sue

If it's not his position to name the player, why is it his position to name the line affected or say anything? I don't see much difference. Since it's finals week I reckon the less and later we give any info to the opponent the better. If it's going to be public within a very short time anyway, then sure, spread despair on the forum if you like. But be sure you are giving nothing away. He has gallantly agreed he won't do it again. No wally there either.

So now you have only 6 extended family members in a tizz. Why say anything at all?

As I said, there are other motives than loot - eg. factors which could cause bias and been interpreted as unfair/cheating. It's clear that any sport where team A gains an advantage by playing the system rather than the game, that team is likely to be considered to be cheating. Consider ducking to get a free - in your analysis that is fine - smart player, well coached. But everyone hates it (except when their team does it). Supposedly the rules/interpretation was changed to not award the free. It was even considered it should be a free against the ducker - to discourage unsafe play. And it rubs off on the umpires. If the umpires appear to play along with team A's wicked scheme (or skill) to earn frees and not resist it, many observers will claim the umpires are effectively cheating - even if they are honestly applying the rules as best they can. Cheating or not, the effect is the same - disgruntled supporters, confused players and loathed umpires. The AFL should change the rules to minimise all this as you have argued. But I think you exaggerate the Dog's prowess and underestimate the effect of missed frees against which I'd guess form a large part of the statistical differential. As I argued earlier, I suspect a personality/style favourtism factor is more likely to be the cause than any special skills the Dogs have. Such favouritism, even if unconcious, appears as cheating to the observer. edit: runs to rubs

While I agree with much of what you said in that post above mine about how to fix things, I think you are overthinking what many people mean when they emotively say the umpires are cheating. For example, my observation that there may be biases that lead to anomalous decisions could be described by some as cheating. It would be so called if you were umpiring a tennis match and gave line ball decisions to your wife/whatever. Even if you didn't believe you were playing favourities, your wife's opponents and supporters may well say otherwise.

Really? I haven't seen much sign of that. Very few people criticising the umpires have made that claim. Far more likely to be rational are theories based on the AFL doing what it can to boost the game. That bias is clear when you look at Tribunal and MR decisions - eg don't rub out star players compared to others. But not so clear when it comes to free kick differentials - why would it be in the AFL's interest to boost the Dogs when they could boost the Demons to the PR scoop that at long last a MFC flag could offer. Heres hoping.... Personally in the absense of a convincing analysis about first to the ball etc. (sorry I don't buy that much), I am becoming more convinced that the apparent favourtism is linked to some umpires liking the style/personality/whatever of some players and maybe reacting (+ly or -ly) to team styles (eg Geelong's endless whinging, Dog's 'sexy' play). It's very human to be so influenced and despite rumours to the contrary, umpires are human.

That's what strikes me too. I may be unobservant but I just don't see that the Dogs getting to the ball first etc when I watch them play. I expect there are other reasons without invoking conspiracy theories. Just don't know what the reasons are. As someone pointed out, the stats are not wildly beyond the realms of possibility to be just randomness. But certainly are at the 'suspicious' end of probability (suspicious in the sense of some non-random factor involved, not just conspiracy). Perhaps personal biases, eg. umpires think x,y and z are good/bad blokes, may be sufficient explanation to account for the Dogs (and Tigers) stats not being closer to normal. Listening to the commentators it's clear they overlook errors by the stars or their 'buddies' - no reason to assume umpires are immune to that as things stand. Maybe professional umpires would go a long way to fixing that.

Surprising and yet not surprising.

Yeah, playing with a cracked skull makes a lot of sense. Now I've heard/read everything. So they are still assessing whether he has concussion. Should be OK by the time they finalize that I guess.

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.