Round 3 2024 Non Essendon Games

Every club that has the G as it’s home should be stood down until they put a roof on it. No roof, no stadium, no team. That’s the new rules isn’t it? :grinning::grinning:

2 Likes

434725079_7824134590938759_4598004283577899162_n

4 Likes

That would be because of the delay for the lightning which sent the teams off the ground for 40 minutes. Nothing more sinister.

Was it 40 minutes? The rules linked in this post Round 3 2024 Non Essendon Games - #1716 by JJohnson say if the match doesn’t resume in 30 minutes then it should have been game over.

Edit: Play stopped at 2:08 in the Kayo broadcast and resumed at 2:49.

AFL:

4 Likes

8 Likes

There’s an added clause that allows them to do what they did.

1 Like

It’s still a legitimate tactic, you see teams deliberately kick down the line and out of bounds and straight away set up for the next entry. Knowing that a free kick will be paid gives them time to set up properly.

Which I dont mind because they make the call at the time.

But the mindless bomb to the boundary line anytime a defender is under pressure is much more a thing of the past, particularly outside the last 10 mins.

I also think it has helped drive the desire for excellent users from half back and the ball movement that eventuates in place of more boundary-throw in-contested ball-inch up the ground.

Having said that, teams can still achieve the same outcome by going long down the line to a contest.

1 Like

Yeah, I don’t mind how the rule has evolved. I also like what a previous poster suggested with the last touch rule similar to kick outs but all over the ground. Take out umpire interpretation.

1 Like

The best bit of this (and I immediately identified it at the time they created this rule three decades ago) is that if 30,000 fans invade the ground at halftime of a Grand Final they can guarantee a premiership. You can’t get that many people off the ground.

I just want to see the world burn (as long as we’re not the trailing team at the time!)

2 Likes

Extracting the urine, but yes. The Laws of the Game say 30 minutes, but they are over-ridden by the Regulations of the AFL (60 minutes). This was demonstrated in a previous game (in QLD???)

1 Like

image

2 Likes

The Indian restaurant? It’s called The Heavenly Delight.

IMG_5860

Ralph also said Laura Kane in her role has ultimate and unfettered discretion. Although I love playing along with these hypotheticals, I think in that scenario she would get involved and arrange for a replay (or if it was EFC fans, punitively declare us losers via DQ).

EDIT: To clarify, that was in calling yesterday’s game off whenever she decides that should happen. I wouldn’t be surprised if they reserve specific powers/rights in all other areas though.

1 Like

Allowing Kane (or anyone) to decide the result is asking for a truckload of trouble. How hard is it to have a rule like whoever’s winning at the time wins?

I meant hidden delights as in what they normally do on that show: find a pub or bakery which is willing to pay for a promo, and then act like they’ve stumbled upon a pot of gold.

But that would have been much better!

1 Like

I think the only thing more absurd than giving someone ultimate power over a competition is to not do so and admit that you are powerless to prevent a few thousand people from irretrievably stealing a premiership!

I would have him in our forward line.

Of course the AFL has reserved themselves rights/loopholes to post-determine the result of any game. They did that for SirenGate, though in that case there had been a clear failure to follow the Laws of the Game. They were also lucky it was a setup where you couldn’t say “but if that happened, something else could have consequently cancelled it out”.

In my sit-in scenario, their rules will have been applied correctly. Maybe they can put up chain wire to keep the fans back afterwards.