sue

Thanks for posting that. I have been avoiding reading his crud and that confirms my decision was correct.

Better than googling I asked my friend at Perplexity.ai. I've no idea how significant or rare these instances are. Interesting that C'Wood and Geelong get slaps over the wrist and North gets whacked to a total of $80K Perplexity: Several AFL coaches have publicly criticised umpiring decisions, often leading to official warnings or meetings with the league. Here are notable recent and past examples: Craig McRae (Collingwood): Criticised umpiring after a close loss to Sydney, specifically referencing non-calls on a 50m penalty and insufficient intent rulings. The AFL issued him an official warning for his comments, but took no further action after McRae acknowledged he had "stepped over the mark" . Chris Scott (Geelong): Delivered a lengthy critique of umpiring and rule interpretations after a shock loss to Port Adelaide, focusing on holding the ball decisions and the advantage rule. The AFL’s umpire bosses met with Scott to discuss his concerns, but no formal sanctions were reported . Brad Scott (North Melbourne): Made false claims that umpires refused to pay free kicks to Lindsay Thomas, which the AFL deemed as impugning the integrity of umpires. This resulted in a $30,000 fine for Brad Scott and a $50,000 fine for North Melbourne. The swift apology from both Scott and the club helped mitigate further penalties . These cases illustrate that while coaches sometimes voice frustrations about umpiring, the AFL closely monitors such comments and may impose sanctions if the criticism is deemed excessive or unfounded. The league often encourages coaches to address concerns privately rather than publicly.

Except some players have played for 2 or 3 teams. And also perceptions on ladder of old club bias in other games. Scheduling may not be easy. Maybe better to use long time vfl players who’d carry less perceived bias.

Yes, he's my favourite goal umpire. But goal umps don't rouse the indignation of supporters, less so with video reviews where the indignation is usually directed at the process and the AFL using cameras where the ball can travel a post width between frames. While all umpires probably supported a team when young, their background is much more obscure than a player's. How would you feel with Maynard being an umpire (probably he would get the MRO job instead). I don't object to the idea you have put forward - just worry about how to dampen the 'he used to play for x, no wonder he's biased' issue. We supporters do enough frothing at the mouth now. Improved umpires like you suggest would hopefully make the umpiring better. Perhaps to the point that the frothing would become more irrational and outweigh the downside of perceived bias.

The problem with that would be the perception of bias (or over-compensating for it) when their former team plays (or in any game which might affect the ladder position of their old team). Of course these days they might have playeed for so many teams .....

He just needed to let go quicker and he may have escaped a fine. But just compare a slipped tackle with a delayed release to no attempt to tackle and a grab of the ankle to stop Kozzie running into goal. The latter, a deliberate intent to trip, is worthy of a suspension, but didn't even get a fine. The MRO is both corrupt and incompetent. Yes, it is possible to be both.

If you were making a file of MRO inconsistencies you wouldn't lack for material. In Kozzie's case the oppo just grabbed for his ankle - not a sign of attempting a proper tackle which went wrong. In Lindsay's case a tackle slipped down and he didn't let go as he should have. Pretty clear to me which one was worse. Don't ask the MRO.

What if speculation is a black hole. You can never tell whether those 3-4 missed goals really cost the game. For example if we got that much ahead, C'wood may have realised they were in trouble and reacted to our detriment. Whereas being up at 3/4 time may have made them over-confident and we suprised them. Of course, I'd rather have got those 3-4 goals!

Re the above posts about players leading with their head into an opponenet's stomach: I recall that some years ago in one of the AFL's pious moments about player safety, that they were going to discourage that dangerous practice by immediately awarding a free kick against the player doing it. Doesn't seem to have ever happened. Let's face it. In every aspect of the game from the draw to the umpiring the AFL is not interested in making a fair competition. They are focussed on the $.

I'm amazed by some of the negativity here (...no I'm not). Almost everyone thought we'd be lucky to come with 5 goals of them, many expected a 10 goal thrashing, yet we lost by a single point!! Sure it would have been great if the point was in our favour instead, but it wasn't. Despite all our mistakes, it ended up a toss up. Of course we could have done better and we have problems. But if that is all C'Wood can do against us then I'd say they must have problems too.

Interesting to see how many tap-ons and handballs "to self to run onto" there were . And a pack was only 4 or 5 players, not 10. TV coverage of close ups was better because there was no hand-passing in circles going out of the field of view. And with long kicks, plenty of time to chnage to a wide shot. (Yes, I enjoy living in the past and being at that game - standing room only.)

They just needed more time. That's more than 2.6 points per goal, so if the game went on longer they may have got to 7-20. Not far off 7-21.

Re: Our 'failure' to disclose the KB team: God knows there are things to criticise at the MFC, but those who groan about that and every little thing, only harm their credibilty on the issues that matter.

Interesting. Could it be a deliberate tactic rather than plain old nastiness? Perhaps a forced delay to stop the oppo playing quickly is of more use these days than a 50m penalty deep in defence which give time for opponents to organise, so it's worth the risk of a 50m.

When I wrote my post above, I didn't realize that readers who do not have access to the Age wouldn't be aware of the context. He said: ".....broken bones in my hands from defenders’ spoils and from when [an opponent] jumped on my hand deliberately"

While I do feel for him like anyone suffering that way, in reading his list of how his hand was broken, it did require me to overcome my natural reaction to ask why not also list punching people as a cause.

There is more than one way of managing such things. You apparently seem to be suggesting Goodwin shout to the world that his players are the worst kicks for goal he's ever seen and despite efforts to fix the issue, nothing has worked. While we all appear to agree with that generally*, I doubt it is the best way for a coach address the issue to the players. * maybe we disagree on how much effort has been made to fix it and maybe the fault is parlty where we force players to shoot from etc, but 'generally' seems correct.

Sure, but don't forget whenever Goodwin speaks to the media the players may also be listening. So maybe he's trying to reduce the pressure on them by generalising the problem.

Definitely is her. That's a still from her naughty 1933 movie Ecstasy I think. Doubtless it was banned here. It's on the internet archive https://archive.org/details/ecstasy-1933.hedy-lamarr

Sme whistle is annoying. I thought it sounded like the audio of the umps whistle was coming through earlier than the video and the commentators coming later than both. If so, quite an achievement.

Not much sign of Occam's Razor in all that. I'm so old fashioned that I think there should be nothing wrong with a defender just booting it up the line and out of bounds deliberately to gain terriroty and relief. But then I don't get money from extra goals providing more ad breaks.

I'm not getting into the specific umpiring of last night, but the 'insufficient intent' interpretations are driving me mad. If a forward kicks it under pressure in a pack trying to gain territory and it goes out, no worries. Heaven help a back man who does so. May as well toss a coin. I can't see what is wrong with the simpler old deliberate rule.

Where did you see it Cranky?

Normally I'd agree. But consider this: When someone commits murder and the authorities turn a blind eye, it would be natural for friends and relatives to make 'endless comments' about what the murderer deserves. Would you be surprised or critical of them? IMO, the same applies to a player who kills another player's footy career (and maybe more) with a non-football act.

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2425800771922