ManDee

Still Hawny then?

Do you have a broken arm Steve?

Ok, we agree to stand down. I did offer an apology and that I may have missed something. But Jack Nicholson polishing Percy seemed to be a bridge to far. Sword back in scabbard. Go Dees!

Wow, comprehension not your strong point. Interesting you showed yourself in a white jacket trying to understand humour.

John I will not attempt to explain humour. Obviously my attempt at humour was lost on you, I am sorry.

I thought you got off those shoplifting charges Ethan.

Eye on the ball! Can I presume that you can run into a player at any time and cause as much damage as you like if you are looking at the ball with no penalty? Ludicrous! A duty of care surely involves checking the whereabouts of other players (& umpires) prior to attacking the ball so as not to harm others. JVR did not harm but may have hurt. JVR clearly set out to spoil. If JVR had intended to hurt he could have done so easily. JVR was concerned after the spoil as can be seen from his reaction. The AFL I believe want it on record that they tried to stamp out head impact but may have been thwarted by clubs appealing. Free JVR!

Imagine how many players that hit Gawny every week will get rubbed out! My guess is none Must appeal

Nothing!

The lunatics are running the asylum.

Practising responses. How dare they! WTF do they expect a player to do -- You ripper Justice! Never in doubt.

Semantics! No injury, incidental contact in play. What semantics? Charge should be withdrawn.

QD are you going to change your name to Kingbeyan Demon?

And yet Richard cannot be shortened to [censored] ([censored])

Yes but what about the vibe!

Is that performance enhancing? Asking for a friend 😄

I imagine it is possible to hurt the back of your head (upper neck) as a result of frontal impact forcing the head back. I don't think JVR should be penalised for an in play accident that did not cause injury.

Hey Red, I have this parking ticket would you chastise me and then mention I'm a good chap?

Is it over yet? I have been watching the replay and I'm about 17 hours in and they haven't arrived at the chapel yet. No spoilers but anyone know how it ends?

I will not respond further it is pointless if you can't comprehend my suggestion. Your made up statistics appear to be created to support some misguided interpretation of the situation. I don't think you have exposed anything of real interest and your assertion that the current technology is reliable is frankly laughable. Let's leave it there, neither of us seems to have gained from this interaction.

You didn't read what I said. It starts with "Rule change suggestion". So that does not mean going back to the flawed previous system. Please read first then attempt to comprehend before shooting off ill considered views.

I don't understand! Did you read what I said? The review system is flawed and delays play. If it cannot be made fast and accurate get rid of it. We accept boundary umpires decisions, we tolerate central umpires decisions, I am suggesting a rule change to make the goal umpires job easier and more accurate. Do you understand?

If a kicked ball goes through the goal posts it does not matter if it touches a defender on the way it is still a goal.

Rule change suggestion. Ignore if the ball hits the post, if it goes through goal side it = a goal. Point side it is a Point. Out of bounds side = out of bounds. Hits goal post and bounces back = Point. Hits Point post and bounces in = out of bounds. Touched through goals = a goal. Did it cross the line = umpires call. No need for score review.

Luxury!