sue

I'd presume/hope that it does do some good - they may be more wary about screwing us the next week.

The fact that what most posters said on here came true is in itself no evidence that the tribunal is consistent - just that this one was pretty blatant and deserved a week. The question is would a favoured son have got a lesser penalty. We can't tell for sure without entering a parallel universe, but there is enough history to suggest that they may have. Sure probably most of their run-of-the-mill decisions are reasonably 'consistent'. It's the egregious ones that favour certain stars which are the reason the tribunal is held in contempt by many of us.

That's the way to get lots of 'frees' next match.

It seems such a huge brain-fade. Was there any history between him and the Norf player?

The last quarter wasn't bad - we went from being behind to being in front and then lost by less than a goal. It was only bad if we still had a howling gale, but reports say the wind dropped from half-time on. Anyone who was there know how true that was?

On the MFC web page in an article about Stretch it says: As it turned out, the score wasn’t registered. Initially, it appeared on the live stats as a behind, but the siren just sounded before his kick went through. As a result, the Kangas held on for a thrilling five-point victory. I always thought it scored if it left the boot before the siren. ???

Looking at (e) - how can that work when the player on the mark can stand anywhere they like provided it is "east/west"?

Are you sure? Don't they also do it when they are trying to line up a player on an angle? If so, it should apply at any angle, even 90/0 degrees.

A couple of posters and even Roos (I think) mentioned the time it took Kent to kick that last goal. But why didn't the umpire stop the clock like they usually do when players line up for goal? What is the rule (excuse my ignorance)?

Thanks for those links. I can see why they have an inconsistency problem with the head ducking issue. Even the explanation is self-contradictory with the apparent onus on the tackler to avoid head high contact despite any ducking. The running out of bounds example is so obviously deliberate whereas they now expect the player to break every bone in his body to twist back into play to avoid going over the line. And god help you if you do a quick snap under intense pressure in a pack which goes 40 metres, bounces sideways and goes out.

How rich does a club have to be to allow the coach/president/boot-cleaner make comments on umpiring? Perhaps we could get away with "if we were a bigger club,we'd have asked about the umpiring, but as it is we'd never comment".

So after a performance like last week's, a coach is a sugar coater if he is pleased with our response this week. A narrow loss to a top 4 team after a week like last week's is a damn sight better than a 10 goal loss. Game could have gone either way in the end, but all you see is LOSS. I bet you came top of every class at school and now run a billion dollar business. Actually, I don't.

So after a performance like last week's, a coach is a sugar coater if he is pleased with our response this week. A narrow loss to a top 4 team after a week like last week's is a damn sight better than a 10 goal loss. Game could have gone either way in the end, but all you see is LOSS. I bet you came top of every class at school and now run a billion dollar business. Actually, I don't.

Some people follow footy with hope in their hearts (the softies he refers to continually), some follow footy so they can tell everyone else how weak they are.

Looked like he took it over the line to me, but the review didn't have a camera in the right spot.

What a load of masochistic nonsense. Yeah we would have won if we were better, but to groan about supporters who rightly pointed out the umpiring was disgraceful, jeez, some people...

Should get this read out over the loudspeakers at the match: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-02/ex-essendon-player-brent-prismall-speaks-out-about-doping-ban/7294510

All revealed here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-02/ex-essendon-player-brent-prismall-speaks-out-about-doping-ban/7294510

What is the opposite of MFCSS I wonder?

That particular idea may be bad, but the whole thread?? We need to do something to indicate our displeasure(!) with EFC and what they have dome to AFL and Australia's otherwise clean sporting image. And no, tanking is not comparable with drug taking. Amazed that anyone would mention it in this context. I suppose if EFC gave mickey-finns to their opponents at quarter time, someone would say 'but we tanked' so how can you criticise them.

A turnaround from last year - didn't we rate high on conversions of rare I50's?

He's on their list to play, not just coach. I'm just interested. Are they waiting till he gets fitter or what?

no Jamar. Anyone know/ideas why not?

I use an appleTV to put AFL Live onto my TV. I've discovered that sometimes it looks better on the phone than the TV and that this is because my internal wifi network is being pushed to the limit. Putting the ipad/phone near my router helps a lot.

Any chance we could have a separate thread on 'will he/won't he stay' and one on anything else relevant to Hogan? Just for my sanity.