Mazer Rackham

Prior Opportunity: a designation to a Player in Possession of the Football who: (a) is balanced and steady; or (b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or (c) has taken a Mark or been awarded a Free Kick; or (d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent. The bigger issue is the amount of throwing going on under the umps' noses. But the umps routinely fail to penalise incorrect disposal in match after match after match. The refereeing of the game has been in crisis for several seasons.

The amount of holding the ball/incorrect disposal is quite unreal.

There's nothing to be done about Buddy's "natural arc". It's illegal. It's almost a guarantee that they will though!

I believe players at the top level should have mastered the fundamental skill of kicking in a straight line. The rules should not be altered to accommodate technical deficiencies in players.

C'wood to win in an ugly brawl to knock the smile off Carlton, and so Buckley can stay as coach for that little bit longer. (Hopefully a lot longer.)

The rule forever has been that you have to kick directly over the mark. Anything else -- any deviation, any step sideways -- and it's play on. This "new" rule, although introduced with indecent haste, has the effect of taking things back to the way they were before numerous coaches bent the rule to breaking point, and successive umpires' directors , who apparently did not know what the rule is/was, let them. In fact the "new" rule was not even needed at all. What was needed was for the umpires department to enforce the "old" rule as it is written. Strange that it took this draconian "new" rule to assert what was actually the status quo.

"on trial for murder" The poor darling! Imagine how a Bugg or a Neal Bullen feels when they're on remand without the footy media pulling for them. Good experience for the pres of the players associations, to see how the other half live

I'm looking forward to all the (up to) $20,000 fines for commenting on a matter before the tribunal. So far it's Danger, Sloane, Riciutto, and Scott. It's clear the AFL are deadset keen as mustard when it comes to enforcing their own rules.

We cross now to Tribunal Chairman David Jones relaxing in a green chesterfield chair in his wood-panelled study, drumming his fingertips together and cackling softly to himself.

All the stars are aligning for a fine and eligibilty for the Brownlow

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE RULES 19 March 2020 41. Disciplinary Tribunal 41.18 Public Comment and Criticism a) A person subject to the AFL Rules and Regulations shall not publicly comment on: (i) the contents of a Notice of Charge prior to the conclusion of any determination by the Disciplinary Tribunal, as the case may be: (ii) a Notice of Investigation and any matter touching upon or concerning an Investigation under the AFL Rules and Regulations, until completion of such investigation and relevant determination by the Disciplinary Tribunal. (b) Where a person contravenes Rule 41.18(a)(i), the person’s Club shall also be liable to a sanction unless the person establishes to the reasonable satisfaction of the General Counsel that such public comment was not intended to influence or affect the conduct of the Disciplinary Tribunal hearing or the process of the investigation, as the case may be Sanction: Maximum 20 Units [1 unit = $1000]

It is a tough one. Basically the situation is, if you elect to bump, and there's head contact, tough bickies. It's on you. But wait! 4.3 REPORTABLE OFFENCES (D) FORCEFUL FRONT-ON CONTACT Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that opponent has his head down over the ball is a Reportable Offence. Unless Intentional, such actions will be deemed to be Careless, unless: » The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or » The bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not reasonably be foreseen. It looks in the video as if Viney bumped Lynch and the head contact was with the other Melbourne player ... which Viney most likely wouldn't have anticipated. You can see it going either way but the decision to let him off was probably right. (Don't ask me how I would feel if it was Danger and some Geelong player sandwiching Clarry or Tracc.) The rules were different back then but the Trengove principal still applied which is why Viney was charged at all.

Dangermouse will argue that it was in self defence and that no-one could possibly have foreseen a clash of heads and that he was only a little bit off the ground and he was only a little bit not going for the ball and that he was exercising his duty of care in that he could have snapped Kelly in two or given him covid, and the tribunal will accept all that with a straight face.

2019 TRIBUNAL GUIDELINES [the most recent publicly available ones] 2.1 THE REPORTING PROCESS (D) TRIBUNAL HEARINGS The Tribunal will hear a charge for which a Player has pleaded not guilty or has pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. The Tribunal may find the Player guilty of the original charge or lesser charge, or may find the Player not guilty of any charge. The Tribunal will determine the appropriate sanction for the ultimate Reportable Offence it finds a Player to have committed (if any). [The above also applies to instances where the MRP has sent it straight to the tribunal] ... 4.4 PROCEDURAL AND OTHER MATTERS (E) EXCEPTIONAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES Where there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply financial or suspension sanctions that would usually apply to a particular Classified Offence, the Tribunal may impose any sanction it considers appropriate (as per Regulation 18.6(a)(ii)). Exceptional and compelling circumstances may arise where: (i) A Player has an exemplary record; (ii) A Reportable Offence was committed in response to provocation; (iii) A Reportable Offence was committed in self-defence; or (iv) There are multiple Reportable Offences that arise from the same event or course of conduct. (F) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES In determining the appropriate classification to be given to a Reportable Offence, the MRO will not take into account any provocation or whether a Player was acting in self-defence. However, while the Tribunal will generally apply the sanction corresponding to a particular offence, the Tribunal has the power in exceptional and compelling circumstances for the Tribunal to substitute another outcome if it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so. [Is it just me, or do sections E and F above contradict each other? re self defence]

OK, but put yourself in the shoes of the MRP and you'll see that May was completely to blame as he (a) isn't a "name" midfielder (ii) doesn't have a Brownlow or wasn't in contention for it (iii) hasn't played in a recent flag (iv) isn't fawned over by footy journos. Open and shut case. It's known in football judiciary circles as "the Trengove principle", although in recent changes to the tribunal guidelines, it was updated to "the ANB principle".

The ground is now perfectly laid for another breathtaking, inexplicable "AFL special" decision. (Take particular note of the tribunal chairman's remarks.)

SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A CHANCE ... Simple quiz: is full back a kind of midfielder? If yes, then a full back can win the Brownlow. If no, then a full back can't. Sorry, Steven!

I heard Peter McKenna interviewed a couple of years ago. He was asked about technique, what are the things you should do, what does he think of how modern players do it ... the first thing he said was it's a danger sign to him to see players spinning the ball like that. Increases the chances of the shot being sprayed.

Well, the football gods have given us the 4 points. Thank you, football gods. I can now enjoy the rest of the weekend. But by all the other gods, you sure do have a sense of humour. Apart from a few guys actually playing football, we looked slow, unskilled, struggled to find the pill, didn't know what to do with it when we did. Teams that are losing often look like that. But we were in front the whole time! Where is the improvement? They've had 5 months of planning & practice. It's like the 2019 or 2020 seasons are still going. Some of the skill errors under no pressure were unforgivable. Especially kicking straight to opposition. And set shots? Jayzus. Freo didn't look much better, but at least appeared to have some idea of what they were trying to do. God help us when we come up against a team with both talent and a plan. Quite a few invisible players, and some who might wish they were. Our vaunted midfield seems to have gone backwards. Tommy, Jordan, Spargo, Kossie, May & Lever: thank you for saving our bacon. Didn't see much "anger" out there. They weren't just saying what they think we want to hear, were they?

Don't worry, they're ANGRY

The question answers itself

THESE GUYS ARE ANGRY

Who says we can't develop our players? No 25 seems to be coming along very nicely.

Our best midfielder sure puts himself and his teammates under a lot of pressure.

Sublime skill on display. Like a flock of pedigree seagulls fashioned from the purest ivory, chasing after chips carved lovingly from the finest potatoes & deep fried in the sweat of virgins.