Chris

Screw that. If I have to go for the pies I only want them to win by a point. A draw would be even better. Either way we play the final and Adelaide don't.

Lucky we didn't have that draw last year! Instant 6 losses!

Can't wait to see opposition teams thinking about having 2 players in tagging roles against us, as long as they aren't as good as Bernie was a couple of years ago!

He ended up tagged against WC in the second half, not AFL proper but as close as he has been. He was no where near as effective with the tag, but it probably freed Viney and Co a bit, although I thought Viney and a few other mids were pretty disappointing against WC.

Flower doesn't even get a mention in any of the voters individual top 25's, or their unlucky to miss out picks and Robbo put about 10 of them! Funniest bit was Malthouse said his one that was unlucky was James Clement! Hahahahahahahahahahaha

So I was curious and looked up the actual wording of the law. A free kick is awarded when a player; (a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds on the Full; (b) in the act of bringing the football back into play after a Behind has been scored, Kicks the football over the Boundary Line without the football first being touched by another Player; (c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line without the football being touched by another Player; (d) having taken the football over the Boundary Line, fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground; (e) touches the football after the boundary Umpire has signalled that the football is Out of Bounds, except for a Player who has carried the football over the Boundary Line under this Law 15.6.1 or a Player awarded a Free Kick under these Laws; or (f) hits the football Out of Bounds on the Full from a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or a throw in by a boundary Umpire. 'C' is the relevant rule in this case. It is based on intent. Intent is a very hard thing to conclusively determine and as such the AFL in their mighty wisdom are outlawing actions they think match the intent. A system always destined to fail. I would be happy if it was governed as the rule says (which isn't what happens now), but would like to see added to it words to the effect of 'or intentionally allows the ball to cross the line without taking all reasonable steps to prevent that happening. 'E' is also interesting, you this happen a bit and I have never seen it penalised. It is a stupid rule anyway so why even have it remain in the rule book.

Are you really suggesting Wellingham meant to kick the ball off the side of his boot, and then have it spin on its end and bend to the boundary? Wow that bloke has some talent!

The problem may well be they fact the rule is called deliberate out of bounds. Wellingham did not deliberately put the ball out of bounds, neither did Vince, you could even argue McDonald didn't as his intention was purely to keep the ball off the WC players. Maybe the name of the rule needs to be changed if we go with this interpretation. Maybe a rule name like 'carelessly out of bounds' or 'your skills suck and it went out out of bounds'

Ahhhh, but what would the rule committee do if they weren't inventing new interpretations to rules to fix the problems caused by the last changes they made?

I liked the fact it was fairly consistent with a few missed, but there always will be. I don't like the interpretation of the rule though. Three instances stick out for me. Wellingham kicked of the ground which looked clearly like he was trying to kick up the ground, shanked it, and got pinged for deliberate. It actually wasn't deliberate, it was just bad execution of skills, I am not really comfortable pinging someone for a skill error. Bernie when he tried to hand pass while under pressure to keep the ball in, missed his target by about a foot to the right and was pinged for deliberate. Again I don't think he was actually trying to do that and it was just a very rushed hand pass under pressure that missed the target. Similar happened last year when he hand passed and it was about six inches out of reach of a team mate, ended up out of bounds and he got done. The third was Tom Mac. Short of handing the ball over to the Eagles I could see little else he could do. He was running, had a player hanging off him, had another WC player next to him, his only option is to hit the ball out in front and chase it. His only mistake was he hit it a little far to be able to get back to it. Really don't know what else he could have done.

Not much else he could actually do, that is the problem. He chased the ball, kept chasing, had a bloke hanging off him, no other possible outcome other then giving WC the ball. Bull [censored] rule

This new deliberate is a joke. Just start paying the free against the last player to touch it and be done with it.

Oliver seems to have a tag on him, good learning for him. Viney and Jones are very quiet. Garland doing OK, Trengove unsighted, Watts and Tyson rusty, skills poor. Funny I don't think we are playing well at all but we are still kind of in it.

Has anyone else noticed that heaps of frees against WC get a replay and none of our seem to? That one against Max was a joke, he was trying to get anywhere near the ball while Petrie didn't care where it was and sheparded max away.

Are these umpires on f ING drugs!

As I said, maybe I was just being stupid, and idealistic, and naive. Although it didn't surprise me that that is what they did at all, just reading any paper now days will tell you that, what surprised me was that he openly admitted it!

Damon Johnson, associate editor at the sun was on MMM this morning and made a very telling comment. I think it was Eddie who made a comment along the lines of 'you guys have been behind the players throughout this' and Damon responded with ' I don't think we have been biased in our reporting, it was simply a case that Essendon had a story to tell and we told it, The AFL also had a story to tell and through Caro at The Age and they told that one'. Of course they all went on to bad Caro, about the only Journo who has seen this for what it is form day one. Excuse if I am being stupid but I always thought the job of a journo was to report on news, and in doing so present all aspects of the news and then let the reader decide, yet here is a senior editor of the Herald Sun openly saying they did not do that and they consciously chose to report one side a story!

They also had a very easy draw last year, which we did not. We also beat GWS and the Hawks, came within a kick of the Eagles and North (don't get me started on the umps in both those games), and didn't disgrace ourselves against Adelaide, although we did against Sydney and the Cats. In terms of who we beat and who we got close to I don't think you can split the Saints and us. Where the difference is in they won the games they should have, we didn't. If you give us wins over Carlton and Essendon then chances are we play finals last year, if we didn't it would only have been percentage. We would also have finished equal to the saints but from a harder draw. I think the saints will beat us at Etihad, just because it is such a different ground. I think we will win the return match at the G.

I actually think he was better a few years ago. he doesn't have the same impact now but that is no slight on him, it is just we have others who have stepped up to spread the load.

More specifically it is a drawing of the drawing of a long bow.

My full ladder; 1 - GWS. Far too many quality players to not finish top and the team seems to have clicked. 2 - Sydney - Were scary good with a very young team on the field last year, will be near the top for a while, aren't free kicks from the academies a great thing! (I have no issue with academies, they are great, I have a big issue with the ease of access to this talent for a few teams) 3 -Adelaide - Not convinced, no idea why as they play well and win, I just can't see it. Have put them here because the fact I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. 4 - Geelong - Will do well with the top players playing. 2 injuries to key people and wont make the finals. Imagine them if Selwood and Dangerfield both went down for the season! 5 - Western Bulldogs - Had a great finals series but are not infallible or that great. A bit like the Hawks in 08, weren't the best team of the year but won the choccies. 6 - Melbourne - Easier draw than last year sees us jump the saints. 7- St Kilda - Had an easy draw last year, a tougher one this year, will improve and I see them on par with us in lots of ways. 8 - West Coast - Very fragile away from home. 9 - Collingwood - Will be better, but I don't think they have the fire power or defense to win enough. Bucks to stay, club to fall to wooden spoon by 2020. 10 - Hawthorn - Will lake speed and poise from those who have left and those left who are very good are getting old. 11 - North Melbourne - No more old men, but what is left? 12 - Essendon - Will run out of puff and find out that of the 12 banned players who are returning only a few of them are actually best 22. 13 - Richmond - Just not that great. Hardwick gone by round 18 14 - Gold Coast - are the big unknown. They have the talent but is the culture fixed? 15 - Port Adelaide - I get the feeling of disharmony and/or big headedness in that group, no idea why and nothing to back it up. 16 - Freo - Can't see them climbing back up, they are too old. Ross will survive somehow but will be gone next year 17 - Brisbane - Just no good. (think us a few years back) 18 - Carlton. Jungle drums to beat for Bolton by years end (which would be the wrong move so it is guaranteed to happen at Carlton) First to admit this will probably be miles from the actually round 23 ladder, especially as it is all based on gut feel. I do notice I have us playing the Saints in round 1 of the finals, at least it would be at the G as there wouldn't be any clash of finals there that weekend!

I like the way you think but disagree on a few teams. My thinking is it only takes a drop off of a few percent to come down the ladder, I think Hawthorn will have that, I think they will be somewhere in 7-10th. West Coast I am not convinced on, their home ground advantage is massive but they weren't great last year, the are vulnerable to vanishing from contention very easily, and Adelaide to me just don't sit right, they had a great year last year but I just have a gut feeling it may be a one off. I am also not hugely convinced by the cats, they are too reliant on too few. That leaves the Swans, Dogs, and Giants as clearly in the top 8. If we improve by a few percent, and the others drop by a few percent we could be right in the mix for top 4. Realistically not all of what I have said will happen, maybe not any of it, and other teams will also improve, so I think we will end up in 6th.

Oh well. I guess we now need Brisbane to [censored] Adelaide and then us win the last two by lots and we make it.

All over?

Score?