sue

No co-captains, Tyson, Watts ,Salem sounds pretty riddled to me. But then I'm not the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail.

Sure we are a far better team across the board and better placed to cover injuries than we were in the past. Just saying CB's post, though negative was not 'misinformed'. He is just gloomier than you and it's not without reason when you lose your 2 most important inside mids who just happen to be our cpatains.

and just who can replace Jones and Viney then? We may be lucky and get a couple of players back, but it is not misinformed to say we will be weaker without the known outs. Whether that means we are doomed in another matter.

I'd take anything if Taylor just stopped 'commentating" altogether. A complee idiot.

Of course no proceedings will ever be completely free of inconsistencies. But the current situation is extremely bad. Surely you don't think it can't be improved.

That is a defeatist position. What about some major reform of the MRP and tribunal. Currently it is like a murder trial in which the jury is composed of hit-men.

For me the anger is not whether Bugg deserved 4, 6 or 8 weeks. It is the cases where players get off completely or get a slap on the wrist. If the AFL is serious of cutting out hits to the head they should apply it rigourously. They don't.

I think the club could have said more in mitigation even if it was going to make no difference to the penalty. It is significant that Bugg hasn't been charged in 94 matches and if there was provocation and lack of intent it is unjust to Bugg's reputation not to mention that. I don't mind him being rubbed out. I do mind the inconsistency of the MRP and the media freanzy. The head should be sacrosanct especially if it is intentional. Instead we get a frenzy about Clarrie diving and random interpretations from the MRP with a strong element of who you are not what you did.

I don't think so. Most posters seemed keen for us to fly below the radar for as long as possible. Plus the general feeling that it is a disaster for us to go into a match favourites.

I can't believe I'm reading this. When a team has a seccond level of depth players who can cover their depth players who can cover their run-of-the-mill players who can cover their team's best players, then I think you'll find some other club will come a-poaching before that happens.

depends when the satellite pic ws taken. When I looked at the SCG all the boundaries and goal posts were there. Google earth allows you to look at old pics too.

agree, though with Hogan it's a question of fitness etc, not an injury which could be aggravated.

If you want to do even more research to check, you can measure the grounds yourself in google earth (and maybe google maps as well). I did it once for the SCG and was surprised to see that there was now a genuine 50 metre arc unlike the old "50m" one.

Stuff them. Couldn't give a damn.

It's true. Measure it on a satellite image, eg google earth/maps.

The sooner the MRP & Tribunal are composed of people who aren't former players the better. Ex-players have too much invested in teams and people they know and love or hate on top of their own playing history and egos about how tough they were etc. It is a sign of how amateur the AFL is that it doesn't see this. In fact if there was a model where ex-players had almost nothing to to with the AFL admin, yet the game wasn't totally prostituted to corporate dollars, I'd say remove ex-players entirely. hmm, maybe too late for that already.

Taking a risk that you really meant that... Old kids rhyme/game. Ring a ring a rosie we all fall down. Thought by some to originate during some medieval plague.

At least the appeal over Houli will take some of the media attention away from Oliver.

that cartoon makes me suspect that WCE lost a close game which they thought they had wrapped up.

Sharpen elbows then

With a bit of luck the tribunal may just conclude that grasping at 6 straws does not make a case. Sad that there is no QC to defend Oliver who is effectively being charged.

LOL The Tribunal's Legal Counsel Andrew Woods doesn't concede Oliver hit Schofield with his jaw.

If you think Sheuy kick wasn't kicking in danger then you are saying it is only kicking in danger when someone's head is near the moving foot. But the riule doesn't say that. When the foot comes that near the hand it is still kicking in danger. It is often not paid if it is a toe poke, and is too often overlooked, but when it is as obvious as Shuey's incident it should be paid and usually is.

Worries me that it is such a ludicrous low-probability appeal that WCE must have had inside word that he will get off, thus putting more pressure on Oliver. I wouldn't trust the old boys club that is the AFL an inch.

Well put. I play a sport where the rules look like they were written by a bunch of nit-picking lawyers. They are dense to read but they cut out the sort of ambiguity that allows an umpire like Harry B making such patently silly calls. The AFL should try writing the rules properly to eliminate both misinterpretations and interpretations.