deanox

That sounds absolute rubbish. Don't change the song. It may be strange that the song doesn't mention the team name but that is a quirk. Does anyone not barrack for Melbourne Bebside the song doesn't mention our name? Does it cost us money? No need to change.

I thought that Earl's charges of use still stand but that the charge of "trafficking" was dropped?

Interesting plan. Give the emergency half a game at Casey two days before the game. I wonder if the boys were told who would be emergency, or just told "one of you will get to be emergency for Moday. Put in your best effort and we'll sub you off at half time."?

Spewing I'm headed overseas on August 8.

Frawley back on Cloke, Gawn stays forward? Just an idea on how beat to beat them.

I agree with your sentiment, but unfortunately the way the AFL is going there will be less "developing and keeping players" and more "buying what we need". I have no problems with taking overs on offer of that improves our last in the short and medium term and helps us in our goal of winning a flag. While Frawley is a good player and very valuable to us, I believe we can win a flag in the next 4 years without him. He isn't as critical to our success as others. And if we can get a good return and improve our position then so be it.

I must say, I'd rather lose him and get a top 5-6 pick, than lose him in 2 years at get pick 12! If Hogan comes good (and stays) Frawley is less important to our set up long term. I haven't watched the video, but apparently there are a few KPD options in this years draft: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-05/road-to-the-draft-podcast-

He quotes the law which states that you can't be suspended for head high contact of you had no other way to contest the ball. Then argues against that. His whole article is built on his own misunderstanding.

I like this idea. One step further though, so that clubs aren't forced to overpay average players, we need a mechanism which allows players to receive less pay: any club that does not pay 100% of the Cap returns the money to a central pot which is then divided equally amongst every afl listed player.

He'll get some running done then come back through the vfl. How many games he pays there is dependant on form. Take 10 marks, kick 6.2 and give 2 off in week one? He'll be in the AFL week 2.

Out of interest that is less games than jack Watts! For the record I agree we will be chasing elite kicking, hard working half backs. But my take on Grimes is that he is a hard worker and one of the best readers of the play in the team. It is just the brain fades that let him down, they are glaring.

Is it much bigger than the g? It might look bigger on tv because the cameras are low to the ground.

It certainly wasn't a great dream!

Had a dream that we traded Hogan to Fremantle for David Mundy and their first round pick...

They need to throw the book. The last few weeks a number of players (Viney, Hannebery, Cooney) been involved in contact that collected the head and in some cases caused damage. These players weren't charged because they were contesting the ball reasonably and protecting themselves. This is somewhat embarrassing for the AFL after their "no contact to the head" policy. So what should be banned? This. High contact (hit his head). High impact (player was subbed). Intentional (Sidebottom jumped into the contact and lifted an elbow) Best case scenario for sidebottom is that they judge it reckless, but that would be very generous. While he is initially contesting the ball when he realises he won't win it he elects to jump and bump. Surely that is intentional.

I can't say this with confidence, but I think most people will find these jokes are pretty average.

If you want to make the stats fairer bit no less pleasing, remove both the "best and worst" outliers.

Agree TGR. I think he turned to protect himself and try and win the ball, then when he realised that Ablett turned into him he was forced to lose his feet to avoid the high and dangerous contact. It would only take a couple of fines/suspensions for players who lead with the head and players will all turn back the other way. Force all players to protect themselves. At the moment there is incentive to put yourself in danger if you can be the first to the ball.

I'm not quite sure what your point is about the accuracy. You seem to acknowledge the fallacy in referring to kicking accuracy (i.e. You can't claim "if they kicked straight they'd have 20 goals" because roast shots wouldn't occur) but then you seem to come back to "but we had better accuracy". I'm sorry but I don't quite get what you are saying. It is an interesting analysis and something that if love to hear the coaching staffs take on it. I'd also like to see stats regarding "shot difficulty" i.e. shot type (on the run/crumb/snap/set shot), angle, distance and luck (crazy bounces) and compare our scoring shots vs the opposition. I suspect we'd have had the higher percentage shots over the games referred to. I'd also like to see stats on "repeat shots" i.e. How many shots on goal, in a row without an opposition forward entry. I suspect on this stat, we'd be close to 1, while our opponents would be closer to 2. To me that is significant because it points to our poor transition from defence (read skill errors) and also potentially s lack of forward pressure generating repeat shots ourselves.

What I think is being said is that even though the scores/stats day: Richmond 29 scoring shots at 33% Melbourne 21 scoring shots at 65% You need to take into account that of they scores at 65% they wouldn't have had 29 shots. The game is about how many goal scoring opportunities you can generate. And we don't clear the ball well, so Richmond generated lots of shots in a row BUT only generate 1 goal for each of these opportunities. Once they score a goal, the game reset to the centre bounce, where the game was even and Richmond struggled to generate shots. For example, let's assume, every time they kicked a behind, they kicked a second then kicked a goal (33% accuracy). That means they got 3 shots at goal for each goal scored. If they had 100% accuracy, one could argue you must reduce their scoring shots as well to 33% because, upon resetting to the centre, Richmond would not have had those extra shots. We may have had more opportunities to take the ball forward from the centre.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mark-thompson-on-list-to-coach-dees-says-paul-roos-20140526-zrp12.html Apparently Roos threw Mark Thompson into the ring.

A few others got reported for striking this round. I thought Ablett's act was no different than any of those.

haha interesting idea, suspending players for not protecting themselces? Moorcroft would have got weeks for his speccy! I think it should be deemed "accidental", no suspension. And subsequently I think the AFL should direct players to start looking after themselves. The AFL has run with "the head is sacred" for a few years and players are choosing to lead with the head because they know they will either draw a free kick from an over-zealous umpire, or that by leading with their head, opposition players are forced to lessen their attack on the footy. Leading with your head in an attempt to force opposition players to look after you isn't acceptable. Turning, bracing for contact and taking that contact is the tough way to play the game. It is clear that Cooney was not intending to bump or hip and shoulder, just trying to win the footy while bracing for body contact.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-05-25/cooney-reported-for-high-hit-on-ablett http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-25/star-report-not-dogs-only-worry Cooney is running in to contest what was a loose ball at a 90 degree angle to Ablett. If Cooney kept running straight he would have barrelled into Ablett head first and potentially hurt himself. Ablett glances up (the final footage clearly shows that Ablett looks up towards Cooney) and choose to turn 90 degrees so he is facing head first towards Cooney. Cooney, who had turned to protect himself, crashes into Abletts head instead of Abletts side, gives away a free and gets reported. That Cooney looses his feet just before the impact will probably work against him, and make it look sloppy or reckless. The impact to Ablett's head only occurred because Ablett chose to turn that way. Ablett was in a position to win the ball AND protect himself, however he chose to put himself in danger to try and prevent Cooney contesting the ball. I don't like to see dangerous head high clashes, but I hope this is thrown out in line with the Viney and Hannebery examples. The AFL needs to stamp out dangerous front on contact, BUT they need to force, through tribunal decisions, ALL players to protect themselves, not just the player who arrives a fraction late. Turning into the play was dangerous and Ablett exposed himself to unnecessary risk. Edit: One could argue that Ablett turned because of the way the ball rolled and bounced, meaning that at the last second he had to turn that way if he was to gain possession. And if that is accepted as being the case, then it is unreasonable for a tribunal to expect that Cooney either would have had time to either predict that the ball would bounce awkwardly or time to react and change the direction and nature of his attack on the ball. In this case it should be awarded as a free kick then deemed "accidental" and "unavoidable" and thrown out. Also, Ablett bounced up and took his kick. Surely that is "insufficient force" for a report?

It was "unfair".Seriously.