sue
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by sue
-
First, MFC said nothing at the time as far as I can recall, so we're not in danger of appearing hypocritic in front of that bastion of integrity the MRO. Second, I don't think we need make the same arguments about 'football act' etc that C'wood did. Obviously we can compare to Fogarty and say impact was much lower. Our only difficulty will be the contorted definition of impact the AFL has conjured up. But worth a go in my view. They only made clowns of themselves in the eyes of MFC supporters. No one in the media gave a stuff which is what counts (even though some supporters of other teams did as evidenced by the booing Maynard gets). -
Regardless of one's view on what penalty Kozie should get (and I haven't seen anyone say he should get off scot free), I cannot let that pass. Maynard's action was quite different. He lined Gus up pretending to smother, had plenty of time to not clobber him. Even if you take the most negative view of what Kossie did, it was nowhere near as bad as Maynard.
-
-
ah, the MRO, it never stops giving.
-
Probably not. But I was just watching the GWS/Sun game and they had a video review after the umpire didn't pay a ball touched but several oppo players made a fuss.. Why not do that in every such case and maybe introduce penalties if it is clear the player claiming to have touched it is lying? it was determined as touched
-
-
Unfortunately he learnt that stupid move from Max who does it at the wrong times too.
-
This may give the best hope for kozzie getting off
-
-
Too right. The system is tainted, no matter what you think of Kossie's action. If it was 100% certain that him getting a week would make him a better team player (including not getting banned in future), then sure, teach him a lesson ASAP. But I'd guess the % is more like 30-60%. But I'll be surprised if we appeal. Too long a history of rolling over dating from when we were a basket case in desperate need of AFL benificence.
-
I am confused. Surely while 'potential to cause serious injury' and 'level of impact' are not unrelated, I do not see why his action has to be judged as 'medium impact' in order to invoke 'potential to cause'. Surely if an action has potential to cause injury, it doesn't need any particular level of impact to be applied. The action is the sin. So why this fake bar of 'medium' gets you into trouble, but 'low' doesn't? It looks like they had to absurdly say that an action which was clearly low impact was in fact medium just to punish the sin. Ridiculous. How could they revise the rules and not come up with coherent sensible rule that doesn't require such patent nonsense? No wonder so many of us are cynical as to their motives. The AFL lives in a corporate fantasy land where they make up the rules and interpretations as they go along to suit.
-
Yes you argued that overall it didn’t affect things. I pointed out that it can even if the stats you presented appeared to say things even out. As I said using metaphors and analogies is a dangerous way to argue but I can’t help thinking of all the things that could be used to destroy your doggie analogy.
-
-
But what you call noise can affect an outcome. For example, team A misses out on the finals because of a bad decision in round 2 costing them 4 points. Sure, over the year they may have benefitted from bad decisions, but they don't necessarily balance out. Maybe they won a game by 10 goals rather than 9 as a result of a bad decision in their favour. That's unlikely to effect their being in the finals (though not impossible), but to say 'on-average' they did neither well nor badly misses the point. Some bad decisions have bigger effects than others. Elsewhere you argued that Richmond, when in multiple premiership winning form, did poorly on frees. But that doesn't prove your point, there are other factors. Maybe that just demonstrates how bloody good they were (or that they employed a successful tactic to give away frees to slow things or whatever). I leave aside the so-called butterfly effect, thought there may be relevance here too. Of course passionate supporters exaggerate the effect of bad decisions and whinge and carry on (part of the fun). That obviously annoys some who see that as irrational. But we shouldn't go to the other extreme and suggest that bad decisions can't effect things. (I suggest you stay clear of dodgey (or doggy) metaphors. Never a good way to make an argument because it leads down all sorts of rabbit holes as I have learnt to my cost over many years.)
-
This may interest those who like stats. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-05/cody-and-sean-heights-across-the-history-of-the-afl/103668180
-
-
-
The 'accumulation of hits' line was disputed in what Angus said when he retired. If it was Maynard I'd definitely be asking for mroe than 4, say 8, as back-payment for what he did last year which was so many orders of magnitude than anything I've seen in recent times. But yes, Kozzie should be in trouble. Sadly, I can imagine if he was in a 'top' club (as defined by AFL corporate) he'd be much more likely to get a fine than a suspension.
-
-
-
Some might find this ligtening map interesting https://www.lightningmaps.org/#m=oss;t=3;s=1;o=0;b=;ts=0;y=-37.9388;x=145.0072;z=10;d=5;dl=5;dc=0;tsc=1;src=6;
-
Serious answer. Probably
-
Is what Grundy is doing at centre bounces legal? He runs across the line as soon as the ump goes into his bounce routine and before the ump hits the ball on the ground. ???
-
-
Now you might say the bounday ump's view may have been obscured at the critical moment, but I recall a field ump was just a few metres away on the boundary on the other side facing the ball. I can understand umps making mistakes in difficult situations, but amazed they can't get the simple things right. For example, in the Casey match a player kicked a goal after the siren after going 2m off his line.
