Mazer Rackham

That's been the story of our season, and funnily enough, mostly in the games we've lost. At what point does it move from bad luck to an indicator of a mental problem? 30 Brownlow votes and 3 successful tribunal appeals

All he needs is to finally have a really good preseason. Are you aware of how long it took Tom Hawkins to come good?

Biggest mistake the AFL has made in recent years, regarding the tribunal, is to allow it be seen as, and operate as, a court of law. It is not a court of law! There is no need to demonstrate anything beyond reasonable doubt, or on balance of probabilities, because no-one is going to jail, no-one is getting a criminal record like an albatross around their neck, no-one is being deprived of their freedom. It is in essence (or should be), a bunch of former players, who know something about the caper, saying "yeah, he clocked him. Two week holiday." It is on the AFL that they have allowed things to drift so far away from this, under the veneer of the respectability of the law. They have ceded control to the lawyers, who have proceeded to run amock. Like your tabby on catnip. Any time the word "law" is used in a hearing, unless it's the phrase "laws of the game", the hearing should be scrapped and started again. "Matter of law", my foot. It's a sporting tribunal!

Murphy's Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

We should be challenging with a twofold purpose. First is to get Hunter off. Second, to show all the conflicting incidents, eg the Rankine one "nothing to answer", all of them, ad nauseum, with the intention of embarrassing the AFL. The MRO/tribunal has been chooklotto for years, dressed up in legalese, but continually perpetrating breathtaking injustices. The media, not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them, and anxious to retain thier media passes, won't touch this, other than in the most superficial clickbait fashion. I am surprised the clubs havent shown some collective action about this. Surely they don't want a tribunal system that is out of control?

The game can longer be umpired or referreed. This is what the AFL has wrought, in the name of speeding the game up for the great Television God. Are they proud of their works? They are killing the game.

We're already there. No-one knows what's going on: the players, the coaches, the umpires, the MRO, the tribunal. Least of all the fans. It evolves each week like a soap opera, dramatic twists here and contradictory turns there, unpredictably. Main difference being that even a soapie has a plot. The AFL has lost theirs.

He's so used to oppo players grabbing him off the ball, he thought he'd grab himself just to feel like he was involved.

Hear, hear. What an ugly unattractive game it was to watch. If MFC hasn't been in it I would have turned off at half time. The AFL have devised a game that cannot be umpired. It was pathetic watching skilled athletes scrambling around for the ball like seagulls after a chip, throwing it, dropping it (incorrect disposal), barely any of which was penalised, because it all happens so quickly in such confined space that the umps can't be sure of any of it until a player dives to the deck pretending the ball is pinned to him. The game has evolved to where it cannot be umpired. Yes, it was wet and the pill was slippery. But the same things happen in perfect conditions too. (This is quote apart from lamentable skill deficiencies from supposed top level athletes, who can not kick with their "wrong" foot and who can not kick the ball while running in a straight line.) It didn't really strike me until this match. Holy moly. The AFL have let the game degenerate to the point where it cannot be umpired. Is there any other sport in the world that can make this claim?

A player could get duped and pass the ball, out on the full. Then the face palming that ensued could easily cause concussion, and we all know the head is sacrosanct.

Seventeen other clubs have broken out into cold sweats, now that they have seen what happens when you challenge the AFL and win ...

"Hell hath no fury like a Match Review Officer scorned" - old jungle saying.

Somewhere right now Michael Christian is settled back in a Chesterfield armchair, puffing on a Havana cigar, swirling a generous slurp of brandy in a balloon glass, thinking "yes, indeed ... revenge IS best served cold ..."

That was last week's interpretation of that rule.

ARE HIS EYES ON THE BALL???

Wow, they photoshopped in some sunshine. I didn't know they could do that back then. Looks like a centre diamond so maybe around 1973?

No tiddlywinks to determine the winner? Or ... more in line with the AFL's sponsorships ... one roll each on a pokie machine.

It used to be a committee of 3, and they were supposed to watch all matches, on replay if nec, and make their own decisions. Not sure why they changed it; might have been it took too long for the 3 to get together and exchange notes. Now it seems suspiciously as if Christian waits for the TV broadcasters and panel shows to get all outraged, or all meh, and lay his charges based on that.

On the contrary, I find it highly entertaining. Especially as I have a Hawk-supporting mate who thinks Frosty is a waste of space and a terrible example for their young players.

This is what happens when you allow the concept of "interpretation" to creep into your rules and take hold. A totally bogus concept. What other sport entertains the concept of "interpretation" of its rules?

Hawthorn, round 9, MCG

"On that day, the web-site's bulletin board, with over 700 people and/or bots participating, stayed on-line with no 'crashing' and only short delays coinciding with a sporting tribunal debate. Experts are undecided if the debate contributed to the delays."

Why are all these lawyers hanging around a sporting tribunal?

They'd like to think that, but they're probably just average.

By Gleeson's logic, it's case dismissed