sue

The Langdon deliberate one was totally wrong. As was the facile TV commentator who said to ensure he wasn't pinged he should have turned towards the dog player rather than running outside the line. But it seemed to me Langdon ran outside the line with the intention of taking the ball past the Dog player. Pinged for trying to make a play rather than taking the easy option. Terrible decision.

which proves? I'd rather depend on my eyes than what a noted self-effacing humourist says.

Just watched it again in normal speed and in slo-mo. Looks like we will have to agree to differ. To add: I'm not saying it was the most nasty dumping of a player, just that the basic responsibility for Gawn hitting his head was due to the small bloke.

Sorry, you can't bounce your head like that deliberately. So I assume you are saying because he overplayed the preceding actions he lost control and it was entirely his fault his head bounced? I find that hard ot believe,

Then why did his head bounce?

Disagree. There was no justification for the 2 actions. His foot came very close to his head. Given the attention Greene's tactics were getting, he may well have been rubbed out if his foot hit the 'chest' rather than the head. I won't get into an argument about Dangerfield getting special treatment except to say you can have special treatment but still occasionally not get off. Do you suggest there are no players who get special treatment? Some still get rubbed out - cats only have 9 lives.

Toby must be [censored] off. He gets into trouble (correctly) for using his leg to sort of 'protect the ball drop' and Dangerfield, puts his leg down and in a seperate action raises it again high up. The AFL wants us to respect umpires - perhaps the AFL should work on earning our respect.

I hope I'm not accused of umpire disrespect etc: I thought the decision was wrong but that umpire opening his mouth like that about it proved he is a fool.

That's another example of why if they do try to enforce this during the year it will be a frustrating mess. Persoanlly I can't see why dissent is not OK as long as it isn't coupled with abuse. The game is difficult to umpire unlike some other games where dissent is almost synonomous with abuse. In AFL it's obvious umps get it wrong often (just watch a match where you don't give a damn who wins). To make dissent illegal is just stupid.

Will be interesting to wathc the Suns vs Geelong match.

And how about a player who has given away an over the shoudler free, calling the infringed player a notorious ducker in frustration or in an attempt to put him off his game. Is that an insult to the umpire? Shouldn't be, but who knows.

I reckon this is going to enrage supporters all year if they persist with it. Unless the player directly shouts abuse at the umpire, there is no way umps will be consistent in interpreting swearing and exasperation gestures etc. For a start, how do they decide at whom were those things directed - could be the player themself, their team mates, or just fate?

I can't work out if you mean the last sentence or are being ironic?

Looks like the email is being sent out in batches or whatever, presumably to not overload a computer somewhere. Spouse got theirs a day after me.

Yes I noticed that at the time and wondered if feinging a delay would become a new art form. Will the AFL in its infinite wisdom penalise players who feign a delay and reverse the free/mark.

Re the umpire abuse issue (sorry I can't let this go): When free kicks and old-style 50m penslties are awarded, the spectator can see and make their own mind up (however prejudiced!) as to the quality of the umpire's decision. So for viewers not to be totally confused with the application of the new abuse interpretation, we need to hear the ump's microphone at all times. Of course, it will still be difficult to judge the extent of eye-rolling and head shaking that justifies a 50m penalty.

Further analysis here is interesting to read, but this is the main stat for me: INJURIES Melbourne: Nil

Is anyone saying we 'lost' because of the 50m penalties? The concern I have is that penalties which depend on how the umpire intreprets a player saying [censored] because he had a free paid against him will be yet another mess the AFL has created.

What's the definition of umpire abuse? Clearly "youre a fckn [censored]" is abuse but is it not ok to say that decision was crap anymore?

I'd have thought they'd have more opportunities to call the dogs (ie warders) bad names if they had barracked for Melbourne. Maybe says something about why they ended up in jail.

One good thing about Round 1 being a GF re-match is that both teams are '6 weeks behind' or whatever. Gives both an extra week to get back into it (and on equal terms).

Asked my o/s mate. They stream it when it is on but with no advance notice in their match lists. He says currently they are streaming some other practice match. So our game may not be on or missing first half.

But why say anything now publically? I can only presume he is playing to the Cat supporters.

This is the current standard political apology coming from governments. If you say "I apologise if you are offended" with the implication that no reasonable person would be offended, you can appear to be apologising and can't be proved to be not apoogising. I'd reject any apology with this qualification was insincere.

I was in need of a good laugh and reading this I got it: https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_rankings?year=2021&rt=LA&st=CG