sue

Yes. Sadly changing direction often leads to umpires paying the free even if the total distance travelled isn’t too much.

At least the (banned) old flick pass did involve giving the ball momentum by hitting it. Now most of the momentum comes from a throwing action. What about bringing back the flick pass (which is fast and allows hitting from another angle to the fist) but banning the endless throws we see these days.

Were they saying this just for umpire infringements or all infringements? If the latter it sounds like a free pass to knock out an opponent in a final to ensure a win (and even knowing you will be able to do it in the next final too). Maybe the different standard that should apply is bigger penalties than in the home and away games.

also the others could’ve said to be just lucky. Kick 50 from there and you may get one and everyone is impressed when they see that one.

Undecided, but if we lose to anyone in the prelim, I'd rather it be GWS.

I agree too many do take that narrative far too far, especially when things go wrong for their favorite club, but what motivates the AFL is usually pretty clear and it's usually no surprise as to the result. But in this instance, how independent is the Tribunal? Who appoints it? Who are the appointees? What are their careers? What is their reationship to the AFL? Convince me that the answers indicate real independence.

I'm not sure if you are being ironic Binman.

About what you'd expect. Normal player 6 weeks, star player 50% discount.

Seemingly so. But it seems reasonable for Greene to go to WA even if he's doomed for suspension. He is their 'spiritual leader'.

I'd also ask, why should the AFL be so wary of appeals? Make a statement without hours of bum covering which they would not do for any bog-standard player. Is GWS really going to sue the AFL? And if they did, so what. Draw a line in the sand and dare anyone to step over it.

Well there is some truth in that because for such a star player, it is more likely there would be appeals. But it's not soley that. This will take almost 4 hours (or more) and would have been over in 30 minutes if it was an unknown player. I still believe it shows the AFL has no notion of fairness, just showtime.

One thing is clear, if a non-star player had done that, regardless of the outcome, it would not take the tribunal almost 3 hours to hear the case.

That's exactly opposite to what the AFL usually does though. Good to see how brave Stevic is to not feel intimidated. Would he ever say anything else?

re: measuring on outcome I also think the AFL is wrong. But being aggressive to an umpire is completely different to tackling dangerously or swinging fists randomly where there is a physical outcome. Unless a player knocks out an umpire, there is no obvious outcome - any outcome is more intangible or distant, like the number of 10 year olds who subsequently deck the 16 year old umpires.

and especially because as a top player himself, it looks like self-interest. If he was charged with something, it wouldn't help him at any tribunal I sat on. Of course the AFL doesn't have my personal level of integrity. (I like to keep the bar low).

Disappointing remarks from Petracca IMO: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/greater-western-sydney-giants/afl-news-2021-toby-greene-contact-with-umpire-special-treatment-video-what-happened-reactions/news-story/6cd7d9f1a58a26d992d5cd5853c72ee6 Better to say nothing

Should be reported for that, but won't be because the TV commentators ignored it.

I think you are right. What really gets up my nose is the TV commentator immediately saying it looked like Toby was just going to one of his mates or something similar. Instantly finding excuses for a star player when blind freedy could see he was in deep discussion with the umpire and had no regard to his team mates at all. Typical.

Seems some are thinking Greene may be rubbed out for 2 weeks. Probably won't be rubbed out at all.

I agree, though it might be necessary to have some limit on who is considered to be in that premiership team. For example, a player plays one match in round 2, fails to make any impact, indeed causes a loss, is dropped, never plays again, team wins flag. Whatever you do there will be odd and borderline cases. As you say, it would raise retrospective arguments.

Isn't it true that typically the winner is rarely from a top club because team mates share the votes? So Oliver would be unlikely.

Wow. You would decide Policy using a single year’s data. Worthy of the AFL.

Some are assuming that what Goodwin says in public is the same as what he says to Jones in private and that Jones is not aware of the reason for the difference.

I don't understand why umpires tell the players the rules at all. (I'm OK with them explaining decisions - that's different.) As one example amongst many, do players really need to be told to stay on line when kicking after the siren? (not that I heard Max being so advised - did anyone?). However when the question is a matter of distance it does make more sense to advise a player they are getting too close. Especially since umpires have varying ideas of what 5, 10 and 15 metres is depending on phase of the moon and other imponderables.

Looks like I'll have to call you young dee now I know you are 2 years younger than me. I was standing at the pocket at the other end - maybe why I've subsequently been at the other end of the pessimism/optimism scale to you. (Not really but it seemed a good line...)