sue

I’d be very embarrassed.

I'm amazed Binman that you found multiple GWS supporters. Oh I see you said people, sorry

I know you didn't really mean that it was Gus' fault. But you should stick to arguing Maynard's case, not saying if Gus had done this or that it wouldn't have happened. It's not as if Gus changed direction etc. As to Maynard's intentions - IMO his intention was to smother and run through Gus if the opportunity arose. Evidence is in the vision and in the fact that this does not happen regularly with front-on smothers. Maynard's history doesn't help either.

Sure, doubtless there would be one-eyed supporters on here that might react differently if a MFC player did what Maynard did. So what. It does not excuse Maynard's actions. He didn't just mistime it - if so they'd be a few such mistimed smothers each round. But there are not. Hence it is not so "rich" to infer devilish behaviour in this case. Not so devilish to automatically assume he meant to knock him out, but devilish enough.

If the Saints wanted to respect his privacy, all they need have said is 'he is not well and can't play'. Instead they said: "Membrey is currently receiving appropriate care and treatment due to a personal health matter," St Kilda said in a statement. "Tim's health and wellbeing is our primary concern and the club asks that Tim and the Membrey family's privacy is respected at this time." I don't think the fact that apparently the AFL had to give special permission changes that. If the AFL has a policy on when they are prepared to do that, it should be published and framed in a way that is so broad that it gives no extra fuel to speculation yet prevents club's from breaking the normal rules about selection.

So it's Gus' fault for daring to kick a ball with the wrong foot. FMD. Explain why players don't frequently get cleaned up like that in front-on spoil attempts. The answer is: because almost all the time their aim is to smother, not annihilate.

Hardly an overwhelming list. I'm not across those 2 cases, but I doubt you can say there was no impediment to us getting them other than the failure of our coach to want them?

Please list all the established forwards that were available to us in the last 2 years and consider why we didn't land them.

It's partly wearing thin because every time we find a forward they get injured. Frisch out for many games, Petty out just as he shows he's a forward after coming back from injury, Melksham just as he shows he still a forward to be reckoned with. And to top it off our two old blokes, Brown and Tmac, who maybe just had a bit more in them ended up injured for most of the year. And now JVR out. How much of this is Goodwin's fault? You need a lot of things to win a premiership. Luck is one of them.

But it is reasonable to argue penalities should be bigger in finals. The stakes are high in AFL finals especially where a team may meet the same team twice. For example, when it was clear we were going to lose to C'wood, but could meet them in the GF, why not get some second tier player (little Bill?) to knock the daylight out of the C'wood player we feared most in a GF?

Carlton doc's will say grogginess is a symptom of sore ribs

I'm totally staggered at the commenators (and others) - when was the last time anyone saw a smother that turned into a shirt front? If the AFL accepts this or let's it off on some mumbo jumbo legal technicality then I can only assume that those who run the AFL assume they will be well and ruly retired before the lawsuits destroy Australian footy.

Simple. His actions should make it clear his aim was solely to smother the ball, not take out his opponent.

FMD. I've seen plenty of attempted spoils that miss the footy by a couple of cms. But not seen what happened next. (Again, leaving aside the concussion, just the action.)

This rubbish about it being simply an attempted spoil with an unfortunate accidental outcome. I have never seen a spoil with that outcome before. I don't mean the concussion, I mean the front on contact with the player.

Not suggesting it's a good idea to play Grundy, but wouldn't it be nice if he played on Howe and kicked 5 goals.

Sorry to be a pedant, but your, not you're - which could at a stretch read like C'wood is our worst nightmare.

Not a good day for him, but the ball was up the other end most of the day. Hard to get into it in the circustances.

And they didn't even need to call in their lawyers.

It seems North's VFL had a pretty average season and only 5 AFL listed players on the weekend. Before we get too excited about the propsects of either Grundy or TMac it would be good to have to intelligence on the quality of the individual people they were playing against. Does anyone have it?

The player that wins the Brownlow this year will always have to put up with C'wood supporters and their mates in the media saying 'they only won it because our boy got injured'. I guess that's better than saying someone only won it because he had expensive lawyers.

So if a player shoots at goal but falls short a teammate can punch it through the goals and it’s 6 points? Don’t like it too

But what about the case where a player kicks a ball bouncing towards goal and an opposition player runs it through the goal under pressure within 9m? Unless that is always a goal we will have umpires trying to decide if he ran it through under some unspecified degree of contol or if it just touched or brushed him. Also I don't think we want kicks to be declared a goal when a defender makes a great effort to hit the ball through the goals.

I'm disappointed, I opened this thread thinking you'd had provided a spoof 3 word player analysis for our amusement.

There are so many issues about the AFL and umpiring (not the poor buggers stuck with the job) that I don't think you need a tinfoil hat to think the AFL likes it that way to keep the clicks ticking over. The inconsistency during the heat of a game is perhaps unavoidable, but what in blaze justifies the disappearance of the dissent rule which was introduced to help recruitment of junior umpires etc etc? There were a few people on here who blasted anyone who dared criticise its "zero tolerance" nature as just a step too far. I don't recall them castigating the AFL for going soft on the rule later in the season. Perhaps like the rest of us they realise there is little point in grumbling about the AFL's policies.