Axis of Bob

I don't have a problem with the rule. In fact, I'm completely indifferent to it. Change it or not, it won't worry me at all. It's also less of an issue now because there are so many rotations, so players will go of more often. When the rule was made there were about 5 interchanges a quarter, so players didn't want to go off and they couldn't get the wound fixed. Now they'll be off within 10 minutes. But I still don't have a problem with the current rule, certainly not enough to worry about it in any way.

What can I say ... I do my research!

You told me that the blood rule is clearly not being followed properly (which is that a player is sent off the field if there is ‘Active Bleeding’). I asked you to provide me with examples of instances where the rule was not being followed properly. You responded with this: You got quite upset about being asked to provide examples and made some weird dig about me doing research. You provided an online article where retired journalist, Mike Sheahan, said that he had spoken to a doctor who thought there was a low chance of infection and, as a consequence, those players probably didn’t pose a risk. This was your evidence for the rule not being followed properly. However the rule is that the player must come off if there is ‘active bleeding’. The rules don’t state anything about the risk of infection, which makes sense because umpires are not medical professionals. As the rule is stated, you have provided no evidence that the rule is not being followed properly. The exact quotes in the article: “I spoke to doctor Peter Larkins last night, he said the risk of infection is miniscule. It was two things, hepatitis and HIV but this was introduced 20 years ago when there was almost hysteria about the possibility of being infected. The doc reckons far too many players are coming off when they don’t need to, and we saw it six days ago.” I have made no judgement on the opinion of Larkins, as he is not addressing the point that we were talking about. You spoke about the incorrect application of the blood rule (‘active bleeding’) and misinterpreted his comments. I’m not a medical professional so I will trust him when he says that the risk of infection is very low, which is a rational position to take. But he isn’t saying that the rule is being applied incorrectly, but rather that the rule itself should be altered to prevent players leaving the ground unnecessarily. That’s your mistake, not his. Also, I love having my position challenged. If I didn’t then I wouldn’t bother doing research to find out whether I’m correct or not. I love having arguments about things because it’s fun and interesting. I have added something though, since I looked up the actual rules to point out that the rule that people were upset about (‘shouldn’t be for nicks and grazes’) was actually not an issue since the rule itself stated this was not the case. If the OP interprets that as bullying then I apologise to the OP, and I thank you for heroically standing up to me on their behalf. * Armani.

Because I'm still playing after nearly 20 years of senior footy and seeing a lot of new kids pass through. People join football clubs and join a family of sorts. Sure, there are pictures on the wall, but you know that deep down you don't really care about the achievements of your great-great-uncle. But you do care about your brother, sister, father, mother etc. because you share so many experiences together. I'd played for 13 seasons before I won a flag. That flag meant so much to me because of the long series of failures that led me there and I could see how much it meant to the supporters that followed us and ex-team mates that I shared the failures with. But I didn't care about what happened before I started, despite the photos on the wall and the old club legends around the place. The players that joined just before the flag didn't care about the previous 13 seasons, but they cared about winning it together as a team. The previous years only meant something to them because they knew that they meant something to me, and they cared about me because I was one of their team mates. And the kids that joined this year think that the 5 year premiership reunion sounded like a fun excuse for a p!ss up!

Actually, the article is interviewing Mike Sheahan where he says that he had possibly spoken to Larkins, who said that the risk of infection is small. Larkins was not quoted. Sheahan said that Larkins believed many are were unnecessary. In the context is likely that he means not that the rule is being applied incorrectly, but he doesn't believe that the risk of infection is high in those circumstances. I love evidence. It's my favourite way of backing up my arguments.

You made the assertion that there are "too many unnecessary blood rules" and that "the rule is clearly not being followed properly". You then challenged me to explain this. But now you're indignant and upset that I asked you for an example of this. Are you upset because I try to find facts to base my arguments on?

Which have been the unnecessary blood rules this year?

The players don't care about that. They'll say that they do, but they play for each other. They share the experience with each other and they'll share the results with each other. Think Clayton Oliver cares about the 1964 flag? It's not his and he had no experience of it. He might hear some old codger day that he reminds him of some player from back then and he'll humour them .... but he couldn't care less. Nathan Jones sees the last 13 years. Clarry see the last 3. Spargo only sees 2018.

You don't know the rule then. This IS the rule!! Play is only stopped for a player when there is "Active Bleeding". If you look it up it's Rule 22.

People find weird things to get upset about. I suppose we can add to the list ‘Players getting medically treated because they are openly bleeding on the field.’

I love looking back at the draft videos of players once you have a broader perspective of their development. I especially like Oliver’s because he was such a fatty!

I love when a poster storms out of a thread and boldly proclaims that they’re not coming back. Because they always come back.

I am a positive person who hasn’t lived through what others have. But we are, as a supporter base, more negative than others, IMO, although there is a large element of it at all clubs. It’s a byproduct of people getting their identity through supporting a terrible team for a long time, but it will change over time. Unfortunately it will probably come (as most culture change of large population does) through people dying off and youngsters replacing them. It will change eventually but many people in society do follow football precisely for the reason that they can be angry and upset the majority of the time. I, personally, couldn’t think of a worse way to live my own life but the world is made up of a lot of different people.

Because putting chaotic actions in a chaotic game into neat little boxes is a bloody hard thing to do. The evidence is the range of contrasting opinions across the football public about individual decisions.

Slamming the AFL, umpires and the tribunal is perennially popular with supporters, but I think the MRO has been a vast improvement this year. No system is perfect but generally the decisions have been pretty solid, IMHO. Plus the expansion of the system of fines has been a positive too, allowing for more shades of grey than we had before. The difference between getting nothing and being suspended was big in punishment but very small in action. A fine is a deterrent to encourage behaviour change without being a sledgehammer.

Solid win. We just stuck to our structures, worked as a team, maintained our composure and played our roles to get the four points. One week at at time. ?

I find that most people are so used to watching football that they don’t fully understand how difficult it is to play the game at this level. This is especially the case when the ball is slippery. The game is so fast that you need to be clean, otherwise you get hammered. So much so that having clean hands is probably the number one asset that recruiters will use to rule out potential draftees. Wet games are when you see low scores and slow ball movement. But this sort of game is very difficult for a player because it’s slippery, but not enough that every ball is fumbled. We see it here and also the Hawthorn game earlier. You can’t win with a wet weather plan, but you are going to make a lot of mistakes. The margins are so small either way. It’s like a Formula 1 race in the rain. If it’s fully wet then you can put on wet tyres. But if the track is only a little bit wet then you can’t use the wet tyres even though it’s easier to drive because the other cars on dry weather slick tyres, for all their difficulty in the conditions, will be so much faster over the course of the lap. In slippery conditions you need to take the game on to win, but you need to appreciate that this will also result in more mistakes than usual.

Aside from the centre square infringements, the other two are 'first to the footy' free kick stats.

We did the same last week, where we couldn’t turn dominance early into a good lead. But if you maintain that then eventually the floodgates open and you can start hitting the scoreboard. Especially later in the game. We are playing a really strong brand and we are maintaining that, which is bringing results. That shows a bit of maturity, which we’ve lacked in past seasons.

We ran out of legs. You could see it at the game that they just outran us and got easy goals.

Although he’s actually a more competitive ruckman than Shaun Grigg.

For me, it depends on Weideman’s form. If Weed is able to hold down a second key forward slot then I’d much rather have him replace Frost. But I also think that he’s playing some of his best footy up forward and we do need someone to complement Hogan. If Frost wasn’t such a liability then I’d rather play him forward. What I suspect will happen (probably healthily) is that he’ll play forward and Weideman will develop properly in the VFL with the occasional AFL game. But that keeps Frost in defence ....

We are playing a style of footy designed to work in finals. Running into space and chipping it to leading forwards inside 50 require space to work in and time to make decisions/execute. When the pressure is at its highest (like a GF) the decision making is at its most difficult. So you need to develop the easiest possible workable game plan that will hold up under the most intense pressure. This is almost the entire reason why Richmond won last year. Their game plan was basic, revolved around applying and absorbing the most intense pressure, and meant that relatively talentless hacks were able to execute the game plan on the biggest stage and become premiership players. Adelaide, despite being vastly more talented, lost because their plan didn’t work when you took away the time and space required to make more complex decisions. We are trying to develop a style of play that is very difficult to break down and easy to execute for even the least talented players in our team.

He’d want to have done something around the ground, because his opponent had 67 hit outs to Pedo’s 9! Even their back up ruck had 16.

I’m happy with the changes. We’ve lacked speed, especially forward of the ball. Kent is exactly the type of player we need more of, because our weakness is outside the contest. Hunt’s poor form has hurt us a lot in this area. Pederson has been poor. Also, how many goals have we got from slow plays? We’ve got Hogan kicking goals, mainly from quick plays, but we’ve been relatively ineffective in the areas where you would expect Pederson to be a help in. We have really missed TMac in the first few weeks, especially since Pedo has been so ineffective. Frost was apparently excellent last week, but he also allows us to structure more similarly to Adelaide last year, with two key talls plus Lever as the interceptor. The way North play, that structure seems more logical plus it allows Lever to use his strengths more. It also shields us somewhat from Lewis’ lack of pace down there, where Lever can structurally cover the potential holes.