sue

Cringeworthy condescending. But that's much of the match day "performance" these days (except for the actual footy).

The bleeding obvious presumably.

You've probably now informed younger readers what at least one conjunction is. But I doubt they'll remember.

I'm more than happy to move on about this particular goal (though I'm not sure how happy I'd be if we lost a GF that way). But it will take me a while to move on from the fact our game the AFL runs appears to be run by a bunch of money-focussed suits who can't manage to write clear rules covering such basic issues. If they did, we'd have no reason to have 50 posts on this issue To vent the above.

Well that's the only reason a so-called professional sport would be so lax as the AFL without defining the rules clearly without grey areas and endless interpretations. As for educating the public, finding the actual rules on the AFL website over the years has been a good way to spend a rainy afternoon. I know a sport where the rules were apparently written by a team of lawyers with lots of "Notwithstanding Rule 23.5 subsection 3, the ball must"..... etc which requires a law degree to understand. But there are accompanying documents which explain what it means in various cases and no one has a problem. And there are no grey areas. No clicks to be garnered there I guess.

I would too (though being interstate I don't go to the footy much, so the cost isn't an issue to me - on the other hand I pay for several games but go to none, so I'd be paying even more to see no games). But how bad would it be if the players were paid less? Some highly gifted sporting-types may take up soccer or tiddleywinks to chase the money, but I'd still find footy more enjoyable.

As someone who raised this early on, I feel we have to acknowledge there is a similar shot, presumably one frame earlier which shows the hand near the ball forward of the padding(*). So in my view it comes down to what the rules actually say and if the back of the padding really aligns with the back of the line. From looking at a few stills of other games, I don't think the AFL enforces the latter carefully. Nor does it appear to be a stated policy. It is not stated in the rules as it should be if it is a policy. (I note the rules do have a section on padding but it does not mention this issue.) So we have the AFL's usual not thought through mess. (*) but of course no way of telling if it has yet touched the ball, such is the state of the technology. There is something to be said for just going by what the umpire thinks unless it is clear they could not make a decision (e.g. they have been bowled over by a player just as the ball goes though). They'll get it wrong ocasionally and even affect the outcome of a match, but so will the field umpire giving or missing a free within 10 metres of the goal. No one is asking for their decisions to be reviewed.

Also sounds like something which does not happen. So Jumping Jack's question is a good one. Anyone...?

I had a close look at several stills from this and othe games and if that is the AFL'S intention, they need to be more careful with the placement of the padding and line drawing. Clearly saw examples of the padding being further back.

The score reviewers have only one decision to make (unlike the umps for whom I feel pity despite my swearing at them). You'd think they'd know the rules that affect their one simple job. Apparently not. (I wouldn't expect the commentators to know much at all.)

Is that the still shot they showed when they made the call?. Looks different.

I reckon it did go through if the only angle they showed was the one they used to say it didn’t. Shocking quick and wrong call. A review of the review should be called for by the AFL Iif it had any spine.

The implementations of outside 5 and where the mark is are a dog’s breakfast. Inconsistent

How Ed Langdon and Lachie Hunter have changed Melbourne's wing strategy in the 2023 AFL season

is there a German word for premature schadenfreude? I suspect a number on here are suffering from it. Time will tell.

So did I. The AFL's explanation seems to overturn that. But since when has the actual written rules affected AFL decisions on anything.

The MFC app seems official enough for me. 4-6

Perhaps it's already been said (I don't have the stomach to read the entire thread), but have we just seen an argument against a night grand final?

try:https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/media-street-scott-gullan-gives-you-all-the-latest-sports-media-buzz-from-around-the-afl/news-story/431f94af08144b4f30576a075aa31c29?amp

While I think the MRO and Tribunal decisions are too often a toin coss biased towards famous players, I'm not inclined to bag our club for rarely appealing. But given Crows are appealing for an almost identical hit as Pickett's which actually injured the opponent, I am perplexed. Are we too compliant, or Crows to much the other way or maybe Pickett didn't want the fuss?

my thanks to all who've replied.

Does anone know if row BB in bay M55 level 1 is undercover? Travelling to MCG and short of umbrellas and raincoats. thanks

I have no problem with the 2 weeks based on the potential to cause serious injury. I've always though just basing things on outcome is stupid. But doesn't knocking someone out also indicate a potential to cause serious injury? Buddy?

If the MRO is now including a factor called 'potential to cause injury', then they should not bury it under the level of impact but instead have a seperate line for potential to cause injury. Furthermore, there should be levels for that, just like they have for impact.

Real indiots sit in the sun when there is shade available.