Mazer Rackham

The "good blokes" rule overrides that. And all the MRP members are "good blokes".

I think it would have encouraged him to go get a Tatts ticket. And even more outrageous, he probably won 1st div.

I saw the Richmond captain hit a bloke in the head. He wasn't suspended. The outrage is not that Salem got done. It is that the MRP repeatedly make topsy-turvy decisions as if the members have taken too many shots to the head themselves.

THE F()CK !?!?!? I heard Gil himself on the radio yesterday talking about how we have an independent MRP/tribunal. The AFL have lost control of the officiating of the game. And they run a corrupt competition.

Don't have to like him but you do have to admire his rat cunning. Hadn't occurred to me before but maybe Cunnington is one of these "good blokes" who infest the AFL.

I really don't mind that so much. Yeah, I don't want them suspended, but it's a lottery anyway, and North will think twice next time we play them. Line in the sand, etc.

They have big ... courtesy?

Let's make it easy and rule that the tallest player gets first possession of the ball. Will save the poor umps tired arms too.

How so? They are all directly related to the ball being oval.

Ever see a wonky shot on goal from 60 out tumble along the ground, bounce like a leg break and go through for a goal? Ever see a player do what the coach asks and play in front of his man, get in perfect position only to have the ball bounce over his head into his opponent's hands? Ever see a player in a grand final, with seconds to go and his team one point down, run onto a loose ball near the goal square for a near certain open goal, only to have it take a funny bounce and go through for a behind, tying the scores and forcing a replay? These are all part of our game. Our beautiful unique game. Take them all out or leave them all in. They are all part of it, as is the centre bounce.

On the edge of the circle! Wow. That's almost out of bounds. It's called "the art of ruckwork" and for decades good ruckmen somehow didn't stand there like a lump and get swamped. They could counter it. It was a unique skill of the game which the AFL have watered down and will eventually kill off because they'd rather something akin to a video game controlled by computer than a living breathing contest with randomness in it.

Watch old replays. The umps used to bounce it all over the ground all day long even on wet days. Now it's "too hard" and somehow distracts from their decision making abilities. (That's textbook AFL logic.) Umps, give us some indication that you have decision making abilities and we'll consider your case for the bounce. (And then tell you to GAGF.)

It's one of the skills of the game ... ruckwork. The best ruckmen have been able to factor the randomness into their skill/ability. The AFL have been gradually diluting the ruck skill so it's little more than a tip off. With no third man up and a totally predictable throw up, we could end up seeing Caleb Daniel and his shorter brother contesting the ruck.

Precedent? We're talking MRP here. Interesting concept, this "precedent". Do you think the MRP has heard of it before?

Well, the head is sacrosanct you see. That's why Cotchin was suspended the week before. (yes I know he wasn't suspended!)

Afraid to say that isn't the answer. The tribunal was hours and hours of smartarse lawyers arguing til 2AM that the incident didn't even take place on the ground because it was on the sponsor's logo and it wasn't actually a game of football according to the Oxford dictionary definitions of "actually", "game" and "football". And then the tribunal would rule that Cunnington can't be penalised because that particular rule was framed in the VFL days and he wasn't a registered player then.

The AFL have cracked down on deliberate rushed behinds and deliberate out of bounds. (The only rule they have ever "cracked down" on for more than one week at a time.) The no-tolerance tough-love approach has definitely altered players behaviour. But punching players? Which is not even in the rules? They could wipe it out in two weeks by applying the same standard. If it looks even halfway like a punch, you're suspended. But they prefer chooklotto.

That almost goes without saying. Next week someone will elbow someone in the head and get off under some tortured logic, and someone else will get a week for a jumper punch that the recipient barely notices. The MRP are a befuddled bunch who don't seem to have a clear handle on what they are doing. They probably walk into doors a lot and have ink on their tongues from sucking their biros. In any other walk of life such inconsistency and weird reasoning would have them labelled as "in crisis".

Goodwin needs to tell the players before each match that we got our timing wrong and accidentally got to the ground late. It's now quarter time and we're 10 goals down. Now get out three and catch up!!!

A bigger factor is our not showing up til 1/4 time. It's time to factor in that the umpiring is diabolical, every game every week, and that it is not a refereeing of the rules, but rather a hazard to be negotiated like windmills in mini golf.

We got the rough end of the pineapple, but I am saying that you can't expect umpiring as atrocious as that to also be even handed.

Bottle of Johnny Walker Black Label for the person who can find the words "skill error" in the AFL 2016 Laws of Australian Football. (There doesn't seem to be a 2017 version.) I'll make it easy. Find just the word "skill" anywhere in the rule book.

Scene: AFL house. Gil McLachlan, Simon Lethlean and Hayden Kennedy are sitting in armchairs around a blazing fire, drinking Kweichow liqueur in Southern China branded balloon glasses. GM: Hayden, what's this bullsh!t I'm hearing about the umpiring in that North game yesterday? SL: What? I was at that game. Looked pretty good to me. HK: Gee, I thought the umpires executed perfectly according to directions. GM: ..... what's that mean? HK: Err .... ten out of ten. GM: What's all the whinging for then? Melbourne AND North are complaining about it! HK: Maybe we didn't explain our interpretations of the interpretations clearly enough. GM: Well get on the front foot man! Get on the radio and explain yourself! We can't have the umpiring of our game compromised. You know I'm red hot on that. SL: Calm down, Gil. Hayden, it's clear we need to put an interpretation on the interpretations of the interpretations. GM: That's the kind of thing I'm talking about! Clear it all up once and for all. HK: Sounds good to me! GM: Get on it then. Funny how these minor complaints pop up week after week in this era of the best umpiring of footy ever. SL: I know. Crazy, isn't it?

That's not a rebuke, that's a challenge!

The umpiring performance all over was deplorable. Not biased, just substandard, to put it kindly. How many players (both sides) while tackled were ridden into the ground (also known as pushed in the back (15.4.5(b))) with no penalty? Plus players running too far, running through the "protected zone", moving off the line of the mark.... all the usual [censored] that is unpunished in every game every week.