12 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I might be shouted down, but what about auctioning tickets to the highest bidders? I don't usually support inequity like this, but the clubs need money more than usual and perhaps following a more mercenary route might be acceptable under current circumstances. I hasten to add I would not support such a strategy in more normal times.

This season was all about nothing but money...so why not

Mind you MFC may not be able to fill their allotted minimum come round 8 onwards

I'd have thought that it might be the highest category season ticket holders that would get first dibs at match day entry, then down through the membership tiers to GA or until our seat allocation has been exhausted. Not dissimilar to the finals. 

2 hours ago, binman said:

Forget ET the news breaker. binman is the Nostradamus of  demonland. A pro pontificator.

Hubs: tick

Crowds at footy: tick

Omac in team: tick

Next predictions:

Harley Bennell: the best recruit (ie from another club) the MFC has had. Ever

Scoring: teams to be more attacking this year with a much greater emphasis on scoring 

 

None of which should be used as vindication for you calling me self-righteous earlier this year. (Does that sound self-righteous?), he said ringing his hands in angst.

 

7 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

The NRL have gone back to one ref...we've added an ump?

Go figure.....

Caro said up to half the seats in Gabba would be available for fans. Then said only 1000 would be allowed in. Same for GWS. AFL, NSW and QLD have all denied this.

Provided there isn't a second wave I'm predicting crowds at games in 4 weeks. That rules out Pies and Tigers from going to WA hub. Just our luck we'll be shipped off to WA just as fans are allowed in.

9 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Why is an extra Umpire needed this time?

They just CANNOT stop changing rules!!

18 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Why is an extra Umpire needed this time?

They just CANNOT stop changing rules!!

How is adding an umpire going to change the rules?

#perennialoutraged

20 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Why is an extra Umpire needed this time?

They just CANNOT stop changing rules!!

Sounds like it's not a extra ump but an ump on the bench that rotates into the game.

I assume that it's because they want to keep umpires employed & presumably fit while there is no reserves competition. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Sounds like it's not a extra ump but an ump on the bench that rotates into the game.

I assume that it's because they want to keep umpires employed & presumably fit while there is no reserves competition. 

Just an extra person to interpret rules differently!!

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Just an extra person to interpret rules differently!!

So by that logic we should have only one umpire doing all games?????

Just now, Moonshadow said:

So by that logic we should have only one umpire doing all games?????

No that’s not my logic

Edited June 10, 20204 yr by Sir Why You Little

So what is your logic WYL, except for outrage?

Umpires are all trained the same, there's still only 3 on the ground, there are no changes to the rules (as far as I know), and it keeps them all 'match fit'. What's the problem?

15 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Sounds like it's not a extra ump but an ump on the bench that rotates into the game.

I assume that it's because they want to keep umpires employed & presumably fit while there is no reserves competition. 

This should have been the norm ever since they had three umpires on the ground and an emergency umpire. It should improve the overall standard of umpiring because it creates more opportunities for umpires to be on the field actively umpiring top level games thereby improving those individual's ability to umpire to a higher standard. It should also make umpiring a more attractive option than it is now. After all, who wants to be the umpiring equivalent of cricket's 12th man?

10 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Get used to more inconsistent umpiring from one end of the ground to the other.

18 hours ago, binman said:

 

Harley Bennell: the best recruit (ie from another club) the MFC has had. Ever

 

 

And we wait with baited breath.

It would be an absolute slap in the face when, fans are allowed in at minimum numbers, the loyal paid up members aren’t given first dibs. 

I along with many others pay hundreds of dollars for memberships each year. I haven’t asked the club for a cent back, although I’m out of a job due to Covid. I would be furious if I wasn’t given first dibs to attend matches, along with our other paid up members. 

Of course with less attendance available than members, it would have to be done at a first come first served basis, but members have to come first. Otherwise don’t expect people to sign up again. 

Gil: The field is already cluttered as it is, should we make the game 16 a side? Throw some ideas out to me people..

Hocking: How about we add an extra umpire? 
 

Gil: That’s why I pay you the big bucks. Make it happen. 

Edited June 10, 20204 yr by Ethan Tremblay

Just now, Ethan Tremblay said:

Gil: The field is already cluttered as it is, should we make the game 16 a side? Throw some ideas out to me people..

Hocking: How about we add an extra umpire? 
 

Gil: You’re an ideas man. 

Fake news, Ethan.

The field will not be any more cluttered as there will still only be 3 umpires on the field at any one time.

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Fake news, Ethan.

The field will not be any more cluttered as there will still only be 3 umpires on the field at any one time.

Well for the sake of not making my post redundant, let’s pretend there’s 4...

2 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

So what is your logic WYL, except for outrage?

Umpires are all trained the same, there's still only 3 on the ground, there are no changes to the rules (as far as I know), and it keeps them all 'match fit'. What's the problem?

My logic is that it is completely unnecessary, more eyes just mean more varied interpretations. 
 

The same can be said for shortening Quarters. Completely unnecessary, and should never have even been considered

That is 16+ minutes of game time gone  

 

Suits justifying their jobs and nothing more

 

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

 

 

The outraged justifying their posts and nothing more

 

Fixed for you

17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

My logic is that it is completely unnecessary, more eyes just mean more varied interpretations. 
 

The same can be said for shortening Quarters. Completely unnecessary, and should never have even been considered

That is 16+ minutes of game time gone  

 

Suits justifying their jobs and nothing more

 

I'm not convinced yet that this is necessarily true. What really matters is the total time from siren-to-siren of each quarter. Over the last decade, additional "time-on" has been added due to a more consistent use of "time-on" along with other rule changes (such as ruckmen nomination). This extended the siren-to-siren time so that quarters regularly went 35+ minutes. It is quite possible that the 16 minute quarters plus time on might get us back to a more real 30 minutes siren-to-siren per quarter.  If that's the case, it would be a good move.