sue

I don't have a problem with the decision in the circumstances. But you seem to be missing my point in your defense of the decision. I maintain as a general principle it is a disadvantage to the team with the free for there to be time for the defence to organise itself. If the defending team stops the ball going through the goals, they win. If they don't have anyone on the goal line and the ball just makes the distance, they lose. If they don't have time to get players on the goal line it's more likely they will lose. For example, if a player 50m out knows he can't kick that far at sufficient height to clear the pack, it's to his advantage to kick asap before the goal line in manned. Also shepherding on the line is permitted by the team with the free. So there is more to the game than just the kick. Leaving aside whether that individual decision last night was correct in the circumstances, do you disagree with the above? If so, please point out where it is wrong because I don't see that your previous posts address that. On a slightly different point, but relevant to this: I do not see why umpires advise players about not going off the line (or coming back onto it) for a kick after the siren. Surely the players should know the rules. Maybe the umpires will be continually shouting "don't push in the back, don't tackle above the shoulder, don't punch your oppponent in the chin"?

True, but if the ball is kicked into the stands there is the real possibility of delay before the kick can be taken. During that time the defending team can set up better to guard the goals than they might have otherwise had time to do. Are we talking about the same thing?

The play of the defending team having extra time to get all their tall players on the goal line. (OK, I'll drop the human pyramid idea.) Plus their attempts to stop the ball going through. All part of play I'd suppose.

Exactly why I asked the question rhetorically. If a player creeps over the mark to interfere with a kick after the siren, then clearly that has to be penalised. So 50's can be paid after the siren. And a delay in getting a ball allows a defending team to form a human pyramid on the goal line. So strict accordance with the rules means there should have been a 50 paid. But strict accordance with the rules is not always practised by the AFL and may have been appropriate for once. I'm not sure if the umps even raised their arms to indicate they'd heard the siren?

If the player on the mark steps forward over the mark a 50 would be paid even if the siren had gone before the kick. No?

Yes it will be interesting to have a good look at the second one. If it wasn’t a fist Cotchin should be got for over acting. But commentators were straight into excuses.

I agree with Tiers. There are too many frees and 50m penalties given for things which do not affect the play. Admittedly some frees, like seeing a minor jumper pull make it easy for the umpire to make a decision without having to judge if it had an effect. On the other hand, umps have to judge if a touch to a shoulder was really there or if there was a 2mm gap between hand and shoulder. So you could argue it's easier for the ump to judge by the effect rather than trying to judge if the hand actually touched the shoulder. Placing more burden on the umps may not be a good thing given the shoddy way the AFL treats the whole area now. And as usual there will be grey areas. But it might be worth a trial at an appropriate level before thinking of introducing it at the highest level - a novel idea for the AFL.

Macca, you claim to only post in response to the whingers etc, but your recent post about the tiny proportion of possessions represented by frees came out of the blue (and in my view was a meaningless misuse of statistics regardless of one's view of umpiring). You claim that I: But of course you're not repeating yourself, you're just trying to set people straight. That wording smacks of arrogance. I think it's ignore time.

Pot kettle

Simplistic use of statistics like that is not convincing. You could use the same argument to say there is no point in umpires giving free kicks at all. And be just as wrong.

Nothing about slinging. So another example of the AFL having a "interpretations" rather than clear consistently applied rules?

I'll try to avoid getting into an infinite loop with you on this, but the reason you can't think of any other sport with so much discussion about the umpiring is because (as far as I know) there is no other sport which is so difficult to umpire. Hence creating grounds for discussion. The poorly written rules and intepretations don't help either. Those of us who don't like that discussion can avoid it easily enough.

Umpires have never been so loose with where the mark is as they are now. Have a look at some old matches. I don't see why discussing the rules and the umpires difficulties with them is not an appropriate subject for discussion. Especially for those of us reduced to only seeing games on TV. It is one of the things we can see and comment on. I wouldn't dare comment on anything to do with player positioning/strategy etc because I can't see it. But I do know if players shaved closely that morning, so I could discuss that.

I'm hoping someone can clarify this for me. Umpires now call players to 'stand' when they are very clearly not where the mark was - often many metres away. This is either because the player has decided to stand where it suits them (which is neither 5m away nor on the mark) or because the umpire shouts it prematurely. Is that a rule change or just the usual flakey interpretations the AFL thinks up? Umpires shout 'outside 5', but having watched multiple games, I have no idea if they are telling players to get outside 5m or that they are already OK outside 5m. Which is it? Umpires rarely line up players to take a free or mark unless there is a likely shot for goal. With the stand rule this effectively lets the player with the ball get even more advantage as they are often make sure they are on a favourable line to play on. But they sometimes do line him up. Any policy or just the usual umpiring randomness? The example in the Casey game when the player getting the free/mark stepped on the foot of the player on the mark who then jumped in pain which led to a 50m penalty for not standing was a comedy classic. And just to have another whinge to annoy some posters: Insufficient intent for OOB is becoming sillier and sillier. In the game in the swamp in WA they paid it several times when the intent of the player was clearly to keep it in and gain metres. But because there was no one close by they automatically called it insufficient intent.

I don't think this is a 'negative thread'. Simply imagine how much more of a weapon he'd be if he improved his goal kicking.

Not suprising some need to learn how to support a good team after all this time. Those of us old enough to have supported a good team in the 50's and 60's will need less instruction.

Several posters have already answered that so I see no point in making a list, some of which I might not agree with and some I might. Whether they are right or suffering old-fashioned MFCSS only time will tell. But I am 'concerned' they might not be entirely wrong. As Goowin says, there is always room for improvement and development.

If anyone isn't happy with 10-0 and the % then they have redefined MFCSS. But if people are not concerned about our performances and deficiencies, then they are smoking something that I expect Goodwin isn't. Note I said 'concerned' not in despair. Let's see how Freo goes against the Pies today.

Someone should tell Jackson that when he gets a mark or free and he doesn’t yet have the ball he should run back from the mark. He doesn’t far too often. Sometimes he even goes forward of the mark. Result is he loses options for a quick kick or playing on beyond the statue on the mark

Two reasons for the difference between Hawkins' "accident" and Chandler's. 1. Their names. 2. AFL wants to establish a history of doing all it can to prevent concussions to ward off expensive lawsuits in the coming decades.

This is true and is arguably a problem with the legal system as well as with the MRO. However the legal system will allow more discretion in sentencing than the crude formula the MRO uses. (Leaving aside the occasional mandatory sentences that have been introduced for political purposes in some countries).

As I posted in the Casey thread, I really enjoyed the wider angle and raised view of the telecast of that match. So it was doubly frustrating on Sunday night to see endless close ups of the player about to take a kick or the ball going out of the frame to an unknown fate. Obviously the TV directors think it is more exciting to not be able to have any idea of what might happen next. I do not want to know how closely the player's have shaved that morning. I want to see the game. Am I alone?

Yeah, I reeckon the coach doesn't say 'have rest boys', but maybe he says "let's try a bit of plan #3B for 10 minutes". Would you notice on TV? I wouldn't.

Are you a believer in some higher power dealing out quotas, or that word will filter through to our players to watch out? And then take advantage of the situation.

Doubtless because people had high hopes for him and he is yet to deliver at that level.