sue

A lawyer who acts for her husband has a fool for a client- or somesuch garbled version of the old saying. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was a case of don't take legal advice from someone emotionally involved.

The problem that these guys sit in their job and wonder what they will be remembered for. Apparently the last thing they want to be remembered for is that they kept the game running nicely as before. Not sexy enough.

But are you playing?

no, because they have played badly all night.

How are these teams at the top of the ladder? Not sure who is the worst - probably the umpires.

umpiring is a joke

absolutely stupid. Anyone (but rjay apparently) can see he was hitting it to a team mate but hit it too hard.

So Madigan says: While I sympathise with a view that there are bigger villains involved than some of the players, how can a man who can fill out a senate nomination form not understand that players are (and have to be) ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies.

Not really. I haven't been nervous before most games in recent years. It was hard to get into a state worrying whether we'd lose by x or y points. Now I worry in every match.

instead they could be required to blow a horn to warn players someone is coming on. (no I'm not serious)

And I thought I was being paranoid when suggesting the new out of bounds 'interpretation' might lead those idiots at the AFL to move to 'free against the last to touch'. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-womens-league-major-rule-reform-for-womens-trial-series-to-be-unveiled-20160426-gofrfr.html

I was responding to Malthouse's claim he was a model citizen. Seems some people think if someone justifies endangering their kids out of religious conviction it can't be criticised.

Yes, but don't forget with the over-sized (in my opinion) final 8, a mid-range team is the definition of a team that just qualifies for the finals.

If I ever had a positive view of Malthouse, he has just sunk it below the waves. The Tribunal already has past-history in its calculations, but apparently if you are a top player the rules should be different. (BTW, people can believe whatever they want, fairy-tales and spaghetti monsters included, but I don't think a parent whose religion prevents him from giving his kid a blood transfusion can be called a 'model citizen'.)

This is pretty good for a laugh: http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2016/04/26/footys-weak-penalties-hits-gives-wrong-impression/ "Alex Rance’s punch to the back of Jack Watts’ head was a cowardly act, and Jack Viney’s jumper-punch tantrum wasn’t much better."

You'd expect an umpire to get at least 50% right. But not 0/2

I dunno, but I have absolutely no doubt they were instructed to give GWS a free ride when they first started. Of course my only evidence is having watched their matches.

I hated Milne and he got booed quite a bit. But nothing on the scale of Goodes. And in a contest as to whose on-field behaviour was the worst, Milne won by many many laps. Edit to add:. BTW, living where I do and having had Sydney thrust down my throat for years (and now GWS) and therefore hating the club, I can honestly say that I never took out my anger by thinking any Sydney player was booable, including Goodes. Which is part of the reason I believe that his on-field behaviour was not in the booable class of say a Milne.

But I think that the receiving player is often outside the square, so if I'm right, it means the umpire having to guess what's in the mind of the player. (Obviously Hunt's long handball didn't require a Houdini to read his mind.)

It's not victim mentality. It's not just Melbourne which suffers from this so I think I can rule out my pro-MFC bias and victim-hood. I watch a lot of footy and as was said, you often hear the commentators willing a come-back and looking for positives in the losing team to keep the viewers watching, but what happened last night was totally over the top. It is usually big clubs which get this positive treatment no matter how weak the prospect of them coming back is. Also, some teams appear to have anonymous players. I don't notice it much in Demons' game because I know who the players are, but watch a close match between a big team and a struggling one, and you'll often wonder if the struggling team's players have names at all.

While it was obvious Hunt had a complete brain fade and quite clearly meant to re-start play with such a long hand pass out of the square, in general how does the umpire know that a player is not passing the ball to the player who is to take the kick-out. What's the rule?

Yes it is a painful choice. One factor in favour of wishing C'wood lose is that it makes it harder for the cheating club to score a #1 draft pick. On the other hand: http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2016/04/24/anzac-day-sport-dilutes-real-meaning-day/

Sorry, I think winning is more important for us at the moment than seeing where we are at.

Well here's an opinion then: Just because other indigenous players haven't been booed does not mean that the booing of Goodes wasn't partially motivated by racism. It took a combination of how Goodes was viewed as a player by some, his race and his involvement in indigenous issues that led to the booing. If it was not for the latter he would not have been consistently booed. Show me another player who is disliked for his footy style who has been so consistently booed by so many for his playing 'sins' - and don't include a player who has changed teams (is just booed by his original team's supporters only) or has just thumped an oppo player (ditto). No other player gets booed because he has a different view of some social issue than me or you. Sure some of the people booing were innocent of racism but a lot were not. Some Australians just wish the indigenous issue would just go away, just as many of our ancestors wished the indigenous people would just go away. And they react badly. Back on topic - has anyone mentioned Pedersen did about 3 really good tap-ons in the last quarter?

I fear you are right. Though how a deliberate foul act by Rance can be the same penalty as what Viney did, only the AFL and its stooges can say.