11 hours ago, Macca said:

Yep, that's a good point too, BoBo

I loved the hands in the back rule and it should still be in operation.  I like it mostly because it's a cut and dried rule. 

Use your hands and you get pinged

Use of the body or the forearm to hold your ground was how it used to be (back in my day)

But you are right, Hawkins just pushed his opponents in the back and because of the shoddy rules, got away with it

The AFL are great at making money and marketing the sport but as custodians, they often fail

Agree.  And when you add that defenders don't dare exaggerate a push and fall over whereas forwards can do so withh little downside, the old rule is the fair way to do things.

I fear it's largely money driven.  They think more goals  = more interest (= more ads).  Personally I prefer a balance between goals and general play. I like neither soccer nor basketball which represent the extremes of scoring.  

The suddenly enforced 'not 15m' calls for defense kicks (without the same being applied to kicks to forwards) also smells to wanting excitement and goals rather than fair play. And while I'm ranting, the 'insufficient intent' rule is getting silly.  Why have it?  What's wrong with a few more boundary throw ins? It's part of our game.  Not exciting enough?

10 hours ago, DubDee said:

Darcy was probably BoG )with Libba and Daicos) but he hit the post twice from 30m with no pressure

He must be feeling it

*side note - love how Darcy seems to hate the Pies and sticks it to Maynard. 

Darcy is beginning to shape as a genuinely likeable genuine champion.

Didn't realise he was 208cm now. Just 1cm off Gawn. Seems to be slightly longer limbed compared to Gawn of the neverending thorax. Like Dustin Fletcher with an extra 10cm!

Looking forward to future Darcy-White match ups.😁

I just wonder how much fighting before, after and during a game goes on because there were several times in last night's game where there was facial/verbal disagreement between several umpiring decisions.

The pushing decision changed the result of that game. So now that type of infringement is not only causing severe injuries but costing Teams Games 

Well done AFL and maggotory in general.

 

Interesting to read ex footballers & some media people making subtle comments about the umpires.

We all know the dogs got screwed over

https://t.co/qYPLFp7s5Q

Lloyd and bartel didn't hold back

9 hours ago, GBDee said:

You may be right. I find it impossible to judge these days but the half-time show compared it to a Harley Reid tackle from last season that brought a two-game ban. They concluded that he (Crisp) may get one because of a lower impact. His head did hit the ground, albeit with little force.

Crisp won’t get suspended. That will ruin his chance of breaking the consecutive games record, Christian will ensure that doesn’t happen 🤬

Not surprised with the lopsided free kick count for a Pies game. If you've ever heard Pendles mic'd up, he constantly talks to the umps and appeals the whole game. I definitely think he uses his 390 odd games experience to try and give the appearance he's a know-it-all when it comes to umpire officiating.

Everybody knows the dice is loaded.

44 minutes ago, sue said:

Agree.  And when you add that defenders don't dare exaggerate a push and fall over whereas forwards can do so withh little downside, the old rule is the fair way to do things.

I fear it's largely money driven.  They think more goals  = more interest (= more ads).  Personally I prefer a balance between goals and general play. I like neither soccer nor basketball which represent the extremes of scoring.  

The suddenly enforced 'not 15m' calls for defense kicks (without the same being applied to kicks to forwards) also smells to wanting excitement and goals rather than fair play. And while I'm ranting, the 'insufficient intent' rule is getting silly.  Why have it?  What's wrong with a few more boundary throw ins? It's part of our game.  Not exciting enough?

Agree with all except I'd adopt the rule the league once had (1926-1939) ... last player to kick or handpass the ball is penalised if the ball goes out of bounds

When the ball is rushed over the boundary line or if there is some doubt, a boundary throw in to result

The above rule is apparently in operation in the SANFL and by all reports, it works quite well

It's a debate for another thread, but I'd definitely go to 16 a side as I much prefer a more open game

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

Agree with all except I'd adopt the rule the league once had (1926-1939) ... last player to kick or handpass the ball is penalised if the ball goes out of bounds

When the ball is rushed over the boundary line or if there is some doubt, a boundary throw in to result

The above rule is apparently in operation in the SANFL and by all reports, it works quite well

It's a debate for another thread, but I'd definitely go to 16 a side as I much prefer a more open game

At least that could be consistenly applied without  requiring umpires with mind-reading skills.

Remember the time we had 1 free kick to 21 at half time v the Eagles in Perth? 😂😂

So if adelaide are serious and want to be taken seriously they must win today. 

Not only to beat the bummers but with who they've recruited there should be no excuses

49 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

...

Looking forward to future Darcy-White match ups.😁

Nup. No interest from me in a Dogs v Suns game 🙂.

33 frees to 14! 

Pretty sure the Dogs got the first 3 or 4 frees of the game too 😮
 

2 minutes ago, sue said:

At least that could be consistenly applied without  requiring umpires with mind-reading skills.

Yes, it's cut and dried.  But let's not forget that the league likes to remain in the news so they love a grey area (in my opinion) 

The 16 a side idea would almost certainly mean we'd have less congestion and therefore, less contentious free kicks

There was a time (especially in the 70's & 80's) when the sport was quite open and free flowing

But again, a debate for another day

So after all the drama surrounding archer last week & a debate about taking out the legs rule, the umps let quaynor get away with one

47 minutes ago, Damo said:

Everybody knows the dice is loaded.

Sports entertainment for sure.

2 hours ago, Ghostwriter said:

On June 16th last year my landlord put my rent up by the maximum allowed. On June 17th this year - the very first day possible - he’s raising it again, and again by the maximum allowed. I don’t barrack for Collingwood so what’s his excuse??? 😭

Given this is a non Mfc  thread I'm going to go off here.

 

Your L.L. is probably just a greedy sod. Sounds like your doing it tough. Unless your part of the growing numbers of people leasing their paid for  primary property and living in a smaller rented abode.

But possibly in his corner it's fair to consider other things have gone up that would hit his or her bottom line.

Landlord and property insurance premiums are through the roof with those who have it paying for those who don't. Not exactly fair.

I'll go without things to insure my properties for  fire and disasters but some people won't. I mean some genuinely can't afford it. But I'm paying all the money increased levies that others are not.

Tbh I'm not wealthy (maybe a little on paper) and I have a small foothold in the real estate segment because my incredible father worked himself ragged to help facilitate his children get a home.

But i really want to return the favor to my beautiful children . Not mansions each. Although I love them so much that would be nice, but something that makes them smile when they come home. A sanctuary of sorts that doesn't have a mortgage that keeps you awake all night. Or one with a roof not coming down in so many rooms. And not a McDonald's manor that eats up the environment.

Just a nice little cottage with the extravagance of a second bathroom and a Pickett fence. ( No not that bloke).

Back to your Landlord.....its tough all around. Repairs are steep. I recently replaced a reverse cycle unit in one place for $2700.  And I got 3 quotes with the cheapest model. The bloke installing them was really helpful explaining his costs in petrol and his offsiders wages and so forth .

But everyone is feeling the squeeze. I couldn't afford flood insurance on one property I have, because silly me bought a place that has a creek behind it. Turns out the conveyancing company didn't give me the full story but ultimately due diligence falls upon me. Caveat emptor or something like that.

Big joke on me..... premium for flood damage is 35 grand per annum. That's close to the return. I passed on that.

But I know it's tough and I'm no saint but I am happy to accept a little less than market rate if the occupants are good ( I didn't know they were pies fans.) if there was ever a valid excuse for discrimination this must be it😀

I don't actually negative gear. Well a little bit. I'm actually not a fan of it. Maybe your first property. But tax breaks for people to accumulate a portfolio of plenty of places isn't really helping the average punter buy a home . And home ownership is an essential piece of the Australian dream. Without this it creates the stress of eviction and who wants that hanging over you and your family's heads. A man's home is indeed his/ her castle and a necessary bit of the fabric of happiness.

The delight in mowing one's lawns, painting the walls, putting on a deck or even dreaming about renovations are such a huge bonus for happiness.

Yea home repairs and costs and mortgages are stressful but much less so than being homeless. I've had mates in this ship and it's not pretty.

I'm clearly not anti class, but negative gearing on a large scale isn't fair. I can't imagine the horror of homelessness.

Prior to my current business I used to work in sales... in particular for a decade, a real estate agent. It used to bowl me over when people would put down 5 % and borrow eye watering amounts. I'm sure a lot of those now would be suffering.

We also possibly need to wonder about the number of new arrivals vis a vis the number of new homes being built. A delicate subject. I think this is going to come to the front in this forthcoming election. Australians are generous and caring people but it's difficult to find room and time for other considerations when your belongings are about to be piled up upon the footpath by some  hard nosed sheriff just doing his job.

Back to the footy.  Some of these blokes don't get how lucky they are to be kicking around a salary that could see them buy a house outright in a third of their time just kicking a ball. Best of British luck to them because it's the greatest game in the world. And Aussies have always dreamt of home ownership. It's what helps make this place the greatest country in the world. And I definitely want this country to stay the greatest one in the world. So it's important we look at all this.

Tx for listening.

Go Oz.

Go Dees.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22Mar 22 by leave it to deever

47 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yes, it's cut and dried.  But let's not forget that the league likes to remain in the news so they love a grey area (in my opinion) 

The 16 a side idea would almost certainly mean we'd have less congestion and therefore, less contentious free kicks

There was a time (especially in the 70's & 80's) when the sport was quite open and free flowing

But again, a debate for another day

I've been on these 2 adaptations for a while now. Our game has too many grey areas, so the last touch out of bounds rule as you detail it cleans that up (there will always be borderline decisions so the AFL still get their endless click bait and Kane Cornes ranting)

And the 16 per team helps achieve 2 things: 1) reduces the constant packs and gives more open, maybe even one-on-one footy. 2) opens up he possibility of a 20 team competition without watering down the talent pool so much.

As for today's matches, my only interest is the Crows who have all the pieces in place and simply have to execute this year. Unfortunately, I have to go shopping for a couple of hours with the Minister of Happiness so please pray for me.

The umpiring was pathetic, but not surprising.

Without a doubt that helped Collingwood get the result, given they won by 6 points.

Expecting the AFL to put their heads in the sand, but really they should come out and say we are reviewing it closely and will be working with the umpires to see how we can improve.

Whenever we have number 22 umpiring I just know it’s going to be a bad day…

Edited March 21Mar 21 by DistrACTION Jackson

Not happy on Bulldogs BigFooty autotopsy thread. Not just with the umpiring. Tim English ('grasshopper' as my friend calls him) is copping an almight pizzling ...

English is weak the sooner Bev and co accept that the better
Timmy is best suited to be a lollipop person in a country town with no cars looking after a level crossing of a kinder that has one student,

 

Edited March 22Mar 22 by At Least I Saw a Flag

38 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

I've been on these 2 adaptations for a while now. Our game has too many grey areas, so the last touch out of bounds rule as you detail it cleans that up (there will always be borderline decisions so the AFL still get their endless click bait and Kane Cornes ranting)

And the 16 per team helps achieve 2 things: 1) reduces the constant packs and gives more open, maybe even one-on-one footy. 2) opens up he possibility of a 20 team competition without watering down the talent pool so much.

As for today's matches, my only interest is the Crows who have all the pieces in place and simply have to execute this year. Unfortunately, I have to go shopping for a couple of hours with the Minister of Happiness so please pray for me.

I reckon we'd all wear a boundary throw in if there was enough doubt about how the ball went out of bounds

Otherwise, it's a turnover

And your point about a 20 team comp not being watered down if we went to 16 a side is a very good one

And good luck with the shopping (isn't Saturday arvo blokes time? Huh?) 

16 minutes ago, Macca said:

And your point about a 20 team comp not being watered down if we went to 16 a side is a very good one

VFL should have moved to 16 a side years ago.

I like the boundary idea but it could be counteractive in the sense that play would avoid the boundary in favour of the corridor thus increasing congestion. Trial it in the VFL for the first half of each year for a couple of seasons perhaps

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

My dad used to lament the AFL killing the game - we’re talking 15 years ago. I laughed it off but he’s right

 

bwtween that and the umpiring - I feel like the presidents should be very very vocal on this 

 

(we were way too timid with Maynard Brayshaw)