sue

Yes, your posts on umpires stand out, hence my comment that we know your position. And re the 50m abuse discussion, of course it's gone quiet. I think I said something along the lines that the players would pretty quickly learn to shoot their best friends if their coach required it. Doesn't mean the thing is the best policy. If you learn to curb your arrogance and you will be have more success in influencing the 10 to 15% of us you said you hoped to influence. I suppose the other 85 to 90% os us are beynd hope.

Though I don't claim to speak on behalf of anyone, I did indeed mean 'we' without I think being presumptous. Anyone who has followed this issue will know what your position is - you repeat it regularly (as is your right). I'm glad you enjoyed my comment about people's enjoyment though I'm not sure why it deserved so many ha ha's.

If only you would insert the word 'usually' or 'almost always' before 'decided' I'd agree with you. Close games are also sometimes decided by a lucky bounce as well even if the sides are equal in skills and coaching. As for supporters whinging about umpire's decisions, I've noticed little difference between supporters of good sides and bottom sides. People enjoy the whinge. We understand you don't.

I don't know how viewers can be so sure that someone has taken a dive unless there is a clear delay in responding. And I don't see why a player is expected to resist a blow outside of play which in play, they have to try to resist.

I like the sentiment, but it is simply untrue. If the Cats finish in the top 4 etc rather than 5 to 8 on the basis of either extra wins or percentage it clearly improves their chances of winning a flag. There are no guarantees in the finals.

That's been a gripe of mine for a while. However over the weekend a few were actually paid, including one to us I think.

Yeah, yeah. In most of those games I also was not really worried we'd lose, but to dismiss those close results as meaningless or saying we were resting or whatever, strikes me as being unwise. If you let teams get close ot you in the last couple of minutes you are risking a loss because of an unlucky bounce or an umpires bad call. The coaches and team know that and know we need to bank 4 points. So the inability to get so far ahead that there is no risk poses questions which I fear are being too lightly dismissed by some. Let's hope the coaches know what's going on.

And add that do we don't know if there are any more infections/isos, making this thread even more speculative than ever. I'll come back in a few days.

I don't recall anyone mentioning that Weid was nearby. Surely he should have told TMac it was going through? Did he?

Perhaps the best way to bring it to the umps attention and maybe get a free is for Clarry to just run straight at the player rather than try to avoid him and tyr to get to the ball.

There was no sign of a second grab as far as I could see so the only issue was where did he mark it. Mark or goal.

More like strong polycarbonate. I'd prefer Alice to sweaty Cairns by a very wide margin.

Sorry late to the show. Why is this game being played in a sauna rather than the ice rink?

Seems you can indicate to the ump a ball was touched without penalty but not that it hit the ground

I didn't see anyhting in Pert's strict rules about players not mingling with the crowd after a match. How about leaving that unti the end of the GF?

Interesting talk about centre bounces versus throwing the ball up and Max's reasons for preferring bouncing. Which reminds me - why when a 6 6 6 warning is given do they throw it up? I can understand why the do so if they d a bad bounce - a string of bad bounces would look bad. But after a warning?? (And if other ruckmen didn't know the likely bounce height of various umpires, they do now.)

All that may well be true, but as per my post, I don't think the current 'ladder' tells us much about it. In fact, they point the other way, so we seem to be in furious agreement.

And what does it tell us about the often quoted theory that the successful clubs which get to the ball first get first get the frees. Not much in either case I suspect.

Would have to be looked at closely. Initially I think he was going for the ball and then finding himself out of position barrelled into our blokes. Surely at least a free for an unrealistic attempt at least. .

Well that 1911 version of the rule that Mazer R posted would do it. Though I doubt anyone would like it.

Each umpire should be reviewed. One mistake does not mean an immediate sacking is required. since we are questioning each other here’s another you repeatedly say if a player doesn’t want to give away a50m then he should just play on. Could you not just as easily say if he doesn’t want a big fine (or ban) he should just play on. So where is the advantage of penalties during a game rather than a tribunal afterwards? Seems afterwards is better to me for reasons I’ve given. the umps could note offences into their mike and all the audio and vision could be reviewed later.

I don’t see how this relates to whether the dissent should be paid on the spot or after the match. At least doing it after does not affect the game in progress and does not add yet another area for contentious decisions during a game.

All the more reason to barrack for the Dogs now.

I would pay it on the spot because unlike even abusing an umpire, let alone showing some minor disrespect, it affects the play. (and is cheating besides). Ed to add: and happy to see the tribunal review it as well, eg. Hawkins. $#%^@

Yes I get all that and agree there are bigger things that need adressing etc, and lots of other contentious frees paid or not, but I still don't know: 1. Do you support 100% silence and absolutely no gestures? Sounds like you do. 2. What about penalties instead applied after the game for disrespect in particular? Just because it is not on everyone's lips, I would have thought you'd have a view. Sounds like a geat idea to the few people I've discussed this with.