FireInTheBennelly

Sorry to put you through this Jack, but any idea who the controlling umpire at the time was? Lucky number 28 perhaps? Also, anyone watching a replay, there was a contest in our F50 early on, I think before a goal had been kicked. Outer wing, kick into Pedo to attempt a mark. Was it a one or two handed push in the back to take him out of the contest? Play on!

Yes had that in the back of my mind and decided to hell with it, trade the future for a flag. Having said that I still hold hope for Stretch and McKenna, as well as T. Smith and Keilty as talls. Don't forget J. Smith and Maynard as well. I think with those changes we have a cracking side, good depth and the needs are reduced to the lower end of things for quite a while. Garlett is the one for mine as Dion is the only prospect in that role and he doesn't appear all that close at this stage. Look at it the other way, what's the chances of us keeping all of my potential trades anyway? Realistically if they don't come on we're stuck with them, and if they do come on they'll be annoyed at a lack of game time most likely and leave anyway. It's a roll the dice call, if it's possible.

I was thinking this as well. We desperately need some leadership up forward and this guy has it. Helps out with contested marks as well. Is he coming up for free agency end of next year? Shake the tree, see if he's interested in a move back to Vic. I'd include Weids as part of the trade. Not because he's no good, but I think we need him to be further advanced than he currently is. Bringing in Lever at one end and Lynch at the other would make us serious contenders. Would certainly love Kelly kicking it up there, but is that a bridge too far???? (Yes, I know) Depends what you're willing to give up though. For those three players it would mean big draft picks and players, not to mention cap space. I'd throw Weids, Tyson, Frost, ANB, Kent, JKH, Harmes, VDB, Bugg, Wagner all up for trade if it meant we'd pick up those 3 players (apart from Weids all of those players have been regular 22 at some stage). Vince on a 1 year reduced terms depth contract to play at Casey. Trengrove, Kennedy, Hulett delist. Spencer goes as a free agent. J. Smith and Maynard upgraded from the rookie list meaning we only need to take 1 pick to the wishing well. All draft picks go on the table, 1st this and next year, 2nd, 3rd, whatever we pick up in trades, to be used for those 3 players somehow. Finalise the list with cheap free agents for depth and structure on 1 year contracts until the list is in such a state that we can afford to be bringing in more youth. Right now that's the last thing we need. Yep, it's dreaming and more than just a little bit of rubbish. The stretch (apart from a trade miracle) is obviously the salary cap. Perhaps we need to trade for the Hawks accountant as well? Jetta OMac Hibberd Hunt TMac Lever Jones Lewis Kelly Petracca Hogan Watts Melksham Lynch Garlett Gawn Viney Oliver Salem Brayshaw Hannan Pedersen What more could you want??? Lol, nice to dream.

Of course there isn't, it's not a fact. I wrote in the match selection thread that we'd be pack raped by maggots as soon as I saw Pannell's name in the ump list. He made the big error last week and his penance was? More of the same please. I also went on to say that the AFL believe that 90% of AFL fans are dumb as dog's you know what, and this is the line that keeps coming up. It's total rubbish, almost as factual as a ruck rule stating no straight arm fend offs. After our reaming against Carlton in R22 last year, where the same line was pumped out about 2nd to the contest blah, blah, blah to explain why we were only worth 5 free kicks for the entire game (yep, 5), I did my own analysis. Of all the 'basic' stats the AFL provides, the one with the most correlation to victories is guess what? Free [censored] kicks! Not possessions, not even contested possessions. Not tackles, not clearances. Free [censored] kicks! Last year the AFL wanted a dogs premiership. They got a favourable draw, they had the umps in the back pocket (pats on bum included) and they duly saluted. Next challenge, orchestrate the make up of the final 8. Surely not, too difficult. Nup, 4 out of the 5 states represented, even came down to the last quarter of the last game of the year. Couldn't have planned it better if they'd tried. Or did they? It's pretty obvious from here. Who do they want to win? GWS. They'll win, and I'll go out on a limb and say GWS/Essendon grand final. Now wouldn't that be great for the game. As others have said, it has very little to do with the frees that are paid, it's all about the ones that are missed. Early first quarter yesterday, inside 50 to Pedo for a grab. 2 hands firmly in the back, big push out. Play on. You can tell when the maggots are cheating, there'll be an obvious free kick and they yell out 'play on'. Why are they saying that if there's nothing wrong? Play on from nothing doesn't need to be called. That leads me to my next point. Does anyone know how to get data on frees for inside 50? We just don't get them. The non-free to Tom Mac on 3 quarter time is just another example of an obvious error, but won't be discussed as it wasn't paid as a free. It essentially never happened. We get crucified inside 50 week in week out and I'd guarantee we receive the least i50 frees across the league. Left nut on the line! Have a look at the replay and tell me which umpire was camped out in our forward 50 most of the game. I'll give you a guess. Call me crazy, I don't care. If you're a conformer I don't mind (not referring to you Deev), all I can hope for is to slowly raise awareness of these things. They're happening, it's real. The climate is changing!

May I suggest the 'wine' cellar has been loosely named as well.

Yes agreed. History tells us when we criticise umpiring, rather than correct their issues they'll be out to make a statement. Something akin to 'back in your box'. Having said that, we have none of 'the big 3' for this game so I have more confidence of it being a fair encounter. In the corresponding game last year, season on the line, we were paid a total of 5 free kicks in the entire game, while the blues received 20. If that happens again we'll need to be a 10 goal better team to win.

Possibly. He poked the wrong bear there me thinks.

Unless they're all scheduled in the Sunday twilight slot.

It's fairly clear they think the vast majority of footy fans are dumb as dogs you know what. They're getting away with it, so it looks like they are correct in that assessment.

Dear Hayden, please try again.

Wouldn't that undermine Kim Jong-Gil?

Well this is the question for mine. If they've created a whole new interpretation just to screw over one particular player, have they A) Gone into the game watching for this action (i.e. watched some video and determined this is the best way to ping him), or B) Gone into the game with a directive to shut him down and it was all up to Haydos to sort them out after the fact with some crazy made-up rubbish? Either way it's a pretty ordinary look for the game, yet they're getting away with it. Can't wait to see all the extra centre bounce free kicks from now on. Tell your rucks, if the bounce is sitting on the oppo rucks head, jump into him and he'll automatically protect himself and be pinged.

So, just to clarify and make it easier for Joe Public, they gave the reference to the actual rule that was being broken right? Nope. Does anyone know if this rule is actually written anywhere stating that ruckmen cannot fend with a straight arm? Surely they would've given the reference for all involved to read for themselves, unless of course this is all made up drivel to suit their agenda. In layman's terms, it's a new 'interpretation', not a rule.

I believe a few of the posters naming umpires Chamberlain and Nicholls should really be ashamed of themselves. For leaving out this silly looking [censored]! Umpire 28. Troy Pannell, he's just as bad as the rest, if not worse. From memory, it was this [censored] who was patting bulldogs players on the backside during a game last year.

I believe the correct term is in fact 'spud'

I was a bit surprised TMac wasn't played in defense when we were going into the wind. We were playing tempo footy and basically trying to limit their scoring ability, so why not put your most experienced KPD on one of their 3 talls. Fair enough to maximise the wind advantage with him forward in the other 2 quarters. I thought it was a bit odd.

.... and a smoking shredder

Fair enough then. Don't even need to trade ANB, cool.

Yes that's all well and good, but can you run me by your trade scenarios that see us gaining those 2 stars?

I think it's safe to assume he's re-signed

Just wondering - and ignoring any trade scenarios for a second, how much was H on, and would that (possibly x CBA increase %) be enough to secure a young up and comer like Lever? I'd have thought he was on decent coin (???) so trying to get a gauge on what that might be worth in terms of players. If there's a decent enough free agent it's almost like a free hit, but if we can turn that into a May or Lever it's a bit of a no brainer.

Wow this will never end. Judging by the comments section of that story, after this finally calms down it'll be the EFC propaganda department suing the club for overwork after their typing fingers fall off.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

Why so negative? Danger, schmanger!

Really? I thought he worked them over far more than the other way round