sue

Exactly. If make me wonder if the AFL has leant on Gleeson or he has just gone feral. Or a more likely third option, the AFL has not thought things through (as they often fail to do with rule changes) and in leaning on Gleeson (or merely creating an atmosphere where he felt he had to act as he did), they have thrown the whole game into chaos. But most likley they will ignore this as a precedent so that the game does not become touch football. And they may merely be content to use JvR's suspension to show to a court in 10 years time how they didn't tolerate anything that could cause a concussion.

I have no special knowledge but I don't think relying on things that players have got away with in the past is a wise line to take. All the AFL has to say is that things are changing and while the rules have not been changed, the interpretation has. After all, the AFL specialise in that.

That sort of defeatist attitude would leave us all still being ruled by kings OD. Oh, wait.

This from Fox website: Asked whether the ruling would change the way they play, both Riewoldt and Geelong superstar Tom Hawkins said it would not. Of course not - they'd never be cited in the first place (especially Hawkins).

A couple of posters have groaned about woke-ism in this decision. Baloney. No matter how right wing you are this is not anything to do with being 'progressive'. It is Corporation AFL trying to protect its future $.

This won’t change the game forever Just using jvr as an example to show how concerned the corporation is. No one else will get pinger for such a spoil.

Best but might sound like a smartarse

Smart cookie

Footy may well be heading that way, but I don't think the citing of JVR was a planned indication of this. More a knee-jerk reaction to a stretcher and a pile of [censored] commentators.

If (and it's a big if) playing Hawthorn is a VFL-like match, what about playing him this week in the AFL and next week in VFL? Damn byes.

True and goals mean ads. Many genuine handballs these days get most of the ball's momentum from the other hand throwing as it is punched. But if you allow the throws, do you chnage the rules to forget the first. End up with Gridiron throws.

How anyone can say so definitively as Ralph does where his eyes are from that video is beyond me. And to simultaneously imply that where the eyes are is the sole determinant of 'guilt' is also beyond me.

Wrong decisions by field umpires (and to a very small extent boundary umpires) affect the outcome of more games than mistakes by goal umpires. Maybe just stick with whatever the goal umpire thinks, right or wrong. And maybe do no replays, just as we don't do replays of every free kick paid 10 metres out just in front.

It would be interesting to see the data broken down by years. I bet that in the days before the AFL became3 a corporate profit driven monster all teams got a similar number of games in Geelong as fairness was the driving motive. C'wood's nmber probably has barely shifted since then.

The short article on the MFC website gives me confidence that we will appeal. Nothing definite, but not the usual 'we will accept'. Melbourne will provide an update on its position regarding the incident in due course.

I agree with much of what you said but I think your remark about conspiracy is a bit off. Favouring certain well known players and clubs with big membership, ie $$ for the AFL empire seems corrupt and to have media complicit smells of conspiracy to me.

They must appeal.

What’s cwood fan’s excuse for booing Franklin?

Well he probably is a moron, but you are missing the fact that the AFL doesn't worry about reality, but how it will look.

I agree. And would be happy if the AFL applied its rules consistently, but sadly they don't. I'd forgive them the occasional line-ball decision - it's difficult. While I, like others, see things through red & blue glasses, there are enough cases which do not involve MFC (or teams I hate etc) to make it clear that the AFL cannot be trusted to be consistent.

I don't think his action was much different from a slightly clumsy attempt to spoil. I can't see what he did that was wrong. All attempts to spoil from behind have a 'potential for serious injury' so what is the criteria for suspension? Surely it must be recklessly trying to hit the player and not the ball. There is no evidence of that in the current case. If the player hadn't been stretchered off this would be a non-event.

You have to stretch things to breaking point to make that the definition of front-on contact. You can say reckless, nasty whatever you like, but you weaken your case by adding front-on contact to your list of (dubious) sins.

All true. Though: We would be less predictable if May actually kicked out to the right occasionally. Or do we never have both Gawn and Grundy in those positions when they are both on the ground?

How about the AFL claiming all the rights regardless of who uses the AFL's microphone?

Front-on contact? You must be joking! Look again at the video. And how do you know where his eyes were? because a biased commentator told you so I guess. And just because the player is carried off does not mean high impact in terms of injury - if a player holds his head (on the oppostie side to any impact) and tells the docs something went crack the docs will carry him off as a precaution. (Though it is high impact in terms of losing a player for the rest of the game). If he gets suspended we should appeal even if JVR supposedly needs a rest.