sue

And over on the C'wood equivalent of Demonland after their recent string of losses destroying their finals hopes I can just see a despairing supporter posting: "Demons have gone in tall so naturally we keep x"

Thanks for posting the rule. So it seems clear punching the ball over the line deliberately in a marking contest is forbidden. Even (e) is ignored (mercifully) because that outlaws most players from picking up the ball and handing it to the umpire. As for the rushed behind issue, I think the current rule/interpretation is OK. It was brought in to stop a team wasting time with a minute to go, for example a team is 11 points ahead and to ensure there is no time for the opponent to kick 2 goals a player could easily waste a minute kicking in to himself and then walking back over the line. That is quite different than concede a point under real pressure. It is bad that an attempt to rush a behind which misses and goes out of bounds is awarded deliberate. Clearly there is no advantage in putting it out so near to goal. The player was deliberately trying to ensure his team had possession after the point. So how could he be putting it OoB deliberately? If we must make it a rule, then the free should be awarded in the centre of the ground somewhere. But best left alone.

While I like winding back interchanges, I wonder if some congestion could be broken up by penalising players who jump of a pack with no attempt to tackle the guy at the bottom who may have the ball. For a start, they should be penalised under the current rules when they tackle a player who does not have the ball or fall into his back. But they also tackle team mates just to add bodies to the mess - no attempt to get the ball or the player with it. Regardless of whether it fixed the congestion problem or not, I'd like to see both penalised - it is a terrible look and I do not see what purpose it serves except preventing any chance of the ball coming out.

I don't see enforcing the deliberate out of bounds is a solution. There are many cases where a player would endanger his knees to turn suddenly to avoid being deemed deliberate. So we'd be back in the interpretation black-hole or have a lot of injuries. And most often a ball is paddled towards the line - the deliberation is often there followed by a contest in which the player can easily appear to be trying to keep it in, but in reality OoB is his aim. Too much room for interpretation for me. Not having read the rules for years (not much point since the AFL re-interprets them so often) I'm not sure why it is not deliberate to punch a ball to the boundary as long as it is in a marking contest and sometimes regardless of a contest. Seems to be interpreted as if it was related to the height of the ball when punched. Anyone know what the rule says?

Or you could just shout 'PC brigade'

yeah, but did you boo him every time he went near the ball for weeks on end? And did large numbers join in with you? That is the difference. That difference cannot be explained by him being the worst diver/sook etc in the league. It is, as Munga has said, his political activities that causes his treatment to be unique. The most virulent objectors to his politics are racists (though some others may have have non-racist reasons, however hard to believe that is for some of us). The racists are happily using his on-field reputation as a cover for their behaviour. Those who are not racists should refrain from booing him until this stops or they are giving these goons cover. Is that too much to ask? What a sacrifice - for a few weeks refraining from booing someone for being a sook in the mere objective of showing that footy fans are not racists. But what about my rights to free expression of my hatred of divers I hear some say - talk about being PC!

Munga, on 28 Jul 2015 - 1:32 PM, said: But I don't think anyone opposing you here has said that 'all are being labelled as such'. They are arguing that no other player gets booed in the way Goodes has recently. There is no shortage of snipers, divers and sooks around the AFL. They may get booed occasionally, but not like has been happening to Goodes. So as you finally have said, it is his politics that has caused the current situation. And surely while some opponents of his political activities may not be racists, I'd bet that a lot of them are. Those of us who are not racists should not boo him any more than they boo other snipers etc. If they do, they are giving cover to racists and casting suspicions on their own motives. They should shut up and expose the racists. BTW, I apologise for my curt response to your rhetorically asking if Lumumba being booed by C'wood fans was racist. I couldn't find words to describe how wrong it was to bring an entirely different sort of situation into this argument. I always booed $cully because he is white.

Better to say nothing and let people think you are a fool than say something and prove it.

The correct question is "how loud was the booing (week after week) for players other than Goodes who are known stagers, sooks etc etc." Those who attribute the booing of Goodes to his on-field behaviour need to answer that question for a start. So they dodge that and move on to saying he did not deserve a PC Oz of the Year and is too aggressive politically etc. Has anyone else got booed for being an undeserving Oz of the Year and pushing the issue for which they got the award? Most of us take no notice of Oz of the Year - we'd would be hard pressed to name his predecessors (oh go ahead and google it and put me down). But suddenly it excites people to boo every time he goes near the ball. Both racists and not-so-racist sheep are hiding behind these weak excuses. The racists can't stand he was made Oz of the Year and his politics, the sheep are just sheep.

I don't buy the 'talent pool is spread too thin for 18 teams' argument. It is the distribution of talent across the teams that is the problem. If Hawthorn had a few of our players and we had a few of theirs, games would be far more competitive and the standard of play for spectators would not be much worse. Obviously my argument fails if the number of teams is very large, but I doubt if 18 is too large.

or stupid

Hird's comments about Ryder I was just about to post a similar remark and wonder what motivated him to say that rather than something like the more typical 'yeah, paddy did tear us up at the end - great bloke would have loved to still have him at the Bombers'. I thought perhaps he was desperately trying to keep his dwindling supporters on-side. Think how happy some of us would be if it was said about a case of MFC v GWS and $cully.

I give up on trying to understand the so-called 'holding the ball' rule. I think I just saw a ball come out of a pack when a player dived over the pack onto the ball. No one tackled him but a free was paid for diving on the ball. Actually I really gave up years ago.

I didn't really need another reason to hate Sheedy, but thanks.

12. But more teams doesn't mean it is harder. If anything more teams means the talent pool is more stretched. So if you happen to have an excess of talent for a few years for whatever reason, you are more likely to keep winning.

I think you are right. Much better than introducing absurdities like zones.

I wonder why you omit '98. Be sure about what you like, but I for one am sure that a young team on the rise which unexpectedly made the 2000 GF would be just the sort of thing that the AFL builds hype around and would get a decent FN go in the following year regardless of what happened in the previous millenia. Much more likely that we didn't get that decent FN go because we are one the 'minor' clubs.

That's the nub of the issue. While most (hopefully all) of us would agree that it is better to let a guilty person off than convict an innocent one, this seems to be a circumstance where someone must be guilty of something. The only question is who. I think we all know the answer though we might differ on how far blame should extend - it is just a matter of WADA nailing him/them.

I'm not concerned about the talent pool being too shallow to support 18 teams. It is the distribution of talent that is the problem. It wouldn't matter if the top teams had 8 B class players and some of their A class players were at other clubs, the spectacle wouldn't suffer much if at all. It would be better since games would be more even.

And why would he? He is paid to win, not to make a good spectacle.

Agree with what you say Munga. But if you allow extra rotations for the blood rule you will see a rush of self-inflicted cuts..... (god, why has the AFL made me so cynical)

Gasp, he likes seeing goals scored and yet he took you to the soccer?!

Only one thing worse than nostalgia causing people to look back to a mythical golden age - - people who think the present situation is always the best of all possible worlds.

Well there is always wrestling for you. Most of us like a physical contest too but we also like the things that aussie rules has that rugby and wrestling doesn't. What about more one-on-one contests rather than all in wrestling? Not 75 (yet) and quite happy thanks.

I'm surprised no one has commented on this article in the age today - apologies if I have missed the thread. Perfect storm engulfing the AFL's heartland There are a lot of comments appended to the article which indicates manyf people are not happy, or at least those who are not happy are pretty fired-up about it. He's right about the effect of players around the ball. Even on TV the spectator often has no idea what is happening - and no chance as a spectator at the match on the other side of the field. I don't know how the flashing advertisements affect spectators since I can only go Manuka, but the spruikers at the GWS games drive me crazy.