sue

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.

Oh, lack of force as proven by the fact that Oliver is a diver I suppose. What a load of crud. Looks like the MRP finally makes a right call and then I read that.

Well said. This is the second time recenlty where Demonland posters have argued that just because we might have some supporters who are too biased to let facts get in the way, that somehow that can be used against the actions of a MFC player. As Nasher says it is totally irrlevant what some posters may have said if it was the other way around. Judge each case on the facts (and where they are unclear, apply your knowledge of human motivations). My view is there is no good evidence that he dived or had a motivation for diving. Therefore let's concentrate on the perpertrator not the victim. This was a case of assault which if performed in the street could have landed someone in jail for life if things went badly wrong (under our new stupid laws which allow no discretion for a judge apparently.)

Precisely. Just because one-eyed supporters are often wrong cannot be used to argue they are wrong in a specific case. Judge each incident on the facts, not what some hypothetical person might say.

Don't see the relevance of that statement to the question of 'did he or didn't he'. What one-eyed supporters are liable to cry doesn't affect the facts.

No hole at all, that is just silly. Just because Petracca tries something ridiculous on, doesn't affect the argument. Anyway if getting such a free were possible, where would the umpire award the free kick from?

Not to worry. The AFL will start filling the seats with virtual spectators on the TV. Ground will look full and even if one team is 100 points ahead the crowd will be on the edge of their seats.

Because you didn't factor in the famous player/big club discount. The title of this thread is wrong, its not a farce, its a disgrace.

No he didn't. He said the Dogs would get their act together soon but he thought not before Melbourne beat them.

Great work by the club hypnotist in convincing the team at the first bounce that we were 24 points down.

I wish people would stop talking about top 4 etc. With so many teams either on the same number of points or 4 points behind us and many weeks to go anything could happen from glory to despair. A week at a time please. Don't set yourself up for bitter disappointment.

not really. They may both end up 2 points ahead of us with poor percentages. Better that one of them is 4 points worse and may battle us on percentage. Trouble is which one, and guessing what happens to them in the rest of the year. Pertraccattack and Diamond Jim are both equally persuasive. Arrggghhhhh.....

Any ladder-obsessives to tell me whom I should support tonight - St Kilda or North? (Personal prefernece is of course St Kilda, but the ladder looms.)

Finally got down from the footy desert (AKA NSW) to see the match. Although in a perfect spot to see Watt's goal, I didn't see Watts kick the ball - I saw him running in and then a pile of C'wood supporters in front of me leapt to their feet in my way. But over their heads I saw the ball sail through the middle, followed by the collapse of said supporters. Very satisfying. Does anyone know what Watts did to annoy the C'wood supporters? Love to see a video. BTW, does anyone know why the small TV screens they have scattered about the Olympic stand are about 1 second behind the play (and the main scoreboard which I couldn't easily see)? Very frustrating for the short-sighted.

I'd add to what I posted #247 that it follows that even existing technoogy padding will offer some protection which might just be sufficient to protect in a marginal case. So worth using.

Both side are correct in theory. But in practice, current technology helmets can only be of minor effect in the most marginal case. It is just basic physics. Concussion occurs because the momentum of the skull and contents is reduced to zero (or even reversed) in too short a time - a large decelleration which leads to the brain sloshing around and concussion. Padding will indeed help spread the change in momentum over a longer time. If the time to come to a stop is larger, the decelleration is smaller and there will be less sloshing around of the brain. However in practice, the problem is that existing padding materials would have to be ridiculously thick to bring the decelleration down into the 'no concussion' zone. Imagine a player with a 3 foot surround of polystyrene beads in a bag around his head - he has all of that 3 feet and time for his head to come to a stop before it reaches the immovable object. But there are occasional reports of new high-tech materials which may make the padding small enough to be wearable. No idea if the reports are reliable.

If he gets even a fine I'll be surprised. This is the AFL's MRP.

Watts is not a total whimp or he wouldn't be playing AFL. In any team there will be some competitive beasts who are more competitive than some of their team mates. Watts' skills make up for the fact he is not Nathan Jones. To give an extreme example to illustrate the point - if we had a player who could reliably kick goals from 70 metres out, I would have him in the team even if he was the biggest whimp in the AFL (which is not very whimpy by any other standard).

no irony if he was referring to the marketing crud and not the forums etc. It amazes me that companies like twitter and facebook can be worth so many tera-bucks and at bottom it all depends on advertising.

Just watched the first quarter again. Although the Suns managed to outscore us, we looked like a real footy team with lots of good dominant play which came unstuck as it sometimes does. If a team plays like that they eventually win. Now to see what went wrong in Q2......

It's not that the masses don't attend. The fact is there are no masses in the first place. Alice Springs population is around 29,000. So 5000 turning up is about 1 in 6. If one in six of Melbourne's population turned up to a match they'd be over 600,000 there.

Best thing I've read all day. If only.

During the actual match I despaired like many on here, but on reflection I think pitmaster has it right. A lot was to do with the score. I suspect a lot of the bad play would have been overlooked (and may have evaporated with growing confidence) if we didn't miss goals in Q2.

Is there any other sport where rules are not written down? It is perhaps arguably OK to not revise the rules when you make a minor change to interpretation, but to not revise the rules when you think up a new thing like the 30 seconds it just amateur.

That's correct - if you read what Brown's coach says at http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-26/shot-clock-wont-time-out-on-brown they just have to start their run up within 30 sec. Since there appears to be nothing in the laws about this, presumably it is a matter of 'interpretation'. Maybe it is also interpretation for an umpire to decide that running back to the oppos goals within the 30 seconds and then walking in for 5 minutes is not allowed. Or maybe it is if it is part of your 'natural arc'.