sue

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.

Not being able to get to more than 1 game a year if I'm lucky, I can only watch on TV. I am pretty neutral on Weid but one thing stands out on TV and was visible again in today's game. When an opponent has the ball coming out of defence and Weid can see that he won't cut his run off, he makes no effort to do so. Weid is probably right, he'd wouldn't effect the player 99 times out of 100. But surely he should always go at him.

I really like this broadcast. Camera at a good height. Most of the time a reasonably wide angle vew but not so wide that players look like ants. And thankfully NO closeups of the player who has taken a mark or got a free. Though I am at a loss as to whether the players have shaved this morning - something the Fox/7 broadcasts always keep me informed on.

So much support there for sledging. A fine example to juniors.

The game is riddled with difficult decisions for the long suffering umpires. More so than any other game i know of. Why introduce an extra 'rule' where the umpire has to decide if the action of a player was dissent, confusion or mere frustration with either the decision or with themselves or even calling for a free not given (which is dissent, but seems not to be penalised). Abuse is another matter. Now these extra umpiring difficulties and the repression of normal human emotions might have been justified if the stated goal of helping recruit junior umpires had been carefully analysed and compared to other solutions. But that does not appear to be the case.

Where did I say that the rest of the site doesn't agree with you Macca? I merely said we know you position on this (because you state it regularly, and as you said it sticks out). Completely different. (In fact I agreed with your recent post on the topic, but as I said, would have liked to see extra words to say that sometimes, however rarely, umpire calls (and luck) can determine who wins.)