sue

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

Yes, I too felt that their players were treating May fairly. Unlike those bloody comentators who complained that they weren't 'testing him out'. Those blokes really believe in sportsmanship - not.

agree, at least once.

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.

If it takes as much as 20 years to get something done privately, perhaps a bit of public whinging would not go amiss.

I agree. However your last sentence doesn't add weight to that position. When do you ever hear Goodwin or anyone else complain publically liek soem clubs do? (I just hope they do it behind closed doors when appropriate.)

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. ???

I thought it is not the 'natural arc' rubbish, but now you can start off your line, but must be on the line when you kick it. So Dixon's would be hard to judge, especially from the TV. But the VFL case I mentioned...blatant 😝

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.

After the siren he moves a metre or so to right as he kicks for goal. No play on call, goal stands. Do umpires go into a trance when they hold their arm out

So in a critical period in an important match just put a couple of Ks on the table and belt an important star and double him up in pain. And don’t worry you won’t even give away a free downfield. Plenty of time to organise your defence. The AFL stinks

To be frank, he looks pretty happy after most goals by any team, but I always enjoy him with ours. Given the ARC nonsense these days, an umpire would be happy with any decision which is clear enough that they don't have to ask for a review to increase cryto's advertising time. You know, at least a metre or two from the post or a metre over the line.

Sure no fist, but it looked to me like he didn't hit him with his palm or fingers, but with the hard bone next to the wrist. Can be as damaging as a fist if you get the swing right.

I'm trying to keep the mods happy by being opaque.

The umps are getting worse and worse at that. The stand rule was introduced to stop the man on the. mark moving sideways to cover any inside movement of the player with the ball. (Not something I like but I can see the reasons). But now we have the player with the ball starting well inside where he should be making the man on the mark almost irrelevant - too easy to run around. In fact that's why many run back so they can be 'outside 5'. I never know if the ump is telling the player to go outside 5 or if he already is. And as to where 5m is from an ill-defined mark position, it's a complete lottery.

But the 4th umpire tends to look at the play and pay frees they think other umps didn't notice in the play. How about an umpire in the stands told to not focus on the play and not able to give free kicks for anything but well off the ball infractions?

That seems to be the case. But doesn't that mean that balls touched at a height higher than the padding would not be deemed 'touched' till they were some (padding) distance beyond the goal post - which would be impossible to judge. So I think there must be one rule for balls going through below the top of the padding and another for higher balls????

I wish we'd complain a bit too. I like to think we'd do it behind closed doors, but I doubt we do.

I know any exposure is supposed to be good publicity, but would you want your product associated with such a [censored] system as the AFL score review?

Try telling that to C'wood supporters....

I've been running a losing battle to call Caleb Saxe-Coburg as a nickname. Too long, so now I'm trying Saxy. Probably with the same result.

Does not matter. If I shoot you I don't get off just because I missed or just winged you. True, the penalty would be greater if I didn't miss. If another player has also offended, yes, he should cop his wack too. Kicking, however imcompetently should be absolutely not on. But this is the AFL......

While that is right in general play, I think an defending ruckman cannot hit it through for a point without a free being awarded regardless of the 9m/pressure issue. The attacking ruckman can. So totally unfair. (not that the attaccking ruck would in the current case, but if it decided a match by a point, he can.)