sue

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

How Ed Langdon and Lachie Hunter have changed Melbourne's wing strategy in the 2023 AFL season

is there a German word for premature schadenfreude? I suspect a number on here are suffering from it. Time will tell.

So did I. The AFL's explanation seems to overturn that. But since when has the actual written rules affected AFL decisions on anything.

The MFC app seems official enough for me. 4-6

Perhaps it's already been said (I don't have the stomach to read the entire thread), but have we just seen an argument against a night grand final?

try:https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/media-street-scott-gullan-gives-you-all-the-latest-sports-media-buzz-from-around-the-afl/news-story/431f94af08144b4f30576a075aa31c29?amp

While I think the MRO and Tribunal decisions are too often a toin coss biased towards famous players, I'm not inclined to bag our club for rarely appealing. But given Crows are appealing for an almost identical hit as Pickett's which actually injured the opponent, I am perplexed. Are we too compliant, or Crows to much the other way or maybe Pickett didn't want the fuss?

my thanks to all who've replied.

Does anone know if row BB in bay M55 level 1 is undercover? Travelling to MCG and short of umbrellas and raincoats. thanks

I have no problem with the 2 weeks based on the potential to cause serious injury. I've always though just basing things on outcome is stupid. But doesn't knocking someone out also indicate a potential to cause serious injury? Buddy?

If the MRO is now including a factor called 'potential to cause injury', then they should not bury it under the level of impact but instead have a seperate line for potential to cause injury. Furthermore, there should be levels for that, just like they have for impact.

Real indiots sit in the sun when there is shade available.

I expect the crowd is indeed small, but the TV shows the side of the opposite side of the ground to where people are sitting. And where there is shade - the temp is 34C in ths shade.

yeah, but he got off on an (outrageous) legal technicality. No such option for Kozzie.

Has there been any discussion of Clarry's kicking the ball over the fence? (I avoid the game day thread religiously). What motivated him?

Really ? I thought there was a more than usual slipping. Almost ice rink like (or whatever the ground is called these days).

This is not a knock on McVee, but Dusty did SFA last night as well.

Good question. Why can't you buy non-reserved seats?