sue

Sorry to start a new topic, but I can't see where else to post this: Can anyone enlighten me on why the umpires always call the nature of the free before calling out the name of the team getting the free. It seems to me that it would better to call out the name of the team getting the free and saying what for afterwards. That would make less confusion and easier for playing on (and in a way fair to both teams) and for players to take field position in response to the free earlier. This is especially true when the players can justifiably have no idea which way the free is going - eg holding the man is often a toss up as both players are holding, or in the back versus holding the ball. If there any advantage in calling it in the way they do now?

The AFL likes crowds partly because it boosts the atmosphere of the TV broadcast. But they will get more and more adept at faking the crowd. (I am often impressed with how much noise 10 GWS spporters can make.) If they really want to rely on TV and provide an engrossing TV experience, then they have to start offering viewing options so we are not at the mercy of directors who think we want to know how well the players shaved that day. Or offer options like be able to hear the umpire's mikes rather than the likes of BT.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/collingwood-withdraws-de-goey-contract-offer-after-bali-video-emerges-20220620-p5av5m.html

Please explain how it will show his intentions? I'm guessing you are looking at how well he plays and maybe how enthusiastically he plays (or some similar observable behaviour). So the cases are: Well and enthusiastic Well and not enthusiastic Poor and enthusiastic Poor and not enthusiastic. What can you deduce from any of those outcomes, either of his intentions or the club's? Genuinly interested - not rubbishing your statement. (I'm assuming the club doesn't show its intentions by leaving him on the bench for 50% of the time and the other 50% at Casey!)

Time to translate that into some wins.

It's not impossible that Daw has personal issues which may explain why he neither plays nor is listed as injured. Hopefully not.

Thanks. Re the figure of 8, I suspect that sudden movement after total stillness might be more distracting than just changing the direction of movement.

It's often struck me that all cheer squads just wave randomly which I suspect is easier for the player kicking to ignore. If all the flags etc were still and suddenly moved in a coordinated way just before the player lowered their eyes to kick the ball I suspect it would have more effect.

That's surely over-optimistic. And 9 days is hardly a bye. At least the rest of his body will get a rest.

Daw has missed several matches for reasons that have not been stated which puts a question mark over expecting him to be in the team. I too have watched every Casey game and felt Daw was not anywhere near as useful as you state. Maybe he could stand at FF and at least make life difficult for defenders in the air.

The title of this thread deserves the "Title of the Year" award.

Think I saw somewhere chan 7 restricts to inside Oz. VPN may be needed

Sounds like he is commenting on one of the early (and many) versions of what was said. If so, that’s not wise.

I haven't followed club politics so can anyone join the dots for me?

Thanks. But if you read that full article it seems he provides no real data and he basically says booze is no good for you so it's probably worse if you are recovering from something. Fair enough.

What evidence is there that drinking a week after a minor concussion is an issue? Common sense may argue that, but is there any hard evidence? (Genuine question - not trying to make any comment on the rest of this issue.)

So a new account of what is supposed to have happened appears every 12 hours and we see 5 pages of posters commenting on it as if it is an accurate account and wringing their hands. Then a new account appears and we are off again.

The reason I suggested Max for PM in an earlier tongue-in-cheek post was because, unlike recent politicians, if he didn't want to answer a question he simply said he would not, nor did he avoid answering a question by going into a prepared speech on another topic. Very refreshing.

Max for PM

That takes the cake. You change the rules and you don't tell the players!! Is it April 1? So a player notes other players are not being pinged for putting their arms out and so does so himself, but foolishly lets his arms drop before raising them again and gets pinged and has no idea why. I pity the players and the umpires having to deal with the nonsense that comes from AFL HQ. The AFL is run by a bunch of clowns.

Not commenting on umpiring in this match in particular, but I think some underestimate the effect of bad decisions by saying it all washes out in the end etc. and rightly pointing to other factors that determine the result. In an age where momentum seems to be critical, a bad decision that gives a team a single undeserved goal can be much more significant than the mere goal itself. Ditto for a deserved free not paid depriving an easy shot at goal.

Bounced one metres beyond the circle and didn’t recall it. Do the umpire selectors just go on how many recalls are done so it is better for a poor bouncer to just ignore recalls.

MFCSS. At the risk of being proved wrong very shortly, we don't know that he is in fact out, so concluding his ankle is stuffed may be premature.

They are probably telling the literal truth if you add 'at the time' but you can bet they see the video.

Yes but half the time it’s not clear whether the ump is saying get outside 5 or you are outside 5 Please explain