sue

So a new account of what is supposed to have happened appears every 12 hours and we see 5 pages of posters commenting on it as if it is an accurate account and wringing their hands. Then a new account appears and we are off again.

The reason I suggested Max for PM in an earlier tongue-in-cheek post was because, unlike recent politicians, if he didn't want to answer a question he simply said he would not, nor did he avoid answering a question by going into a prepared speech on another topic. Very refreshing.

Max for PM

That takes the cake. You change the rules and you don't tell the players!! Is it April 1? So a player notes other players are not being pinged for putting their arms out and so does so himself, but foolishly lets his arms drop before raising them again and gets pinged and has no idea why. I pity the players and the umpires having to deal with the nonsense that comes from AFL HQ. The AFL is run by a bunch of clowns.

Not commenting on umpiring in this match in particular, but I think some underestimate the effect of bad decisions by saying it all washes out in the end etc. and rightly pointing to other factors that determine the result. In an age where momentum seems to be critical, a bad decision that gives a team a single undeserved goal can be much more significant than the mere goal itself. Ditto for a deserved free not paid depriving an easy shot at goal.

Bounced one metres beyond the circle and didn’t recall it. Do the umpire selectors just go on how many recalls are done so it is better for a poor bouncer to just ignore recalls.

MFCSS. At the risk of being proved wrong very shortly, we don't know that he is in fact out, so concluding his ankle is stuffed may be premature.

They are probably telling the literal truth if you add 'at the time' but you can bet they see the video.

Yes but half the time it’s not clear whether the ump is saying get outside 5 or you are outside 5 Please explain

Such things shouldn’t be announced until the last minute unless it’s publicly obvious the player is out. So it is a concern if there has been a leak that got to you.

Here's a weak reason not to play Salem in the VFL. In some VFL clubs there is a player who sees a chance for fame by nobbling a star AFL player. I suspect the bloke who got Brown's suspended (other than Brown himself) is probably still dining out on it.

But he wasn't simply calling Cotchin an actor. Seems a strange issue to make a fuss about.

Agree. I trust Bystander was even more outraged by the Swans' lawyers cheap shot about Cotchin being more likely to get an Oscar than a Brownlow? Cotchin wasn't even represented - had no way of defending himself. (I also agree with Mazer R, that cowardly wasn't appropriate.)

Past experience made it not unlikely. No conspiracy required. Let’s hope the MRP has turned a new leaf.

Patently the correct decision having read the defence arguments. Let us hope this is the start of a proper unbiased operation of the MRP in the future.

Miller: Cotchin might earn an invite to the Logies rather than the Brownlow that’s slander. Sue!

If they accept buddy’s lawers argument they should apply an immediate fine in Cotchin for staging.

All very well, but where do you draw the line as to how strong do you want your opponent to be when you are weakened. Smacks a bit of Monty Python's Black Knight to me. With May out, I'd be quite happy for Buddy to be out. A more even contest. As for the possiblity of extra income, it's hardly a moral justification for him getting off. Maybe weigh that loot against the extra reluctance of parents to let their kids play footy if Buddy gets off. Sorry to be so short-sighted, I just want to win.

I don't expect any consistency from the tribunal, but if they have their usual focus on outcome rather than intent, if Sydney take that line of argument, the outcome was he was hit in the head.

Satyr surely if you been browsing here most of this year it hasn’t been negative. Most posters have been gloating that we are invincible. Come back and use the ignore option.

Or they need the time to translate the Magna Carta from Latin in a desperate search for the clause: Stella ludio ludius semper ludere debet tpo ut pecuniam volvens in (with thanks to google translate).

Of course he wouldn’t say it. But him not saying it is not evidence it was the case. We can infer all we like but Thanks again to Tilly18.

All true and does increase the probability of widespread sickness to the casual observer (ie. me), but doesn't prove it ( North has been ill all year?). But I'd prefer independent evidence of sickness. Thanks to tilly18 for his info which I trust is good and is a relief to hear.

Maybe. But what evidence is there for that (beyond Tracc)?

That's a mysterious statement. Care to expand?