sue

and nor can you PM people about it I guess?

A stationary spherical golf ball being hit by a plane surface is a lot simpler than a spinning oval football being hit with an unevenly structured foot dropping from a variable height. (I used to play golf.) I obviously live on a different planet to some here because it seems blindingly obvious to me that if you are trying to perfect a technique then you want to do it with as few external variables as possible. And later learn how ot adjust for those variables. Let's drop the wind issue and instead consider learning to kick straight with someone standing on the mark trying to put you off by saying "your mother is a $%$!$&" or throwing mud at you. If you miskick, how do you know whether it was caused by your poor technique or your distress at hearing your mother so described or your dodging getting mud in the eye? So perfect your kicking without the abuse/mud. Once you've got the right technique by all means then learn how to handle the abuse/mud (or the wind).

sadly, no

Totally disagree. Double newsflash. Of course you have to learn how to handle the wind, but you first have to perfect your techinque so that the ball goes where you are aiming. Then take into account the wind. If you practice in windy conditions and you miss you don't know if your technique was to blame or your failure to take correct account of the wind. I'd have thought this was bloody obvious.

I can imagine some on here saying we haven't beaten anyone above us on the ladder when we are at the top of the ladder all year.

I've said this before, but how can players practise goal kicking at a windy site like Casey? When they miss (or score) they won't know if it was their technique or the wind that was the cause.

I see the AFL website is still listing start times on the broadcast times website as daylight savings times.

I’ll have to check on replay but it happened right near me and I thought the whistle was quick.

Didn’t get them continually however. Exactly how many such frees did he get? I expect a lot less than were warranted

The down field free is there to penalise players who thump players who have disposed of the ball. But those [censored] umps pay it for a slight push in the back maybe a millisecond after disposal.

Were you at the match? I saw Oliver manhandled off the ball continually.

Was great to hear the Grand Old Flag sung so loudly by the supporters that I couldn't hear the loudspeakers. Great to not fold when they had a run on and when they kicked the first 2 of the last to bring the margin to just 6 points. The umpiring looked bad at times, but I'm always impressed by the super eyesight of supporters who can spot a missed free on the far side of the ground. I can barely see what's happening.

if you mean me, website via firefox

Not only is the AFL website horribly laid out (eg. click on where you think the pull-down is for matches, you are likely to go to the Carlton page, not to mention that annoying box in the bottom right), but you will pleased to know our match today starts at 7:10pm AEDT. Which I guess is true if we are still on daylight savings.

Saints doing badly takes some of the shine off our win last week.

The wind. How can MFC players practice kicking at such a ground. Every time they miss a goal, at practice they'll be mentally blaming the wind, either for miscalculating where to aim or blowing ball of course. They need to practice where the only variable is themselves.

Won't be any swinging around after the siren I'm afraid.

So will I.

I have been endlessly moaning about details of the new rule being unstated by the AFL. But OK, I finally have some clarification of one aspect, but only by 'overhearing' a direction by an umpire in last night's match. A player had a mark and the ump told the man apporaching from forward of the mark that he could run forward but not closer than 5m to the mark. So presumably this is a rule? Where has the AFL actually stated this, eg on the website? Of course I now wonder what the rule is if you approach from 4m forward of the mark. Perhaps if you are anywhere within 5 m you have to stand if the ump choses to say stand? We now have umps making more decisions requiring reliable estimates of distances with a massive penalty if their estimate differs form a players. Whether you like the new rule or not, please, please someone point me to the full written details of it.

The throwing is completely out of control. Umpires instructed to keep the game moving regardless of the rules it seems.

Another example where unclarity can cause an issue or the pressure to call play on has gone too far. Near the end of the match Jones took a mark on the 50m line from a poor kickout. As he landed he moved sideways to regain his balance. No play on call (sensible). But he then walked straight back and the ump called play on. Why didn't the ump line him up as he clearly could kick for goal? When did he move off line if it hasn't been defined?

It still seems ripe for inconsistent decisions. I still don't know the rules. Does anyone? For example, when a player takes a mark in clear space, often no one runs to where the mark actually is. Instead they stand well back. Sometimes the ump shouts 'stand' even though they are no where near the mark (which is unfair), sometimes they don't, so presumably they can move about including running up to the actual mark and then freezing? But can they? The umps seem to be calling 'stand' well before they get to the mark to prevent this, but that is giving the player with the ball a double advantage - extra yards plus the static opponent. But will the ump show them where the mark is? Not easy without turning every mark into being like what is done for a shot for goal. If I've missed something, I'd appreciate it if any Demonlander can illumintate me on this. I'm not opposed to the rule if it makes for more open games (though I don't see the need for goal-fests). But until this is all clarified we will see some bad consequences. When one of the AFL's favoured teams loses a match as a result Gil will invent a new rule.

Didn’t they change the rule some time ago allowing a player on the boundary to not have to move on the line as long as they came round and kicked over the mark. But I don’t recall how carefully they worded that to stop that line of approach being used when the mark is more in field.

know we know: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-25/afl-mclachlan-happy-if-medical-subs-play-following-week/100028374

One reason players got away with not kicking over the mark in recent years is that the man of the mark was allowed to move, so everyone lost track of exaclty where the mark was. The trouble with the new rule is that often the man on the mark is not placed on the mark before the ump call 'stand'. (Though that is usually done when player intends to kick for goal.)