All Activity

It won’t happen because of the Goodwin stubbornness In - Fullerton, Tholstrup, AMW, Lever, Woewodin Out - Trac (injured), Laurie, Turner, Billings, Chandler B - McVee, May, Lever HB - Salem, McDonald, Rivers C - Langdon, Oliver, Windsor HF - Sparrow , Petty, Tholstrup F - Pickett, van Rooyen, Fritsch RUCK - Gawn, Viney, ANB INT - Bowey, Woewodin, Howes, Fullarton 23rd - ANW

Sounds like a good lawyer could take this apart, line by line…

What on earth has that got to do with the free kicks that should of been called? Scott marked the ball, the umpire blew the whistle, play on was never called, 2 pies players run over the mark and no 50, you sound like a crumpet.

Already on them. At least get something out of the night

It's only matter of time before a big punter, or punting syndicate, takes on the AFL because one poor umpiring decision cost them big time. Now that's what will change the AFLs mindset towards umpiring standards. Money means everything to AFL HQ. All else is secondary.

This. Don't change an interpretation and then dilute it back to nothing

Club’s query the umpires because they are confused about the umpires interpretation. Says a lot about the rules and the adjudication of these rules.

Won't happen. They'll leave the game and we'll get worse umpires. No point in humiliating a fool. 1. Make them full time 2. Give them proper noise cancelling headphones 3. Get rid of the earpiece, or play heavy metal in it 4. Tell them to pay what is there, especially in the last 5 mins, without any repercussions 5. Get better technology for the goal line. FCS, it's available! 6. Get their eyes tested every 3 months. Reinstate OPSM as major sponsor 7. Get rid of any umpire that supports or has supported a club (except Melbourne, of course, we wrote the rules) 8. Separate the umpire devision completely from the AFL. No contact at all from HQ, not paid by HQ, fully independent And pigs might fly...

An interesting thing but when I was younger I could clearly see what was going on over the other side of the MCG. Now I can't. Sure I'm a fair bit older now, and I was thinking it was that. ...but my distance vision is still pretty good, not great but still pretty good. Then it occurred to me that it was because of the density of players around the ball that I was now having trouble seeing what was going on. ...logic tells me that's also got to make it more difficult for the umpires. Yes, coaches will complain but if they had their way they would push for more on the interchange & unlimited numbers again. A side benefit of less interchange could be less injury. There wouldn't be the same ballistic running, nor the same mass of bodies around the ball. Again, just thinking out loud.

Chandler who? Turner who? You know some people with weird first names!

this bit: In the year immediately following the year of the retirement (Year 1) will be interesting to understand whether or not that's 2024 for gus, or 2025 for gus - the wording is so opaque that it's completely unclear from my reading of it, if we were able to put all of gus' salary for the length of his contract, the MOST we could absorb in one year is 90% so, for instance, if the remaining four years of deal was worth $2.8m (an average of $700k per annum) the most we could absorb in the arbitrary year 1 (2024? 2025?) would be $2.52m now, of course, that's completely unrealistic in short, yr incentivised to absorb as much as possible of it in year 1 post the forced retirement but...to be honest, you'd need a financial lawyer to poke the holes in this - it's clear as mud for joe public all i can say is STUFF THE AFL imo that the ENTIRE contract isn't voided from salary cap considerations is a complete farce they've retired him ffs - perhaps he wanted to play on, risk or no risk? this bit is so mealy-mouthed and filled with legalise: The Guidelines do not provide a guarantee of TPP relief being provided with regards to any specific concussion-related retirement event. The provision of TPP relief is at the complete discretion of the Concussion TPP Committee with consideration given to the terms of the relevant contract and the circumstances of each eligible retirement, and subject to the maximum thresholds approved. is as confusing as all get out so...the 90% etc. is dependent on the concussion tpp committee? and who sits on that? and when do they make judgement? clear as MUD

And watch the coaches moan and complain about fatigue but the game would be easier to umpire as the game goes on might be a chance for forwards to kick bags of goals.

Thanks Bingers. I didn't know he had said that. Im guessing it was a while ago and that he likely regrets it.

Would be good to stop the pile on...dropping the interchange numbers will naturally do this a bit anyway. There just won't be the same number of players in the area to pile on. 10 a Q seems about right to me.

Not what Petty himself has said, but heh, what would he know.

Really good point. I find her description more confusing than the decision. https://www.afl.com.au/news/1153771/afl-concedes-umpire-error-but-ticks-off-50m-penalty-call "You can see on the vision, Bailey Scott takes the mark, the umpire blows his whistle and one of two calls could be made. It could be play on immediately, or it could be stand, which would indicate the mark had been paid." This part is odd as surely the decision to pay the mark is on the whistle. Not the call of stand... So no, the decision was clear & there are many instances where 50 is paid when players run directly over the mark before stand is called. Pity for North but the result stands. As for the AFL, they seem to have compounded the mistake here.

Now we are thinking I have sought of thought of 3rd man in rule if players on the same team as the ball carrier join the tackle a free kick to the oppositeteam two players from the tackling team ball up but even that will sort of cause issues have suggested 10 interchange a quarter.

I would also like to see less interchange. Anything that would cut back on flooding & packs. It could actually quicken the game as players would go back to kicking more to close the greater distances. Maybe...just thinking out loud here. Stopping gang tackles might be another thing to open it up a bit.

Because the MRO played 131 games for Collingwood

Seriously?

I haven't heard her comments but accept what you have said but my whole point is what do people what to see happen when umpires make mistakes what is the option?other than have a go at them without them there is no game.

Clubs have said they approached the umpires for rulings whether they do it on a regular basis I don't know.

If that is what she said she must be held to account. Not only is it wrong, her entire premise is wrong. "Should have been called play on" is not a thing. Either it is called play on or it is not. If the players encroached before the umpire called play on it is 50. The play recommences when the umpire calls it, not when the players deem it to have happened.

I agree the umpires boss should come out and admit mistakes you only learn from them.

On form North will win by 5 goals.