This latest decision to sanction Joel Selwood clearly demonstrates the degree the AFL will go in changing the face of our national game.

To me it demonstrates how some people on our planet believe it is their god given right to tell us how to live our lives.

This decision and many others by the thought police at the AFL simply astound me. It is time the average bloke and Sheila fought back. Adrian Anderson should be the first thought plod to get on his bike.

Our game is over regulated and gone beyond the thinking of reasonable people. Reasonable people are not in control of the AFL. It is time for change.

Good post - a Selwood parent would have done a more sensible job at home in the backyard with the four boys!

I just laughed and shook my head when I saw this on the news. Which is sad in itself, I'm just used to such soft, idiotic penalties thrown around by this league, doesn't even anger me any more.

I thought that whole passage on the night was pretty inspirational.

Why wasn't the lesser brother pulled up for trying to kill the better brother when he kicked it?

I just laughed and shook my head when I saw this on the news. Which is sad in itself, I'm just used to such soft, idiotic penalties thrown around by this league, doesn't even anger me any more.

I thought that whole passage on the night was pretty inspirational.

Why wasn't the lesser brother pulled up for trying to kill the better brother when he kicked it?

Does the fact that a sheilah (Fraser) adjudicates the MRP determinations have some bearing gentlemen ?

This thread actually seems like a suitable opportunity to express some views on the current state of the application of the rules of the game.

First, let me categorically state that I am in no way ‘umpire bashing’ – I believe the umpires do an excellent job under very difficult circumstances.

Let me address two issues as examples.

First, the ‘interpretation’ of the rules approach – I believe free kicks should only be paid for blatant breaches of the rules. For example, a push in the back is a ‘push’ in the back which clearly and wrongly advantages the infringer – it is not ‘a hand in the back’ which is insignificant (and may be played up for a free kick). I am sure others will give more examples of this type of interpretation.

Second, rules which should go – the advantage rule and the 50 m penalty are two examples. (Again, I am sure others will produce more examples.) The advantage rule is too arbitrary in its effect (eg when all players on both sides stop, except for the one with the ball), and the 50 m penalty is too great – why not 20 m or 25 m, and allow the umpire to give a double penalty or more if necessary? (Yes, I appreciate that is an interpretation.)

I offer these comments purely as examples for discussion purposes, I’m not an expert in this area. Again I also emphasise that this is not intended to attack anyone – it is intended to provoke thoughtful responses on how to make our game easier to play, easier to umpire, and easier for players and spectators to understand.

If the MRP hadn't already officially jumped the shark, they have now.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tribunal-rebuke-for-selwood-sibling-spat-20120813-244k0.html

Demetriou needs a headbutt ASAP.

Has any administration done more damage to the game than this 1?

Removing any & all theatre from the sport.

Reprimand for misconduct. Fark me.

My kids show more aggression at bath time.

I went to the VFL on the weekend & the umpiring (or perhaps more aptly the way the umpires were allowed to officiate) was a much better standard. It was almost like watching a different sport. No ticky touchwood freekicks, goal umpires were allowed to make decisions without there being a 5 minute muppet conference, no holding the ball when there was no prior opportunity, no hypersensitive 50m penalties (I think the players on the ground were talking in some kind of code involving the f & c bombs), no hands in the back, no arm chops, incorrect disposal was paid & there were no horrible rolling mauls.

Unfortunately none of the Umps could bounce the ball to save themselves - under AA & the Giesch's watch that probably means they have no future.

My take on all this is control freak stuff is simple. Adrian Anderson is behind most of the AFL policies on football matters. He is without doubt a media [censored] who loves the attention and his hubris is second only to AD.

These types exist to control the rest of us mere mortals....god bless them.

I can still remember the good old days when they had a holding the ball rule and deliberately dropping the ball was incorrect disposal.

aaaah.... the memories

I can still remember the good old days when they had a holding the ball rule and deliberately dropping the ball was incorrect disposal.

aaaah.... the memories

2 weeks ago..... those were the days.

I went to the VFL on the weekend & the umpiring (or perhaps more aptly the way the umpires were allowed to officiate) was a much better standard. It was almost like watching a different sport.....

incorrect disposal was paid & there were no horrible rolling mauls.

.

2 great points Jimmi that are changing the face of this once great game. Throwing and the penalisation of throwing has always been a part of our game. However, i've never seen such a blatant change to one of the core aspects of our game, the hand ball, as i've seen this year.

Top players, and others in many of the top line teams are dileberately abusing the hand ball, effectively cheating, by continuing to throw, scoop and flick (2 handed with a trailing hand following in the direction of the throw to give the impression the ball has been fisted somehow.....in some circumstances it has but too few) the ball around when in tight congested contests and when under either real or perceived pressure, mostly in the rugby style rolling scrums you mention. However, when most players are in the clear, most of their hand balls, and i emphasise most not all, are legal as it's just too obvious to throw in the open and often the player would find it more effective to hand ball anyway in order to get the speed/accuracy/distance required to initiate an effective disposal.

Frees for throwing are up substantially this year but personaly the umpires are missing/overlooking (under instruction to allow the fast flowing game style the AFL cronies wish for!!??) way too many and too many players/teams are getting away with it far too often and in my opinion this is the difference in tight clashes between the teams/players that are perfecting it and those that aren't even aware of it or aren't presently abusing it (cheating). And from what i've seen the MFC is one of those clubs who aren't even attempting it at this point.

The experts, IMO..... Hawthorn, Collingwood and West Coast. Next on the rung but to a lessor extent, The Cats and The Bombres. I haven't seen enough of either Adelaide, Sydney or North Melbourne to say where they're at here.

I would go so far as to say the top teams/players are being trained in the art as they're becoming so adept at it! Whether under instruction from within their FD or not, i have no idea.

I realise skill levels are also comparatively and generally better in some of the top clubs versus the lessor ranked clubs but there's no doubt the game of AFL is changing before our very eyes into a flick/throwing style game with the hand ball slowly but surely becoming extinct at this rate.

I've been watching the game for decades now. But i've never looked at it in such poor light as i have this year. Slowly buit surely it's becoming unwatchable and the throw/scoop/flick as well as the rolling scrums are both playing a large part in this for me.

The hand ball is one instance where i would argue the regulators are either deliberitaly failing to regulate, inept at regulating or incapable or regulating effectively due to the nature/scramble of the rolling scrums.

I am a huge critic of the umpires BUT I will say that in their defence the speed of the game compared to VFL is massive. This means they are invariably in the wrong position most of the time. In the VFL this is significantly less so.

But the goons at HQ have stuffed our game big time. It's basketball on steroids and we are the poorer because of it.

Meh. Yes it's a bloody stupid call, but it's not the first and it won't be the last. I feel the need to mention once again that Beamer has been suspended TWICE for not making contact with an opponent's head. In one of those cases, the MRP stated that he had not made any contact at all, but his intention was clearly to do so. This case pales in comparison.

This thread actually seems like a suitable opportunity to express some views on the current state of the application of the rules of the game.

First, let me categorically state that I am in no way ‘umpire bashing’ – I believe the umpires do an excellent job under very difficult circumstances.

Let me address two issues as examples.

First, the ‘interpretation’ of the rules approach – I believe free kicks should only be paid for blatant breaches of the rules. For example, a push in the back is a ‘push’ in the back which clearly and wrongly advantages the infringer – it is not ‘a hand in the back’ which is insignificant (and may be played up for a free kick). I am sure others will give more examples of this type of interpretation.

Second, rules which should go – the advantage rule and the 50 m penalty are two examples. (Again, I am sure others will produce more examples.) The advantage rule is too arbitrary in its effect (eg when all players on both sides stop, except for the one with the ball), and the 50 m penalty is too great – why not 20 m or 25 m, and allow the umpire to give a double penalty or more if necessary? (Yes, I appreciate that is an interpretation.)

I offer these comments purely as examples for discussion purposes, I’m not an expert in this area. Again I also emphasise that this is not intended to attack anyone – it is intended to provoke thoughtful responses on how to make our game easier to play, easier to umpire, and easier for players and spectators to understand.

I never thought I'd be agreeing with you Hardnut but I guess you should never say never.