sue

You'd need a ring of them to outline the extended goal post. And declare a no-fly zone over every footy ground presumably.😁

It would be the same on here if it happened to us. More new video above and I continue to be amazed how definite people can be interpreting a poor 2D image as if it gave solid 3D positional and timing information. (Do I have to add I was more than pleased Richmond lost?)

I just don't see how anyone can be sure if a ball would have touched the goal post if the post was 10 metres longer. So if all players acted as if it was a point, I'd think it's more likely to assume they thought it missed by quite a lot. Maybe it did. I expect the speed of the ARC's decision related more to the reaction of players (which they are on record as taking into account) than any video we saw. I'm surprised at people who say they definitely saw that it went over post. The ball can appear to go over a post after it has gone past the goal line. Impossible to be sure without views from more than one direction.

I don't think that is clear. He may have just been unsure where it had gone. And it seems he would have been right to be unsure.

According to the article in the Age, they even have a hit list of whom not to believe: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-controller-the-analyst-and-the-supervisor-inside-the-afl-review-centre-20220717-p5b27c.html Not sure that is appropriate.

More off topic, there is a difference between the ABC promoting itself and promoting commercial organizations. If they promote Colgate toothpaste, McCleans will feel hard done by. When the MCG is called Facebook Stadium, I for one will be relieved that the ABC still calls it the MCG.

These video reviews are worse than useless until they get the technology right (if ever). Why is so much weight given to reviewing a kick for goal when a similar review of a free kick paid in the goal square is not? Both can affect the result equally. I say don't do either until the technology is up to it. (Which for free kicks would be a reliable AI algorithm using multiple views, i.e. it will never be viable). Until then rely on the umpire. They make mistakes all over the ground, often affecting the score, so why treat the shots at goal differently. The answer seems to be 'just because we can'. But the AFL can't yet.

Even worse, sometimes they don't pay advantage when a quick kick just after theh whistle is blown goes forward and is maked by a team mate.

Error city

I have little idea about trading, but surely a proven quality young player is worth a lot more than a couple of early picks given what a lottery drafting is.

Dual citizenship so we can deport behalf of him

Apparently not (if you are enough of a 'celebrity' and play for the right club.)

Applying for a footy journalist job are you rpfc?

Of course it is also possible that a big enough $ offer now may not be offered again in 2 years - who knows what might happen, form, injury etc. Tempting to cash in now rather than an uncertain later.

It's been noted on DL, but I haven't seen any mention of it in the media. Not many clicks in a hug compared to a whack.

No. A dual citizen. Won’t see him in Parliament at least.

Yes the AFL missed a great opportunity. Most of Canberra's early growth was public servants being trasnferred from Melbourne who of course had an aussie rules background. At worst the city was 50:50 between rugby and footy. But the NRL got in first with the Raiders and provided a team for Canberra and so it took off. Canberra now supports both a league and union team, but a shadow of an AFL team. The AFL missed the bus badly.

An interesting article in the Canberra Times today about the ACT govt's support of GWS and why GWS needs Canberra more than Canberra needs it. On these crowd figures, GWS should just rename themselves and move (or dissolve): Manuka Oval: average 9804 (39,216 total) Sydney Showground: average 6103 (36,617 total) Manuka Oval highest crowd: 11,661 Sydney Showground highest crowd: 8754

Did anyone in the media focus on Cox's knee jab? No discussion/video clip?

Sorry a bit off topic but arises out of the dogs hawks match. An example of the AFL not thinking clearly about the rules they come up with. A player is on the ground and an opponent pushes the ball under him hoping to get a holding the ball free for pulling it in. The umpire tells them he is not paying the free. Quite right. But why not penalise the player who pushed it under? The “pulled the ball” in rule was instituted to stop players holding up play. Whether you pull or push the effect is to do just that. So it should be a free against whoever did the action to hold up play. Why not?

As LilRedFE said, the umpires have enough difficulty umpiring the game without having to keep track of who the best and fairest player is. And they naturally focus on the players they see most - midfielders. Coaches votes are much better, but I wonder to what extent they are affected by internal management of players by the coach, eg. coach gives a player a vote as an encouragement award. My guess is that wouldn't have much affect on the outcome for the top players.

Yes, but if you want to know 'what happens if the Saints kick the next 2 goals', the live ladder won't help you.

If you want to fill in the gaps in Grapeviney's nice table regarding % and the Saints' score, just copy and paste the following into Google search to see the score Sydney has to get to beat our percentage: For example, if the Saints have scored 80 points, then paste into the search field: =1.30546190155091*(1542+80)-1979 that gives 138.459204316, so they need to score 139 points. Replace 80 with whatever the Saints have scored as the match progresses.

Agree. Very odd choice of words.

The commentator keeps tellinbg us the score (which we can see on the screen) but has he told us which way the wind is blowing?