sue

The only downside to our so-far improved prospects this year is that it matters a lot to us which other team beats which other team. I'm forced to barrack for teams I hate just because it improves our top 8 prospects. Arrrggghhhhh!

that's right - I was making the point that in chrome if you paste the entire copied URL, you get clobbered by the firewall. The preceding ? ploy looks good but I often have to resort to using just some of the title text. Does any IT guru out there know why any of this works? What does google do to the URL when you click on it after a search that is different from the original URL which gets trapped by the firewall?

The AFL is happy to make new 'interpretations' on the fly. Since they said some years back that this sort of tactic would lead to a free kick against in order to protect players' heads, it would hardly count of a biggest new rule of the week to instruct the umps to stamp it out.

You have to be careful how you do the paste of the URL into a search in google depending on your browser. Need to use a browser where there is a separate place to enter the URL you have copied (not Chrome for example). And sometimes you have to delete some of the first part of the URL. Just cut the search down to something like: /the-day-of-the-demons-is-coming-warns-warren-tredrea/

But we don't know the details of the injury and how it is progressing. If it is steadily getting better and there is no long term risk, then they can play him (other considerations aside, like giving him a rest). As usual we are enjoying speculating in an information vacuum.

Something in writing: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-24/health-issue-resurfaces-for-demon-defender

Is it true that deliberate rushed behind is now being more rigorously enforced? I thought it was just a thought bubble from one of the geniuses at AFL HQ as something that might come in. One of the commentators did imply that it was true, but I have zero confidence that those guys know what they are talking about. Anyone know for sure?

It was interesting that they were barracking for the Lions. Far enough doing so for a hopeless underdog. Maybe I'm suffering from the usual supporter bias, but I don't recall them barracking for us when we were crap.

The review outcome was unintelligible unless they based it on things not shown on Fox. Presumably the umpires called it a goal and even if you thought the review may have shown a touch, it certainly wasn't conclusive. So why not umpires' call?

I'm just developing a conspiracy about conspiracies. :>)

Sounds like rubbish to me. Sure 22 may run out, but if players have say a cold, then it must affect their ability to run for 2 hours.

some people have been putting illness in quotes - implying they are suggesting there is something else going on. Tin-hats on everyone.

It is a concern - if there is a bug going around, 2 blokes too ill to play, but there may be a few others on the edge.

MFCSS - a couple of players catch a winter cold (probably) and there is some conspiracy about this 'illness'.

ah, but the AFL doesn't use precedents.

that's the danger of dominating for the first couple of minutes but not kicking any goals.

At the moment they are probably leaving a few up their sleeves in case of a blood incident (and late injury). If blood no longer counts against interchanges, clubs will adjust and I would not be surprised if self inflicted injuries are used to exceed the supposed cap (still leaving maybe one for late injuries). (Also clubs sometimes don't get to use the full allocation because they can't get the player they want on back on.)

Another rule on the fly: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-05-19/evans-clarifies-rules-confirms-ball-role Interchanges for blood rule reasons for both players leaving and returning to the field will be exempt once the interchange cap of 90 has been reached. I can see a lot of exhausted players finding a scab to pick.

That's the advantage of playing on Sundays - you have 2 days to know what the rule of the week is. Trouble is, if there is enough fuss about it being wrong on Friday & Saturday, they may back off by Sunday. Why is the AFL making me so cynical? Help....

It is noticeable that the actions that umpires use to signify holding the ball and deliberately out of bounds are very dramatic gestures. This is drawing a long and silly bow, but could that be a factor in making the umpires act as if they were the centre of attention etc as many complain? Perhaps if deliberate was indicated by standing on one leg with an arm in the air and holding the ball by squatting down ......

Its one thing to go lower at the ball, another to go low as/after you take possession.

Obviously the AFL have no faith in our legal system if they rule out considering precedents. Of course allowing precedents would make it harder to adjust decisions on the fly to ensure high-profile players didn't miss finals etc.

Throwing is now standard. I reckon it won't be too long before throws of less than say 2 metres are formally ruled as legal disposals. As for dropping down being coached or not - just because some players don't do it doesn't mean they haven't been coached to do it. Some are probably just not capable of doing it fast enough so they don't try.

If it is true as someone posted that he can kick more than 40m if on the run, seem to me there is a simple solution to that particular problem. But I find it odd that so many players who have no trouble slotting long range goals on the run feel obliged to take an entirely different 'formal' approach when they have taken a mark or free even if the man on the mark is not an issue.

The first one had nothing to do with his attack on the ball. He was attacked. The second time, I didn't see him getting hit by the ball but again it seem unlikely it was anything to do with his attack on the ball. That leaves the third one. What happened there? Does it anything to do with his attack the ball? And even if it did, it is just 1 instance so I doubt it is systematic.