sue

Members
  • Content count

    3,180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

sue last won the day on August 26 2016

sue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,198 Excellent

About sue

  • Rank
    Master Demon

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,344 profile views
  1. It's not that the masses don't attend. The fact is there are no masses in the first place. Alice Springs population is around 29,000. So 5000 turning up is about 1 in 6. If one in six of Melbourne's population turned up to a match they'd be over 600,000 there.
  2. Best thing I've read all day. If only.
  3. During the actual match I despaired like many on here, but on reflection I think pitmaster has it right. A lot was to do with the score. I suspect a lot of the bad play would have been overlooked (and may have evaporated with growing confidence) if we didn't miss goals in Q2.
  4. Is there any other sport where rules are not written down? It is perhaps arguably OK to not revise the rules when you make a minor change to interpretation, but to not revise the rules when you think up a new thing like the 30 seconds it just amateur.
  5. That's correct - if you read what Brown's coach says at http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-26/shot-clock-wont-time-out-on-brown they just have to start their run up within 30 sec. Since there appears to be nothing in the laws about this, presumably it is a matter of 'interpretation'. Maybe it is also interpretation for an umpire to decide that running back to the oppos goals within the 30 seconds and then walking in for 5 minutes is not allowed. Or maybe it is if it is part of your 'natural arc'.
  6. I thought they had 30 sec before they started moving towards goal on their run-up. If I am right, this seems a stupid rule. You could waste an awful lot of time by having a ridiculously long run up and walking in very slowly in a tight match. Is there a common sense override? But I'll be buggered if I can find any reference to it in the rules. Hard enough to find the rules at all.
  7. I have read these posts without having seen the replay till now and was prepared to believe it was Bernie's fault. But I just saw it and how you can ignore the fact that Sloane spun Bernie around into the umpire is beyond me. Beyond the MRP too it seems. Wasn't particularly forceful but I can't see how he could have avoided contact. The commentators also thought that. Once again the MRP's penalties are more related to the effect than the actual act. Anyway, pay $1000 and chuckle.
  8. Surely 2 stats can result from one bit of play. A tackle which results in a disposal is of more value to the team than no tackle at all. For a start, the tackled player may not get the ideal disposal they would have had if they hadn't been tackled.
  9. Done earlier despite my being in the naughty corner for saying in my view quick snaps from the boundary are not necessarily goals of the year.
  10. I'll probably be pilloried, but I don't think any goals from the boundary should be goal of the year unless something spectacular was done to win possession and get the kick away. They are generally just flukes - kick it 100 times and one will go through - that one shoudln't get goal of the year. I'd rather a goal from dead in front that results from some spectacular difficult play than most kicks from the boundary. That said, there was more to Oliver's goal than just a kick from the boundary.
  11. that's what I usually experience (not the app crashing, just the quality and stalling). But oddly not today from China. Are you referring to that match or another?
  12. OK I'm paranid about the AFL and its shennagins. But is anyone else finding the picture quality of the game from China is far better than it usually is? So far I've seen no patches when the players become a blur and you can't see the ball. At a quick glance it doesn't look much worse than a normal TV coverage. What's going on?
  13. It is improper to hope for injuries to Essendrug players. On the other hand think of the deserving players who will get an opportunity to play to replace injured players. Conscience cleared.
  14. What's happened to the in-the-back rule? A couple of times yesterday there were blatant 2 hands in the back pushes in 1 on 1 marking contests with no free paid, both ways. The most obvious was when Watt's dropped a chest mark. It was almost as if he did not get the free because he was being punished for dropping the mark.
  15. If 18 players were injured in Q1 some of you "no excuses" blokes would still refuse to accept that as a reason or even a contribution to why we lost.