sue

yeah, I'm sure the medical licensing board would rush to look into the case. (sarcasm/end). Almost every player has some sort of injury all the time, so proving anything would be impossible. Did anyone look into those clubs during the season which had a sub used every other week? Perhaps a Royal Commission? I couldn't resist an update: In fact I reckon most AFL docs are more in danger of being in trouble for not taking off half the players every match. Can't imagine my GP allowing any of them to stay on the field - health and safety.....

Didn't the Swan make a stink about that. If so, perhaps it will inhibit him from doing so again.

Libba has already publically said they will try to block is run off the pack. Isn't that illegal?

Very good. It will be the first game day thread I'll ever read after the start of play.

Well at least it might get a few Bombers fans at the match to barrack for Melbourne.

Tanking is a completely different issue. It is cheating by the coaches and management without any involvement by the players. I presume you are not saying our players (like players in other tanking teams) threw matches?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/lyon-to-present-the-cup-should-the-dees-triumph-grant-if-the-bulldogs-prevail-20210914-p58rlz.html

Come on MR, don't knock the BoM. Us oldies recall when they were lucky to forecast 1 day ahead - indeed their forecasts weren't much better than just predicting tomorrow = today). Now we whinge if they get it wrong a week ahead. Of course there will still be errors particularly in difficult regions, but forecasting has improved out of sight. The same cannot be said of predicting the outcomes of footy games.

Why this concern that the 2 jumpers will look too similar and be confusing. Seems our best hope of evening the free kick count. 😀

Seems most would prefer to play Port in the GF. It would be interesting to see a poll on which team people would prefer to win tonight (casting aside all prejudices and viewed only by who you'd prefer in the GF). Maybe one before the match and another one afterwards.

This * 1000

At last an explanation for why the Dogs do so well with frees. Nothing to do with being first at the ball etc. They just don't have any backs or bulls. 🤔

So maybe he is just bluffing and all this speculation as to how to handle 4 talls may be pointless, however entertaining for D'landers. Presumably our match committee is considering all possibilities.

I have probably missed something, but why are people so sure of the Geelong line-up already?

But because it is less obvious who was last to touch it in the more crowded nature of AFL compaed to soccer (there I said it!), the AFL would introduce 'who last touched it' camera reviews. Wouldn't that be nice.

If it's not his position to name the player, why is it his position to name the line affected or say anything? I don't see much difference. Since it's finals week I reckon the less and later we give any info to the opponent the better. If it's going to be public within a very short time anyway, then sure, spread despair on the forum if you like. But be sure you are giving nothing away. He has gallantly agreed he won't do it again. No wally there either.

So now you have only 6 extended family members in a tizz. Why say anything at all?

As I said, there are other motives than loot - eg. factors which could cause bias and been interpreted as unfair/cheating. It's clear that any sport where team A gains an advantage by playing the system rather than the game, that team is likely to be considered to be cheating. Consider ducking to get a free - in your analysis that is fine - smart player, well coached. But everyone hates it (except when their team does it). Supposedly the rules/interpretation was changed to not award the free. It was even considered it should be a free against the ducker - to discourage unsafe play. And it rubs off on the umpires. If the umpires appear to play along with team A's wicked scheme (or skill) to earn frees and not resist it, many observers will claim the umpires are effectively cheating - even if they are honestly applying the rules as best they can. Cheating or not, the effect is the same - disgruntled supporters, confused players and loathed umpires. The AFL should change the rules to minimise all this as you have argued. But I think you exaggerate the Dog's prowess and underestimate the effect of missed frees against which I'd guess form a large part of the statistical differential. As I argued earlier, I suspect a personality/style favourtism factor is more likely to be the cause than any special skills the Dogs have. Such favouritism, even if unconcious, appears as cheating to the observer. edit: runs to rubs

While I agree with much of what you said in that post above mine about how to fix things, I think you are overthinking what many people mean when they emotively say the umpires are cheating. For example, my observation that there may be biases that lead to anomalous decisions could be described by some as cheating. It would be so called if you were umpiring a tennis match and gave line ball decisions to your wife/whatever. Even if you didn't believe you were playing favourities, your wife's opponents and supporters may well say otherwise.

Really? I haven't seen much sign of that. Very few people criticising the umpires have made that claim. Far more likely to be rational are theories based on the AFL doing what it can to boost the game. That bias is clear when you look at Tribunal and MR decisions - eg don't rub out star players compared to others. But not so clear when it comes to free kick differentials - why would it be in the AFL's interest to boost the Dogs when they could boost the Demons to the PR scoop that at long last a MFC flag could offer. Heres hoping.... Personally in the absense of a convincing analysis about first to the ball etc. (sorry I don't buy that much), I am becoming more convinced that the apparent favourtism is linked to some umpires liking the style/personality/whatever of some players and maybe reacting (+ly or -ly) to team styles (eg Geelong's endless whinging, Dog's 'sexy' play). It's very human to be so influenced and despite rumours to the contrary, umpires are human.

That's what strikes me too. I may be unobservant but I just don't see that the Dogs getting to the ball first etc when I watch them play. I expect there are other reasons without invoking conspiracy theories. Just don't know what the reasons are. As someone pointed out, the stats are not wildly beyond the realms of possibility to be just randomness. But certainly are at the 'suspicious' end of probability (suspicious in the sense of some non-random factor involved, not just conspiracy). Perhaps personal biases, eg. umpires think x,y and z are good/bad blokes, may be sufficient explanation to account for the Dogs (and Tigers) stats not being closer to normal. Listening to the commentators it's clear they overlook errors by the stars or their 'buddies' - no reason to assume umpires are immune to that as things stand. Maybe professional umpires would go a long way to fixing that.

Surprising and yet not surprising.

Yeah, playing with a cracked skull makes a lot of sense. Now I've heard/read everything. So they are still assessing whether he has concussion. Should be OK by the time they finalize that I guess.

Yes. Sadly changing direction often leads to umpires paying the free even if the total distance travelled isn’t too much.

At least the (banned) old flick pass did involve giving the ball momentum by hitting it. Now most of the momentum comes from a throwing action. What about bringing back the flick pass (which is fast and allows hitting from another angle to the fist) but banning the endless throws we see these days.