sue

That seems to be the case. But doesn't that mean that balls touched at a height higher than the padding would not be deemed 'touched' till they were some (padding) distance beyond the goal post - which would be impossible to judge. So I think there must be one rule for balls going through below the top of the padding and another for higher balls????

I wish we'd complain a bit too. I like to think we'd do it behind closed doors, but I doubt we do.

I know any exposure is supposed to be good publicity, but would you want your product associated with such a [censored] system as the AFL score review?

Try telling that to C'wood supporters....

I've been running a losing battle to call Caleb Saxe-Coburg as a nickname. Too long, so now I'm trying Saxy. Probably with the same result.

Does not matter. If I shoot you I don't get off just because I missed or just winged you. True, the penalty would be greater if I didn't miss. If another player has also offended, yes, he should cop his wack too. Kicking, however imcompetently should be absolutely not on. But this is the AFL......

While that is right in general play, I think an defending ruckman cannot hit it through for a point without a free being awarded regardless of the 9m/pressure issue. The attacking ruckman can. So totally unfair. (not that the attaccking ruck would in the current case, but if it decided a match by a point, he can.)

The AFL just does things to garner as much interest as possible. For example, if the question is, did the ball touch the post, why do they look at endlessly at often useless views before they reveal the result of the 'snickometer' (or whatever they call it). Surely you'd do that first.

Doesn't matter that McGrath initiated things. If what he did was worthy of punishment, then he should get punished too. But launching a player up in the air and then slinging a leg at him is not excused by having been provoked. If he Sicily gets off then it's open slather on doing similarly every time the play is stopped.

Really? I would have thought attacking a player when the game is stopped, coming in low and flipping him right up in the air and off his feet must be deemed an offense worse than a free kick. Not to mention the possibility of the player landing on his head and injuring his neck. IMO a kick even if it misses is unforgivable.

Agree. What Grundy is doing is so ugly. A blight on the game

I got the impression Fox didn't focus in on the cheer squad with their Gus helmets. If so, why? Yes, I'm probably paranoid.....

The 'draw' and the Geelong factor both are corruptions of our game. The AFL doesn't provide a fair competition, just one to maximise $ (except in the bewildering case mentioned by Kickit to P). You might think the betting companies would want a fair competition, but you'd be fooling yourself, since they can make money any old way.

You’d expect some enthusiasm after beating the premiers. But no.

a ball up where exaclty? Where the ball hit the ground?

What's the rule at the ice rink when the ball hits the roof? Seem to recall it is a free against?

You're working you way to the top of the list of negative for negative's sake posters. How about you sprinkle something positive - just for comic relief.

I hope our players know that and won't be disheartened by lack of supporters.

Lots of posters are bewildered by Tommo being dropped after playing well. But if we all noticed he played well, surely the selection panel did too. There must be reasons other than the club is insane. (I've no idea what they could be.)

To be more like C'wood means we'll have to find a Maynard to knock the daylights out of a top oppo player and then have the AFL do bugger-all about it. I hope the first never happens, but if it did, the the second would not.

what a joke. Totally risible. So now any player can do it and then express contrition and his club will 'make him more aware in future'. Probably not. But I bet the first player penalised will not come from a 'big' club.

Ah, nothing like contracting out to dodge responsibility.

Sorry, but to my mind that is pretty infantile and I'm surprised any professional media department produced it. Did they really? (Of course I take delight in GWS beating the bastards.)

You'd be right except for the fact that who knows which players are in those 'very few'. It's one thing to expect players to be available, it's another to make it complusory.

Personally I don't feel the need for endless 4-6 weeks and have no problem with short/long term. And as for ALL players being forced to see the media.- I hate that. Imagine how that could affect a bloke going through some personal probems etc - getting asked all sorts of slimy questions so some self-styed journalist can big note themselves.