sue

Obviously this is pointless given what you said, but I don't think I've ever made such comments even decades ago, neither racist or misogynist. I'm not looking for brownie points or virtue signalling and I expect I'll get some flack for having the audacity of saying what a paragon of virtue I am. But I take that risk because I want to make the following general point. People with certain backgrounds know what it is like to be subject to nasty comments and what it can lead to. Some of them (sadly not all) therefore try hard to "not do unto others as others did unto you" and so do not make racist comments etc. Those belonging to the majority in power group (wherever it is), who have never been in such a position and who lack empathy, often just don't realise what's it like to be on the receiving end and dismiss such remarks as inconsequential and downplay it in various ways. I am sometimes nasty enough to hope they will one day know what it's like to be on the receiving end. (See I'm not so virtuous.) I make no comment about the current case because I haven't seen/heard the evidence.

that's a bit depressing.

50 metre penalties are ruining the game

So you have to wonder who has been sitting on this horrid audio of Morris and decided to leak it today presumable to take the heat off Bevo. Presumably a mate of Bevio or the Dogs.

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).