sue

The goal reviews always amuse me when they spend 2 minutes looking at video and finally announce 'looking at the snickometer (or whatever they call it) we can see it hit the post. Why on earth do they not look at that first instead of wasting time deciperhing poor quality video? Topped-off just then by the announcer saying "looking at the angles, we can see on the snickometer". What angles!?

Without sounding like an episode of Yes Minister, I said, maybe, just maybe there is an unstated reason. If it is private (to TMAC or others) then it would not be surprising that there would be an 'issue with explaining it to members'. Let's look at it the other way round. Has Goodwin ever given an explanation for dropping him when his form was so good etc? If he hasn't explained it, it's very odd that he hasn't. Maybe he has - but I can't recall it. Anyone know exactly what was said (if anything)?

There have been several many posts which have asked that question, but mostly rhetorically in order to put the boot into Goodwin et al and expresss frustration with the club. But if it is as inexplicable as it seems to all of us, maybe the question should be asked genuinely. Maybe, just maybe, there is something we don't know. Anyone in the know have anything to say?

Retrospective rules/penalties are obnoxious in all walks of life. Sure, make a rule 'from now on' if you want, but imagine if the government made a rule that if you have 3 parking infringements in the last 10 years and get another one, your car will be compacted. Why can't we ever hear something like this from the MFC:

More than that. Am I right in thinking the umpire had already stopped the clock. Subsequently using 'play-on' to break up a melee may sound a plausible excuse, but I don't think it is good policy to give such an advantage to either side, and especially the one that start the melee. Just imagine if it was a close game and happened to C'wood.

I'm not so sure. Whenever a team catches up a bit in the Q4 it is often attributed to the leading team putting the cue in the rack etc. But often the only evidence of that is that there were outscored for the first time - that's not proof of lack of effort in itself and other possible explanations are not hard to list. In the GC case they needed percentage and they seemed pretty excited every time they kicked goal in Q4 for a bunch of rack cuers.

With Q1 being a complete disaster, I give credit to the players for keeping at it and losing by a modest margin with 2 players down with a sniff of being in a position to win in Q4. Sorry if I am accepting mediocracy, but for me it's better to lookk for positives than beating myself up over something I have no influence over.

talk about a slow news day - regurgitate ad nausem. The only new thing in there is this laughable clause: .... "as his team’s season hangs in the balance" Good to see this 'journo' still has us making the eight.

I have no idea. But I was suggesting that because you had to ask who he is, maybe Praha was hinting that your favourite forward would later be as unknown as this Michael Evans chap. Hopefully that will not be the case and he will be clebrated as Melbourne's multiple Coleman winner.

The fact that you have to ask that question may indicate what Praha's concern about Jefferson is. 🙂

You know the umpiring is bad when you fall about laughing about the inconsistencies and errors favouring the team you are barracking for. When oh when is the AFL going to realise they are making a hash of the game. And don't get me started on the ugly wrestling match to be seen at every ruck contest. /enddailygrump

what about 'free kick reversal vs 50m penalty' combined with that.

What a fuss about nothing in this thread. I bet if the team was winning this thread wouldn't have even appeared.

sorry to be pedantic, but if he already aims to the right as you say, but misses to the left, then I suggest aiming even more to the right. There seems no hope that he will improve his ball drop etc. (Though I did recently see one attempt at goal where he kept the ball low and fast, rather than belting the cover off it. Still missed, but at least it didn't give me time for my usual groan.)

yes, but the cure hasn't worked to date and it looks like it never will. Aiming right can't cause a worse result (OOB is often better than a point), and who knows, maybe Max's subconcious works differently than others. Worth a try at least.

Perhaps give up on improving his technique and just tell him to aim to the right of the goals.

And no ridiculous rules which require an on-field AI engine linked to a crystal ball to adjudicate.

Thanks for posting that. I have been avoiding reading his crud and that confirms my decision was correct.

Better than googling I asked my friend at Perplexity.ai. I've no idea how significant or rare these instances are. Interesting that C'Wood and Geelong get slaps over the wrist and North gets whacked to a total of $80K Perplexity: Several AFL coaches have publicly criticised umpiring decisions, often leading to official warnings or meetings with the league. Here are notable recent and past examples: Craig McRae (Collingwood): Criticised umpiring after a close loss to Sydney, specifically referencing non-calls on a 50m penalty and insufficient intent rulings. The AFL issued him an official warning for his comments, but took no further action after McRae acknowledged he had "stepped over the mark" . Chris Scott (Geelong): Delivered a lengthy critique of umpiring and rule interpretations after a shock loss to Port Adelaide, focusing on holding the ball decisions and the advantage rule. The AFL’s umpire bosses met with Scott to discuss his concerns, but no formal sanctions were reported . Brad Scott (North Melbourne): Made false claims that umpires refused to pay free kicks to Lindsay Thomas, which the AFL deemed as impugning the integrity of umpires. This resulted in a $30,000 fine for Brad Scott and a $50,000 fine for North Melbourne. The swift apology from both Scott and the club helped mitigate further penalties . These cases illustrate that while coaches sometimes voice frustrations about umpiring, the AFL closely monitors such comments and may impose sanctions if the criticism is deemed excessive or unfounded. The league often encourages coaches to address concerns privately rather than publicly.

Except some players have played for 2 or 3 teams. And also perceptions on ladder of old club bias in other games. Scheduling may not be easy. Maybe better to use long time vfl players who’d carry less perceived bias.

Yes, he's my favourite goal umpire. But goal umps don't rouse the indignation of supporters, less so with video reviews where the indignation is usually directed at the process and the AFL using cameras where the ball can travel a post width between frames. While all umpires probably supported a team when young, their background is much more obscure than a player's. How would you feel with Maynard being an umpire (probably he would get the MRO job instead). I don't object to the idea you have put forward - just worry about how to dampen the 'he used to play for x, no wonder he's biased' issue. We supporters do enough frothing at the mouth now. Improved umpires like you suggest would hopefully make the umpiring better. Perhaps to the point that the frothing would become more irrational and outweigh the downside of perceived bias.

The problem with that would be the perception of bias (or over-compensating for it) when their former team plays (or in any game which might affect the ladder position of their old team). Of course these days they might have playeed for so many teams .....

He just needed to let go quicker and he may have escaped a fine. But just compare a slipped tackle with a delayed release to no attempt to tackle and a grab of the ankle to stop Kozzie running into goal. The latter, a deliberate intent to trip, is worthy of a suspension, but didn't even get a fine. The MRO is both corrupt and incompetent. Yes, it is possible to be both.

If you were making a file of MRO inconsistencies you wouldn't lack for material. In Kozzie's case the oppo just grabbed for his ankle - not a sign of attempting a proper tackle which went wrong. In Lindsay's case a tackle slipped down and he didn't let go as he should have. Pretty clear to me which one was worse. Don't ask the MRO.

What if speculation is a black hole. You can never tell whether those 3-4 missed goals really cost the game. For example if we got that much ahead, C'wood may have realised they were in trouble and reacted to our detriment. Whereas being up at 3/4 time may have made them over-confident and we suprised them. Of course, I'd rather have got those 3-4 goals!