sue

To the poster who said the AFL control the Friday night slot: The AFL wouyld be mad to do things which drive down the ratings because 7 would offer less loot for the next contract. It's in neither parties' interest to have poor matches, but it could well be that no matter how bad the blues are, they figure the overall audience will exceed MFC playing Suns etc. They may have got it wrong this year, but I'm sure the ratings mean cash which means ratings take priority and 7 will have a big say in that.

They have the advantage that every game they play is on free to air in Sydney, Canberra etc

I liked that way he kicked that goal in Q3. Marks on an angle, walks with back to umpire while reducing the angle, ignores the umpire trying to put him on line and plays on to kick the goal starting from where he shouldn't be. It has annoyed me for years that this is allowed, and annoyed me even more that MFC players didn't do this when other teams did. Cynic in me says watch out for 'rule/interpretation' change now that we have a player smart enough to do it. Though why it required much 'smart' is beyond me.

Great stuff. Interesting how during the cold war when we could have all been fried to ashes (came close several times) US TV could poke fun at their spies fighting the Soviets. I doubt they could run a comedy series these days based on a bumbling Maxwell Smart vs ISIS. So to keep on topic, if a player wears number 86, don't bring him in this week.

Sigh, if only MFC had the numbers: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-10/woosha-wants-a-meeting-with-the-umpires

I was pleased to see that loveable Scott brother whinge in the press about the 50m rule. I wish we did too, but I guess it is easier to whinge about 3 penalties when you win by 37 points than when you lose by 2. His remark below is right on. "It will frustrate me even more if the umpires say that technically they were correct, because if they were technically correct then technically you missed 20 others.

We were.

I agree about the AFL Rules, but surely you have seen many goals kicked when the player was in contact with the post. So if your guess at the rules is correct then that would have been called a behind before he kicked it.

That just has to be wrong. The ball has to hit the post or go completely over the line. Tracc's arm grzed the post while he was holding the ball, but that is not the same as. the ball touching the post.

Not weird, but unusual, and not as reason to over-ride the usual review procedure like Dermie (or maybe another commentator) seemed to imply. By calling a goal the umpire was of the view it had not hit the post earlier, but wanted to check that it hadn't so that the ball was still in play when the goal was kicked. In my usual generous attitude to the turkeys that run the AFL, I must assume there was another camera angle that we didn't see which clearly showed the ball touched the post. I also have a group of fairies at the bottom of the garden.

That's not my recollection. I thought I heard him clearly say 'goal'. Anyone know exactly when it happened to check the video? Edit: 7:42 in Q2. Umpire clearly says goal, just want to check it didn't hit the post

That goal review when CP was close to the post and then JG kicked it off the ground through the goals. The ump called it a goal but wanted a review to see if the ball had hit the post earlier. I cannot for the life of me see how the video review showed that it contacted the post and certainly not enough to overrule the original call.

No worse than his analysis of the footy match in front of his eyes.

Yep, forget ducking your head, it's getting to the point that the easiest way to milk a free is to stumble over a player laying on the ground.

That. I'm not sure whether I find the positive commentary when we are winning more or less annoying than the negative when we lose. I try to avoid both. I guess if we were winning continually, I may feel more relaxed about the positive commentary, but till then it just reinforces my MFCSS.

Even if you don't accept conspiracy theories or the more subtle influences I mentioned in an earlier post, to just simply say 'accept the fact the game is impossible to umpire' is just weak. Sure, the game is difficult to umpire, but it is foolish to dismiss discussion of ways of making it less difficult and more rewarding to watch.

Being old and sad, I still watch whatever free to air games are on and I can tell you that you are only missing more examples of umpiring that cause me to tear out my few remaining hairs. And the game gets uglier week by week. I won't comment on the commentators......

Any chance the MFC has had a word to the AFL?

And another thing.... The nomination of rucks at ball-ins/ups. What justification is there for not simply penalizing a third man up? (assuming we actually want to do so which is another debate) The only things I can think of are that: 1. it is not clear who the umpires should insist are a metre apart. But why insist on that in the first place. What does it matter if the 2 nominated (or not nominated) ruckman are wrestling before the ball is thrown in? Just apply the usual rule about not taking a player out if the ball is beyond 5 metres from the contest. 2. Players will try to block the ruckman and the umpires won't know that the blocked player was a ruckman. But once again, just apply the usual blocking rules. So I see no argument in favour of nominating ruckman. Am I missing something?

I don't think you have to believe in a planned conspiracy to bribe the umpires to see 'rigging' in the AFL. The umpires are human (yes, it's true) and pick up the AFL's vibe about TV revenue, favoured teams with large memberships etc and it is likely to affect them. We all know how susceptible they are to crowd noise in WA, so it would be foolish to think they are not susceptible to other influences.

The 50m penalties are proof positive that the AFL is run by complete idiots.

Good grief, there is a distinction between X happening and players thinking that X is acceptable. You assume the players have accepted (defeat, lack of effort, incompetence, whatever). But just because they have been defeated etc does not necessarily mean they have accepted it. They might just not be good enough.

Just because you think it is unacceptable does not mean the players have accepted it. But that seems to be the lapse in your logic that leads others to ask what do you mean by accepted.

Wise MFC supporters acquired foam rubber bricks years ago.

much more likely. Throwing around suggestions of lack of respect for supporters is like assuming what we say on DL affects what happens in the club beyond 0.001% level. I expect the players of all teams care first and foremost about their own game and that of the team mates, not whether I've thrown a brick at my TV.