sue

Isn't that all the more reason to do something. Doesn't have to be official cheer squadn action, surely?

Are there any special plans to honour Gus at the match, WCW?

Thanks for sparing the rest of us from watching such a shameless video LG. I don't doubt you re the bit above, but if you or someone can list each case it would be useful in dealing with the 'footy acts' aquaintenences I have unfortunately.

What drives me even madder is that when a forward is pushed, they exaggerate the result and fall to the ground or otherwise remove themselves from further involvement in the play and get a free. Whereas a pushed defender doesn't dare take themselves out of the play and gets no free for the same amount of pushing. Sorry I mean holding their position.

That is interesting. Isn't the AFL saying it's only during breaks between quarters?

Assuming you'd want to, how would you then outlaw Gridiron style throwing?

"It has become clearer throughout the season that in discharging their duty of care whilst executing a tackle, tacklers are positively electing not to take tackled players to ground in the tackle or are generally doing so in a reasonable way including by not using excessive force," the AFL said in a statement on Wednesday morning. "As a consequence, we are seeing players hold onto the ball slightly longer and challenging the definition of “reasonable time”. So, the AFL is saying the reason players are able to hold on to the ball too long is that they no longer get instantly smashed to the ground. Something just doesn't ring true and is a recipe for further interpretations to come. "Our umpires are clear on the interpretation of holding the ball and it continues to be a focus of umpire coaching each week. We want to ensure our Clubs, Coaches and Players understand the rules and how they are being officiated." Typical poli-speak. If they are so clear on the interpretation why do we see so many inconsistencies?

Whoopee, I'm sure the advertisers and 7 love lots of goals, but I don't. An endless goalfest can be pretty boring - stops the play a lot for a start. A game can be interesting to watch and full of tension with little scoring. Soccer fans around the world put up with ridiculously low scoring. (Too low scoring in my opinion since either there is no winner or a win that doesn't really separate the teams. All they need do is widen the goals a bit to take into account that people are taller than there were in 1870 or whenever).

surely they should just be disposals, and listed as effective or not.

Unless you are part of his medical team that statement does nothing for your credibility

Yes. I turned off the game when C'wood got their last goal and only watched the rest when I heard the result. And I heard the ump say to a C'wood player near the wing 'give the ball straight back to me'. A few minutes they infringed that near rthe goals. How sad.

Insufficient intent - what an embarrassment

Can't for copyright reasons of course. But mods, can I use an AI engine which produced this summary. Note all I did was ask it to summarise the articel at that URL. (compared to what facebook etc do stealing news copyright, this is nothing): The article from The Age discusses the impact of the AFL's rule changes introduced by former AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan, also known as "Hocking's Rule Changes", and argues that the league should reconsider or undo these changes. Here's a summary:The article cites statistics and data to support the claim that the rule changes have had a negative impact on the game. Specifically: 1. Increased congestion: The article notes that the rule changes have led to an increase in congestion in the middle of the ground, resulting in fewer clearances and more stoppages. 2. Decreased scoring: The data shows that the average score per game has decreased since the introduction of the rule changes, with teams scoring an average of 10.5 points less per game. 3. Increased injuries: The article suggests that the increased congestion and physicality of the game have led to an increase in injuries, particularly to the knees and shoulders. 4. Decreased pace: The statistics indicate that the game has become slower since the rule changes, with teams taking longer to transition from defense to offense. 5. Decreased fan engagement: The article suggests that the rule changes have led to decreased fan engagement, with attendances and TV ratings declining.The article argues that the rule changes were intended to improve the game by increasing scoring and reducing congestion, but the opposite has occurred. It suggests that the league should reconsider or undo the rule changes to improve the game and increase fan engagement.The article concludes by stating that the AFL should listen to the concerns of coaches, players, and fans and consider making changes to the game to improve its overall quality and entertainment value.

The 5 metre rule is totally confusing to me. I never know where the 5m is (nor do the players and umps who relaible can't estiate distances) Sometimes it is not clear if the ump is saying 'you are beyond 5m' or 'get beyond 5m'. Is it clear? If so, tell me which or both?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-stats-that-show-why-the-afl-should-undo-hocking-s-rule-changes-20240515-p5jdti.html Couldn't agree more personally.

I reckon a lot of the media are doing precisely that.

Sometimes they AFL concedes the ump made a mistake. Not happened for us I suppose.

No it's still there. Try another browser perhaps

Some say making the umps real pros won’t change anything. Others say the rules need changing. if the umps are pros they might have some power to get the AFL to change the most difficult to judge rules.

Whatever you think of the standard and difficulty of umpiring, to deny the above is simply foolish. The umpires are amateurs in a professional multi-zillion $ sport. Too easily influnced by crowds and the latest direction from HQ (well, for a week or two anyway). At least make them real pros. Perhaps some supporters who imagine their teams are hard done by the umpires aren't as one-eyed/brainless as some 'more rational than thou' people are claiming. If big crowds influence umpires (which I think is undeniable, though not 100% of the time of course) then over time those paranoid supporters of smaller teams would have some confirmation of their suspicions.

Sadly I think our strong intercept marking will be suffer more than Curnows marking which means ball comes to ground and then anything can happen.

25m penalty means nothing these days. Almost every mark or free leads to the voluntary giving up of 15-25m anyway and with the 'stand/5m' rule who knows where the mark is most of the time. Early in the season the players had started to learn how to behave - even the Geelong ones who are now back to their finest whinging. There was never any need for multiple penalities. If it had been enforced consistently all season, by now infingements would be as rare as hens' teeth. But expecting the AFL to be consistent? Good luck with that.

Someone at AFL HQ decided that allowing a bit of strong emotion is more valuable ($) than the pious hypocrisy they mouthed about stopping bad examples to kids and recruiting umpires. Seriously, what sort of code introduces a new 'rule', runs with it relentlessly for a few weeks, and then increasingly ignores it. But you watch them pull it out of their %%$# when it suits. And they call it a professional sport....

It won't be ready in time.

I think the AFL is crazy but surely it can't be that crazy? If you (blatantly) shove a player in the back and take the mark, that doesn't give you a free pass for the shove just because you took the mark. Why should head high contact via knee be a special case?