sue

OK, I presume that currently if the boundary ump throws it in when he hears either the call 'no one up for team x' from the field ump or when he hears (or sees) the response to the umps call of 'who is up'. But how often would the boundary ump really be sure of the latter? So god knows how the current system actually works. Not only does the AFL make it up on the fly, when they announce a new 'rule' they are so vague as to how it operates that they leave themselves a lot of options to make it up as they go. I suspect ruckmen will be run off their feet and players will start playing games to delay the boundary ump getting to the ball when that suits their team. They''ll be a new rule about that by July.

Very funny. But no one has answered my question about boundary throw-ins which are not addressed in the AFL article. What do they wait for now, nominations? What is the new 'rule', no waiting for nominations? I can see a lot of the problems with the latter. (All of which are solved if the rule is just no second man up from the same team, but that seems to not be part of the AFL's plan.)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/no-more-warnings-on-umpires-exit-path Well the AFL have finally realised that it is a waste of time (and stupid) to tell the players which way they will run back after a ball up - as if that wasn't obvious for the last x years. But I'm confused by the boundary throw in. Do boundary umps currently wait to hear who has nominated before throwing the ball in now? Will they not under this new 'rule'? Will the umps tell them to wait until nominations are made? Confused

Since Titus drank one too many

Anyone know who is on the 'appeals board'?

this. Have a fixed tribunal panel of people prepared to do the job all year, plus a couple of reserves in case of illness etc.

I see that people (doubtless Carlton supporters) are saying it is not clear if contact was even made by CC. Can't the tribunal just ask the umpire?

I agree. But those who see doom and gloom if we let a beaten oppo kick a couple of goals in a row in Q4 might have a meltdown.

If there is no way to leave Gawn out of the team then the way to rest him is to absolutely belt a team in Q1 and put him on the bench for the rest of the match.

That's a bit weak. It wasn't excessive, it was plain wrong. Excessive implies there was something in it.

if we picked 4 players ahead of Fyfe then a lot of other clubs must have passed on him too. There will always be regrets, and at times there will be more regrets than 'average'. But we seem to be through that now and may be entering the time of 'above average' non regretted decisions. Time to forget the past.

Even so, you can see there were 2 blows even if you can't say exactly what the second one did. No excuse for the commentators. Too keen to rush to judgement.

Interesting that the AFL website says: Based on goalpost vision, Carlisle turns toward Hogan and makes contact with an open hand to the throat area. But doesn't provide the vision. Could it be that would make a lot of the media buffoons embarrassed? The reason Carlisle didn't get cited presumably was because it was an open hand, not a fist. So rabbit killers are also now all OK then. Just avoid the skull and go for the soft bits.

True by and large, though I can recall many occasions when we were getting done when the commentators chose to put the boot in rather than coach so enthusiastically - perhaps we deserved it. However the amateur coaching Watson and co were doing started before it was clear who would dominate. And it was pretty much all they talked about in the first part of the game. If only we could have the option commentary replaced by the umpires' mike.

Surely the only question should be what penalty Carlisle gets for deliberate high contact, off the ball.

A simple way to reduce the number of boundary throw-ins (very slightly) - drop the rule that says you must control the ball before it goes over the boundary to be paid a mark, so a second grab is OK. (ditto for marks on the goal line perhaps, perhaps not) . Can't see what bad effect it could have on the game, so zero cost for a small improvement.

Beggars belief: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/bombers-still-suffering-from-supplements-saga-says-hird-s-dad-20180505-p4zdjm.html

I'd believe that if there actually was a GWS player within arm's reach at the time. Looks more like he realised what he was doing and pulled back. But what he should be got for is his frequent belting a player who takes a mark against him. Serial offender.

Would certainly get rid of the problems we're told some players have with their ball drop. But personally I don't like the look.

The fat lady certainly knows how to sustain a long note.

I don't disagree. C'wood looked threatening but we never did despite hanging in. But it's worth mentioning that we were also 2 players down for the second half. Kent with his hammy and I recall Goodwin saying that another player didn't take part in the second half. Can't recall who it was.

possibly, but also justice (until the club stops playing the victim and confesses and apologises)

It would solve the censorship etc problems if the forum software had an 'ignore thread' option. Then those who don't want to read stuff about Watts could put this one on ignore and not be tempted to click on it.

10 out of 10 Deanox - I mean for saying 'his' highest point' rather than 'its highest point' which all the idiotic commentators always say even if the ball almost hit the roof of Etihad.

and crass on so many levels