sue

A genuine question, just curious: You apparently read, reply and react to other people's posts as evidenced by your above post which is only intelligible as a response to someone else's post. While I can understand you or anyone not wishing to get involved in a stream of argumentative counter posts, why do you feel it necessary to add that? You can simply not respond to responses if you wish. Not that I expect a response....

Kayo unuseable at present. Krappo.

Insufficient intent has gone completely insane

I agree. I doubt that in the heat of the moment Langdon would be saying to himself "I won't kick it to Fritsch because <Insert reason I don't like him here>".

I'm pretty sure I saw him playing in the 3rd quarter, if not longer.

Which led to an amusing post on another thread suggesting that if he marks a long way out of goal, an opponent should deliberately give away a 50m penalty.

If he gets 3 weeks kozzie should have got about 1 minute

You may have hit on the reason he doesn't qualify.

And now in general play, the shot is so close up that often handballls go out of frame. I'm sure they do this to make it more exciting for the viewer, not knowing whether the handball has gone to a teammate or whatever. I mean, how boring if it goes to a player well in the clear compared to not knowing what might happen next. (More apologies for being off topic.)

Sorry to go off topic, but your mention of that is what makes me so mad about the way they do the TV broadcasts. I'd like to see a wide shot as soon as someone marks the ball or gets a free. Instead we get a close up of the player with the ball. I don't care if he shaved that morning, I want to see what's ahead of him FCS!

Sadly I think it has come to the point that he should be told to try to kick a point on the right hand side of the goals. When he starts scoring points (and not on the left side!) he can be asked to aim at the goals again.

Even when we were playing well, you'd have been feeling nervous with both May and Lever not playing. There's always 2026.

If we lose, I'll wait for next week.

Please bring back the English commentator. please!

Of course it is not difficult to distinguish when nothing is happening.

ah, but is there not clickbait here as well? Why did I click on this thread knowing it was going to be just what it is.

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.