sue

I’m amused that all the media fuss acts like we were behind before that goal was kicked. Even if it was a point the odds would have been with us to win.

It would help if the commentators didn't turn dwn the umpires' volume so they could make their asinine name dropping etc.

Either that or he is so incompetent that he shouldn’t be in an AFL team. If you knocked someone over that late there’d be a 50m penalty but a whack in the eye is ok it seems.

Has the AFL actually said clubs get to choose where they will play a 'home' final? Seems unlikely to me given all the other constraints.

2 wins against C’wood makes a great year. But we shouldn’t have let them get so close the second time.

The enforcement of the protected zone is a farce. In every game I’ve watched there are several infringements ignored. The rule needs a major rethink. Very often the offending player poses no threat to the player with the ball. But the penalty is enormous.

But then there would be less opportunity for controversey which Fox loves.

Easy to change that rule since there is no situation where that would happen

Always grateful for an opportunity for mounting my hobby horse: Something that would lessen ugly packs forming is paying a free against a player who just jumps of 2 or more players on the ground and either: tackles one of the tacklers - clearly a free against for tackling a player without the ball OR attempts to pull the ball of his teammate - not a legal disposal if he suceeds, so if he does suceed, free for ilegal disposal

And max Gawn when viewed from twice as far away looks about my size

A non-controversy IMO. Goal umpire in perfect position and a simple situation. The technology (even at regularly used grounds) is not good enough and may never be. Just go with the umpire's call. Umpires make bad calls all the time, many of which gift goals (or vice versa) to teams so why focus on the goal umpire's decisions? The only reason they single out the goal umpire for review is that there is natural break in play. But even that can lead to bad consequences as we saw a few weeks back when our very late mark on the full back line was reviewed and we lost forward momentum and a chance to win the game.

Not enough doom and gloom in the Dogs post match for you then BD?

Or you could look at it more positively and say we were no worse than Geelong with the dogs kicking 6 in a row

While it was good to hear the issue brought up publically, I reckon Goodwin could have gone harder without being in danger of any sanction from the AFL. Given how egregious ANB's ban was, even the AFL may have been too embarrassed to hit back.

That is staggering. And very disturbing. Surely there is at least one person in the media not living in fear of the AFL cutting them off?

No depths to which the AFL won't sink sadly.

Another question for our legal experts looking at the weight the outcome should have in these cases. Consider the pedestrian hit by the drunk driver. If for example, the pedestrian ran against a red light which may have led to him being hit by any driver, sober or not, does that help the driver. Does the fact that in ANB's case the 'pedestrian' kept trying to kick the ball rather than protect himself carry any weight?

"or spread their players across multiple clubs." Any AFL club forced to do this by financial or other circumstances will be severely disadvantaged.

Not defending Melk here, but surely if he is entitled to move sideways, (which seems to be unclear) then the umpire shouldn't call 'hold', but instead call 'back 2 metres'. If the issue is the sideways movement, then don't they call 'east west'?

Mazer R's post shows just how inept the AFL rules are. All terms should be clearly defined. The game is hard enough to umpire without having rules that are open to 'interpretation' or are ambiguous in some or all situations. Get some lawyers onto it to draft them properly! Some of the dumber players may have trouble reading such rules, but it is easy for coaches etc to explain what is meant case by case. I know of sports with legalistic rules where there are accompanying documents which spell out what the rules imply for every case a player is likely to encounter.

No chance. All he has to do is ask the opponent what sort of chocolate his partner prefers.

No chance the AFL will bring a charge of bringing the game into disrepute?

Dear Abby, I'm torn about who to barrack for in the Rich vs Ess game this week. I usually have no trouble barracking for the team whose win is in the Demons' interest. Advice please. Yours, Perplexed of Demonland

All this just shows his mindset is the same as in 2000, namely that it is OK to hurt players outside of the actual game. No wonder his players do it, he encourages it. About time the AFL joined the 21st century. If I still had young kids I'd think twice before getting them to play footy.

As if I needed another reason for hating Essendon and Richmond. What a bastard.