Chris

A few stats for those interested. MFC BBFFC Diff Average Age 23.1 24.5 -1.4 Average Games 58.5 61.0 -2.5 Back Line Ave Age 24.0 24.0 0.0 Ave Games 82.8 81.5 1.3 Fol (includes wing) Ave Age 23.0 25.7 -2.7 Ave Games 66.2 90.2 -24.0 Fwd Ave Age 23.8 27.3 -3.5 Ave Games 63.5 75.7 -12.2 Int Ave Age 21.9 19.7 2.1 Ave Games 26.7 5.7 21.0 Melbourne Games Backline Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 2 3 3 6 14 51-100 2 2 1 1 6 101-150 1 0 2 0 3 151-200 1 0 0 0 1 200+ 0 1 0 0 1 25 BBFFC Games Backline Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 2 0 1 7 10 51-100 2 4 3 0 9 101-150 1 2 2 0 5 151-200 1 0 0 0 1 200+ 0 0 0 0 0 25 MFC Back WB Fwd Diff Age 24.0 27.3 -3.3 Games 82.8 75.7 7.2 MFC Fwd WB Back Age 23.8 24.0 -0.2 Games 63.5 81.5 -18.0 So we come up against the youngest list in the comp and still manage to field a younger less experienced side on the day. I am not sure we will actually go into a game this year as the older more experienced outfit. The only place we match the Lions in age and experience is in both the backlines and we are older and more experienced on the bench, although if you take Grimes and Newton off our bench the numbers are very close again no matter who they don't play. We should win this and win comfortably, the fact I still have to say should instead of will says everything about the reliability of our club. They are getting better but aren't there yet. The fact we are such favorites over the lions and we are at about the same place in development really makes me think their future isn't very bright!

It will just mean the tackler will hold the ball in and get the free, just like now but worse. The other thung that would happen is people would just drop the ball when tackled and then throw a fist or foot in the general diection of the ball, just like now but worse as players can do this at anytime not just when they are grabbed without opportunity.

From memory no there was nothing about team and support people penalties. It was a addition to the rules to tighten them up and stop the EFC type thing happening.

The problem with that is you end up with players not wanting to take possesion.

It is simple. If you are tackled without prior opportunity and the balls gets stuck then it is a ball up. If you have prior opportunity then you must dispose of it properly no matter what. That was how it was always adjudicated when I was younger and it was clear to understand and worked.

I think it comes down to not having many older players to off load, there may be a couple but more than 2 would surprise me. Then you look at the younger lot and you would only move on the ones who haven't shown they are up to it. That is probably only another 2 or 3. The rest of the young ones seem to have shown something and may well be worth persevering with instead of changing them for more from the lotto in the draft. If you think we will get rid of 8 can you name them?

Pretty sure that rule came into the AFL code in a revision after 2012 so isn't relevant for this case. It is the same reason the support staff haven't been banned. Under the current rules they would be but under the 2012 rules they can't be.

It is the immediate disposal when you have had prior opportunity that bugs me. A player should be allowed to maintain possession when being tackled, while looking for a good option, for as long as they need to right up until the point that they can no longer dispose of the ball. Seeing players stand up in a tackle, get their arms free, and then have the composure to look for a target, no matter how many 360's they have done, is one of the great things to watch in our game. This mandatory free if you do a 360 is crap and really frustrating when a player waits for the options, dishes it off only to have a free called because he held it too long, even though play didn't stop.

Whoops, got my Kings mixed up. Have edited above.

If I remember rightly we need to select three in the draft onto the primary list. My three to go are: 1 - Terlich. Hasn't really come close to the senior side for quite a while although reports are he is improving. Is he improving enough? 2 - Mitch King. Seems a way off seniors so delisted to go back to the rookie list Got my kings mixed up and as Max is already a rookie it is hard to make space on the primary list from putting him back to be a rookie. Don't have a third player in mind now then. 3 - JKH - May be given another chance as his body has let him down this year. For him to stay he needs to be the next small defender behind Jetta. Others who may be lucky to stay Garland - As much as I love this bloke the game seems to be going past him as we watch. He must offer leadership and is in the leadership group. Would we delist a member of the leadership group? Grimes - Is now a depth player and getting on in years. May well be kept around to share experience to the younger players. Would it be better developing a new youngster in his place? Trengove - Would love to see him come back into the seniors and be best 22, what if he can't? Dawes - Old concrete hands may be saved by Frost not coming along as forward as I am sure the coaches hoped.

The neanderthals will never see it that way. The girls will never get the same crowds or tv ratings but does that really matter. I will watch on TV, as i generally do with the blokes, and will enjoy it as I did with the last womends match that was televised.

That wasnt the issue I was alluding too. While I would have lived her at the dees it wasn't to be. As long as we dont lose Daisy then all is good. I was more questioning the signing of llayers before the teams are announced but as was asked above, what exactly does signing mean? The AFL are really strlarting to show their true colours of complete disorganisation with the rolw out of the womens team.

It is reported in the Hun that Tayla Harris has signed with the lions as their first womens player. Guess she wont be sticking with the dees. Seems a little strange that they can sign her when the licenses are not known yet.

Thatcwould depend on who it was and what he wants. If he wants cash then he will go there, if he wants success and that team is at the bottom with no hope of climbing in the next few years then we are still in the hunt.

Ash, your comment around the tour de france not being relevant (I am paraphrasing there) shows something that really bugs me with most of the AFL community. Every other sport under WADA and every precedent set is relevant if we wish the AFL to be taken seriously. So many people seem to think this is just the AFL and we should treat it as such and ignore what the rest of the world is doing. That is crap! What the AFL should have done and should be doing is deferring to the WADA code at all points and relying on the precedents set around the world. That is what is best for the game long term. What they do now is try and hide everything to protect the brand, they just don't realise that everyone who takes this seriously laughs at them and they now have zero credibility. That does long term damage. The whole illicit drug policy is a joke and should be dumped, especially when half the illicit drugs are WADA banned but the AFL wont tell ASADA the results. Laughable.

Only noticed a couple of head high frees for that today which isn't too bad. It was the throwing and tackling people without the ball that had me stumped.

It was 14 to 7 with 10 mins to go, surprisingly we got a string of frees in the last 10 minus to finish at 16 to 12 or so. Obviously the umpire boss got in their ear and said to even it up as the frees we got hadnt been paid all day

Seems all of a sudden we can get a free. Seems the umps want to even the ledger a bit to stop the critisism.

So now you can drop kick while being tackled too. FMD

So now can can the dogs not only throw it they can also tackle a player who doesn't have the fing ball

We arent clean with the ball, we arent composed around the contest and they constantly have one on the outside to clear, and they seem to be on the right side of the bounce and chaos ball all the time. If we settle down a bit we should be in this. Not to mention that they can throw it and we can't

Dropping and throwing are the new norm. We should get onto it

So Goldy gets a free due to a sheppard but max gets done for somethung while being sheppaded.

Umpires are [censored]! That was throw, garlett called play on after about 3 seconds. It is BS

As I said Ash, the evidence from Dank and Robinson means very little abd where has a reciept from Bock been mentioned? If there is enough evidence he should be banned, if there is enough and he isnt then that is wrong. I am on record for saying as much. The big difference driving our attitude is the attitude of Bock. He is not the sanctimonious prat that the EFC have been. He uasnt claimed to not know what he took but been sure it wasnt banned, he hasnt been protected by the AFL, he hasnt taken court action at every turn even when it has zero chance of success. On the ban against the team, under the current code they would be gone, pending actual competence from the AFL. Many cycling teams and others have faced that fate and have been banned. As i said it comes down to credibility and taking a strong stand to protect the long term future of the sport, which is sonething the AFL have no interest in.