sue

The wind. How can MFC players practice kicking at such a ground. Every time they miss a goal, at practice they'll be mentally blaming the wind, either for miscalculating where to aim or blowing ball of course. They need to practice where the only variable is themselves.

Won't be any swinging around after the siren I'm afraid.

So will I.

I have been endlessly moaning about details of the new rule being unstated by the AFL. But OK, I finally have some clarification of one aspect, but only by 'overhearing' a direction by an umpire in last night's match. A player had a mark and the ump told the man apporaching from forward of the mark that he could run forward but not closer than 5m to the mark. So presumably this is a rule? Where has the AFL actually stated this, eg on the website? Of course I now wonder what the rule is if you approach from 4m forward of the mark. Perhaps if you are anywhere within 5 m you have to stand if the ump choses to say stand? We now have umps making more decisions requiring reliable estimates of distances with a massive penalty if their estimate differs form a players. Whether you like the new rule or not, please, please someone point me to the full written details of it.

The throwing is completely out of control. Umpires instructed to keep the game moving regardless of the rules it seems.

Another example where unclarity can cause an issue or the pressure to call play on has gone too far. Near the end of the match Jones took a mark on the 50m line from a poor kickout. As he landed he moved sideways to regain his balance. No play on call (sensible). But he then walked straight back and the ump called play on. Why didn't the ump line him up as he clearly could kick for goal? When did he move off line if it hasn't been defined?

It still seems ripe for inconsistent decisions. I still don't know the rules. Does anyone? For example, when a player takes a mark in clear space, often no one runs to where the mark actually is. Instead they stand well back. Sometimes the ump shouts 'stand' even though they are no where near the mark (which is unfair), sometimes they don't, so presumably they can move about including running up to the actual mark and then freezing? But can they? The umps seem to be calling 'stand' well before they get to the mark to prevent this, but that is giving the player with the ball a double advantage - extra yards plus the static opponent. But will the ump show them where the mark is? Not easy without turning every mark into being like what is done for a shot for goal. If I've missed something, I'd appreciate it if any Demonlander can illumintate me on this. I'm not opposed to the rule if it makes for more open games (though I don't see the need for goal-fests). But until this is all clarified we will see some bad consequences. When one of the AFL's favoured teams loses a match as a result Gil will invent a new rule.

Didn’t they change the rule some time ago allowing a player on the boundary to not have to move on the line as long as they came round and kicked over the mark. But I don’t recall how carefully they worded that to stop that line of approach being used when the mark is more in field.

know we know: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-25/afl-mclachlan-happy-if-medical-subs-play-following-week/100028374

One reason players got away with not kicking over the mark in recent years is that the man of the mark was allowed to move, so everyone lost track of exaclty where the mark was. The trouble with the new rule is that often the man on the mark is not placed on the mark before the ump call 'stand'. (Though that is usually done when player intends to kick for goal.)

I hope you weren't on the same drugs when you wrote that as the original author was.

A lot of bagging of the MFC admin goes on here, but kudos to them for letting people know there was a problem so quickly today.

Has anyone tried to get their tickets this morning? It's barffing at us saying there are no tickets for those barcodes. ah, they just sent an email saying there was a problem and to try at 10am.

Before this new rule a moving player on the mark tended to watch the player with the ball. Twisting around to try to see the ump at the same time was difficult. Since they now can't move they can watch the umpire more closely to ensure they don't miss the play on call and maximise their chance of smothering.

No, but I don't think there is a sinister plot behind them changing. Can you think of any reason beyond the natural uncertainties in injuries and recovery setbacks with maybe a soupcon of wishful thinking to keep spirits up? And maybe sometimes trying to keep future opponents guessing.

The lawyer probably looked up some real dictionaries and was appalled by the definition s and found Siri's definition helped his case. Nah as above probably just an person who performs acts on MP's desks

I'd have thought the ANB example would be used by the prosecution to argue the Dangerfield's action was far worse and so the penalty should be more.

what a [censored]. Trying to show how cool and with it he is perhaps?

From the tribunal proceedings: DANGERFIELD PLEA Dangerfield has pleaded guilty to rough conduct but will contest the classification of severe impact. He will argue the impact was high. Apparently severe is when the player's head ends in Row 5.

Those defending the action as a reasonable bump with an unlikely/unlucky outcome should reflect on the above.

In what way do you think? Surely not in his goal kicking given how he does it with a slow steady approach?

Self-protection? He should get an extra week for telling porkies.

Even my cynical brain can't see him getting off entirely, but I'm prepared to bet he will get less than might be expected for many other players.

Especially if your brown coloured glasses obscures the 5 articles about the Sat match apparently hidden by the more recent 3 AFLW articles. None so blind ....

Whether you like/dislike/indifferent to this rule there is either things that need explaining or the umpires are being more inconsistent than usual. For example in the game I’m just watching a player takes a mark and there is no oppo within 20 m foreword of him except one guy who isn’t even on the line towards goal. Yet the ump calls stand even though the player is no where near the actual mark and could be just guarding space We also see players defining where the mark is inside of where it really is and umps calling stand when the real mark is elsewhere. One I enjoyed was the player on the mark getting pushed backwards by the player picking up the ball to take his free. The oppo stumbles back and the ump calls stand. A good way to get an extra couple of metres