sue

At the risk of being misrepresented and personally abused by a certain poster I'll dare to make a comment on this. I agree with IRW in every respect, umpires are not biased (though unfortunately influenced on occasion by crowds) and the game is exceptionally difficult to play and umpire. I differ with some in thinking the AFL's policies/rules/interpreations/rules-of-the-week exacerbate the difficulty. I think the word 'usually' in IRW's statement that "over a match bad or missed decisions usually even themselves out" needs consideration. While statistically it may seem to even out, there is no doubt that bad or missed decisions can change the momentum of a game or affect the result in a close game. This naturally frustrates supporters. There is no obvious solution expect to fix the AFL's policies which currently make a difficult job even harder.

But keeps saying “head clash” but only focuses on the tigers player. Presumably it was a head shoulder clash.

I want Geelong and Carlton out of the finals. Who to barrack for tonight to increase the odds of that happening? Arrrghhh, it's all too complicated- advise please. I leave aside the Geelong Port game - as Jaded said, too damaging to the soul to even think about it.

Ah, media management. The AFL says 'massive fine' and the ABC radio news just parrots the phrase. At least the ABC websites simply state the penalty without commenting on whether it is 'massive' or 'pissweak'

That $50,000 won't be much help to the AFL in the court cases to come. It won't help establish how concerned the AFL was about concussion back in 2023. Maybe they think the $50K if wisely invested with Sportsbet will help pay the AFL legal fees. Short-termism - may get them past this week but destroy the AFL in 10 years time.

Who cares! We should do what is best for us and stuff the media.

In that article I found these words interesting: The scrutiny comes from both the AFL itself, with an independent doctor viewing the game from a hub alongside the AFL review centre (ARC) charged with alerting the doctors on the bench to an incident they may have missed that could involve a concussion...... Has anyone heard any comment on why this independent doctor didn't alert Port to what the rest of us could see? Or did they, but were ignored?

Only the AFL could produce a diagram which defies geometry. They show the behind post following the curve of the oval and then 9m of the protected zone is in line with the 9m edge of the goal square. Impossible. But the truth is that the behind posts are not on a curve but in a straight line with the goal posts, so there is no special relativity effect required. (Sorry to nit pick - well not really sorry.) The tweet says the player on the mark will be instructed to come back to the 9m line. Sometimes they are, sometimes the player gets pinged either without any instruction or without time to move. And sometimes where 9m actually is is unclear to both parties. They need to paint a line of some sort across the ground so players know where the 9m is and then no instruction should be needed.

I think 'rested' isn't the right word except when a player is shaking off an injury. Being 'rested' otherwise is a week of not getting knocked about (and possibly injured) and a mental break - presumaby not sitting on the couch eating KFC. I can only rely on the club to decide who needs either type of rest and to weigh up the other pros and cons of having a player who could play, not do so. Geelong seemed to do it successfully last year, so I'm surprised by those who say absolutely don't do it.

If the AFL wants to protect itself from future litigation it has to show it is serious about the concussion issue. Given the possibility of clubs' priorities overriding medical decisions, they must appoint and pay for independent doctors at matches. All this just at the time when they have started halting matches when someone looks slightly injured without (to my knowledge) even announcing it is a new policy. Why has it not been announced? I suspect that they know it won't be enforced consistently and if it is a formal policy, teams will use it to halt momentum.

I can't see how anyone can get a handle on Grundy's 'forward craft' or lack of it in these conditions.

If Goodwin did say anything to DB 'in confidence' then I wouldn't call that a leak, but a deliberate plan to get that info public knowing DB can';t be trusted. I can't see why he'd tell him anything in confidence if he thought he would not blab. What use does it serve MFC for DB to know anything and keep it to himself? If he did say it to him 'in confidence' for some arcane reason and DB blabbed then no one will tell him anything in confidence again. Most likely it's all hogwash.

The media just want clicks. Good stories about us are mainly read by MFC supporters only. Bad stories are read by a fraction of all other club's supporters, especially big rival clubs and at times when we are a threat. They do the numbers and work out where the most clicks are.

Well done Tracca. Very refreshing. Let's hope more posters follow your lead in reducing the temperature around here.

With my tinfoil hat on, maybe they plan to do a deal with MFC. They sink as low as possible and in return we give them something. (Yes, joking.)

C'wood are obviously very good and in a great position to win the flag. But this is a very good question.v I'd be interested to see an explanation from those who think they are the bees knees.

True, Melmsham did push, but no worse than is often ignored. It shouldn't be ignored, just paid consistently. As for the 50m against him (and against others on all teams) how about the AFL digs deep into Gil's retirement fund and pays for enough chalk to put a line across the ground in line with the 9m goal square.

My overseas mate (UK) watches replays on Watchafl (either that or he'd had to be up in the middle of the night for live games).

No my memory is right. Based on posts you liked and your own posts in April. You stated your first thought was to allow some slack in what's allowed like waving arms in exasperation but then added you felt that could get out of hand so finally you said: "So whatever the ruling is, it needs to be clear cut ... and zero tolerance eliminates doubt" Rules should be as clear cut as possible, but abuse and moderate dissent are different. I am happy we now agree that some slack should be allowed to indicate the players questioning/displeasure (but no abuse). I suspect a bit of abuse is being let through at the moment, but my lip reading is not up to the task.

My strong recollection is that you were all for strict no dissent at all at the start of the year based on wanting to protect junior umpires etc. and criticised me and others for instead wanting the happy balance we seem to now have. Maybe my memory is wrong. Glad we are in agreement now. So we must criticise the AFL for not supporting the umpires in their new interpretation since we haven't heard a peep out of the AFL on the subject.

I don't want umpires, male or female, threatened. But I'd be interested in you responding to my question to you about the change in dissent ruling during the year. Who do we criticise when the AFL have not announced a change in the rule? Or are you happy with the apparent change?

Of course it is not OK to abuse umpires. But why do I have to say it 1000 times - I DO NOT THINK UMPIRING IS EASY. I suspect very few who criticise umpiring think it is easy. Most of us want the AFL to looks more thoughtfully at rule changes and "interpretations" and avoid the "rule of the week" rather than just pile on individual umpires. I note that players vigorously disputing umpire's decisions seems now OK almost all of the time, unlike Round 1. I presume you would criticise those current decisions? Unless we know the AFL has issued a directive to now ignore that which they said was so essential for recruiting/retaining more junior umpires, we can ony criticise the umpires for making bad decisions when they ignore it.

I expect I'd be able to handle a lot of abuse because I haven't put you on ignore.

"You can't just shove another player out of the way especially when the ball isn't within 5 metres" A forward seems to be able to do it to backman often because the backman can't afford to 'fly' out of the contest like a forward does to milk a free. Sadly the more famous the forward, the more likely they are to get away with it. Your argument re scragging seems to be "Hang the rules,everyone does it, even us, so don't complain" . Imagine appying that line of argument to all sort of infringements. How about enforcing the rules so players are discouraged from doing it instead. Or change the rules. One or the other.

I don't blame them. The current stupid and inconsistent 'interpretation' is a lottery and you have to buy a ticket to win.