFL, Rugby, League, American Gridiron or even Gaelic Rules football.

Good post Bayman. On AFL360 tonight, Gerard used an apt expression: manic intensity. That's what you get when you combine high speed, aggression and ultra competiveness with a loose bouncing oval ball that is there to be won if you're willing enough to go in after it. (by the way, I should take this opportunity to mention that both Hunt and Folau have shown that they have a bit of that manic intensity, and that will hold them in good stead if they stick with it long enough) The clear impression I get from many posters on the Roar is that they have little appreciation of the high speeds the game is played at at AFL level, and the insane distances that players cover over a two hour period. That's not to diminish the hard work that takes place in a game of League, which can be a brutal game and is certainly not for the faint hearted, but people need to appreciate that the two games are taking place at very different speeds. Here is a question for all League fans: each time there's a kick on the 6th tackle, you have an opportunity for high impact collision along the lines of Hawkins taking out an unsuspecting Toovey because both sets of players are running from opposite directions towards the ball in the air, and the attacking team is running with the flight of the ball, as Toovey was - why do we never see such high impact mid air collisions - never see them - as we will se in AFL at least once every round. My theory: 1. you will rarely have the defensive team running 30m to get to the ball, simply because of the size of the field and the context of the kick, e.g. if the kick is coming from the centreline, and travels, say, 40m, more often than not, the full back will be camped under the ball and relatively stationary - so the speed from at least one direction is not there. A high impact collision of the type you see in the AFL means both players running at each other, with eyes on the ball, from opposite directions at full speed. 2. in those situations, you just don't get the "manic intensity" you get in AFL, it's just not there. Let me give another example of what I'm talking about. I was having another look of that Inglis try in the 2009 grand final. A great try - a try worthy of winning a grand final. Inglis runs with the flight of the ball, shows plenty of courage as you have to in that situation, takes it at full sprint (relatively speaking), and goes straight for the try line, pretty much unhindered. The thing is, there are at least five Parra players only a few metres away from the drop zone, and all of them are ball watching and pretty much flat footed as Inglis took the ball. Why wasn't one, two, three or four of them running straight at the ball and meeting Inglis full on at full pace at the drop zone? Sure, I wouldn't want to do it, but the point is that in the AFL, a coach would expect a 18 year old rookie to challenge Inglis for the ball, in the air, at full sprint, run straight at the ball, and cop whatever comes the other way. That's "manic intensity".

The clashes have definately become 'softer'. Sure there is amazing athleticism, but they do not have to work 9 to 5 jobs anymore. So they do have nothing better to do than to work out and train. So, no real biggee there. It is good they took out the gutless stuff, like the kinghits and sneaky punching. But now, there is this bizarre agenda to get rid of all the tackling and bumping. The Trengove incident was a perfect tackle. Three weeks for that and the stuff that gets let off is just astounding. Really, Melbourne FC should simply walk off the field in the middle of a match in a sign of protest.

...and if we played AFL in the first half the RL boys would be too buggered to tackle in the second half so the game might be decided by the coin toss. Swannie you talk of "high impact collisions" but the fact is there are relatively few such collisions in RL - unless you call two guys running at half rat power over ten metres high impact. The sort of collision encountered by Toovey, for example, almost never happens in RL. The players, generally, are simply not travelling fast enough in the time available. It is far more likely to happen to a fullback bringing the ball up from deep in his half but the majority of RL tackles occur from the play the ball. Many times the tackle occurs after the ball-player has only run a couple of metres. Not exactly "high impact". In most RL tackles at least one of those involved, the ball-carrier or (usually) the tackler is relatively stationary. Most players hurt in an RL tackle are hurt by the third man in - and he's usually aiming high to a guy already restricted by the first tackle. Effective, but not particularly courageous. In the context of the game, however, perfectly acceptable. Most RL fans, while accusing their AFL counterparts of bias, are operating in exactly the same manner as the accused. Bias. Pure and simple. The most common thing with the RL crew is to confuse lots of tackles with "high impact" tackles. Almost every collision in AFL is high impact when the speed of the combatants is taken into account and the distance often travelled before the collision. In Toovey's case, for example, it may be that he never saw the danger coming. That doesn't lessen the impact. It is the nature of AFL to have players cleaned up from in front, from behind, from the side. It may even be considered something of a blessing if you don't see it coming. But every player understands the possibilities. I'm not suggesting for a minute that AFL players are braver than their RL counterparts, or tougher. Neither are they less so. Both games require courage as a basic. I do get a little tired, however, of all the talk about the heavy contact in League compared to other sports. Most of the contact is pedestrian. It might be tiring to the players but that also may be because they're not really fit enough. Fit enough, perhaps, for the needs of the game but not fit in the aerobic sense. Kieran Jack would tackle at least as much as his dad did and cover twice as much ground - and Kieran has to play 120 minutes, not 80. Perhaps it is the very same body shape, required at least in the forwards, which prevents a high level of aerobic capacity so these players get exhausted after an aftenoon spent tackling every few minutes. Certainly the ground size helps the tackle image of RL. Play that game on an AFL size ground and it would be touch footy. Most backs would waltz around most forwards, most of the time. So the games are different and they do require some different body types, at least for the RL forwards. I'm pretty sure Thurston, Lockyer and Slater have the body type for AFL. I'm also sure Mark Riddell does not and Greg Inglis is fast becoming a lost cause. The fact is that while all kippers are fish, not all fish are kippers. In terms of body shape, most AFL players could be placed in a Rugby League team somewhere, certainly in the backs. RL forwards, however, could not be hidden in an AFL side. The truth is we'll never know how such a game might turn out because it will never happen. If it did, we might find out if RL forwards can jump because most of their heads would just about be shoulder high to guys like Jonathan Brown, Ben Rutten, Mark Jamar or Buddy Franklin. To go back to the beginning though Swannie, I wasn't ever thinking of a game with two halves. I was thinking of two distinct games, one of RL and the other of AFL. So it doesn't really matter who wins the toss. As a concession, though, I'll allow a RL fan the honour of flipping the coin - let's call him the tosser!

Jon Ralph wrote an article covering a similar theme a couple of days back: http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/afl/tough-talk-is-nothing-more-than-a-crashing-bore/story-e6frg24l-1226056340708 He writes: "The most ridiculous aspect of the past week's Jack Trengove controversy at the weekend was the idea that raw aggression has gone out of the game. Yet every available piece of evidence this season has emphatically stated that football has never been more lethal or brutal. Toovey is still in hospital with a bruised lung and internal damage. And if you listen to St Kilda captain Nick Riewoldt, the desire to see players go harder and faster with more bravery has become a blood sport." He is absolutely right that both the media and the public is unforgiving about any player who shows even a tiny hint of putting self-preservation above the team thing, such that we end up with Toovey getting absolutely smashed in the face by a bloke who might be 30 kilograms heavier than him with a head of steam up after a 30 m lead.

Do you have an alert go off when NRL is mentioned on an Aussie rules thread JVGO? Or just monitor them really closely.

lol I like that one Ian

No its not soft, as a matter of fact it could be called dangerous. Guys running into each other face first, thats what you said. Trust me, its safer to play rugby league. :) True, the only AFL stories lately have been injuries. The Blues and Maroons are ready to go, no injury problems. Nice safe game to watch. :)

I remember the 1993 Essendon premiership very well :) , trying to forget 1990 though. Defining hardness to me comes down to one thing, eyes on the ball no matter the potential cost. What happened to Brereton in the 1989 GF is celebrated bt it was wrong for Yeates to target him, is that sport? Is that hard? No. The best game I've seen outside of finals was the St Kilda v Geelong Round 14 clash in 2009 at Etihad. Fast, hard and just 100% 120 minutes of intense football.

Watch games from about 88-96. The game hit a sweet spot of skills and hardness in that period. The skills have improved since then, but nothing like the step change in skills that ocurred from 68-88. And It's been the same length of time.