sue

No it's still there. Try another browser perhaps

Some say making the umps real pros won’t change anything. Others say the rules need changing. if the umps are pros they might have some power to get the AFL to change the most difficult to judge rules.

Whatever you think of the standard and difficulty of umpiring, to deny the above is simply foolish. The umpires are amateurs in a professional multi-zillion $ sport. Too easily influnced by crowds and the latest direction from HQ (well, for a week or two anyway). At least make them real pros. Perhaps some supporters who imagine their teams are hard done by the umpires aren't as one-eyed/brainless as some 'more rational than thou' people are claiming. If big crowds influence umpires (which I think is undeniable, though not 100% of the time of course) then over time those paranoid supporters of smaller teams would have some confirmation of their suspicions.

Sadly I think our strong intercept marking will be suffer more than Curnows marking which means ball comes to ground and then anything can happen.

25m penalty means nothing these days. Almost every mark or free leads to the voluntary giving up of 15-25m anyway and with the 'stand/5m' rule who knows where the mark is most of the time. Early in the season the players had started to learn how to behave - even the Geelong ones who are now back to their finest whinging. There was never any need for multiple penalities. If it had been enforced consistently all season, by now infingements would be as rare as hens' teeth. But expecting the AFL to be consistent? Good luck with that.

Someone at AFL HQ decided that allowing a bit of strong emotion is more valuable ($) than the pious hypocrisy they mouthed about stopping bad examples to kids and recruiting umpires. Seriously, what sort of code introduces a new 'rule', runs with it relentlessly for a few weeks, and then increasingly ignores it. But you watch them pull it out of their %%$# when it suits. And they call it a professional sport....

It won't be ready in time.

I think the AFL is crazy but surely it can't be that crazy? If you (blatantly) shove a player in the back and take the mark, that doesn't give you a free pass for the shove just because you took the mark. Why should head high contact via knee be a special case?

Contender: noun a person or group competing with others to achieve something: a presidential contender | the major contenders in the football championship. I'm basing my opinion on the dictionary. You can be a contender and not win. Now if you are interpreting it as a team which has a good chance of winning rather than just making up the numbers, my opinion is that losing by a combined total of a few points made us a "contender".

why?

I'm a total abstainer from the match day thread during the game and heard nothing from the clown commentators: what actually happened to Viney?

By a combined total of bugger all. What part of the word contender don't you understand?

Another nnon-universal rule of the AFL. I am mystified by how far players can run when kicking-in after a behind. I'd assume they can't run more than 15m from the end of the goal square. Yet they often run much much further than that and it would be easy for the umps to judge given they have a 9m ruler nearby. Am I missing a rule?

9 not 7

Possibly, but would you want to take the risk of losing and being up for damages? Even if you win you may not get your expenses paid.

I put Hamish saying that down to Hamish not wanting to be sued for libel. Tough to prove in court that it wasn't a football action, though many of us are sure it wasn't.

A great letter and sums up what all of us feel. Good to see a player having the guts to say it. The only thing I disagree with is his remark about football acts and Maynard. But then, neither he nor (anonymous) I want to be sued for libel for saying something difficult to prove in court.

This is probably/certainly a mad idea, but what about gettitng JVR to play on Cameron. He may learn a lot.

That is doubtless true, but how much less would that revenue be if there was no GWS or Suns? Surely if there are few members supporting those teams, there also aren't many in NSW/QLD watching those matches. So the extra profit to broadcasters must come from supporters of other teams being prepared to watch their own team play against almost anything. I guess that may be sufficient.

Earlier posts indicate I don't differ from you much on the issue, but I think you should be careful about the meaning of compare. It doesn't mean equivalence. But you can compare the two (where have I heard that?) It means: "Estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between" etc AFL is a workplace, just different from a 'normal' one. You'd be sacked from a 'normal' one for executing a perfect AFL tackle on an unsuspecting colleague. You won't be in the AFL because the rules you have signed up to allow it. But they don't allow sniping 'love taps' (despite what the commentators and other 'look at how tough I am' types say). So it can reasonably argued it is a sackable offence in the AFL workplace. However as per earlier posts, I agree with you about the penalties for repeated 'love taps' offenders. I suspect I'd sack earlier and for less than you, maybe not. I think we differ on an automatic suspension for x weeks for any 'love tap' (I'm in favour unless extenuating circumstances can be proven)? (Or here's a case where the AFL work place is more severe than a 'normal' one (and at the risk of mentioning topics we are not allowed to): There are many workplaces where you would not be sacked for taking a certain drug at home - unlike in the AFL it seems. Both are workplaces and can be compared, just not equivalent.)

I'd tend to agree to start with a (large) fine if there is any significant evidence of provocation. In Clarry's case I don't believe there was any provocation (other than the offender's hurt pride in knowing that Clarry is a better player). I doubt there'd be too much difficulty arguing about how long things carry over compared to just getting up a repeat offence schedule in the first place.

My apologies for not having read earlier posts. IMO arguing by analogy often leads to irrelevant arguments as to how closely the 2 cases are related, rather than discussing the original point. Best not to carry on with the analogy. You'd be far less likely to be suspended/sacked from many everyday jobs for a bit of wrestling than for a punch (though yes, in some you'd be sacked for either). Then there is the 'equivalent to AFL infringements' in the analogy with the everyday workplace - stealing staples compared to stealing a stapler? Curses, they've got me doing it now.

You're the one who raised the comparison with an everyday work place, so either I'm glad you now think it is silly or you have confused me completely. I'm surprised you can't see the difference between a 'love tap' and wrestling. But yes, if the wrestling is over the top (eg causes significant pain), it should be penalised too. But if it is not over the top, it would be worthy of a fine, not suspension IMO. Repeated minor acts and fines should lead to a suspension if there is a further infraction. Just as too many suspensions for 'love taps' might be grounds for the sack.

That is a silly comparison. OK, you are saying a workplace which allows some sorts of physical contact as part of the employment (playing the game according to its rules) should do little to discourage physical contact which has nothing to do with the game. Bus a fine (of the size the AFL employs) means nothing to these players. I'd agree, a fine would be OK if the fine was say 10% of the players annual contract and there were measures taken to prevent others paying the fine for them. But since the latter is impossible in practice, a suspension is the only way to send the message to players to stop giving the AFL a bad image and influencing kids to think gratuitous violence is OK. (if anyone thinks it is a good image, then take up supporting boxing.) Current precedents create a problem, but the AFL has to grasp the nettle and make it a rule that a 'love tap' means 1 week off or more depending on severity (and penalties for blatant staging). And if you do it too severely and too often, then yes, you are sacked from the AFL.

The AFL and the sycophantic media will say nothing in it, just a love tap, victim over-reacted etc etc. One day they might realise it is not the best look for the sport or a good role model for young kids. But I wouldn't hold your breath.