sue

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.

This makes no sense. Of course any team can put itself in a position where even if the umpire made 10 mistakes in a row they would still win. But footy (and most games) are not like that. You can play badly or worse than your opponent but then still get back and the game may end up close. At which point the outcome can depend on umpiring mistakes. The fact that you could have done better earlier is irrelevant. Regrettable, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Whatever you think of the standard of umpiring, the difficulty of umpiring, the humaness of umpires, the need for the AFL to improve the rules and professionalism of umpires, the over-the-top bias of one-eyed supporters, etc etc, your last bolded part of your statement is just silly. Of course it happens. How could it not given the difficulty of umpiring? Of course every team could get 10 goals ahead so that one or two bad decisions wouldn't determine the outcome of the game. But close games happen and an error can affect the result. Does <<insert your team here>> lose because of umpire errors more than do other teams? No, it just feels bad when it happens.

Some people might come to MCG who otherwise would have stayed home to watch the soccer. Doubt it's a big factor though.

I'd be happy for the club to keep things under wrap as far as possible if there is any chance of him playing this year. Our competitors would have more to think about if they don't know who may be in the team in the finals.

I've noticed that too. I expect it makes it easier for the umpire to get clear of the ruckmen, but it must make some difference to the players as the ball isn't coming vertically down now. As for the failed bounces, my beef is the inconsistency of recalling it. Of all the things the umpires can reasonably be excused for not being consistent (due the difficult nature of the game), this would be the easiest to get consistent. Since the AFL hasn't explained why the ball is not bounced after a 666 infringement, I think we can expect the bounce to disappear within a few years unless there is a strong protest.

At the risk of being misrepresented and personally abused by a certain poster I'll dare to make a comment on this. I agree with IRW in every respect, umpires are not biased (though unfortunately influenced on occasion by crowds) and the game is exceptionally difficult to play and umpire. I differ with some in thinking the AFL's policies/rules/interpreations/rules-of-the-week exacerbate the difficulty. I think the word 'usually' in IRW's statement that "over a match bad or missed decisions usually even themselves out" needs consideration. While statistically it may seem to even out, there is no doubt that bad or missed decisions can change the momentum of a game or affect the result in a close game. This naturally frustrates supporters. There is no obvious solution expect to fix the AFL's policies which currently make a difficult job even harder.

But keeps saying “head clash” but only focuses on the tigers player. Presumably it was a head shoulder clash.

I want Geelong and Carlton out of the finals. Who to barrack for tonight to increase the odds of that happening? Arrrghhh, it's all too complicated- advise please. I leave aside the Geelong Port game - as Jaded said, too damaging to the soul to even think about it.

Ah, media management. The AFL says 'massive fine' and the ABC radio news just parrots the phrase. At least the ABC websites simply state the penalty without commenting on whether it is 'massive' or 'pissweak'

That $50,000 won't be much help to the AFL in the court cases to come. It won't help establish how concerned the AFL was about concussion back in 2023. Maybe they think the $50K if wisely invested with Sportsbet will help pay the AFL legal fees. Short-termism - may get them past this week but destroy the AFL in 10 years time.

Who cares! We should do what is best for us and stuff the media.

In that article I found these words interesting: The scrutiny comes from both the AFL itself, with an independent doctor viewing the game from a hub alongside the AFL review centre (ARC) charged with alerting the doctors on the bench to an incident they may have missed that could involve a concussion...... Has anyone heard any comment on why this independent doctor didn't alert Port to what the rest of us could see? Or did they, but were ignored?

Only the AFL could produce a diagram which defies geometry. They show the behind post following the curve of the oval and then 9m of the protected zone is in line with the 9m edge of the goal square. Impossible. But the truth is that the behind posts are not on a curve but in a straight line with the goal posts, so there is no special relativity effect required. (Sorry to nit pick - well not really sorry.) The tweet says the player on the mark will be instructed to come back to the 9m line. Sometimes they are, sometimes the player gets pinged either without any instruction or without time to move. And sometimes where 9m actually is is unclear to both parties. They need to paint a line of some sort across the ground so players know where the 9m is and then no instruction should be needed.

I think 'rested' isn't the right word except when a player is shaking off an injury. Being 'rested' otherwise is a week of not getting knocked about (and possibly injured) and a mental break - presumaby not sitting on the couch eating KFC. I can only rely on the club to decide who needs either type of rest and to weigh up the other pros and cons of having a player who could play, not do so. Geelong seemed to do it successfully last year, so I'm surprised by those who say absolutely don't do it.

If the AFL wants to protect itself from future litigation it has to show it is serious about the concussion issue. Given the possibility of clubs' priorities overriding medical decisions, they must appoint and pay for independent doctors at matches. All this just at the time when they have started halting matches when someone looks slightly injured without (to my knowledge) even announcing it is a new policy. Why has it not been announced? I suspect that they know it won't be enforced consistently and if it is a formal policy, teams will use it to halt momentum.

I can't see how anyone can get a handle on Grundy's 'forward craft' or lack of it in these conditions.

If Goodwin did say anything to DB 'in confidence' then I wouldn't call that a leak, but a deliberate plan to get that info public knowing DB can';t be trusted. I can't see why he'd tell him anything in confidence if he thought he would not blab. What use does it serve MFC for DB to know anything and keep it to himself? If he did say it to him 'in confidence' for some arcane reason and DB blabbed then no one will tell him anything in confidence again. Most likely it's all hogwash.

The media just want clicks. Good stories about us are mainly read by MFC supporters only. Bad stories are read by a fraction of all other club's supporters, especially big rival clubs and at times when we are a threat. They do the numbers and work out where the most clicks are.

Well done Tracca. Very refreshing. Let's hope more posters follow your lead in reducing the temperature around here.

With my tinfoil hat on, maybe they plan to do a deal with MFC. They sink as low as possible and in return we give them something. (Yes, joking.)

C'wood are obviously very good and in a great position to win the flag. But this is a very good question.v I'd be interested to see an explanation from those who think they are the bees knees.

True, Melmsham did push, but no worse than is often ignored. It shouldn't be ignored, just paid consistently. As for the 50m against him (and against others on all teams) how about the AFL digs deep into Gil's retirement fund and pays for enough chalk to put a line across the ground in line with the 9m goal square.

My overseas mate (UK) watches replays on Watchafl (either that or he'd had to be up in the middle of the night for live games).

No my memory is right. Based on posts you liked and your own posts in April. You stated your first thought was to allow some slack in what's allowed like waving arms in exasperation but then added you felt that could get out of hand so finally you said: "So whatever the ruling is, it needs to be clear cut ... and zero tolerance eliminates doubt" Rules should be as clear cut as possible, but abuse and moderate dissent are different. I am happy we now agree that some slack should be allowed to indicate the players questioning/displeasure (but no abuse). I suspect a bit of abuse is being let through at the moment, but my lip reading is not up to the task.