They may still do it. It’s Joel’s legacy to the game,I was hoping they would refer this as the “Selwood rule”
Unfortunately Selwood was nowhere to be seen in the three examples used to show what constituted a free against the player deemed to be initiating the high contact on AFL Tonight.I was hoping they would refer this as the “Selwood rule”
There’s an unwritten law that Selwood is not to be criticised ever, for anything. He’s taken over from GJR on that score.Unfortunately Selwood was nowhere to be seen in the three examples used to show what constituted a free against the player deemed to be initiating the high contact on AFL Tonight.
I was hoping they would refer this as the “Selwood rule”
someone should do a video of Selwood examples.I was hoping they would refer this as the “Selwood rule”
Yeah, like the non-decision against Nank on the weekend.
They bring in a new directive to stop the Selwoods if the AFL and it's used against Nank of all people.
Yeah, there was a crackdown or interpretation definement (that’s not actually a word) just like todays but it was never implemented.I feel like the entire footy world is gaslighting us... we have had the Selwood rule introduced before, haven't we?
Or do I have false memories of the Selwood rule being brought in about 5-6 years ago only to be unofficially shelved under Geelong's iron grip over the umpiring department?
"My care factor for what the rules are has reduced enormously over time," Scott said.
"I kind of see it as a badge of honour to understand it better than anyone else."
Of course he doesn’t like it. He’s trained them to milk the rule, now he has to find another trick.Bevo not happy - hopefully they move on to chucking next.
Have you noticed "STAND!" has become "Outside five!"The AFL will completely balls this up. They can't do rule adjustments. That needs thought, time, development and testing. They are incapable of any of that. This will be Scott calling all the umps into meeting room 2 and saying righto no more frees for ducking fellas.
Their so called 'tweak' of the protected area rule has been a farce, they just threw it out.
don't get me started, the farce to end all farces. Creates far more problems than it allegedly solves.Have you noticed "STAND!" has become "Outside five!"
The just make it up. They don't pay anywhere near the attention they used to to the where the actual mark is now. If your somewhere near it you 'stand' if your not you're 'outside 5' which is sometimes actually 3, other times it is 8.Have you noticed "STAND!" has become "Outside five!"
and putting players taking the kick and the MOM on the line? Thats gone by the wayside, its as if they think or hope that we won't notice. These are fundamental elements to the game. By any objective measure its a complete debacle.The just make it up. They don't pay anywhere near the attention they used to to the where the actual mark is now. If your somewhere near it you 'stand' if your not you're 'outside 5' which is sometimes actually 3, other times it is 8.
Collingwobles and Bulldags are the two clubs crying about it the most.Bevo not happy - hopefully they move on to chucking next.