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....)

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.

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.

Very funny

In the time it takes to ensure merely 2 players are on the other side of the line, it gives all other players plenty of time to congest even more.

Yeah, that annoys me as well. But at least it's not illegal. These ideas of zones at the bounce are insane. Words fail me. The only rational conclusion is that the Russian soccer federation has the dirt on the current AFL management and are plotting the elimination of Aussie rules. Where are ASIS/ASIO when you need them?

Don't wait for the ball to come out of a pile of players, just ball it up quickly before they get there makes a lot of sense. 'm always annoyed when players just jump onto the tackled player and his tackler to create a ball up. They often even tackle an oppo who is in the pile who doesn't have to ball. Why is that not a free?