sue

Talk about missing the point. Yes, bad kicking is bad football. But you try to teach good technique in a wind tunnel. If you make an adjustment to style, you might or might not get a clear result. Do it in perfect conditions and you are much more likely to do so.

Or course, but there may be 2 issues. One is mental (which Fritsch seems to be suffering unless you argue he has a technique problem in which case you have to explain why that has suddenly developed). The other is players not improving their techique. That could be down to poor coaching, lack of application etc but there could well be a component of mentally making excuses for missing due to the wind at Casey and thus not fixing poor technique.

Maybe. But Dee-tails-key may have a point. If you are practising kicking in a windy location like Casey it makes it harder to know where your kicking is really at. If you miss you (and your coaches too) might put it down to the wind whereas there is something wrong with your technique and that gets overlooked as a result.

Not true, eg. Keane from Adeliade in 2021. And lots of fines have been made, up to $10K, including this year. Most trips are accidental and not very careless, so the MRO is understandably reluctant to suspend for them. But Kozzie had a clear deliberate trip. Not saying it was done with evil intention (ie to hurt Kozzie), but please explain how it wasn't at the very least a fine and basically ignored. What does it say about the AFL?

Don't be naive - the laws of Australia Rules Football (incorporated) override those and allow AFL HQ and the MRO to do whatever is currently on their empire building agenda.

I feel like that too. But I'm sure the AFL is busy monitoring clicks etc and thinks all PR is good PR, especially easy when it has the so-called footy journos in thrall.

Because crud umpiring generates controversy and gets the fans emotional which all leads to interest in the sport. And then they can mysteriously assist some teams. It is clear from the fixturing, the special games etc etc, that the AFL does not care about building a fair competition but is mainly interested in building an empire. On the Kozzie trip - OK, maybe 4 umpires didn't see it and they assumed he tripped over his own feet or a paticularly thick blade of grass. But why no review or a dangerous act? Beyond outrageous.

Then I wonder if the coach can be part of the trade instead of Kozzie? <couldn't resist a weak joke - I personally have no opinion on whether Goody should go or stay>

No it's not. It is deliberately inconsistent.

Just what we need. A Brisbane desperate to redeem themselves at home after drawing with North.

But will there be a report for deliberate tripping? An action as dangerous as many of the things that get players banned these days.

I'd like to add to that list, TV coverage terrible. The number of times we see a player with nothing but grass in the frame is maddening. And close ups where a ball is handballed out of frame and the viewer has no idea to whom, if anyone, it is headed. And close ups of the player who has taken a mark/free rather than showing the viewer what options he has downfield. The commentators make it all worthwhile ...... (is there a sarcasm emoji?)

In my distant youth an accidental trip was a free and a deliberate trip is a suspension. What is it now?

Vindey delayed concussion from the unreportable incident last week. Melk rested

Just when you think the depths have been plumbed they find another lower level.

I agree. I recall that years back the umps were told that if a player looks at the clock call play on. I dimly recall it was enforced. Was it? If so, when did it change?

If Melk gets banned for that, the AFL should take up running a croquet competition. Players are always pushing opponents out of the way so they can take a mark. If the do it with hands in the back, or too early before the ball arrives it is a free. I was suprised the ump thought it was a free rather than a mark (but little suprises me these days as inconsistency had reached stratospheric levels). It is common for the opponent bumped out of the way to then contact another player (of either team). And unfortunately and inevitably, once in a while that contact will result in injury. There is no way you can say the player was being reckless with the oppos' safety. If the intent of the bump is to get the ball that should be the end of the discussion. If the player actually gets the ball, then case closed. Either that or AFL croquet.

I agree. Having forked out to get a Kayo sub, I'm watching a lot more games where I don't really care much who wins. So my usual biases are not in play. I find the umpiring is truly a mess. And not just due to the competence or otherwise of the blokes in pastel shades. The AFL needs a thorough review of the rules and how umpires are instructed to rule. Won't happen.

Get him in against C'wood at least.

Sadly you may be right. But I recall being just as passionate and interested in games when it was just a bunch of part-timers playing in the 60's.

He's no saint for sure - but 'assailing'?. The suspension at the end of 2024 was wrong and either motivated by his previous record or the effect on the MRO's favourite team. Probably both.

A genuine question, just curious: You apparently read, reply and react to other people's posts as evidenced by your above post which is only intelligible as a response to someone else's post. While I can understand you or anyone not wishing to get involved in a stream of argumentative counter posts, why do you feel it necessary to add that? You can simply not respond to responses if you wish. Not that I expect a response....

Kayo unuseable at present. Krappo.

Insufficient intent has gone completely insane

I agree. I doubt that in the heat of the moment Langdon would be saying to himself "I won't kick it to Fritsch because <Insert reason I don't like him here>".