sue

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.

As usual the AFL fails to provide full details. https://www.afl.com.au/news/563046/new-rule-reveal-afl-brings-in-medical-sub-ahead-of-r1 So, can the doc's assessment at the game (or even the next day) that the injured player won't be able to play for 12 days be overturned by a miraculous recovery and the player allowed play next week? (for non-concussion injuries). There will be lots of cases where the time on the sidelines is initially unclear and the player gets better quicker than expected. If so, I can just see some clubs and 'special' players getting away with this without being subject to being sent to the naughty corner by the AFL. But is it so, or once subbed, are you out for 12 days regarless of what happens next? No idea from that press release. Edit to add: And just in case anyone thinks there is no ambiguity, try their opening line: but that extra 23rd player will only be able to take the field after club doctors have assessed an injured or concussed player as 'medically unfit' to continue in the match.

Now let's see how many rule changes the AFL can make during the actual season. Not counting new interpretation of the week.

Reality is you have no way of knowing and you can't resist making the most negative comments whenever you get half a chance.

Well that would ensure there will be an injury in Q4 or earlier if the coach wants to pull an underperforming player. Doesn't Goodwin have enough to think about now without having to have another decision option.

The real worry about that Robbo clip was Gil's pathetic arm-waving response. The true response should be "we don't trust clubs to take off concussed players properly, so we've introduced this as an incentive for them to do so".

Rest of the match? . I can gaurantee an injury about half way through Q4 every week. So silly it can't be true.

or any player the week before a bye (assuming 12 days to next match of the team).

I see there is a fuss about the need for goal line cameras after that dubious call in the match. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/15/calls-intensify-for-aflw-to-follow-men-and-implement-score-review-technology While there is a lot to argue about cameas, their quality and placement, this quote strikes me as ridiculous: Leaving aside the numerous occasions when players are themselves grazing the post as the ball gos through, why not rule if the ball does not deviate it should be a goal. Much easier to change the rule to 'if the ball does not deviate, it's a goal' than introduce yet more shonky technology.

I'd say about 17 other teams. Though your wording is a bit incomplete. I expect players in all 18 teams are told the scoreboard doesn't matter for you, the individual player - if you and your mates all play your roles the scoreboard will take care of itself. If you don't play your role you will be assessed poorly.

While this may well work, I just wish the AFL would consider all the possibe unintended consequences of a new rule before they implement it. But a week before the season starts is a new low. The CEO of the AFLPA sounds like he has run out of hair to pull. As for the difference between a hammy and concussion as it affects the game, there is none. But clearly the AFL is nervous about the long term effects of concussion and wants to treat it differently. A sub rule is clearly meant to be an incentive for a coach to remove a marginally concussed player by giving the coach the possibility of a sub. An independent doctor making decisions seems better to me, though I guess that costs more.

ah yes, that makes more sense than my misinterpretation.

Well that wouldn't work since clubs would nominate the most damaging opponent. And if he went off with concussion before one of your teams was concussed..... It would really have to be drawn at random. Whole sub thing is ridiculous. Since the AFL's motivation is presumably to encourage teams not to continue with a concussed playe, the best solution is to use Independent doctors. Of course finding an unbiased one in Melbourne may be a tad dfficult.