sue

After all that, anyone want to modify their view of best result for us in C'wood v Sydney? (you can tell I'm confused)

You have to wonder if he compares 20 attempts with each method at practice and uses the result to decide which way to do it in a game.

He can be all those things and I can still find him creepy. But I admit his commentary is much more annoying than creepy. Perhaps cringeworthy is more appropriate.

Creepy he is. And bloody annoying.

A lot of Richmond's knock-ons didn't succeed. I felt they were over-doing it and should have taken possession a number of times instead. Was it just bad luck or were Geelong countering it?

Umpiring = JOKE

I know nothing about injuries, twinges or strains and the risk of more serious damage, but I'd bet there is a big variation between cases, including Viney & Melksham. Almost every team must have supporters grumbling about their medical team at the moment.

It's difficult to go into rehab in the middle of a match which if we lost it would likely mean we miss the 8. A judgement might have been made that what you have been told all year (really?) is out of date.

Sure naming names is not a good idea. But giving some indication of the type of source gives a tiny bit of credibility to such posts. And I haven't seen too many posters who make bold assertions either live or die on what they post, they just keep posting regardless. If you have a score sheet, I'd love to see it please.

Einstein was not quite right. He said something like insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a better result. The AFL are showing that you can be insane and do different stupid things over and over again.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-trial-two-rule-changes-in-this-weekend-s-vfl-game-20180731-p4zun9.html If only they were joking....

Sure, that's how the rule is applied. But it is apparently expressed in terms of distance which as I've argued makes sense. How could they possibly express the rule in terms of time. It would be laughable to have a rule expressed 'tackled after x milliseconds'. And the 5m rule fits with the general 5m rule about interference, so it covers the case when the ball just dribbles away. Anyway I don't think we are really in disagreement, and it has nothing to do with May.

Just because the umps say 'late tackle', doesn't mean that is the rule, it's just short-hand. It's quicker to say that than say 'the ball was more than 5m away when you tackled'. It is 'late' because the ball was more than 5m away. According to an earlier post the rule is expressed in terms of 5m, not a time delay. I'm just saying that without accurate measuring equipment on every interaction (impossible), time or distance are effectively interchangeable. In fact I think you can argue distance definition is better because it is more useful in cases where the disposal isn't a big fast moving kick.

Surely it is consistent - a kicked ball travels 5m very quickly - probably it's beyond 5m when people judge that the hit was late. Without a tape measure or stop watch measuring each hit maybe the AFL rule is sensible for once.

Sadly that is true. There is too much advantage when tackled in just going to ground and hanging onto the ball to avoid a free for DOB or a illegal disposal away form the boundary. As well as Frisch's case, the other example is a player tackled and stays standing up and after a while the ball spills to the ground. This is often paid as illegal disposal even if the ball is knocked out, but if the same thing happens lying on the ground it is ball up. Not sure there is a way of fixing the rules/interpretation for that, but players should be instructed to go to ground and roll over the line when tackled near the boundary, particularly on the backline.

according to the AFL site stats, he got 0 frees for.

whoops a lot of unintelligible typos and syntax but you may have just got the drift.....

I argue it hat is true then it shouldn't be when that is the only direction physically possible.

So if he doesn't release it there is a good chance he'll be pinged for holding the ball. If he releases it there is only 1 direction that it can possibly go in and that is over the line. Seems unfair to be pinged for deliberate in those cases. So it's down to interpretation as usual. True, he should have just held onto it and rolled over the line as that is the best chance of getting away without a free, but it shouldn't have been necessary if the umps were smarter. But this response all over the ground leads to congestion. In many situations if a player is tackled the last thing he wants to do is let the ball come out, so they hold it in as much as they can. That lead to ball-ups and congestion. If he lets it spill out he'd liklely to be got for illegal disposal. Maybe better to allow the ball spilling out more and use the 'ball came out in the tackle' 'rule'

Watching Norf v WCE, I see a new rule/interpretation of the day. It is not holding the ball if you ony take 2 steps before being tackled. Even if you break the first tackle of 2 in doing so. Heard it twice during the match.

A cunning way of hiding the fact that you already have done it. But tell us which login names are bots.

Correct, I look at video on the AFL/MFC website. I just checked and the audio was good there today (though no split screen with journo and coach). I'm hoping that means the audio will be OK in future on the web.

I have avoided watching Goodwin's post-match press conference recently so I don't know if the AFL has finally acted like the professional body it claims to be and actually made it possible to hear the questions asked by the journos. Last night not only could you hear the questions, but there was also split screen video of the questioner and coach. Is this now happening all the time, or is it just in Adelaide?

No mention of that by the commentators. (Why am I surprised?)

That is the most succinct summary I've seen. The only point you missed was that the commentators on TV are complicit in much of what you listed.