sue

The umpires don’t seem to have read the rules. Eg. push in the back just before the kick is given as free downfield in front of the goals

But isn't it just as likely that he was trying to ensure it did not cross the line as he prepared to kick it. Anyway, whatever our memories of a golden age when the AFL rules were well written (like all golden ages, there's no such age I expect), the rules as currently written are silent on the question. And if anything the simplest interpretation of them as written is that the boot can be in contact with the ball. I can't see how an umpire lacking a high-speed camera could ever judge exactly when a ball leaves a boot, let alone doing that while noting the position of the ball. By high-speed I mean something better than the AFL s currently using. Even with a decent camera, the camera would have to be near boot level - unlikely. It is so difficult to judge that they'd be better to make the rule state that as long as contact with the ball is made before the ball crosses the line, then it is a goal.

Several people have posted this, but I don't see how this interpretation was even possible before high speed video was available. As I posted earlier, the rules are silent on this matter since they don't define what a kick is (beyond being below the knee). There is nothing there about a kick being complete when the ball leaves the boot. Nor do the rules say anything about a kick having to be complete before the ball passes the goal line.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-01/is-west-coasts-biggest-strength-masking-bigger-weaknesses/100255464

It would seem the Essendon coach doesn't subscribe to the umpiring plot theory.

Well on my reading there is nothing to say that the ball has to leave the boot before it passes the outside of the line. The definition of a kick is simply contact below the knee, nothing about a kick requires the ball to leave the boot. So I think it is clear that is was a goal, though the frame rate of the AFL's cameras is far too low to be really sure. I note that it is clear that if another player is touching the ball as it is kicked, it is not a goal. I didn't spot anything in the rules about video reviews checking on goals etc. But it seems to be a 'rule' that the umpire is only overridden if the video review is definitive. How does a professional organization not include that in its 2021 laws of the game?

Your last statment is definitely true. But where in the rules does it say that? The definition of a kick says nothing nor does what makes a goal a point as far as I can see? Rules are hidden by the AFL as far as possible. https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/22/821e4724-d9f4-48b5-8210-aba038553024/2021-Laws-of-the-Game-WEB.pdf

You might have to change your geolocation to Melbourne. There are browser add ons todo that. and create a free account.

Yeah, you might be hit with an unaffordable fine.

I see they now pay frees for contact below the bum.

Rule of the week/game/quarter/whatever.

I love the implication that our players go downhill during the ski season. (pun not intended, just emerged). Either the poster thinks our players bugger off to the ski fields, or they vastly over-estimate the importance of our supporters on the players' performance.

Actually I expect no one here knows if Sam uses social media or not.(?) Since clubs probably advise players to avoid or restrict it to preserve their sanity, I wouldn't be surprised that as a group of youngish people, many may not use it compared to their non-AFL playing cohort.

I'm not trying to bash him. But I do think many of us were hoping he'd be something special. Call that a messiah or whatever you like.

Not to mention the panic amongst some when rumours of other club's interest in him were first aired. Recent games seem to have dampened that. We might not need a messiah, but we do need someone with some presence on the field. At the moment Sam is not doing enough.

Perhaps the point is that if Watts wasn't the messiah we'd hoped for, then Sam with similar figures is unlikely to be too.

An excellent article about the MRP and the attitude of the AFL https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/21/joel-selwood-and-toby-greenes-actions-antithetical-to-afl-principles

Likewise for all the silly non-reportable stuff that goes on. Award a free kick against immediately. Do that a few times and players will soon stop doing anything but playing footy.

AFL is becoming a synonynm for corruption and an inspiration for junior thugs. Leaving aside that, they need a category beyond 'rough play' with a name like 'nasty non-play' and punish such acts severely (ie. beyond spare change for highly paid sportsmen).

Well said H. But what about the influence on youngsters of the [censored] commentators on TV who get excited about thuggery and make jokes about it and use various wink-wink euphemisms about thug players. They are a high profile part of the problem and make it clear they think we should all enjoy it.

It's already apparent that players are deciding that their opponent may get to the ball just before them and they stop going for the ball and prepare to tackle. Quite often it seems to me that they made that decision wrongly, but I guess it is safer to takcle than collide.

It would be another great area for umpires to have to adjudicate. Porbably could work in some interpretations too.

The AFL continually makes rule changes that call for harder decisions to be made by the umps. For example, it is now OK to put your hands into an oppos back to take a mark as long as you don't push. So the ump has to decide how hard you pushed, especially hard if the oppo is backing-up towards you. This new rule/interpretation was seemingly introduced to allow the player in the rear to keep his balance (and kick more advertisements, sorry goals). But why? If a player can't keep his balance without pushing someone in the back, however lightly, let him fall over and make the umps job easier.

Sure there were loads of reasons we played so badly and didn't kick enough goals - not all Sam's fault. But unfortunately I don't think Sam ever strikes fear into the opposition. He needs to go to the VFL until he can. In the meantime let's hope BB, MJ, or MB can. If BB is fit enough, he has the runs on the board to be given the first chance.

I later clarified by an edit what I meant by 'more'. I didn't mean more than now I meant 2 who put fear into the hearts of opponents. So far we have only had one. So I agree 3 is too many. But 2 (in form) is what is wanted IMO. Even if the second key forward produced less forward line pressure than a smaller player did or even than Sam has done, I think it would improve the team. I presume you are not saying we should replace Sam with a small bloke.