sue

Your analysis is spot on, but the trouble is there may well be no penalty when the clubs next meet - possibly in the following season. By then the offending player may have been dropped or injured anyway. I'm afraid it's either some form of 'red card' or we just live with it as it is. (I don't mean with the current corrupt decision making of who gets runned out though.)

A pile on is one thing. Analysis and criticism with the aim of improvement of a difficult task is another. But we don't get either. Why?

Well there is no way he gets off. So watch the MRO ping one of our blokes for sneezing on an opponent just to even things up. (Yes I believe in some conspiracies. If you don't about the AFL's machinations, then you a fool to yourself and a burden to others as the great John Clarke said.)

Any thoughts on why Gawn was one of the players just outside the protected zone when Mckay was taking a kick for goal from the boundary? He is too slow to get to him when he played on, so why wasn't he on the goal line in case of a low kick instead? Is it thought his longer body is more likely to affect the kick than a fast smaller player? Or was it just a stuff-up?

I see some discussion about 'loading' arose because someone quoted BT saying players looked like they were running through treacle (or something equally sticky). I wouldn't take any notice of BT's mutterings, let alone get into the loading debate on the back of them. Re Kozzie - I'm no expert on where he should position himself when he is not making silly efforts to take mark of the year. But it seems to me he stands too close to the pack which greatly restricts where he can get to quickly.

Also players who dive onto a pack often grab players who don't have the ball. Why not pay holding the man?

very droll. But I'm happy to murder relatives of people I don't know as well, so watch out.

Sorry to hear that. Such behaviour should not be tolerated, but that is not quite the same level of racism as having 90% of your family murdered as has happened to several people I know. They see racism as being much worse than something you can simply 'give abuse back in return'. You do too I trust.

Doesn't mean that there is a lot of fix. People who have personally never been subjected to racism generally underplay it's significance. Those who have been on the pointy end of racism know where the real lynch mobs are.

Gil's announcement contained many 'odd' sentences, so carefully worded that you wondered what they were hiding. Reminded me of Yes Minister.

Why?

The AFL is using teams like ours and lesser known players to support their defense in future suits from ex-players about head injuries. What they seem to have overlooked is that in those future court cases the ex-players will be able to bring in videos of similar and worse incidents involving some clubs and star players that were overlooked (and also explain why those videos were not allowed to be used by the likes of Hunter). Won't sit well with a jury.

Are any journos pushing this point?

What’s the definition of light or low contact?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/932348/-a-badge-of-honour-dees-skipper-unfazed-by-close-checking Why doesn't King have a go at the umpires who don't pay frees for blocks way off the ball etc etc rather than have a go at players for not escalating actions which are not part of the game.

I thought several years ago the AFL said they would pay frees against duckers for this reason. But it never seems to have happened.

It's all about money (with a slight mixture of 'old mates' added). The teams that get special treatment are either big clubs with many supporters or the ones are part of AFL empire building plans. Money distorts all elements of a sporting competition (e.g. fixture) but you'd think adjudication could be quarantined. Nah, what am I thinking.

We could move to Docklands I guess.

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.