sue

Maybe he has been listening to BT with BT's often ridiculous advice on where each player should aim.

I've not yet watched the replay, but my initial impression was that at the last second he did a good job of making it appear as if he was looking to mark the ball on his chest. Cleary bogus because it was never going to get past the bloke who marked it but apparently enough to fool the umps.

A fine is getting off?

Umm with "we have" it might be passed.

I wish they'd drown out BT &Co by the umpires all the time. I said before they probably don't do this for fear of broadcasting players swearing, but I didn't hear any swearing when I watched the Kayo mini (first half).

Prof Google revelas this where SFebes refers to it in a post. Can't see his source:

I guess they stop the umps Mike’s because they don’t want to broadcast the players swearing

thanks EO.

Great to hear him take that line. Decreases expectations and potential bathwater consumption. Only trouble with that cherry thought is that Brereton is a fool.

thanks binman. When I look at first crack on kayo the only episodes I see are May 23 and earlier. Where is the one about the dogs game? And the dates all seem to be Sundays, not Saturdays? Perplexed....

He's certainly down after that but the camera pans away quickly so you can't tell how long he was down. Some have posted it was in the last 90 seconds. Since JCB spotted him later on, maybe he was taken off much later. Or only replaced at the last minute (but why would we do that?)

Yes, but if it really was 90 seconds to go (?) and we had the game in the bag, why would you put the sub on the ground at all (even if he may be formally 'on'). Can't see any gain in doing so - can only see possibility of injury.

Why not? They seem content to play half a quarter under one set of rules and half under another.

Salem available to play according to MFC website

Unbelievable - if that is the 'interpretation' why is it not simply stated in the rules? But even that statement is unclear. Which players - all players, or the player disposing of the ball? What an amateur organization the AFL is despite its doubtless generous exec salaries.

If our players made more of a fuss when the deliberate was not paid I wonder if the umps, having time to reflect on their error, would have mysteriously plucked a free out of the air at the throw in or ball up.

Courage is required as well as training. Not everyone is suited to umpiring I used to be a referee of a sport which only rarely needed the ref to adjudicate. I decided being a ref was not for me when I found myself requiring a toilet break every time I saw a difficult situation developing.

I just read the Fox reports and report in the Age. I guess all those commentators are MFC supporters. By live, I meant wihtout slo-mo. I expect many at the ground breathed a huge sigh of relief when the panealty was not applied. In any case, the umpire did not see it in slo-mo. And since a deflection is not relevant to the player's intent unless he intended an entirely different direction and the ball suffered a major deflection, even if the umpire thought it was touched, it shouldn't change the call. Even if it goes out 1 metre from where he intended, it is still deliberate if OOB was his intent. The one I am waiting for is a deliberate within the goal square under pressure intended for a behind which hits the point post on the full but may have shaved Gawn's beard. Enjoy slo-mo-ing that.

I'm intrigued by the number of posters who will spend hours looking at slow motion videos and splitting hairs to justify an umpire's ignoring an deliberate out of bounds when almost everyone who saw it in real time has no doubt, especially when compared to some of the dubious DoB calls we see all the time these days. I suspect many of them are motivated by wishing to to put heat on the club for not closing the game down earlier, but that is not the issue. Bad inconsistent umpiring that may lose you the GF is.

Any news of how sore he is?

No it's not the end of story. Saying the umpire bottled it is not the same as saying he cheated. And yes, it is possible for every team that loses after a bad decision in a close game to be told they should have won the game earlier. So what? The issue is bad umpiring. BTW, let me open another front on the rules. I noticed that the Adelaide coach in trying to raise a smokescreen said maybe he was trying to handball through the behinds but just missed. Of course he wasn't but if that was true, I think he was beyond the goal square and we'd have got a free (but not the point as well ?)

Answer to question in thread title: Correct, the GF is in September.

That makes it clear. Intent is the issue. If it hits a seagull on the way out the intent was still there. I am astounded by people continuing to say it matters that it hit Salem a glancing blow.

Where in the rule does it say anything about deflection or hitting a seagull? It’s all about intent. So unless the deflection changes the balls direction significantly it is deliberate

It doesn't appear to be working. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hElq-cmsP70