Axis of Bob

Only if you think he'd get a game and be better than the alternative.

That article is genuinely hilarious. I don't applaud people for just having an opinion. I could say that Clayton Oliver is a hack and only gets cheap, easy possessions. I'd be a f#@$%ng [censored], but you'd applaud me for having an opinion. That's pretty much how I rate David King's opinion.

Adelaide lost Dangerfield, lost the GF the next year (plus Lever) and cratered thereafter. Geelong lost Tim Kelly, lost the following GF to Richmond and received draft picks that turned into Cooper Stephens, Ryan Angwin, Jeremy Sharp and Ronin O'Connor. Fremantle lost Lachie Neale to Brisbane for, effectively, Jesse Hogan and Xavier O'Halloran, and did nothing for several years. Gold Coast lost Dion Prestia for Jack Scrimshaw and did nothing since. Port Power lost Shaun Burgoyne, made 3 finals series in the next 10 years, and got back Jay Nash, Andrew Moore and Jasper Pittard. This isn't to say that thing always turn out badly, but saying that "clubs who lose big name players never end up really losing" is not correct.

Melbourne's very own Bartolo "Significant Seductive" Colon.

He laid 12 tackles in his 54 game career. That's an average of 0.2 per game. He had more Brownlow votes than tackles and he had 10 of those Brownlow votes in his first 9 games. He had more scoring shots in a game on 9 occasions than he had tackles in his career. He average 17.3 goals per tackle. Hilarious.

There is a distinct difference between key forwards of the past and key forwards now. It's about how you win the football and the skill set needed to be successful at that. In the 80s and 90s, the game was one on one and key forwards had to beat their opponent one on one. In 2022 a key forward needs to beat a system of defenders, so beating your own man isn't enough. Instead you need to win the ball against several opponents at once. The skills needed by Dunstall were to win a strength contest with his opponent to either take the mark or beat them on the lead into space. To do this all he needs to be is really strong and fast on the burst. He rarely had to jump at the ball because all of his work was being done whilst on the ground (pushing, leading etc). In 2022 a key forward needs to be able to mark against multiple opponents, or at least create a contest against them, since there simply isn't the space up forward to be able to get consistent one on one contests. As a result the skills set required is people who can jump at the ball and mark it high in a pack. This means that key forwards are getting taller because this helps them with the skills they need now. Van Rooyen got several one on ones against North because they are terrible (and Majak cleaned them up in the ruck), but he did it well. However he probably wouldn't be able to do this at AFL level because he wouldn't get the space. Weideman took a few excellent contested marks against multiple opponents, which is more of an AFL style skill. That's not to say that Van Rooyen won't be a good AFL player, but it will probably be once he becomes a genuine big body so that he can be more of a super hard working battle axe who is super competitive and halves a lot of contests. More of a Tom McDonald or Jeremy McGovern style of player (up forward).

"Hello sir. I see that you have a nice, healthy cow and all the ingredients needed for the future except for milk ....... but would you be interested in selling me that cow for some magic beans?"

I haven’t seen the game yet, but it may be worth noting that Weideman had the most tackles of any player for Casey today.

Don't worry, it's an education not even worth the paper it's not printed on. 😁

Not entirely true. Demonland just moved to these message boards in 2005. There are a few around here still that predate that move and deanox is one of them.

I’m sure the all did enough year 8 English to understand rhetorical questions …… didn’t they?

I agree that it might be hard, which I do in my own matches. But that is just because I’ve grown up in an environment where openly questioning the umpire was perfectly acceptable, so I do it sometimes. If I grew up in a time where nobody did that because they’d get free kicks paid against them then I’m sure I’d be shutting up. If a 150kg prop forward in rugby can not complain to the referee, or a 50kg wing attack in netball can not instinctively complain in two of the most ridiculous sports ever created …. then I’m sure we can do it too.

You can ask for clarification but you can’t question the decision (ie, complain about it). The first asks for further information about what the umpire’s decision was (eg, “was that a mark?”) and the other one is expressing disagreement with the decision (eg, “that wasn’t a mark”). You can disagree but you can’t openly express that disagreement. Just get on with the game. Easy.

Just don't complain about the decision. Put your ego away and stand the mark like a good team mate, rather than be a selfish individual.

Nah, both umpires would say that he's complaining about the decision. Even the umpire that said "maybe it did hit the ground" is being complained to about the decision, which is an obvious free. It doesn't matter if he's questioning his abilities, it only matters if he doesn't respect the umpire's decision ... no matter how right or wrong he thinks it is.

If that's the case I hope you never try to play netball! It's not counter to human nature, it's counter to the current culture of the game.

The rule is not about not being able to talk to the umpire. The rule is about complaining about decisions. The umpire abuse rule already exists and has been strongly enforced for 20 years. The rule is intended to improve players respecting the umpire's decision. It was done by players really well in the first half, with one obvious exception.

Don't complain about umpiring decisions. It doesn't matter how justified you think you are in telling the umpire that he is wrong, just don't do it. Simple.

He could tell the umpire he is short and ugly too. It's not a defence.

What if a player is spin 350 degrees, but it takes a while to happen? Was the opponent balancing his hands on a player's back in a marking contest or pushing them out of the contest? What if both players grab each other but one is doing it much more than the other? What if a player brushes against the lower leg when they're laying a tackle around the hips? The game requires so much interpretation because pretty much every contest is technically a free kick if you look hard enough at it. It's impossible to have supporters happy about the umpiring because a decision involves so much interpretation by umpires. If you want proof of that, just listen to how many opposition supporters you disagree with when they scream about umpiring at a Melbourne game!

To my knowledge, they don't pay that rule in the VAFA. Clarke's comment would have been of a general nature (ie, AFL level), rather than specific to his umpiring or VAFA crowds. However the VAFA has had several other rules for a long time that are similar to this, such as an automatic sending off for audible obscenities, that aren't applied at AFL level. In fact the only time I've ever been sent off has been for dissenting an umpire's decision, and that was 20 years ago!

It is. He is very passionate about the need to improve umpire numbers and thinks that what the AFL is trying to do is fair enough. He also bemoans umpires having to do 5 games a week because there aren't enough umpires. There aren't enough umpires. Even the VAFA umpire quoted in the article umpired over 100 games in the season before COVID, and there are fewer umpires now!

Yeah, the article doesn't really support your point. It has a single VAFA umpire saying that he shouldn't umpire the way AFL umpires do, which is entirely true. Nor do they umpire at that standard, which applies to standing the mark, deliberate out of bounds, interchange number, among other rules which are interpreted differently at lower levels than AFL. The other two examples are of AFL umpires, one of whom fully agrees with the rule, and another who agrees with the intent of the rule because of the effects of umpire abuse at lower levels.

There is no reason why players can't still ask an umpire to explain a decision for them respectfully when the play has stopped. I've done it many times myself because the conversation is genuine, not dissenting. It could be as simple as saying "In the back?" which then is responded with "Yeah" or "Nah, it was high". Was the decision right or wrong? It doesn't matter. Throwing your arms up in the air, turning to the umpire and yelling "What for?!?!" is not respectful, it's a way of trying to tell the umpire (and everyone that can see/hear) that you think they're wrong. As Macca says, by round 15 the players will be self policing it in the same way that rugby players do. You can even see it happening now. How many times will you overtly complain about decisions when the last time you did it you got a 50 m penalty and 21 team mates giving you the death stare?

It used to be that telling an umpire that he was "a f#&_ing disgrace" was an instinctive action after getting a dodgy decision. But, it isn't any more. Players changed those instincts.