sue

FMD. I've seen plenty of attempted spoils that miss the footy by a couple of cms. But not seen what happened next. (Again, leaving aside the concussion, just the action.)

This rubbish about it being simply an attempted spoil with an unfortunate accidental outcome. I have never seen a spoil with that outcome before. I don't mean the concussion, I mean the front on contact with the player.

Not suggesting it's a good idea to play Grundy, but wouldn't it be nice if he played on Howe and kicked 5 goals.

Sorry to be a pedant, but your, not you're - which could at a stretch read like C'wood is our worst nightmare.

Not a good day for him, but the ball was up the other end most of the day. Hard to get into it in the circustances.

And they didn't even need to call in their lawyers.

It seems North's VFL had a pretty average season and only 5 AFL listed players on the weekend. Before we get too excited about the propsects of either Grundy or TMac it would be good to have to intelligence on the quality of the individual people they were playing against. Does anyone have it?

The player that wins the Brownlow this year will always have to put up with C'wood supporters and their mates in the media saying 'they only won it because our boy got injured'. I guess that's better than saying someone only won it because he had expensive lawyers.

So if a player shoots at goal but falls short a teammate can punch it through the goals and it’s 6 points? Don’t like it too

But what about the case where a player kicks a ball bouncing towards goal and an opposition player runs it through the goal under pressure within 9m? Unless that is always a goal we will have umpires trying to decide if he ran it through under some unspecified degree of contol or if it just touched or brushed him. Also I don't think we want kicks to be declared a goal when a defender makes a great effort to hit the ball through the goals.

I'm disappointed, I opened this thread thinking you'd had provided a spoof 3 word player analysis for our amusement.

There are so many issues about the AFL and umpiring (not the poor buggers stuck with the job) that I don't think you need a tinfoil hat to think the AFL likes it that way to keep the clicks ticking over. The inconsistency during the heat of a game is perhaps unavoidable, but what in blaze justifies the disappearance of the dissent rule which was introduced to help recruitment of junior umpires etc etc? There were a few people on here who blasted anyone who dared criticise its "zero tolerance" nature as just a step too far. I don't recall them castigating the AFL for going soft on the rule later in the season. Perhaps like the rest of us they realise there is little point in grumbling about the AFL's policies.

Only goals are reviewed. Not points.

The AFL couldn't afford enough cameras.

Because they can't review points in the short time available before the kick in. Lots of time if a goal is called to play ads, have some insincere spruiker gee up the crowd, play some random music, etc. and do a review.

It's ironical that points aren't reviewed in the same way that goals are before play recommences. Understandable of course given the lack of time after a point is awarded before play resumes compared to a centre bounce. But both goals reviewed into points and points into goals can decide a match. Perhaps that's an argument to review nothing and go with umps' call. Maybe it would be cheaper to employ 4 goal umpires than get reliable technology. 4 goal umps, one at each gaol post would be in a good position except for deciding whether a ball is out of bounds or a point. The boundary umps can help decide that as they do now. Don't ask me what to do if the 2 goal umps disagree!

The poster who mistyped ARC as ARK is accidentally correct as to the era of the technology.

When in blazes does a "player elect to incorrectly dispose of the football"? It's bad enough umpires have to guess 'insufficient intent to keep in' or 'deliberate', but it seems they have to guess if a player intended to throw it. Next they will be asked to guess if they intended to throw it when they punched it - players are up to all sorts of tricks you know. The sad thing about these self-contradictory rules is that some poor bastard has to enforce them and 44 others have to play to them and umpteen thousand of us have to tear our hair out understanding why decisions are made or not made. The rules need a clean out by some people who have passed logic 101.

Agree. Or the technology should be upgraded to allow the rules to be implemented. The latter doesn't look like happening real soon.

Sorry Jimmy - how can you say we were outplayed when the result was so close. If Tracc's kick was declared a goal I suppose you wouldn't have said we outplayed Carlton. They outplayed us for some of the match, we outplayed them for another part of the match. Let's see a glimpse of positivity.

I've earlier suggested the ARC should make its decision without knowing what call the umpire has made, just knowing what the ump is uncertain about. Surely that is fundamental to proper process and I find it incredible (in the original meaning of the word) that the AFL does not to do that. But there's a lot to be said for scrapping the whole ARC process until the cameras are sufficiently improved. And just go with the umpire's call, however uncertain. Or maybe make the default decision be either point or goal if the umpire declares themself uncertain.

To save money rather than improve the technology, the AFL could alway use 3 goal umpires and take the majority decision. 😃

If the umpire's call was 'goal' would you say we did not deserve the win? On your logic in other posts I think you would have to say that. What we did during the rest of the game to fall behind or not pull clear is irrelevant. As is what Carlton did or didn't do earlier in the match to fail to put us away for playing as poorly as you emphasize. The fact is that within a minute we were that close and so was Carlton. When a game is that close an umpire's bad call can mean that one team or the other loses. Just have to live with it until the AFL does something other than hope for controversey and clicks. But your over-emphasising how the game got to that point is irrelevant to those who think an umpire's mistake affected the result. Carlton supporters would be just as mad if the ARC said it was a goal. Their poster named FearTheCleanshaven would be arguing they lost because they didn't put us away earlier. BTW, I have no firm opinion on whether the ball was touched or not. Who can tell with the technology available. I do have a firm opinion of JVR's legs being blatently taken out, but who knows, he may have missed a shot at goal even if he got the free.

You are digging yourself into a hole. Try reading what I wrote. I'm not arguing they didn't follow the current procedure. I'm arguing the procedure is wrong. Why does the ARC need to know what the umpire's calll was? They just need to know the area of doubt and look into that with an open mind.

I posted this elsewhere, but it is so wise 😀 I can't resist posting here too: Why do the ARC people get to hear the umpire's call in advance? It must affect their thinking. Surely they should be told the umpire is in doubt as to whether or not it was touched. If the ARC can then clearly see it wasn't touched, then we never hear what the umpire thought and it's a goal. If they say it was clearly touched, it's a point. If they say ARC can't tell, then reveal the umpire's call and implement it.