deanox

I'll defend Bugg here. He doesn't have a bad record. As far as I am aware, last year is the only time he has ever been suspended. I can't find any info about any other suspensions. Only fines (for making contact with an injured Nick Reiwoldt, and for "saluting" the richmond cheer squad). A lot of players have been suspended for hitting him though. He gets a bad go from the media. He might be annoying but he has never over stepped the aggression line on the field before, and he wasn't looking at Mills when he hit him in retaliation to bring hit from behind. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/an-extensive-rap-sheet-from-gws-giant-agitator-to-melbourne-enforcer/news-story/4bb65be2b05db80227ef6907c5bf4d95

Out of interest, what was the context of these words? Can you provide a link?

I'm not sure I agree because he was facing him. I don't believe you don't understand the difference between this and a jumper punch. When the two players are both actively involved in the tussel, the minor, low impact events dont require external attention. When someone is unexpectedly struck to the face off the ball doing damage that requires hospital and surgery, that can be looked at without damaging football. The rules of victoria apply on the football field and outside a night club. The rules of Saudi Arabia do not apply. A tackle is legal, it went bad. A punch is not legal anywhere. Not vicious???

That's ridiculous. Intentionally assaulting someone 50 m away from the ball is not "the nature of contact sport". An overly aggressive hip and shoulder while contesting the game falls in that category.

Worse than Buggs effort.

I reckon we're abetter chance against WCE in two weeks than the Swans. Optus stadium is longer and narrower than the G, and we've played grounds of those dimensions well the last two years but struggled at the G. WCE have been out of form and coasting a bit. NicNat and Gaff are big outs for WCE, particular because they give us a dominate ruck and take away Gaffs strength (hard 2 way running) which had the potential to exploit us out the back on transition. On the other hand, Sydney have been out of form and have only played one game at the G this year. Franklin may be a worry because we don't have a suitable defender for him. I think we'll try to mitigate his effectiveness by controlling the game so he only gets the ball too far upfield. Both games are winnable and I'll break us both right now.

I don't think VDB is competing with JKH. They play very different roles and Idon't think VDB has the tank to fill that role. Ipersonally see him competing with Truck, Melk, Kent, and to a lesser extent Fritsch and Spargo. Harmes too until he found his feet in the midfield. That being said, most of the time you pick your best 22.

How can you pay that against Lewis but not against GC 2 seconds later?

Disappointed. Not that we didn't score more, but we got lazy in our structure/ defensive transition, and too cute with disposal. I don't care about the margin, but expect us to execute in the areas that have let us down when under pressure.

That's our 4th highest 1st quarter score, and third largest margin quarter time margin ever.

Thought he was under more pressure than he was and expected nobody contact. Dropped it when he braced for contact that didn't come.

Was that paid against Jones for time wasting for kicking it away?

If some supporters expect a big win, they get called arrogant and that they are taking the opposition too lightly, and are told that attitude is what is wrong with the club. If some supporters are concerned we're could lose, or are satisfied with any win or a good effort, they are told that attitude is what is wrong with the club. Basically, this is what is willing with the club.

Yeah, like Jones!

But our defense is better this year than last, conceding less points per game. And we concede less i50s against per game than any other team, so your assessment of "easy to score against" has a massive astrix against it that makes it a pointless statement in isolation. How about "to truly compete for the flag we still need to reduce the periods of time when our midfield switches off and allows the opposition easy transition forward. That will reduce their goal scoring opportunities even further, putting our defensive game amongst the competitions best rather than just middle of the road."?

Basically all the negative stats are readily explained by the positive stats and mean nothing. What would be interesting is the differences in these types of stats from 2 batches of games. Batch 1: Collingwood, Richmond and Hawthorn. Batch 2: Everything else. What stats change from our averages in the only three games we lost by more than 10 points?

My concern is taking in both Hunt and VDB into agame we must win. Take it lightly and we'll do "old Melbourne" and neither of these players have played much football lately. In the case of Hunt in particular, we have struggled to get a settled back 6 this year and I'm loath to disrupt it again.

Ok @Brownie is the Chris Sullivan line the min lead required at 3/4 time (which would be 42) OR the min lead required at some point in the last (which would be 48+). @Supermercadowill know as I'm pretty sure he coined the term!

Thanks Brownie, I might have the 47 wrong, will need confirmation!

Some in the football community subscribe to the goals per minute theory: as long as there are more minutes than goals you can still win (or lose). It's a reasonable assessment for the last 1-4 minutes, but longer than that time period you need a better measure. That's where the Chris Sullivan Line comes in. Basically, we aren't assured the win unless we are 48+ points up at some time within the past quarter. http://demonwiki.org/Round+6+1992 Chris Sullivan kicked the first goal of the last quarter to put us to 47 in the lead. No need for two guesses what happened next. I'm not sure if it's the worst last quarter lead lost ever, but pretty sure it's ours.

Basically the Chris Sullivan line then?

They name the emergencies as ins until the final teams are named, same as every week...

Agree. I think the thing in our favor is that we are high scoring and the value of a game to a tv network is a function of ratings plus advertising time (ads after each goal). If Friday ratings are not traditionally correlated to how well a club is supported, but rather how important the game is, or how tight a contest is expected, we might actually fit the criteria for once.

Ok so now you want the time to say "you can't block or bump after disposal unless the player is involved in the play"? Isnt that what is says? "You can't make prohibited contact to a player after they dispose of the football." I don't understand your confusion. This isn't a new rule!

@daisycutter are you saying the quoted rule is not a real rule? As written you can bump a player after he kicked it. I promise you that 5m rule has been in place for at least 20 years (I can't confirm before hand but pretty sure 5m had been the Aussie rules standard forever). What has been added is the "not involved in the play" and "unexpected" or "unreasonable" force type clauses, which are intended to stop sniping. "Late" in your description may refer to "the ball was disposed of, the player is now no longer in the contest and therefore not reasonably expecting contact" ie he was expecting it but you were late to the contest and now it is unexpected. To clarify further, a kick is a method of disposal. It may go 50 m or it may be a dinky dribble kick so that a player can run on and collect it. There aren't different contact rules for both cases. If the ball is within 5 m and the player is still in the play they should expect to be bumped off their line by an opposition player.