sue

Sorry 58er: Leading in every game and then losing a few of them yet never being thrashed (so that you remain second on the ladder at the end of the season) is hardly devestating (though disappointing to not do better etc). Anyway it sounds a lot more positive than being thrashed in games from the start.

“We’re not done yet” is open to interpretation. Either we are not dead yet (which is not very positive) or we will do more (which is positive) Let’s hope the players read it the latter way.

They had a similar error last week.

Three matches broadcast in NSW/Canberra means only 1 match will be shown that doesn't involve Sydney or GWS. Arrrggghhh.

The rule is interpreted stupidly as well. If someone is zooming through the protected area and there is no way (short of tearing all his ligaments) to actually turn and affect the player with the ball, then ignore it. So rather than players and umpires guessing where 15m is, let them guess 'could the player actually affect they player with the ball'. If a player zooms past but is so close the umpire thinks he could have affected things, ping him. If not, don''t.

I rarely look at this thread after a loss until a couple of days have gone by. While the result was miserable, I wouldn't despair just yet, nor would I be particulalry confident. With all the faults in our game style which have doubtless been discusseed in this thread, and with a large number of our players having a shocker, how is it that we only lost by 3 goals? And 3 goals came from 50m penalties. BTW, was there any media commentary about Franklin's staging?

If that diagram was drawn using actual data, known positions of cameras etc, I'd have some faith in it. Looks like a cartoon to me attempting to prove a whatever the artist intended. Anyway, Lynch must be very happy the attention is not on his crappy kick.

You'd need a ring of them to outline the extended goal post. And declare a no-fly zone over every footy ground presumably.😁

It would be the same on here if it happened to us. More new video above and I continue to be amazed how definite people can be interpreting a poor 2D image as if it gave solid 3D positional and timing information. (Do I have to add I was more than pleased Richmond lost?)

I just don't see how anyone can be sure if a ball would have touched the goal post if the post was 10 metres longer. So if all players acted as if it was a point, I'd think it's more likely to assume they thought it missed by quite a lot. Maybe it did. I expect the speed of the ARC's decision related more to the reaction of players (which they are on record as taking into account) than any video we saw. I'm surprised at people who say they definitely saw that it went over post. The ball can appear to go over a post after it has gone past the goal line. Impossible to be sure without views from more than one direction.

I don't think that is clear. He may have just been unsure where it had gone. And it seems he would have been right to be unsure.

According to the article in the Age, they even have a hit list of whom not to believe: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-controller-the-analyst-and-the-supervisor-inside-the-afl-review-centre-20220717-p5b27c.html Not sure that is appropriate.

More off topic, there is a difference between the ABC promoting itself and promoting commercial organizations. If they promote Colgate toothpaste, McCleans will feel hard done by. When the MCG is called Facebook Stadium, I for one will be relieved that the ABC still calls it the MCG.

These video reviews are worse than useless until they get the technology right (if ever). Why is so much weight given to reviewing a kick for goal when a similar review of a free kick paid in the goal square is not? Both can affect the result equally. I say don't do either until the technology is up to it. (Which for free kicks would be a reliable AI algorithm using multiple views, i.e. it will never be viable). Until then rely on the umpire. They make mistakes all over the ground, often affecting the score, so why treat the shots at goal differently. The answer seems to be 'just because we can'. But the AFL can't yet.

Even worse, sometimes they don't pay advantage when a quick kick just after theh whistle is blown goes forward and is maked by a team mate.

Error city

I have little idea about trading, but surely a proven quality young player is worth a lot more than a couple of early picks given what a lottery drafting is.

Dual citizenship so we can deport behalf of him

Apparently not (if you are enough of a 'celebrity' and play for the right club.)

Applying for a footy journalist job are you rpfc?

Of course it is also possible that a big enough $ offer now may not be offered again in 2 years - who knows what might happen, form, injury etc. Tempting to cash in now rather than an uncertain later.

It's been noted on DL, but I haven't seen any mention of it in the media. Not many clicks in a hug compared to a whack.

No. A dual citizen. Won’t see him in Parliament at least.

Yes the AFL missed a great opportunity. Most of Canberra's early growth was public servants being trasnferred from Melbourne who of course had an aussie rules background. At worst the city was 50:50 between rugby and footy. But the NRL got in first with the Raiders and provided a team for Canberra and so it took off. Canberra now supports both a league and union team, but a shadow of an AFL team. The AFL missed the bus badly.

An interesting article in the Canberra Times today about the ACT govt's support of GWS and why GWS needs Canberra more than Canberra needs it. On these crowd figures, GWS should just rename themselves and move (or dissolve): Manuka Oval: average 9804 (39,216 total) Sydney Showground: average 6103 (36,617 total) Manuka Oval highest crowd: 11,661 Sydney Showground highest crowd: 8754