deanox

not true it has changed significantly. last season, we kicked to the boundary line ( a short chip). then tried to kick lnog along the boundary to a man on thw wing, where it was turned over or pushed out of bounds. yesterday we had a new tatic. kick to the 50 on the boundary line, then kick back to the goal square followed by a short chip to the far side. this way we ensure that all melbourne players who bothered to move in the first place are on the side of the ground firthest from the ball, and we are now confronted with the remnants of the hawthorn zone defence. ingenious way to ensure we lose possession. ps every now and then we take a more obvious route, where we take a short chip to the pocket followed by centring the ball to a hawthorn player 30m out directly in front, to ensure that they can't miss the goals...

i got that at work today... 'oh you barrack for melbourne?' was followed up with silence, even from the hawks fans. some even consoled me saying how woeful we were...

exactly right. if anyone deserves it for memorial reasons it is melb v geelong...

2003 25.04 Sydney Melbourne The SCG N 18:30 17.7 (109) 13.7 (85) since then we have played mfc vs sfc on anzac weekend but never on the day (04 we played on the 24th, 05 we played on the 23rd, 06 we played on the 23rd, 07 on the 27th). this year we have brisbane lions on the 27th. the afl will probably argue that melb v syd did not get much attention or become a big rivalry it its 5 years, but they didnt really sell it did they? if we had've been played either day or night, before or after the essendon v collingwood match and i was billed as a big double header, anzac match 'two states' etc it could have caught on. we didnt exactly get that chance did we?

they tried to organise melb v sydney for anzac day in sydney. the aim would be to have that run after the essendon collingwood match and get a double header. we did it for a year or two, to reasonable success, and at least it was something for the sydney crowd to talk about. but the afl decided that we could no longer do it and that it essendon/collingwoods day only...

in all honesty i didnt realise they still had a website. whe i type www.afl.com.au into my browser i get a page that has listed the 16 clubs and their websites and another link to 'www.afl.com.au' and a link to toyota aurion. i cant find any other info!

good call. i am a redlegs member so usually sit up on level two, i dont get down there (the cs) very often. maybe todays the day?

jjc i agree. i like the rules the way they are and think the interpretations stink. you should have 5 metres protections at all times. the other rules that get me are: a player who has possession and is running and bouncing, is tackled and spun around in a circle and then handpasses. he has already had prior oportunity so the tackler should win the free kick for holding the ball. if the player with the ball hasnt had prior opportunity then he gets tackled in a circle, before the ball is locked to him the umpire usually calls 'ball up because he didnt have prior opportunity'. this is also wrong. he didnt have 'prior opportunity' but he did have opportunity while being tackled and therefore it should be holding the ball. it should only be a ball up if the ball is pinned to him before he has a chance to get rid of it.

gday everyone im heading in by myself today so have no plans of where to sit or anything. if there are any demonlanders who want to catch up and sit as a group let me know and so we can sort something out. send me a pm with a mobile number or something if you want to catch up that way... otherwise happy easter and carn the dees!

cheers, sorry didnt balance that out properly...

so since last night that is: IN Wheatley Garland Bode Morton Weetra OUT Holland Bartram Whelan Maric Dunn thats a lot of changes within 24 hours. i reckon that perhaps we're playing some funny buggers.

well hey according to that, worst case scenario we are above richmond, carlton, fremantle, essendon, kangaroos and sydney. best case scenario we are only below Geelong, St. Kilda, Collingwood, Port Adelaide and West Coast. So in reality we are 6-10 lol which is a fair assumption i would've thought.

i do realise it has been seen before, and i have seen it before. but i think it is significant enough info that should be repeated publicised every time someone slags off our club in the media etc. given that clubs like collingwood are maknig massive profits every year, i am surprised the afl actually give them money at all...

does anyone have a reason as to why this isnt made public via the media. why doesnt PG come out and say 'hang on a sec look at this everyone'? why, when gary lyon writes an article like that doesnt PG or another club spokesperson come out and say 'hey gary look at this?'

the FSM will not make a public appearance unless there are many pirates there to worship him. The FSM has been busy around the rest of the world creating bad weather and natural disastors as a warning to us all that there are not enough pirates. To think his noodley appendage would make an appearance at a mere football game is wishful thinking indeed...

ok im back now. rivers is our best match up for buddy, but i really like the idea of dunn on him. dunn will match him with ground speed, should be able to compete in the air. he might get pushed out of the way in a standing still situation, but that is when you hope you have a third man dropping back into space. if we can force franklin to play wrestlign matches with dunn one on one (not running around) then i think we will have been winning that particular contest. RE that cornes suggestion, that is exactly what ive been saying/thinking for 12 months now. if he comes on he could be amazing.

wait a sec, i need to go get a clean pair of undies...

i think we are getting in to a bigger issue here than whether fev is a ding bat, because we both agree he has done the wrong thing. i think we both also agree that alcohol can cause big issues, and often it can cause bigger issues than illegal drugs. RE legalisation of other drugs, im not sure i agree, because it is likely that this will simply result in a pile of other drug related diseases and symptoms, which we will then have to attempt to prevent. there is a reason why these clandestinely produced chemicals are not available on the free market, and that is because the true effects of these drugs is not known. we understand the short term effects, but have no idea of what they are actually doing. alcohol is a rather simple chemical which occurs naturally in our diet and has been exploited for commercial reasons. mdma and thc for example are not part of everyday foods. they dont have any health benefits associated with them. im not sure government control of these substances would make them any safer.

if it was neitz it would have been a fine, and a public apology. it was 5th year player sylvia who hasnt lived up to his potential and is increasingly showing he doesnt want to grow up. unfortunately in fevs case he is immature and one of their best players. he could have used a suspension, but is too valuable to carlton.

miller doesnt have the strength in the air or the agility on the ground to go with franklin. if this was the match up he would get smashed.

you are correct RE wikipedia, but as a 5th year student i know it is as good a place as any to do some background reading first up without having to read through a whole pile of academics trying to prove to the world that they are important. if i was writing a paper i would have used appropriate references. given i was replying to a post on 'www.demonland.com' wikipedia is good enough. alcohol is a drug. but it is legal, its effects have been well studied. if used within reasonable limits is 'probably not going to kill you'. sorry i don't have a source on that one. alcoholism will kill you. binge drinking is a problem. but drinking too much coffee has its side affects also. im not sure where you are going with that line about chocolate. are you trying to claim that ethanol is a drug, but caffine isnt? the majority of people who go out on the weekend and 'get smashed' function all week at work without alcohol. people who drink coffee often need that fix before they can work properly. which one seems more drug like?

out of interest here is a little paragraph from wikipedia explaining how the american government defines drugs: "In the United States, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act definition of "drug" includes "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals."[7] Consistent with that definition, the U.S. separately defines narcotic drugs and controlled substances, which may include non-drugs, and explicitly excludes tobacco, caffeine and alcoholic beverages." i know we are in australia and i know this is wikipedia, but it is interesting to see that this government defines what you refer to as 'drugs' as 'narcotics' and explicitly excludes alcohol.

TD i understand what you are saying, but by making comments such as you really are suggesting that he was both 'on drugs' and intoxicated. now i drink socially quite often, and while technically alcohol is a drug, i have never heard anyone refer to it as drugs in the act of taking it have you? people don't say do you want some drugs? they say 'do you want a beer?'. police don't say 'driving under the influence of drugs' they say 'driving under the influence of alcohol'. i agree that alcohol can cause damage and can be quite harmful however it is not an illegal substance, is not considered a 'drug' in the sense that other illicit drugs are considered, and given the current climate involving afl players and drug taking you post just appeared to try and fuel the fire a bit.

i don't think there could be a total sweep under the carpet, but some events can be smoothed over. i pointed out an example of 'falling asleep in a nightclub' which sounds alot nicer than 'drunk so much he passed out', sylvia got off very lightly that night considering the crowd he was with. other incidents have been deemed other peoples fault, only minor or a spin could be perhaps put on it. i do agree that it wuld be hard to completely ignore an incident as there would be someone calling the club and the newspapers with details. so perhaps we have been pretty well behaved in the past, but unfortunately this last 4-5 months has been incident after incident. we have rarely been in the news for the right reasons.

not sure what you mean by that rhino. if you were referring to my comment to jaysoul it was merely humour at the idea that he reffered to these types of clubs as being 'undesirable' but openly admits to going there. i always figured that if you went there you would think it was a fantastic place to hang out, and that everyone else just thought they were dodgy. similar to how the mainstream crowd sees the places i drink my beers i spose. apparently those who frequent these 'undesirable' venues realise they are not the best places in the world...