sue

How about a gloat-free moment. Re Max going over the mark, I didn't quite catch it, but I thought he just jumped leaning forward and his feet did not go over the mark even when he landed. If that is right I'm surprised that the rule prohibits that. It must happen all the time when a player just waves his arms about. Nah, return to gloating.

The trick with having a sell out is to make sure you limit the number of seats to the likely turnout. I'm sure the AFL would never play games like that however.

I was going to ask the exchange rate between guineas and dubloons actually.

If true, think of all those legal fees wasted in the last week.

I expect an appeal to the High Court either way. Still reckon the whole saga is a plot to disrupt our selection planning today.

Basing expectations on the basis of the arguments made is not a wise way to make a prediction with the AFL.

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?

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

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

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.

A lot of players would benefit from a set shot technique which was simply go back far enough so that they can have a shot on the run.

It's a pity there isn't an 'ignore thread' option so that those who can't stop themselves peeking at things that they don't want to read can stop telling us they don't want to read it. (Actually I think it would a nice feature regardless.)

Its a pleasant change to see you say something so balanced about Watts. Much better than deriding anyone who has a positive word to say about Watts as him being their 'pin-up boy'. Watts' critics are in a no-lose situation. If he flops at Port it will prove their point, if he succeeds it will because he needed a boot up the bum and a change of environment. If he plays a useful but non dominant role in Port's flag, this thread will go on forever.

I cannot see the justification for the mods closing the thread about the Essendrug scandal. The justification seems to be that there were a couple of posts about the cricket cheating which should have been in a seperate thread and that there is nothing more to be said about Essendon. Strange when there are current court proceedings on the topic. Please reopen.

Experience of Essendon says otherwise

How do you know that?

You are joking surely. I don't recall any articles putting the boot into the AFL. I guess the only explanation is that they are independent and the AFL is perfect.