deanox

why not? off field we are having great financial success, the best in decades. the board is stable, we have a record membership and we are moving into a new training and administration base soon. the president is well spoken, keeps a low profile unless he needs to stand up for or speak out about something. he is a charitable person and he has, imo, done good things for the Melbourne brand name. the only issue i could see anyone taking with him is not sacking ND after 9 losses, but personally i dont think ND should have been sacked because it would have been destablising over all. what more does he need to do to impress you?

i dont have time now to discuss this in detail but there is one point i wish to make. if the option is melb/sandy or any of the other vfl relationships, id take sandy every day. while we dont have full control we have a much better relationship and its a greater environment than the other 'alliances'. personally id like to see us have a reserves side but not if it has to be our reserves versus other vfl sides. there will be too much difference between the teams. young kids versus old hands, and not enough wisdom on our side if you get my drift. just a thought anyway...

did you ask him by chance when he thought he'd be getting a game? lol

i think shes getting a bit clucky

good call...

maxi bob, from what i can tell newton kicked 3 in the last quarter but was a bit quiet before that...but i would still love to see him in the red and blue...

disagree. recreational drugs are illegal yes, but they dont enhance performance. especially when taken during non-competition periods. in fact they would prob harm your body more than anything as an elite athlete. yes these drugs are illegal. and yes i disagree with their use entirely but i dont get tested for drug use when i go to work or uni. why should he get punished by his employer for drug use outside of competition. (this is simplistic i know but my point is valid). performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids (which justin charles took) are illegal. they also are cheating. they offer the user an unfair advantage over other competitiors. they give greater strength, greater speed, power etc. they improve your physical abilities to greater than you could achieve naturally. these drugs are illegal because they are used to help people cheat their way to the top, as well as because of the other disadvantages. do you really not think there is a difference? if you competed in sport would you not feel cheated and angry if you knew an opponent was using steroids to make him better? if i knew my opponent was high on mary jane i would think he was a moron, but i wouldnt be concerned he was doing anything that would help him beat me.

if youve ever seen moloneys legs youd know there is no chance of anyone calling him chicken legs. his calves would take on chuck norris.

justin charles wasnt it? they are very different scenarios. charles was taking performance enhancing drugs, cousin was not. charles tested positive, cousins hasnt. charles was suspended for 16 matches. at the time the afl had no drug policy in place, it does now. that policy says that players tested postive for 'recreation drugs' must do so 3 times before they are punished. this is when testing is out of competition. if it is in competition normal sanctions (as perscribed by WADA) apply. cousins hasnt been caught. i am not defending him, but you haveto see in your mind that these are different scenarios. you also need to see that performance enhancing is different from recreational. regarding charles, i found this interesting link, where charles says he would do it again... http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1262938.htm

dont you think thats a bit ridiculous? and as i said, do they distinguish all the above cases, included touched play on calls when the balls in the air from a marking contest?

i posted this in another thread but it seems appropriate here...i got this from the 2007 laws of the game found on the aflpa website... 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player. A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she: ... (B ) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

found this in the 2007 laws of the game on the aflpa website... 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player. A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she: (a) makes contact with any part of his or her body with an opposition Player; (i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders or bump to the head); or (ii) below the knees. (B ) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football; ( c) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football; ... i interperet that to mean you can push someone in the back if it is incidental and you are focused on the football...

actually i just found the following link: AFLPA section on rules it says that there are "stricter interpretations of the Laws of two aspects of the Game for the 2007 season, including stricter policing of hands in the back in marking contests and relating to dangerous tackles such as by unnecessarily and dangerously driving an opponent into the ground with their arms pinned.' sounds like it isnt a new rule. it also sounds like under the stricter interpretation, byron pickett should have been in trouble. JJC you were right but i still disagree with you and any stricter interpretation.

did they bring in a specific new rule that says "in a marking contest...." or did they change change the wording/interpretation of the old one? if they changed the old one it applies to everything, not such marking contests. if it only applies to marking contests, you could do whatever you want to someone if: the kick was touched the kick was a grubber it is a long sweeping handball it is a ruck contest and the ball is being tapped down or punched forward if you are sheparding a player from goal, not trying to mark it sounds a bit silly to me.

in all honesty bandwagon, and im not singling out miller here, but the team just had its first win for the year and everyone contributed. there are a few players who come straight into our side. rivers and wheelan into the backline, neitz would always walk into the forward line. mclean bruce green junior all walk into the midfield. miller hasnt done enough to earn a walk up start. while he played well at the start of this year, his form has tappered off. so did dunns. dunn went to sandy and kicked 4. newton kicked 5 (22 for the year now). miller has less than 10. he is out injured and struggling for form. i think he has to come back through sandy, find some form and then geta run. he hasnt offered much the last few weeks and needs to find his feet again before coming back into the dees side.

is that the only problem we had with pike?

of that list davey, wheelan, moloney, rivers and perhaps yze are best 22 material. that means we need to drop 4 from the week end. who are they? id say rivers for bizzel, ward for wheelan, brown for davey...perhaps moloney and wheatly are fighting for the last midfield spot?

disagree. i think the new interpretation sucks. there is a difference between a push in the back and hands on the back. and to claim that players can hold out players with their fists or forearm but not their hands is a joke. they never pay hands in the back when players are standing around a ball up and a player has his hand on another players back. if you are holding your ground and you dont push, it shouldnt be a problem.

i get the feeling too that if frawley had of gone before us we would have taken petterd with our first round pick. which means we rated him highly... Round Pick Player Club From Club too... 1 12 James Frawley North Ballarat Rebels Melbourne Demons 1 13 Jack Riewoldt Tassie Mariners Richmond Tigers 1 14 James Sellar Glenelg Football Club Adelaide Crows 1 15 Daniel O'Keefe Geelong Falcons Sydney Swans 1 16 Mitchell Brown North Ballarat Rebels West Coast Eagles Pr 17 Shaun Hampson Mount Gravatt Football Club Carlton Blues Pr 18 Leroy Jetta South Fremantle Football Club Essendon Bombers 2 19 Shaun Grigg North Ballarat Rebels Carlton Blues 2 20 Tom Hislop Tassie Mariners Essendon Bombers 2 21 Gavin Urquhart Morningside Football Club Kangaroos 2 22 Albert Proud Mount Gravatt Football Club Brisbane Lions 2 23 Paul Stewart Woodville-West Torrens Port Adelaide Power 2 24 Brent Renouf Southport Sharks Hawthorn Hawks 2 25 Nathan Djerrkura Wanderers Football Club Geelong Cats 2 26 Shane Edwards North Adelaide Football Club Richmond Tigers 2 27 Brad Howard Redlands Football Club St Kilda Saints 2 28 Chris Dawes Sandringham Dragons Collingwood Magpies 2 29 Eric MacKenzie Claremont Football Club West Coast Eagles 2 30 Ricky Petterd Broadbeach Football Club Melbourne Demons there are a lot of players picked in between there by most of the clubs...its sutrprising that no one else rated him high enough to pick him there, i wonder if we would of taken any of those other players before petterd if they had been available as well?

on stats peterd has performed better than gibbs has but has played only half the games. if i am correct we were looking closely at petterd for our early draft pick but then frawly was still available so we jumped at him. then we were surprised when petterd was still around. if i have got that wrong please correct me. i have been very impressed with petterd so far and he has got a lot of touches and shown good courage however i dont think his possessions have been really influential. although i dont expect them to be. he gets the ball and uses it well i cant ask for more at this stage can i?

i dont understand how you can run into and knock over an umpire and get a fine. that should be weeks in my book. greg williams would be spewing.

i think what is meant is that if judd says i want to go to melbourne WC can trade him to melb or let him walk out to the psd for nothing, where richmond can have him. if judd is willing to go to richmond then this threat is legit. WC are in a position where they trade with us or they lose him for nothing. i'd give up bruce and a pick for him. i like bruce a lot. but judd is better. i'd offer CJ and a 1st round first up and hold on that until the last moment. yes its robbery but if thats the situation we should try and rob them. cj and a pick is better than nobody and no picks. as much as i like white i am definitely for trading him for a first rounder if we think we can get kreuzer

i disagree. brown played in the forward pocket, occasionally pushing up to the half forward flank, but he did everything he could to keep mcleod deep in our forward line. when mcleod pushed up at center bounces brown dropped deep into the pocket, forcing mcleod to return. if brown had of tried to run off and hurt his opponent like bizzel does, mcleod would have had license to roam free. brown played a tagging role in our forward 50 this week, bizzell doesnt have the accountability to do that.

i think key there is direct, clint. anyone can bomb it long, that wont win us the ball or win us games. ward is a perfect example of this. our skill level has been down, through what ever reason (ND's coaching, injuries, who cares) and we havnt been able to kick it both long and accurately. run and carry is a method of getting the ball to a free player so that he can kick it long and accurately without being under physical pressure. you are correct though. our long kicking game was on song this week. could the addition of mclean to the midfield winning the ball make it easier for our outside midfielders to use the ball? the addition of wheatley definitely helped in this area.

i still think the comparisions between wheatly and ward/brown and warnock are meaningless. wheatly should be played on a wing. final. he kicks long and likes playing outside. he will go in when its his turn but dont make him the ball winner and dont make him sit on a player down bnack. let him use the ball to our advantage, thats his strength, lets play to it.