sue

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

A R1 win is important. But what's with Max? His hitouts are usually to our disadvantage.

Regarding the new 'Stand' rule, I noticed that unless there was a contested mark etc, players either go nowhere near the mark or position themselves on the inside but not on the mark in the place they used to move sideways to. And then wait for the umps to say 'stand'. The umps never tell them to move to where the actual mark is and then stand.

Here' Here's one for the stats experts. What percentage of the time when a player has been injured and sat out the rest of the game was there a subsequent concussion (which then could not be subbed)? I expect a considerable fraction of the time. So for a good deal of the time, the whole rationale for the concussion/sub rule vanishes like a puff of smoke. Idiots in charge.

This is what I meant when I posted a few days ago that the AFL did not detail exactly how this would work. Possibly they were too embarrassed by having been played like a fish by Clarkson et al (minus Beveridge).

If you want to see how easy it is for the coaches to play the AFL, read this, particularly Clarkson's comments: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/19/afl-happy-with-fair-use-of-medical-substitute-as-new-rule-makes-debut

You're lucky. A bloke I know had both done at once and they put in 2 left knee parts. It was only discovered when they noticed an extra right knee joint in stock.

The umps keep making players stand who are not near the actual mark.

Ridiculous that a player on the mark can't run directly backwards. We've seen a Richmond player on the mark swap by running backwards and being replaced without penalty. Was that because the umpire has not yet called stand to the first player? If so, as long as you immediately get a bit back from the actual mark, you can run backwards because surely the umpire can't call stand if you are not on the mark. Confused.