deanox

Correct godees I expected they would too. They should remove the reduction for an early guilty plea. It is a serious compromise on the system. Players mostly only contest charges where there is no way it could get worse.

I've secured a rocket to the Presidents dinner courtesy of a mate (and fellow demonlander) (Thanks if you're reading). I will however make sure I scan the normal membership to bump the crowd figures up

I had similar thoughts. He definitely isn't Rioli, but he had those evasive attributes. When you watch him play at AFL it makes you wonder why he was taken so late. Surely that evasiveness and quick thinking was evident last year?

From the AFL rules I believe: There is no record, so it must be based on the circumstances, the unusual nature or the suspected mitigating factors. Hopefully their opinion is "he bumped his jaw so must be suspended however we suspect he couldn't do anything but need the tribunal to clear him because it is an unusual case".

There is a big difference between braving for contact (and protecting yourself) and bumping, but the AFL doesn't acknowledge this. If two players run full pace at the ball, both with the intention of collecting the ball and not hitting anyone else they still should be required to protect themselves. A player owes a ditty of care to others, but a player surely owes a duty of care to themselves as well.

Where is it reported? I can only assume it had been referred because it is unclear how to charge it, not referred because it is severe. In some waysa referral is perfect. We don't have to roll the dice and risk more to fight the charge. So we won't just accept two weeks.

The implementation of this interpretation over the past few years is an interesting case study because in theory, the risk of getting pinged for HtB when dragging it in should encourage players to knock it away from themselves rather than pull it in. Unfortunately coaches/players have realised that it is a better percentage option to: -drag it in then try and throw (or fumble) it out to a team mate at the risk of the inconsistent holding the ball free kick (a, it is low risk and b, after a free kick you have 5 seconds to get defensive numbers back and set up zones) compared to - knock the ball blindly where it will be 50/50 opposition clearance and without the benefit of defensive structure set up. Maybe an alternative and/or additional rule/interpretation change should be that "a player cannot take possession when off their feet" (I.e. When lying on the ground) or "if a player takes possession when of their feet they are considered to have had prior opportunity" similar to the ruck contest rule. My concern is that these rules are open to massive interpretation differences and alone and if not enforced every time, will just add to confusion.

This is spot on. Players are being coached to fumble the ball towards team mates. Because of the congestion they get away with it. It only gets picked up when it is in open play eg 1 on 2 on the wing. Thus outlawing "tackling the tackler" will prevent clumps of 3-5 players wrestling on the floor. Combine that with "as soon as the umpires cannot see the ball and it is not clear what has happened and it is not moving, call for a ball up". At the moment they are trying to take as long as they can in the hope that it gets knocked out. But it doesn't get knocked out because there is a scrum of players on top of it, thus the rolling maul. Blow the whistle quicker, and get the players out of congestion. I think it is a better solution than reducing the teams from 18 to 16 or having zones on the field (virtually an offside rule), both of which fundamentally change the game and are intensive to umpire.

I really think that is the thing that would fix many of the supporter frustrations with the game without changing it fundamentally. -It will allow space around the contests for the umpires to see what actually happens. -It will allow space around the contests making it easier for teams to knock the ball out and get clearances. There is a risk that if you can "tackle the tackler" the defensive team will be able to double or triple team the player with the ball, resulting in a higher chance of free kicks against the isolated player. I think this is countered by the fact that the more tacklers the harder it is to get the ball out thus it becomes a ball up (i.e. If you are grabbed from each side and the ball is pinned to you it is a ball up). This will encourage players to try and win the free kick on their own or try and won the ball that spills loose. At the moment the umpiring encourages mass scrums because players know of they can get stacks on and prevent the ball coming out they area good chance of getting a holding the ball free kick. Let's eliminate that.

Some relevent rules for discussion. Interestingly I ntoe that the wording has changed significantly for some of these over the past 10 years. http://www.aflvic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Laws-Of-Aust-Football-2014.pdf

To clarify did he say something like: "Stop playing that [censored] Melbourne game plan and take it up the guts" Or did he say: "Stop [censored] around and chipping it and kicking it around the boundary and run up the guts!"

Thanks C&B. Any ideas went we dominated the first and not the second? We're they down in the first or were we down in the second? Or was it related to style of game?

Ron (and anyone else), I didn't get to see the game today. Did it play out like I anticipated (only 4 goals better)? It sounds like there may have been two games within the game (I.e. First half when we scored more and the second half when we tried to hang on). How did the tactics of each team look?

Don't get me wrong, I was pretty disappointed after the saints and suns matches. But I had to remember sitting there over the last two years thinking "all I want is a big effort and a close game and not to be smashed every week". The first step is to be competitive. The second is to be consistent. The third is to win them all, even the ones we shouldn't win. We are 6 games in, I don't expect too much.

Yeah that's good analysis. I don't believe our disposal really is that bad. In fact I think most AFL clubs look like they have great disposal when they are beating an opponent and look terrible when they are being shut down. When the are no attacking options because of a good quality, hard working opposition defence, "disposal" and decision making looks poor. If we continually break down a high risk center corridor attack, our counter attack should be under low pressure. We still lack talent and form up forward which means we probably won't win the game. It will be interesting to see if we take the counter attack wide to avoid the high risk corridor turn over, or if we just rebound straight up the guts. Either way I expect a massive focus on making it a scrum through the centre and stopping Adelaide getting that Centre run they want.

In Adelaides wins this year they have scored 136, 137, and 92. In their losses they've scored 70-80. Interestingly they have the third highest points for and the 5th most points against. In fact they have the 2nd highest combined points for and against (1175 v Hawthorn with 1183). Melbourne has the 8th lowest points against and the lowest combined at 810. It will be interesting to see if we can dictate terms. We may not have the fire power or confidence to win, but if we can force the game to be played our way that is the first step in the process to being a successful team. Keep them to 70-80 points, score 60 ourselves. 2-4 goal loss. I'd consider that progress.

In some ways, playing against a high risk corridor game should suit is. We have increased or ability to shut teams down; this should apply tomorrow as well. Our skills are good when not under pressure and if we can shut down high risk opposition corridor attacks we should be under less pressure when implementing counter attacks. In fact I'm pretty sure that is the preferred Roos game plan. We have struggled entering attack when other teams have been able to set up. We've struggled with contested marking and don't have great crumbers. Quick movement is the key and counter attacking against a high risk opponent gives us that opportunity. IF we can successfully shut down their attack ours could flourish. That's my theory anyway! I don't expect to win but it will be a good test.

The crows have the third highest points for after 6 games, so how we restrict them (or fail to) will be an inductor of how we are improving. It will be a good test for the team.

Last year we had a percentage of 54.1. We are 1-5 with a percentage of 67.3. (13% better than last year) Take out the WCE match and we have 1-4 with a percentage of 90.7. (36% better than last year) I'll say that again. 90.7% For statistical sake, remove the outliers and take out both our worst game (WCE) and our best game (Carlton): 0-3 with a percentage of 70.8. (thats 16% better than last year) I am not un happy with our start. Had the dice roll been in our favour Dawes would have been available round 1, and Tom McDonald (of all people) would not have been injured. In that case I would have backed us to beat the saints and with some momentum I reckon we may have beaten one of GWS or GC. Maybe. The only facts are, apart from the WCE game this year, we have scored an average of less than 10% than our opponent across 4 games. I will take a seasons of close losses over the last 2 years any day. And you know what? Next year we'll get even better. We'll start to learn how to win, and it will become a habbit. I hate to say it, but it will never be a quick fix. But we are well on our way.

Best case scenario for us is the AFL continues to encourage North Melbourne in Tassie. It is unlikely that medium term Hawthorn will move to Tassie. They are too powerful here in Melbourne, even if they may be the logical choice; they are strong and wealthy enough to survive the move, they have the most Tasmanian support. It is unlikely that will happen, so I hope the AFL put a stop to Hawthorns tassie experiment and let North play 5 games there, seeing them up for the full time move. We all hate the NT games but in some ways it may be smart: it is not realistic to host a team there full time. Establishing ourselves in Tassie (like North has been doing) may have opened the door to a move down there.

THIS. I can't remember a Melbourne team that has been able to do this. The defence has been solid, but the real improvement has come from the midfield. They've made it hard for oppositions to get the ball forward. And when they have got it forward they have made the entries difficult, not 30 m directly in front lace out. While a lot of behinds have be kicked against us I'd love to see some stays on those: distance, angle, crumb/loose v mark and also shots from free kicks (I feel we've had a disproportionate number of goals kicked against us either directly from a free kick or from a free kick which gave them the forward entry - which has the result of disrupting our defensive set ups). We need to work a bit harder on running and presenting when moving ball between the arcs. And we need to work better on delivery into the forward 50. Quicker transitions will help and these should come as we start to run for each other and present better. I can see us on the right track.

Following from Cross's comments, this is where I hope leading teams starts to work. It shouldn't be Roos pulling players in to line, it should be the other players. My suggestion for Monday is for the whole squad to sit and watch the game together. Roos would highlight where mistakes are made regarding game plan and tactics but not pull players up. It would be the players job to identify where they didn't go as hard as they could or where they made mistakes. The squad would then "leading teams" style evaluate their own match in front of the rest of the group "This week I did x y and z well. I need to improve a b and c and remove d and e from my game entirely." the other players then evaluate the evaluation "actually you didn't do this right either" "you could be a great player if only you..." "you did x well also". It's the only way we'll move forward. Make players accountable and honest for their own performance. And have their team mates pull them into line if not. We couldn't do this previously because we had no senior players. But now we have Jones, Cross, Dawes, Garland, Grimes as no nonsense senior players to give authority to this instead of Moloney, Bruce and Robertson.

I like the 1-6 format because it throws up lots of ideas. 1-3 is often easier to pick out, the lower is harder and is good to hear what others think. I really don't understand how Jamar sneaks in. Tallest bloke on the field takes one mark all day and has virtually no influence as far as i could see. I thought he broke even in the ruck (won taps but not to advantage) and was average otherwise. I hope he warms up with a couple of games. What did you see that I didn't?

6. Pederson 5. Jones (Matt) 4. Jones (Nathan) 3. Dunn 2. McDonald 1. Vince

Terlich costs us goals every week. Defensively he makes 3-4 costly mistakes. And his disposal keys is down. His endeavour is amazing. And that effort is an important part of us moving forward, but until he is replaced/forced out we will continue to be a terrible error riddled side.