sue

Surprising that Yze thought they couldn't change the rules mid-season. From his time at Melb you'd think he knows they change anything when if suits the AFL. (I expect he does know, but said what he said regardless)

At least that could be consistenly applied without requiring umpires with mind-reading skills.

A damn sight better than a dishonourable thrashing IMO. If people can't take some comfort from a close result against a supposed top 4 team, however frustrating, then I'm not sure they should be following footy.

Agree. And when you add that defenders don't dare exaggerate a push and fall over whereas forwards can do so withh little downside, the old rule is the fair way to do things. I fear it's largely money driven. They think more goals = more interest (= more ads). Personally I prefer a balance between goals and general play. I like neither soccer nor basketball which represent the extremes of scoring. The suddenly enforced 'not 15m' calls for defense kicks (without the same being applied to kicks to forwards) also smells to wanting excitement and goals rather than fair play. And while I'm ranting, the 'insufficient intent' rule is getting silly. Why have it? What's wrong with a few more boundary throw ins? It's part of our game. Not exciting enough?

True. I wonder if anyone has ever analysed why North didn't do better. Perhaps all that winning did do them good but 'merely' and saved them from obliteration rather than boosting membership.

Doubtless showing my age, but I'd rate consistently winnning games more likely to attract new young members than any amount of social media promotion.

Then the law needs changing. How can it be insufficient intent to keep the ball in if his intent was clearly to concede a point, which if he had succeeded, would not be a free against? Now if it was also illegal to try to concede the point (which I understand it is if in a ball up a ruckman knocks it through) then sure, award a free. But it is not, so don't.

The singling out in this thread seems to have originated from a (so-called, self-styled?) supporter. Self-flaggelation used to be big in the chruch too. Perosnally I was surprised by the size and enthusiasm of the crowd. (And you can't expect many oppo supporters to swell the numbers when you play GWS).

Yes but somehow players seem to be able to dispose incorrectly to a teammate surprisingly often when tackled. It's not just the dubious disposal when tackled, it's 'handpasses' in play which are getting very dubious. The AFL likes it because play looks more exciting but I expect the umps will clamp down on it. Probably starting on Sunday pm.

Does the rule include reference to prior opportunity? There are many examples in a tight situation in the goal square which leads to players who could have just kicked it away not doing so and later getting into a mess and under the resulting pressure conceding a point. Isn’t that what happened here when once he slipped over and an opponent jumped on him He was under pressure and hit it through.

Brilliant idea to announnce the debutants as interruptions to the coach trying to detail his plans vs GWS.

The ABC news says it was his second such crash in 14 months.

Gosh. His third such kneeing offence and it’s a fine.

GWS keen to poke the ball to teammate rather than take possession

What about the 'insufficient intent' nonsense we were treated to last night. A player in wet conditions kicks it along the ground over 40 metres and it eventually slides out therefore he wasn't intent enough to keep it in. I can't wait for it to be applied to all areas of the game where the ball goes out. Any kick to a pack along the boundary line shows insufficient intent to keep the ball in since the player must know there is a high probablility it will go out one way or another. If the player gave priority to keeping it in, he should kick it to an oponent 30m from the boundary.