sue

Lyon giving the 4 votes was the other only logical possibility than WCE coach having done so. No way it could have been a split vote as I think IDee pointed out. I am pleasantly surprised it was this way around. Credit to both.

I see it as protecting the travelling public more than protecting Gaff. There you are coming off the plane with she-who-should-not-be-with-you and suddenly you are on the TV news......

Assuming he is not a complete idiot, I expect someone told him that they had 'heard' that and he was so keen to grasp at any straw that he didn't think to check it was true before going to press. (Assuming it is in fact untrue.) (Actually maybe that is the deinition of a complete idiot....)

It was the weirdest thing I've seen for a while. Normally when players do that it is because they are frustrated and kick it hard. Jones just seemed to think he was in his backyard having a kick with the kids. Odd.

While not defending Deemania's mania, the probability of actual 'conspiracies' and dubious dollar-driven behaviour by the AFL is far higher than anything NASA or Elvis could muster.

Did I just overhear on the news Paul Roos putting the boot into Gil for being out of touch and something about integrity of the game?

So Lyon compromised his vote then? Or will you say Lyons just didn't rate him? Fairies at bottom of my garden too.

Gaff may have been the very best on the ground. But if the coach had any decency he would have ignored his performance and left him out of the votes. edit to add: And if you disagree then you should attack Lyon for offering a biased vote by not giving Gaff at least 1 vote. Would you?

Because if IDee's logic is correct (as it seems to be to me, unless you think Lyons gave Gaff the 4 votes!) it throws light on the attitude of the WCE coach to this whole business. Surely if we are going to discuss the overall issue, this is a relevant aspect. Of course no one is forced to discuss it.

Idee's logic seems good to me.

There's a lot to be said for clamping down on the ridiculous jumper punching and pushing and shoving at the first bounce especially. Award a few free kicks and it will stop pretty soon. One could argue that all that poking the bear relieves frustration and hence reduces the likelihood of a Gaff incident, but one would be fooling oneself.

This discussion brings to mind the ridiculous one-punch king-hit mandatory laws that have been introduced recently by our law-and-order politicians. I hate such laws. Every case should be examined on its merits taking into account all factors and the punishment should that all that into account. If any of those pointing out the ameliorating factors for Gaff support the king-hit laws and other mandatory sentencing laws, I urge them to please think again.

What a silly question.

Surely hitting a pest might mitigate the penalty for hitting the pest compared to hitting someone who doesn't provoke, but a reputation for niggling isn't a reason for an extra penalty for an off-the-ball hit.

umm, I don't think Bugg hit his brother.

If he does go to another club, he may well be missing the first few rounds of 2019. Or do pre-season games count?

Alternatively the family might be happy to see Gaff at neither the Eagles or the Demons.

The AFL will introduce a new factor to downgrade the penalty. That will be some weasel words which amount to 'he's also has the penalty of not getting the Brownlow'.

Almost any regular reader of this forum actually.....

At what time in the game did it happen. Would like to find the incident

How different was the Suns team when they beat Sydney than the Camberwell Sharks Suns of today? Genuine question, but I fear the answer will be not much.

I think you are missing the point. Banning the 3rd man up has nothing to do with what Dangerf did. The idea is that anyone can contest the ball at a throw in or ball up (bar centre ball ups) - no nominations. If a team is so stupid as to not sort out amongst themselves who is the ruckman for that contest and 2 of that team go up, then they need to sort out their internal communications, not change the rules to the nonsense we are currently seeing. One difficulty that I can see is when 2 from each team go up. But then just pay a free against whoever appears to be #3, ignore #4. The other problem without nominations is what if 2 from each team start wrestling before, or as a ball is thrown-in. But that could have happened anytime in the last 150 years before nominations was introduced. Why did it not happen then? Personally I'd like to see the wrestling banned at throw-ins. Only the most egregious holding is paid at throw-ins whereas a minor arm wrap is paid against whoever starts it in a marking contest. Pay it as is done for marking infringements and there will be less congestion. The wrestling looks ugly and I suspect leads to taps which go no distance which adds to congestion.

I doubt a tech solution will ever be 100% (though it could be a lot better than now). But there's an alternative: Just do what we did for 100+years and rely solely on the goal umpire's call. No video checks. Goal umps may get it wrong from time, but that happens all over the ground with probably more effect on the outcome of matches.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sport/afl/brayshaw-knows-all-about-taking-risks-20180803-p4zvdt.html

or their desperation?