sue

Dear Gil, I've watched (too) many games on TV recently and I have no idea when holding the ball frees will be paid or not paid. Please explain. Yours sincerely, Confused Foory Fan

I doubt if players in any teams these days care a fig about the past (with maybe the exception of the odd son in a father-son pair, though even the father these days may have played for more than one team). But trying to motivate players with club history is doubly difficult for the MFC because of our lack of success since 1964 - a date indistinguishable to young blokes from 1864. MFC needs to find other ways to motivate players.

It's a logical error to assume that because they publicly say that they don't plan to rest anyone, to conclude as you do that they are unaware of the differences you listed. It is possible they are aware and yet came to a different conclusion than you. (And of course who knows what they say/plan in private).

Of course. But equally it would be a flawed assumption that Burgess is not aware of all that.

I don't see how that 'rule' applies when it is argued he was trying to kick it to Langdon's advantage.

Complete rubbish (IMO). Look at the video and you see a player trying to bump rather than get the ball or tackle. And with his elbow raised. I guess you’d say that every such collision is down to the victim for not running away.

Clearly the tactic is most useful and worth pushing as far as you can if you are playing against a team with a dominant ruckman. ie. us. Club needs to take it up with AFL

Quite right and an unusual pleasure to see the AFL has more sense than the commentators. (Admitedly low bar). Whately is probably upset that Nev didn't get weeks for leading with his head.

I haven't seen that Deliberate OoB free discussed. But I disagree. Seems to me he was trying to kick it hard a fair way to his left to allow Langdon(?) who was in front of his opponent to run onto it, but accidentally it went far too straight and OoB. I cannot believe that any player would have such a big brain fade that hard that far from the boundary. Unfortunately it's unlikely an ump could avoid paying the free.

I agree. Many times we get pinged for holding the ball at centre ball-ups because one hand of Oliver etc is being held before they take possession of the ball. Or it ensures we don't get away. But I fear the club will never complain because to quote Simon "It is what it is".

This is one more reason to dump the score reviews. Leave it to the umpires. Sure, they will get it wrong occasionally and even a GF may depend on such an error, but umpires make mistakes all the time which can effect the outcome of a game, including in the last 30 seconds. Why focus on this just because we have (sort of) the technology to do so if it introduces significant effects on the subsequent play. Should they put multiple cameras on almost every decision umpires make within 40 metres of goal and stop the play? As I posted elsewhere, what would have happened if a forward marked it like Lever, played on (like he did) and kicked a goal. Would they have made him kick it again after the review confirmed it was marked and not a point? Consistency would say he should have to kick it again, but I wouldn't bet on that happening. Or if he missed when he played on - would he get a second try? But they won't drop the cameras - gives idiot comemntators something else to talk about.

thanks - being an old fogie, I prefer to read quickly rather than watch slow videos, so I didn't see that.

It is frustrating to see our players stand where they were until the ball is given back. As soon as they get a free they should run backwards as fast as they can, giving themselves space as well as being able to play on quickly once they have received the ball - instead they then have to trot back giving the opponents time to set up. How hard is that? Don't they learn that in junior footy?

Seems to me that King wasn't pointing to the deliberate elbow to the head and the need for a penalty for that, just the general head is sacrosanct issue.

Someone said that commentator hates Melbourne. Seems like proof.

Seemed to me that he was pinged for bringing him down with a thud. Possibly a new rule or interpretation.

Dunno if this has been discussed. But the hit to Jetta's head. Seemed to me the Lions player was not going for the ball but chose to bump with his elbow raised. No comment from the commentators. Any comments anywhere?

That's what was paid. But there are many such tackles in a game ignored. In fact holding one arm as the player is brought down is considered a great tackle and an almost automatic free for holding the ball because the player cannot dispose of the ball legally- even the option of kicking is impossible because the player is brought to ground. I reckon only sling tackles should be pinged.

Spot on. It hurts me to say it, but the AFL also needs to get some lawyers to look at the rule book and clean it up to be consistent and as unambiguous as possible. And then get umps to follow the bloody rules, not the latest whim of the AFL heavies (and their advertisers).

Maybe true, but it doesn't answer the question I raised. What is the point of the umpire demanding X, if when you immediatley do X, you get pinged anyway. Either ping him instead of again shouting an instruction ( I presume he'd been asked earlier) or give him the chance to respond and then either ping or not depending on his response.

My 2 cents: Bad kicking for goal cost us the game. Lousy umpiring made it worse and without that we may Frisch 50m penalty. Maybe I need to see it again, but as I heard it, the umpire say give it back now and Frisch did immediately Now maybe he had ignored the umpire earlier, but what is the point of saying give it back now, if when the player does just that, you ping the player? Mark on the goal line. This is a knotty one and may have killed us (Does one at the match have an idea of how free we were on that flank?). The umps have to follow the rules and can't makes guesses like "a point or no point will not affect the result of the game, hence call it a mark and allow play on". On the other hand what if a full forward had taken that mark and turned around immediately and kicked a goal. If it was then reviewed and the mark paid, would he have to then kick at goal again? I bet , no and the goal would be allowed. If so, it is yet another inconsistency in the rules. If you are looking for arguments to do away with score reviews, this would add to the non-inconsiderable pile.

It’s more the interpretations by the umpires. If he walked it through they might have said he had 2 team mates he could have handballed to. There also seems to be a “prior opportunity “ factor not documented.

Far too sensible for the AFL LDvC

https://www.afl.com.au/news/474230/we-won-t-be-reckless-but-we-won-t-be-resting-dees-plan-hard-push and we still have to squeeze in the game against Essendon.

Private school culture - probably the same at most clubs these days Melbourne captain Max Gawn reveals how cigarettes and injuries nearly derailed his AFL career before it began