sue

So if I now start a discussion here about some arcane rule, you'll be happy to discuss it here. It does matter where comments are made, otherwise why not have a single thread for everything. Don't worry, with you around there is no danger of a silent free fall. (Sorry I should have posted this in the 'my club is a disaster and some people can't get enough' thread.)

How to get a 50 penalty: turn your back so the opp can’t throw the ball to you. ( and change you name to daicos)

About the only negative thing any media person has said about him.

Imagine the amount of wrist cutting on here if this was Demons vs North.

I agree it is hard for us supporters to see our players take a 'gentlemanly' attitude to Maynard. But I can't condemn them for doing so like some have done on here. For a start, we don't know what has gone on since late last year. For all we know Maynard crawled on his knees to Melbourne players and apologized sincerely and this has been accepted by the playing group. Now before your say 'yeah, as if that's likely', I'm just saying we don't know. We don't know their relationshps. So I won't condemn Petrracca for shaking his hand rather than punching him in the guts (as much as I would have enjoyed the latter).

I appreciate very much those links. And we all understand why the mods will rightly explode if you paste the entire article. There's a lot of info posted here and elsewhere on how to jump paywalls. Try a bypass paywalls add-on to your browser. You might have to try a few to find one that works for you and it may work on some sites and not others. Another trick which works sometimes is to use an AI chatbot (like llama3) and ask it to summarise an article at the URL. If they get past the paywall the summary can be as good as reading the article. Sometimes not.

If you want to keep something confidential, then why mention it at all? The only justification for doing so would be if the player had a public breakdown or something 'off' that was obvious to a spectator and you wanted to explain why he was under pressure (with the player's permission).

Certainly true in hindsight after seeing the scans etc. But we are kidding ourselves if we can be sure they made a mistake given the info they had at the time. They may have got it wrong, they may not have. We don't know. But some here and in the media claim they are sure, often with a barrow to push.

Isn't that all the more reason to do something. Doesn't have to be official cheer squadn action, surely?

Are there any special plans to honour Gus at the match, WCW?

Thanks for sparing the rest of us from watching such a shameless video LG. I don't doubt you re the bit above, but if you or someone can list each case it would be useful in dealing with the 'footy acts' aquaintenences I have unfortunately.

What drives me even madder is that when a forward is pushed, they exaggerate the result and fall to the ground or otherwise remove themselves from further involvement in the play and get a free. Whereas a pushed defender doesn't dare take themselves out of the play and gets no free for the same amount of pushing. Sorry I mean holding their position.

That is interesting. Isn't the AFL saying it's only during breaks between quarters?

Assuming you'd want to, how would you then outlaw Gridiron style throwing?

"It has become clearer throughout the season that in discharging their duty of care whilst executing a tackle, tacklers are positively electing not to take tackled players to ground in the tackle or are generally doing so in a reasonable way including by not using excessive force," the AFL said in a statement on Wednesday morning. "As a consequence, we are seeing players hold onto the ball slightly longer and challenging the definition of “reasonable time”. So, the AFL is saying the reason players are able to hold on to the ball too long is that they no longer get instantly smashed to the ground. Something just doesn't ring true and is a recipe for further interpretations to come. "Our umpires are clear on the interpretation of holding the ball and it continues to be a focus of umpire coaching each week. We want to ensure our Clubs, Coaches and Players understand the rules and how they are being officiated." Typical poli-speak. If they are so clear on the interpretation why do we see so many inconsistencies?

Whoopee, I'm sure the advertisers and 7 love lots of goals, but I don't. An endless goalfest can be pretty boring - stops the play a lot for a start. A game can be interesting to watch and full of tension with little scoring. Soccer fans around the world put up with ridiculously low scoring. (Too low scoring in my opinion since either there is no winner or a win that doesn't really separate the teams. All they need do is widen the goals a bit to take into account that people are taller than there were in 1870 or whenever).

surely they should just be disposals, and listed as effective or not.

Unless you are part of his medical team that statement does nothing for your credibility

Yes. I turned off the game when C'wood got their last goal and only watched the rest when I heard the result. And I heard the ump say to a C'wood player near the wing 'give the ball straight back to me'. A few minutes they infringed that near rthe goals. How sad.

Insufficient intent - what an embarrassment

Can't for copyright reasons of course. But mods, can I use an AI engine which produced this summary. Note all I did was ask it to summarise the articel at that URL. (compared to what facebook etc do stealing news copyright, this is nothing): The article from The Age discusses the impact of the AFL's rule changes introduced by former AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan, also known as "Hocking's Rule Changes", and argues that the league should reconsider or undo these changes. Here's a summary:The article cites statistics and data to support the claim that the rule changes have had a negative impact on the game. Specifically: 1. Increased congestion: The article notes that the rule changes have led to an increase in congestion in the middle of the ground, resulting in fewer clearances and more stoppages. 2. Decreased scoring: The data shows that the average score per game has decreased since the introduction of the rule changes, with teams scoring an average of 10.5 points less per game. 3. Increased injuries: The article suggests that the increased congestion and physicality of the game have led to an increase in injuries, particularly to the knees and shoulders. 4. Decreased pace: The statistics indicate that the game has become slower since the rule changes, with teams taking longer to transition from defense to offense. 5. Decreased fan engagement: The article suggests that the rule changes have led to decreased fan engagement, with attendances and TV ratings declining.The article argues that the rule changes were intended to improve the game by increasing scoring and reducing congestion, but the opposite has occurred. It suggests that the league should reconsider or undo the rule changes to improve the game and increase fan engagement.The article concludes by stating that the AFL should listen to the concerns of coaches, players, and fans and consider making changes to the game to improve its overall quality and entertainment value.

The 5 metre rule is totally confusing to me. I never know where the 5m is (nor do the players and umps who relaible can't estiate distances) Sometimes it is not clear if the ump is saying 'you are beyond 5m' or 'get beyond 5m'. Is it clear? If so, tell me which or both?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-stats-that-show-why-the-afl-should-undo-hocking-s-rule-changes-20240515-p5jdti.html Couldn't agree more personally.

I reckon a lot of the media are doing precisely that.

Sometimes they AFL concedes the ump made a mistake. Not happened for us I suppose.