sue

There is more than one way of managing such things. You apparently seem to be suggesting Goodwin shout to the world that his players are the worst kicks for goal he's ever seen and despite efforts to fix the issue, nothing has worked. While we all appear to agree with that generally*, I doubt it is the best way for a coach address the issue to the players. * maybe we disagree on how much effort has been made to fix it and maybe the fault is parlty where we force players to shoot from etc, but 'generally' seems correct.

Sure, but don't forget whenever Goodwin speaks to the media the players may also be listening. So maybe he's trying to reduce the pressure on them by generalising the problem.

Definitely is her. That's a still from her naughty 1933 movie Ecstasy I think. Doubtless it was banned here. It's on the internet archive https://archive.org/details/ecstasy-1933.hedy-lamarr

Sme whistle is annoying. I thought it sounded like the audio of the umps whistle was coming through earlier than the video and the commentators coming later than both. If so, quite an achievement.

Not much sign of Occam's Razor in all that. I'm so old fashioned that I think there should be nothing wrong with a defender just booting it up the line and out of bounds deliberately to gain terriroty and relief. But then I don't get money from extra goals providing more ad breaks.

I'm not getting into the specific umpiring of last night, but the 'insufficient intent' interpretations are driving me mad. If a forward kicks it under pressure in a pack trying to gain territory and it goes out, no worries. Heaven help a back man who does so. May as well toss a coin. I can't see what is wrong with the simpler old deliberate rule.

Where did you see it Cranky?

Normally I'd agree. But consider this: When someone commits murder and the authorities turn a blind eye, it would be natural for friends and relatives to make 'endless comments' about what the murderer deserves. Would you be surprised or critical of them? IMO, the same applies to a player who kills another player's footy career (and maybe more) with a non-football act.

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2425800771922

Sorry to seem sexist, but if they are giving cars to female players, the male players are probably getting jumbo jets.

Re AJ's dropped chest mark which much has been made of: It wasn't as if he was standing on his own. If I recall it was in a pack and the ball almost dropped into his arms, maybe unexpectantly. Would need to view it again.

While it is true that the criminal law is to a large extent outcome based, there is no reason why the AFL has to follow that. For a start almost every action on a footy field would land you in chokey if done in Swanson St. Furthermore, a criminal judge can find you guilty of manslaughter and still alter the penalty in light of the cirrcumstances (except in neolithic places which impose mandatory sentences). Moore may well have been concussed, but if I bang my head with my tennis racquet trying to return a shot, I should not expect the person I'm playing against to be charged (to draw a weak analogy).

I though it was because he came from behind of the player with the ball and didn't loop around far enough. At least I've seen that paid elsewhere, and sometimes not paid.

I am bamboozled by the stand rule. Sometimes the umps say '5 metres' when they seem to mean "go there" and sometimes it seems to mean 'you are 5m away'. They often say stand when the player 'on the mark' hasn't got to the mark. If anyone can explain exactly what is going on, I'd be grateful. And them there is the 50m penalty of the sort Salem was hit with. I bet if he came in 1 metre more to the left it would have been OK. But he'd still be moving into the proteted zone. A guide to the perplexed would be appreciated.

Anyone got a picture of the flock? (I'll forgive you for not looking at the footy when you smapped it.)

I've noticed a few which gave a huge advantage to one side and should have been recalled. At the moment I suspect many umps are at the limit of what they can do, so it is hard for them to be consistent. Unless you are a believer in 'the more randomness the better for the competition' the simplest solution is for each ump to work out the distance they can comfortably and reliably throw it (in normal and in wet conditions) and then stand x metres in so as to reach the standard (15m) like some (all?) of the female VLF umps do. But that would be perceived as wimpish I fear and never happen with male AFL umpires.

I'd be a lot happier if they had done all that against a team other than one which has not won a game, gets regularly thrashed, has no one on an AFL list (with all that means in terms of talent and training environment). Let's wait and see.

What happened to Maynard? Nothing trivial I trust

Sorry, it's clear from the posts that many of us do not agree that it is a strange call. I won't repeat the justifications that have been made for such a call nor refute the nonsense about lack of respect to TMac. But it's true that many here will blame Goody if things go wrong - probably the same people who complain about Goody not doing anything new/bold/playing favourites.

I'm puzzeled why several postesrs think it is an insult to TMac to not be listed as 'rested'. As I posted in the VFL thread - I doubt if TMac is weeping over his museli thinking that some supporters might think he is being dropped for lack of form. He knows what's what and so does the club.

Probably true. Why are some getting worked up about the club just saying 'omitted'. I doubt if TMac is weeping over his museli thinking that some supporters might think he is being dropped for lack of form. He knows what's what and so does the club.

All true. But if a helmet was a 2 metres long 'spring', wouldn't that dissipate the momentum and energy of a blow to other parts of the body? If so (?), I wonder if it would be possible (with some yet to be discovered high tech material) to reduce the size of the 'spring' to a manageable size?

They need to find some cantankerous bastards like me to umpire. If I heard the crowd roar for a free kick my immediate reaction would be do to the exact opposite.

Recently there have been a few posts complaining that at the ball up after a goal, the video starts with a small inset of the centre area which only widens out to fill the screen as the ball is bounced. The complaint is that makes it impossible to see how the players are setting up for the bounce. But it reached a new height last night - the full screen view often didn't switch to the bounce until well after the play was actually underway. Instead we see the face of the player who kicked the goal for a second or third time. Forget detailed analysis - they can't even broadcast the game. It is clear that they have no interest in football, just drama (and $).

Get your Captain to measure it on google maps with their handy distance measuring tool and report back. Looks more like 150m (which would mean an honest 50m arc would touch the mandated centre square.) I note the ABC stated that they had lengthened the ground since 2007. Not sure how they did that.