sue

Only the AFL could produce a diagram which defies geometry. They show the behind post following the curve of the oval and then 9m of the protected zone is in line with the 9m edge of the goal square. Impossible. But the truth is that the behind posts are not on a curve but in a straight line with the goal posts, so there is no special relativity effect required. (Sorry to nit pick - well not really sorry.) The tweet says the player on the mark will be instructed to come back to the 9m line. Sometimes they are, sometimes the player gets pinged either without any instruction or without time to move. And sometimes where 9m actually is is unclear to both parties. They need to paint a line of some sort across the ground so players know where the 9m is and then no instruction should be needed.

I think 'rested' isn't the right word except when a player is shaking off an injury. Being 'rested' otherwise is a week of not getting knocked about (and possibly injured) and a mental break - presumaby not sitting on the couch eating KFC. I can only rely on the club to decide who needs either type of rest and to weigh up the other pros and cons of having a player who could play, not do so. Geelong seemed to do it successfully last year, so I'm surprised by those who say absolutely don't do it.

If the AFL wants to protect itself from future litigation it has to show it is serious about the concussion issue. Given the possibility of clubs' priorities overriding medical decisions, they must appoint and pay for independent doctors at matches. All this just at the time when they have started halting matches when someone looks slightly injured without (to my knowledge) even announcing it is a new policy. Why has it not been announced? I suspect that they know it won't be enforced consistently and if it is a formal policy, teams will use it to halt momentum.

I can't see how anyone can get a handle on Grundy's 'forward craft' or lack of it in these conditions.

If Goodwin did say anything to DB 'in confidence' then I wouldn't call that a leak, but a deliberate plan to get that info public knowing DB can';t be trusted. I can't see why he'd tell him anything in confidence if he thought he would not blab. What use does it serve MFC for DB to know anything and keep it to himself? If he did say it to him 'in confidence' for some arcane reason and DB blabbed then no one will tell him anything in confidence again. Most likely it's all hogwash.

The media just want clicks. Good stories about us are mainly read by MFC supporters only. Bad stories are read by a fraction of all other club's supporters, especially big rival clubs and at times when we are a threat. They do the numbers and work out where the most clicks are.

Well done Tracca. Very refreshing. Let's hope more posters follow your lead in reducing the temperature around here.

With my tinfoil hat on, maybe they plan to do a deal with MFC. They sink as low as possible and in return we give them something. (Yes, joking.)

C'wood are obviously very good and in a great position to win the flag. But this is a very good question.v I'd be interested to see an explanation from those who think they are the bees knees.

True, Melmsham did push, but no worse than is often ignored. It shouldn't be ignored, just paid consistently. As for the 50m against him (and against others on all teams) how about the AFL digs deep into Gil's retirement fund and pays for enough chalk to put a line across the ground in line with the 9m goal square.

My overseas mate (UK) watches replays on Watchafl (either that or he'd had to be up in the middle of the night for live games).

No my memory is right. Based on posts you liked and your own posts in April. You stated your first thought was to allow some slack in what's allowed like waving arms in exasperation but then added you felt that could get out of hand so finally you said: "So whatever the ruling is, it needs to be clear cut ... and zero tolerance eliminates doubt" Rules should be as clear cut as possible, but abuse and moderate dissent are different. I am happy we now agree that some slack should be allowed to indicate the players questioning/displeasure (but no abuse). I suspect a bit of abuse is being let through at the moment, but my lip reading is not up to the task.

My strong recollection is that you were all for strict no dissent at all at the start of the year based on wanting to protect junior umpires etc. and criticised me and others for instead wanting the happy balance we seem to now have. Maybe my memory is wrong. Glad we are in agreement now. So we must criticise the AFL for not supporting the umpires in their new interpretation since we haven't heard a peep out of the AFL on the subject.

I don't want umpires, male or female, threatened. But I'd be interested in you responding to my question to you about the change in dissent ruling during the year. Who do we criticise when the AFL have not announced a change in the rule? Or are you happy with the apparent change?

Of course it is not OK to abuse umpires. But why do I have to say it 1000 times - I DO NOT THINK UMPIRING IS EASY. I suspect very few who criticise umpiring think it is easy. Most of us want the AFL to looks more thoughtfully at rule changes and "interpretations" and avoid the "rule of the week" rather than just pile on individual umpires. I note that players vigorously disputing umpire's decisions seems now OK almost all of the time, unlike Round 1. I presume you would criticise those current decisions? Unless we know the AFL has issued a directive to now ignore that which they said was so essential for recruiting/retaining more junior umpires, we can ony criticise the umpires for making bad decisions when they ignore it.

I expect I'd be able to handle a lot of abuse because I haven't put you on ignore.

"You can't just shove another player out of the way especially when the ball isn't within 5 metres" A forward seems to be able to do it to backman often because the backman can't afford to 'fly' out of the contest like a forward does to milk a free. Sadly the more famous the forward, the more likely they are to get away with it. Your argument re scragging seems to be "Hang the rules,everyone does it, even us, so don't complain" . Imagine appying that line of argument to all sort of infringements. How about enforcing the rules so players are discouraged from doing it instead. Or change the rules. One or the other.

I don't blame them. The current stupid and inconsistent 'interpretation' is a lottery and you have to buy a ticket to win.

For those who have the entire fixture in their heads, whom should I barrack for between Essendon and Cats? (Assuming I hate them both and fear Geelong a bit more in the finals)

Anyone know where and when this is? Any reports much appreciated.

Often very little to none of the momentum that the ball gets comes from a fist (or even a hint of a fist). It is clear the AFL wants a fast moving game that this allows. I suspect the only thing stopping them from changing the rules to allow throws is how to stop long overhead throws like in gridiron coming into the game which would be a terrible look.

Leaving aside the puzzling issue of starting to do this when Casey has a bye, working on his forward craft makes sense to me. Even if he has never been much chop up forward, if we plan to use 2 rucks in the finals and would like to rest them in coming weeks, it makes sense to improve his forward craft as much as possible. If limited VFL minutes can be considered a rest, it makes sense, even if he learns just a little.

Nor do I though it is odd that they chose to do it when the VFL has a bye.

While of course winning this year is more important than a pick, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Don't your numbers include the many years when each team played each other team twice, one in Geelong and one at home? In which case it weakens your argument.