sue

Re the above posts about players leading with their head into an opponenet's stomach: I recall that some years ago in one of the AFL's pious moments about player safety, that they were going to discourage that dangerous practice by immediately awarding a free kick against the player doing it. Doesn't seem to have ever happened. Let's face it. In every aspect of the game from the draw to the umpiring the AFL is not interested in making a fair competition. They are focussed on the $.

I'm amazed by some of the negativity here (...no I'm not). Almost everyone thought we'd be lucky to come with 5 goals of them, many expected a 10 goal thrashing, yet we lost by a single point!! Sure it would have been great if the point was in our favour instead, but it wasn't. Despite all our mistakes, it ended up a toss up. Of course we could have done better and we have problems. But if that is all C'Wood can do against us then I'd say they must have problems too.

Interesting to see how many tap-ons and handballs "to self to run onto" there were . And a pack was only 4 or 5 players, not 10. TV coverage of close ups was better because there was no hand-passing in circles going out of the field of view. And with long kicks, plenty of time to chnage to a wide shot. (Yes, I enjoy living in the past and being at that game - standing room only.)

They just needed more time. That's more than 2.6 points per goal, so if the game went on longer they may have got to 7-20. Not far off 7-21.

Re: Our 'failure' to disclose the KB team: God knows there are things to criticise at the MFC, but those who groan about that and every little thing, only harm their credibilty on the issues that matter.

Interesting. Could it be a deliberate tactic rather than plain old nastiness? Perhaps a forced delay to stop the oppo playing quickly is of more use these days than a 50m penalty deep in defence which give time for opponents to organise, so it's worth the risk of a 50m.

When I wrote my post above, I didn't realize that readers who do not have access to the Age wouldn't be aware of the context. He said: ".....broken bones in my hands from defenders’ spoils and from when [an opponent] jumped on my hand deliberately"

While I do feel for him like anyone suffering that way, in reading his list of how his hand was broken, it did require me to overcome my natural reaction to ask why not also list punching people as a cause.

There is more than one way of managing such things. You apparently seem to be suggesting Goodwin shout to the world that his players are the worst kicks for goal he's ever seen and despite efforts to fix the issue, nothing has worked. While we all appear to agree with that generally*, I doubt it is the best way for a coach address the issue to the players. * maybe we disagree on how much effort has been made to fix it and maybe the fault is parlty where we force players to shoot from etc, but 'generally' seems correct.

Sure, but don't forget whenever Goodwin speaks to the media the players may also be listening. So maybe he's trying to reduce the pressure on them by generalising the problem.

Definitely is her. That's a still from her naughty 1933 movie Ecstasy I think. Doubtless it was banned here. It's on the internet archive https://archive.org/details/ecstasy-1933.hedy-lamarr

Sme whistle is annoying. I thought it sounded like the audio of the umps whistle was coming through earlier than the video and the commentators coming later than both. If so, quite an achievement.

Not much sign of Occam's Razor in all that. I'm so old fashioned that I think there should be nothing wrong with a defender just booting it up the line and out of bounds deliberately to gain terriroty and relief. But then I don't get money from extra goals providing more ad breaks.

I'm not getting into the specific umpiring of last night, but the 'insufficient intent' interpretations are driving me mad. If a forward kicks it under pressure in a pack trying to gain territory and it goes out, no worries. Heaven help a back man who does so. May as well toss a coin. I can't see what is wrong with the simpler old deliberate rule.

Where did you see it Cranky?

Normally I'd agree. But consider this: When someone commits murder and the authorities turn a blind eye, it would be natural for friends and relatives to make 'endless comments' about what the murderer deserves. Would you be surprised or critical of them? IMO, the same applies to a player who kills another player's footy career (and maybe more) with a non-football act.

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2425800771922

Sorry to seem sexist, but if they are giving cars to female players, the male players are probably getting jumbo jets.

Re AJ's dropped chest mark which much has been made of: It wasn't as if he was standing on his own. If I recall it was in a pack and the ball almost dropped into his arms, maybe unexpectantly. Would need to view it again.

While it is true that the criminal law is to a large extent outcome based, there is no reason why the AFL has to follow that. For a start almost every action on a footy field would land you in chokey if done in Swanson St. Furthermore, a criminal judge can find you guilty of manslaughter and still alter the penalty in light of the cirrcumstances (except in neolithic places which impose mandatory sentences). Moore may well have been concussed, but if I bang my head with my tennis racquet trying to return a shot, I should not expect the person I'm playing against to be charged (to draw a weak analogy).

I though it was because he came from behind of the player with the ball and didn't loop around far enough. At least I've seen that paid elsewhere, and sometimes not paid.

I am bamboozled by the stand rule. Sometimes the umps say '5 metres' when they seem to mean "go there" and sometimes it seems to mean 'you are 5m away'. They often say stand when the player 'on the mark' hasn't got to the mark. If anyone can explain exactly what is going on, I'd be grateful. And them there is the 50m penalty of the sort Salem was hit with. I bet if he came in 1 metre more to the left it would have been OK. But he'd still be moving into the proteted zone. A guide to the perplexed would be appreciated.

Anyone got a picture of the flock? (I'll forgive you for not looking at the footy when you smapped it.)

I've noticed a few which gave a huge advantage to one side and should have been recalled. At the moment I suspect many umps are at the limit of what they can do, so it is hard for them to be consistent. Unless you are a believer in 'the more randomness the better for the competition' the simplest solution is for each ump to work out the distance they can comfortably and reliably throw it (in normal and in wet conditions) and then stand x metres in so as to reach the standard (15m) like some (all?) of the female VLF umps do. But that would be perceived as wimpish I fear and never happen with male AFL umpires.

I'd be a lot happier if they had done all that against a team other than one which has not won a game, gets regularly thrashed, has no one on an AFL list (with all that means in terms of talent and training environment). Let's wait and see.