sue

Howe has obviously been told to punch the ball away more. He needs lessons in how to do that and told if he can punch with 2 hands why not mark it. The guy who had Dunn's head in a headlock should be rubbed out. That was more appalling than something that happens in the heat and speed of the game and could be very dangerous. I was surprised Roos' made the comment about Terlich not getting a free for having been knocked out. While it was obvious to spectators, we have the 'advantage' of noticing Terlich is on the ground not moving to confirm the fact his head has been knocked. If the umpire doesn't see the actual knock he's not paying attention to the bloke on the ground.

One area the umpires might make focus of the week, or better, the season is players marking it close to goal on an angle. Just saw a Port player mark near the point post and immediately start coming around forcing his opponent to go over the mark sideways to stop him suddenly playing on and scoring an easy goal. The umps then just blew time on and forced him back on his line. If it happened anywhere else on the field it would have been play on. Seems to me it should either be 50m penalty (which would be very unfair) or better, play on as soon as he deliberately moved sideways. Trouble by the time the ump reacted and called play on the defender would have had no hope of doing anything. Alternatively, if the ump blew time-off as soon as anyone marked it near goal on an angle it would be unfair to deny the player with the ball the chance to play on. Which lets me mount my usual hobby-horse. The umps are frequently very late calling play-on to the disadvantage of the player on the mark I think players should make the decision as to whether the player with the ball has played on or not and react as they think is within the rules. If the player with the ball is infringed and in the umpire's judgement hasn't moved off his line, then it's a 50m penalty. If it is clear the player with the ball moved off his line first, then play on. Am I missing something? What could be wrong with that approach? This would also solve the problem of players having to hear the play-on call when there is a large noisy crowd, eg a grand final.

It has been mentioned. A question for the perplexed: Why is it assumed Ling is an option for coach. Has he had any experience? Is he only considered because of his media appearnces and him saying he might some day? Dunno, just asking.

They were just allowing for his 'natural arc'. Ha. Probably because I support MFC I over-notice it, but it seems to me our players don't try to improve the angle after taking a mark. A few times theyv'e even made it worse.

Ben McDevitt is the new chief executive of ASADA - first remarks were that individual professional players are responsible for what they take (repeated twice for emphasis) and ignornce is no excuse.

I agree OD. Likewise for the blind assumption we will beat the Dogs this weekend on the back of last weekend and this week. As much as I dislike the focus on gambling these days, the betting odds are not as rosy as some of the euphoria around here would suggest. Small steps. Many are opening themselves up for a big disappointment. Let's hope not.

What did he do to get banned?

Dead right. As much as I am pleased by the decision, on the basis of the report of the proceedings there was no way it could be overturned on the issue in question. No alternative but to sack the tribunal as it is full of unreasonable men.

Given the basis of the appeal, how can new vision be introduced to support either side? The question has to be was the tribunal unreasonable on the evidence they had.

yes, I meant down 1 in the extended squad, including emergencies.

What's the position with naming Viney in the squad. Will they know the appeal outcome in time? If they put him in and he doesn't get off then we are down one I presume?

Spot on. Having to sue someone in order to cover the expenses of becoming disabled in some way is just a $-fest for lawyers and a disaster if you can't take the risk of employing them. Society should move to a position where if you need extra $ to live reasonably, national insurance covers it. Try the New Zealand model.

Interesting that we've heard nothing about fining players for criticising the decision publicly. Some of the MFC players were careful in what they said but others have been pretty brutal.

<The Demons will appeal on the grounds that the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.> I'd be surprised if the AFL will allow the appeal on these grounds because otherwise they'd have to sack the Tribunal members as being unreasonable persons. hmmm,.....

They seem to have replced thta pol with one asking if the bump shul dbe banned completely. Although I voted (early & often) I thought the original question was pretty stupid. Why ask if it is the worst decision ever? It might not be yet still be horrendously wrong. Ask if it was a good decision.

Give them a break, the AFL is just trying to make NSW politicians look relatively good.

vote here http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/if-you-go-to-the-tribunal-brace-yourself--20140506-37uw7.html#poll

What worries the AFL most is the TV rights. It would be great if all supporters boycotted the TV this weekend. But it won't happen sadly.

Sure the head is sacrosanct. The question is, does any injury to the head however 'innocently' caused lead to a suspension. The answer looks increasingly like 'yes'. Yep it's 'only' 2 weeks. Will be interesting how things go in future games - or will we see another sling-tackle fest.

These guys are a joke. Until we decide about an appeal, Roos can say nothing much. Calling people sooks - did these guys ever get out of primary school.

Nathan Schmook: Melbourne football manager Josh Mahoney just addressed the media and they will be looking into appeal options tonight.

Just further proof the AFL is totally political.They have no concept of proper procedure and fairness.

Any downside to an appeal? Can they increase the penalty?

On the basis of the decision, they can't just reprimand. That would make it clear the whole thing was a show trial.

Nathan Schmook: Gleeson says they could impose a penalty between 1-3 weeks taking in all of the factors of this case.