sue

Wouldn't work. The MRO would just say "No, but it's not Bont or Daicos" and proceed as usual .

Good grief if that is true. If they can warn you when you have 5 to go etc, why can't they tell you "No More" as well. And we wouldn't have a game decided in such a stupid way.

I'm not going to get into this specific incident, but if he should have done what you said : "had plenty of time to put his head down and contest", then I don't quite see how that instruction is likely to lessen head injuries. Seems to me that is asking for players to collide heads which isn't that much safer than your hip running into my head or my head running into your hip. Surely there must be a moment when it is safer for one player to pull back. If a player does that and gets both stick from the coach and supporters for being a whimp AND gets rubbed out for high contact, I don't know where we are heading.

That free for taking the North player's legs out that lead to a free and a goal in Q4 really drove me crazy. The players are running to the ball which is heading to the North goal, casey player is in the lead and throws himself to the ground to get the ball, North player running from behind him trips over him, gets a free. What is the Casey player supposed to do? Not pick up the ball? OK, the rule might make sense when players are coming in from the side, but from the rear it is absolute BS.

The AFL would change the rules in advance.

good grief, even the temperature is considered woke these days. Anyway, I thought it was plus 0.

Maybe the club wants to get as many games into Salem as possible before the finals. I may be wrong but didn’t he come back much later in the season last year . maybe the club thinks he didn’t have enough time to get back to his best.

This! But they are authentic about $$.

But it is hard to adjudicate. How does the umpire know how hard the push is? Why allow it at all - they pay high frees for gentle swipes over the shoulder. They don't try to guess how hard the contact was. We've now got to the point that some stagers will use a hold you ground push as an excuse to fly forward. Others (eg Hawkins) will be "holding their ground" one meter behind where they were when they pushed, i.e. the ran backwards after the push.

Agree. But Lyon seemss to bend over backwards to appear that he is not favouring MFC (which is annoying). Can't say the same for the others.

If I was coach of a team ahead by a couple of points after a goal had been scored in the dying seconds, and we hadn't had a 666 warning, I'd create one since a ball-up is more predictable and easier to bring to your ruckman's feet and hold things up. A wild bounce may give your opponents a quick route to goal. Anyway, all teams should have a 666 warning when they play the Demons.

oh I am. Just this nagging feeling about over reliance on hanging out for picks in the past. Not relevant now.

I enjoy this thread, but it makes me a bit uncomfortable reminding me a bit of the days when we pinned our hopes on an early draft pick messiah.

As wsw said it was there but mysteriously disappeared later - which is odd because less news-worthy articles seem to have had more staying power. I can't think why.

Fogarty case? No stretcher.

But that’s the AFL’s modus operandi

Delay because Gil’s phone battery is dead

More likely they like how inpredictable the play is if the viewer can't see what other players are around and likely to affect the play. Adds to the tension to not know what is happening. Very annoying. But as worse is the close up of the player who has taken a mark or free. Far better to see what his options downfield are rather than if he used a sharp razor for his morning shave.

I don't usually like the sports guy on ABC Radio National Breakfast (Essendon drug apologist) but I liked his remark this morning (edited to improve): No North Melbourne players but still a kangaroo court.

Doesn't mean the AFL isn't stupid enough to try to use it.

But how do we boo the AFL?

From The Age: " Gleeson said the potential to cause serious injury to the neck and the spine was considered in deciding the force was high, and not incidental, upholding the suspension." That makes no sense. How can 'potential to cause injury' indicate the strength of a force? A certain amount of force could cause potential injury but you can't estimate the actual strength of a force by saying some level of force has the potential to cause injury, therefore this force was high . Beyond belief. Don't they teach logic in schools anymore?

Don't worry about it. Conservatives use the label to indicate that "I don't like it" so they apply it in areas where it appears to be out of context.

If we appeal, I'd hope that 17 other clubs chip in for the costs. Won't happen, but it should.

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.