sue

But what supporters say here has no effect on miniumum standards within the club. So it doesn't matter if some supporters are in the view of some others over-forgiving of faults.

You think that photo is clear proof that he is overweight? Those arms are clearly just rippling with fat folds. Not so much on the waist in comparison. Surprising. In short, I don't think the photo tells us anything except loose clothing tells us nothing.

So true. I really enjoy it when a player gets a soft touch to one side of his head and then holds his hands to the other side of the head.

Serious answer: The conspiracy is not against the MFC per se (and some others), but in favour of where the AFL thinks the big $$$ are. The overall effect may appear similar.

True, but so do the players from other clubs doing it and some of them are having quite a good season. I can understand MFC supporters being [censored] off when it gets ignored until it's us in the sights.

Fine them? hah! Didn't the AFL declare a couple of years back they would pay frees against a player who ducks his head regardless of the tackle. This was in order to discourage ducking so as to protect the head, nothing to do with milking frees? As usual with the AFL it is a rule/interpretation that lasts as long as a lettuce (with apologies to Liz Truss). The only problem I have with the May's fine is he's about the 50th example this year. If the AFL was fair dinkum why not go through all the tapes and fine the other 49.

Has any one in the footy media noticed?

I have made the mistake of watching far too much footy this round. What has stood out for me is how inconsistent the umpiring has become. And this is watching matches where I'm not particularly hoping one team or the other wins, so the usual supporter biases are not there. Of course it is a difficult job, but what really gets me mad is the AFL introducing new 'rules/interpretations' which last a week or two and the inconsitentcies. Think dissent, vagueness of the stand/5m 'rule', entering protected zones and play on, HTB, the inability of umps to judge distances, penalising to discourage ducking to protect heads (promised but never implemented), etc. The lack of consistency makes it far too easy to credit consipracy theories which is not in the interest of our game. A thorough review of the rules and umpiring environment is needed by a body independent of the AFL admin (which is focussed on $), and not on our game. Won't happen of course.

Hooray we are 3 times better than Cwood

I'm amazed at the 'guilty' interpretation that has been placed on that deletion. Most probable reason to me is that by saying so he thought he was exonerating the medicos but realised later that it sounded like they were easy to overrule which would be a bad look.

The media pile-on to the MFC goes ahead regardless of facts. Some are expressing dismay that the Club has not made a strong statement. I wonder if doing that would have the same effect as feeding trolls in a forum like this. And yes, I think a lot of footy 'journos' are effectively trolls in search of click-bait, relevance and fortune.

Correct. And how would the AFL respond if we did nother review and ignored theirs? Sunday pm interstate games all 2025 for us.

Probably just based on a disposition to always think the worst which pervades this site. Or more positively, a hope that by saying such things, it will jinx it actually happening.

Thanks for the detail that you had emailed them with a critical message and they phoned you back (amazing in itself). No, I wouldn't accuse you of making it up. Just possibly interpreting what was said to you in a gloomy way (which is sadly doubtless often the right position given our history since 1964). But I still wonder exactly what the person said on the phone. You said that person didn't deny fault (or somesuch word). I can imagine that person was instructed to not argue with any members, but instead make the sort of bland remarks our govt and corporate leaders make without committing to anything and thus allowing you to read what you liked into it. That's why I asked for a verbatim account of what they said so I could get info on whether the club thought the docs should all be sacked or otherwise. As I've said several times, the fact that the initial scans at the hospital didn't reveal a big problem, just shows how difficult it was for our docs, and tends to make me believe they were not particularly negligent. Note I said 'tends' - not proof.

No, I'm not. I was just saying that it does not logically follow that just because a parent (allegedly) believes something, that that something is true. Doesn't require an advanced degree in logic to see that. Care to share with us exactly word for word what the club said and the position of who it was. Not that I don't trust you OD, but you do have a reputation for finding the downside in almost anything. (Also 'not denied', could just mean "I'm not bothered/instructed to not argue with people who contact the club".) Look, for all I know, it was not handled well. But the evidence that the hospital with all its equipment got it wrong initially, tends to indicate to me that the MFC quacks were not particularly negligent.

Just because the family (is reported to be) not happy, does not mean it was handled badly.

All true, but I'd rther a slower game that the mess we now see. The umps are always too slow to call play on - hence my post just above stating the play-on rule should be changed to allow the player on the mark decide that play on has occurred and the umpires award a 50m if they decided he hadn't. No need to wait for the play-on call.

That is indeed the rule. I have argued for years that the rules should allow the oppo players make the decision that the player with the ball has played on. And the umpires should only pay a 50m penalty if the ump decides that they were wrong and he had moved before he played on. Good to see the AFL is implementing my suggestion! Pity they only do it when it suits the agenda.

It's not rapidly dimishing, it expands and contracts to the bewilderment of players and fans alike. But the stand rule is a mess. Players are told to stand in spots that are not near where the mark is. Players don't know when they can move 5m away and what they can do when they get there etc etc. I can't see what was wrong with the old rule. So it maybe slowed down play because the player with the ball had less of an advantage. I'd rather that than the mess we have now.

Yes I have, but I'll be blowed if I can understand why that would be relevant in a case like this. Tele-heath doc: How are you feeling - you look in pain. What are your symptoms?" Patient: It hurts a lot down there. Tele-healthh doc: I'll just hook you up to my combined virtual x-ray, MRI and UltraSound machine and diagnose you then. Hang on a jiffy....

Our docs didn't have high-tech scanning equipment but even the hospital which did have them got it wrong initially. Why should you in your hotel room know better? Does your daughter often diagnose without seeing the patient? Of course it looked very bad, but we've seen that sort of thing before, and while the player may not end up playing out the game, they don't often end up in ICU. I foolishly though the report about what initially happened at the hospital would have quietened the keyboard doctors on here. Seems I was wrong.

Apologies all round from the keyboard doctors both here and in the media would be welcome. But unlikely to be forthcoming from the latter at least. Having a high pain threshold has its dangers and when they operate sans anaethesia, its advantages. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/melbourne-demons/afl-2024-christian-petracca-speaks-for-first-time-on-internal-injury-traumatic-recovery-from-hospital-latest-news/news-story/3016f0d68f2ac8ee20c43f7f7636af91

Sure, anyone can clog any thread with irrelevant stuff. Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. (I'm doing it now with mixed feelings). And WCW is entitled to voice her opinion as to how the forum should operate - doesn't mean she is setting herself up as a gatekeeper any more than you are.

But if he did play on then it should have been play on, not 'go back and have your kick'. 99% of the time in that situation it is either play on or 50m.

No extra technology was needed in this case. Just some old-fashioned honesty. Did the TV commentators even say anything when it was replayed?