sue

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.

I have no special knowledge but I don't think relying on things that players have got away with in the past is a wise line to take. All the AFL has to say is that things are changing and while the rules have not been changed, the interpretation has. After all, the AFL specialise in that.

That sort of defeatist attitude would leave us all still being ruled by kings OD. Oh, wait.

This from Fox website: Asked whether the ruling would change the way they play, both Riewoldt and Geelong superstar Tom Hawkins said it would not. Of course not - they'd never be cited in the first place (especially Hawkins).

A couple of posters have groaned about woke-ism in this decision. Baloney. No matter how right wing you are this is not anything to do with being 'progressive'. It is Corporation AFL trying to protect its future $.

This won’t change the game forever Just using jvr as an example to show how concerned the corporation is. No one else will get pinger for such a spoil.

Best but might sound like a smartarse

Smart cookie

Footy may well be heading that way, but I don't think the citing of JVR was a planned indication of this. More a knee-jerk reaction to a stretcher and a pile of [censored] commentators.

If (and it's a big if) playing Hawthorn is a VFL-like match, what about playing him this week in the AFL and next week in VFL? Damn byes.

True and goals mean ads. Many genuine handballs these days get most of the ball's momentum from the other hand throwing as it is punched. But if you allow the throws, do you chnage the rules to forget the first. End up with Gridiron throws.

How anyone can say so definitively as Ralph does where his eyes are from that video is beyond me. And to simultaneously imply that where the eyes are is the sole determinant of 'guilt' is also beyond me.

Wrong decisions by field umpires (and to a very small extent boundary umpires) affect the outcome of more games than mistakes by goal umpires. Maybe just stick with whatever the goal umpire thinks, right or wrong. And maybe do no replays, just as we don't do replays of every free kick paid 10 metres out just in front.