sue

Once again excuse my ignorance but how did he avoid seeing out that contract?

Excuse my total ignorance but is there a reason Horne Francis is booed.

With what aim Redleg?

Seems to my naive mind that banking wins now is important so we are in a strong position come mid-season. Then we can do some resting of key players post the byes. If you rest players now you will either have to rest them again or the current rest will do them no good in the finals.

Sorry, there is an excuse if it never gets paid. A player may have read all the rules 20 times and absorbed it, but if his on-field experience is that it is one of those rules that is just on paper and never is enforced, it's forgivable to ignore it (only once, if you get pinged). Let's see if the AFL enforces it regularly now. A lot of the time umps will tell players to get out of the protected zone and only ping them if they fail to move quickly. But not always and not in Lever's case which is particularly bad considering it is rarely (if ever?) paid a 50.

Since the thread has wandered off into other issues, let me add another: The 'stand' rule was introduced to stop the player on the mark moving sideways so as to make it harder for the player with the ball to runoff and kick centrally. So what happens now? The player on the mark is often nowhere near the actual mark. They take up position towards or even at where they used to waltz sideways to before the stand rule came in. And the umpire then says 'stand' - and doesn't require him to come to the actual mark or move 5m away. So we end up with the orginal situation and a lot more shouting by the umpires.

The definition currently is: Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of it by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand. https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2022/03/28/6d92ed7c-efc2-44dc-86bc-9fa1d9b338ad/2022-Laws-of-the-Game-Booklet.pdf No idea when it changed. Having the ball holding the ball completely stationary is a bit too tough. But a mere touch of the fist to a ball largely being propelled by the hand 'holding' the ball is really a throw. Maybe the rule shoudl be that the majority of the impetus to the ball must come from a fist. Good luck umpiring that.

I was explaining to a young foreigner the rule about pulling it under yourself and not getting it out is a free kick against you. I said the rule was introduced because players were doing that to hold up play and create a ball-up. But I had trouble explaining why when an opponent player pushes/pulls the ball under a player on the ground, the umpire will proclaim - you pulled it under, so no free, ball up. She naively said that surely that player is even more guilty. Not only does he do something to hold up play, but he tries to con the umpire into awarding themself an undeserved free. My only explanation was that the AFL rules and interpretations and implementations are a mess. A difficult game to umpire and the AFL just does things to make it even harder.

What? Find a weirdly shaped home ground where only 5 Richmond supporters can get in, have half their team out and then thrash them? A win by any amount will suit me. (Though the more the better.)

A free for holding the ball without being tackled? Did I miss a new rule?

Doubts over AFL match in Alice Springs amid council dispute

Probably sponsoring any club where the club's backers spend huge sums on their wine. Backer's get some wine, don't have to appear to be funding the club themselves, Penfolds get cash which they can cycle to the club as a sponsor. Win win. 😀

Cringeworthy condescending. But that's much of the match day "performance" these days (except for the actual footy).

The bleeding obvious presumably.

You've probably now informed younger readers what at least one conjunction is. But I doubt they'll remember.

I'm more than happy to move on about this particular goal (though I'm not sure how happy I'd be if we lost a GF that way). But it will take me a while to move on from the fact our game the AFL runs appears to be run by a bunch of money-focussed suits who can't manage to write clear rules covering such basic issues. If they did, we'd have no reason to have 50 posts on this issue To vent the above.

Well that's the only reason a so-called professional sport would be so lax as the AFL without defining the rules clearly without grey areas and endless interpretations. As for educating the public, finding the actual rules on the AFL website over the years has been a good way to spend a rainy afternoon. I know a sport where the rules were apparently written by a team of lawyers with lots of "Notwithstanding Rule 23.5 subsection 3, the ball must"..... etc which requires a law degree to understand. But there are accompanying documents which explain what it means in various cases and no one has a problem. And there are no grey areas. No clicks to be garnered there I guess.

I would too (though being interstate I don't go to the footy much, so the cost isn't an issue to me - on the other hand I pay for several games but go to none, so I'd be paying even more to see no games). But how bad would it be if the players were paid less? Some highly gifted sporting-types may take up soccer or tiddleywinks to chase the money, but I'd still find footy more enjoyable.

As someone who raised this early on, I feel we have to acknowledge there is a similar shot, presumably one frame earlier which shows the hand near the ball forward of the padding(*). So in my view it comes down to what the rules actually say and if the back of the padding really aligns with the back of the line. From looking at a few stills of other games, I don't think the AFL enforces the latter carefully. Nor does it appear to be a stated policy. It is not stated in the rules as it should be if it is a policy. (I note the rules do have a section on padding but it does not mention this issue.) So we have the AFL's usual not thought through mess. (*) but of course no way of telling if it has yet touched the ball, such is the state of the technology. There is something to be said for just going by what the umpire thinks unless it is clear they could not make a decision (e.g. they have been bowled over by a player just as the ball goes though). They'll get it wrong ocasionally and even affect the outcome of a match, but so will the field umpire giving or missing a free within 10 metres of the goal. No one is asking for their decisions to be reviewed.

Also sounds like something which does not happen. So Jumping Jack's question is a good one. Anyone...?

I had a close look at several stills from this and othe games and if that is the AFL'S intention, they need to be more careful with the placement of the padding and line drawing. Clearly saw examples of the padding being further back.

The score reviewers have only one decision to make (unlike the umps for whom I feel pity despite my swearing at them). You'd think they'd know the rules that affect their one simple job. Apparently not. (I wouldn't expect the commentators to know much at all.)

Is that the still shot they showed when they made the call?. Looks different.

I reckon it did go through if the only angle they showed was the one they used to say it didn’t. Shocking quick and wrong call. A review of the review should be called for by the AFL Iif it had any spine.

The implementations of outside 5 and where the mark is are a dog’s breakfast. Inconsistent