Mazer Rackham

What's the point of his one supposed strength (elite running) if it brings no actual advantage? Eg, late in a game where he can outrun his exhausted opponents? But wait ... there he was in the dying seconds on his own streaming into an open goal. At last the benefits materialise. He may be NQR, but his version of NQR is still pretty good. Go ANB. Go Demons.

It was about this time last year, when we beat WCE, that the press had us with one hand on the cup already. Turns out that doesn't actually count for anything. I don't get how one 5 goal lead blown, followed by one salvaged, somehow improves our credentials with the press? Unless they have the memory of a goldfish? Suggestion: ignore the press. They don't know any more than any knowledgeable fan. Only one thing matters. Wins, more wins, and more wins.

It depends on whether it's Selwood, Dangerfield, or Martin doing it, or if it's at an Adelaide or WCE home game (although ... the ump would never permit a free against so close to goal at the death).

It really is unbelievable, or it would be if we didn't see similar outrages every match, every week The umpiring is in crisis and the AFL's answer is to paint more lines on the ground

Some strange and absurd situations in sport that we'll never see. In tennis, one end of the court is doused in water for one game then dried off again In soccer, one goal area is doubled in size for 5 minutes In snooker, an extra pocket appears right in the centre of the table in the middle of a break In basketball, the ring is lower at one end of the court for the final 2 minutes In AFL Aussie rules, the games are refereed by AFL trained umpires

They're working to a poorly written set of rules, have been overseen for years by people who don't actually know the rules themselves, are compromised by imperatives from "on high" to make the game "entertaining", have a suspect training regime, and are permitted conflicts of interest. All overlaid by the bizarre existence of ever-changing "interpretations" of the rules. Is it any wonder that refereeing of games appears mostly random, seasoned with a healthy dose of home town decisions?

Why don't the coaches just get it over with and remove all players and play the game as computerised fantasy football. No bad bounces, no flaky umpiring, no injuries or other real world inconveniences. Just pure football strategy and without user interaction the computer can play the entire match in a split second. Leaving only the press conference at the end.

Channel 7 obviously believe that Roaming F***wit *IS* the entertainment. They've made a call that only losers and sad basement dwellers would enjoy genuine access to players, and that Roaming F***wit is required to jazz it up and make it watchable. Doesn't help that RF drinks his own bathwater. He's about as funny as Ricky Nixon giving a statement to the vice squad. Entertainment factor of AFL is plummeting and Channel 7 are contributing to the problem.

Well I hate to burst everyone's bubble but Gil was on SEN this morning talking to Twately, and it turns out that everything's alright with the game, and there are no problems with anything. He batted away everything dear Gerry threw at him. What a relief. So ... nominated ruckmen. Everyone knows the obvious answer except for the AFL. Protected zone. They've [censored] it up completely with a poorly written rule and poor and inconsistent adjudication. Make it that the bloke with the ball, and the bloke on the mark, cannot be interfered with. That was always the intent anyway. 6/6/6 will only ensure that the huge packs can't form for another 5 to 10 seconds. Whoopdy doo. Another brilliant non-solution brought to you by Your AFL. 18m goal square. They cannot be serious. What next, sand traps like in golf? What f*ckin problem does this address? Stupid rule as a non-fix, creating extra decision making for umps, meaning more bad decisions. An AFL speciality, which means it's a given for next year. Rule changes in season, the only comp of any sport in the world that could consider this is the AFL. What contempt they hold us in. They're telling clubs like Bris, GC, Dogs, etc: "your games don't matter. Who gives a [censored] if you lose one because of our screwing with the rules. Apart from your fans, your sponsors, your recruiters, players who might want to transfer to you, etc. No one important." Meanwhile the one glaring rule creating most of the problems, is the interchange. Conspicuously ignored by the brains trust which somehow includes coaches, those well known custodians of the game, and no fans. Get rid of interchange! No more f*cking with the heart of the game. AFL have lost the plot.

Thanks DD. That's good news.

It would seem to be a fundamental skill of the game, and one that if mastered, gives a big advantage over opponents. I have heard (don't know how true it is) that senior coaches tell their players DO NOT kick with your non-preferred. Play the percentages instead. A mediocre kick on your "right" foot is likely to be as good as or better than a good one on your "wrong" foot. That would filter to junior ranks in a jiffy. "To prepare you better for AFL level, you are now banned from kicking on your non-preferred." It would explain why we see so many awkward kicks under pressure. Not a good look. Another area where coaches are harming the game. Not sure what can be done about it though.

Remember when he was gone He copped knocks on the scone Shine on, that Brayshaw guy can Now there's a look in his eye He's set to crucify Shine on, that Brayshaw guy can He was caught in the crossfire Of beltings and king hits Barely remembered his name Come on you talent, you dual-sided star Come on you magnet, you legend You Demon, and shine (segue to screaming guitar solo interrupted halfway by cheesy MFC theme song)

Multiple times Dogs ran too far with it, invaded the "protected" zone, threw it like it was water polo, and Hogan and McDonald T were not playing on footballers, they were playing on Greco-Roman wrestlers. Business as usual for the umps.

Derek "Iraqi Information Minister" Humphrey-Smith has never seen an umpiring decision that can't be defended. Somehow they are all correct. No wonder he thinks 4 umps is a good thing. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

"Unduly" appears in the laws twice. Once for the ruck rule and once in a similar context for when marking the ball. The word "unduly" is not defined. ("Part B" of the laws is for definitions.) There are other words used in the laws which are also not defined. Eg "encroaching" in the "protected zone" law. How do you know if a player has "encroached"? Laws don't say. Leads to "interpretation" and we know how that ends. Poorly written laws of the game lead to f***ups. An area where the AFL are experts.

At a guess ... that the people overseeing the rules of the game and the people running the umpire's department are not actually competent to do so?

The "restricted zone" is a great example of the AFL cluster**** that is the rules of the game and their refereeing. The problem: player with the ball being monstered from behind as soon as he takes one step. Player on the mark being blocked from chasing a player who plays on. The solution, AFL style: a "protected zone" around the player and the mark. So far so good. The intent is not bad. The c*ck-up, AFL style: the wording of the rule is vague and if strictly enforced, would not even allow players of the ball carrier's own team in the "zone". The execution, AFL style: the rule is "strictly enforced", except for the parts that aren't, and of course it is "strictly enforced" some of the time, and not the rest of the time. Another self inflicted wound from the masters of the grey area, the AFL. And then they pile grey on grey as if that will fix it. Well, there's your problem. Common sense doesn't negotiate record TV rights $$$. Common sense doesn't arrange for cheaper pies. Common sense, pah. There is no place for common sense in a high profile world's leading practice sports entertainment behemoth. Overrated.

This is a real phenomenon and apparently happens to boxers. They challenge for a belt and win. But then can't hold the belt. They get beaten. Again the challenger, they are dynamite and win the belt back. They just can't hold on to it for some reason. We will drop out of the 8, then we'll throw the switch back to challenger mode. By then it may be too late.

I knew we should have gone for the Black and Decker and not the Chinese knockoff version. Same goes for our imitation game plan. It's falling apart before our eyes. Not even out of warranty.

15.4.3 Permitted Contact Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a Player may make contact with another Player: ... (b) by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the chest or side of the body provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player; 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player. A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player: ... (b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football; It's all pretty clear unless you're an AFL level umpire. At the top level of the game.

Hmmm. Is the Whitten Oval a reputable venue? Also the organisers might have lied. They might have said it was a function for Vietnamese drug dealers to secure the booking.

Ump's Presentation Night ... I can just imagine it. It's by invite only. No outsiders and especially no press. Umps only. They text you the address an hour before. (It's usually a public park or other open space as no reputable venue will take a booking for an event like this.) To get in, you must wear as a secret signal a scarf of the team you barracked for as a kid, and still do as an ump. To test you, first they ask what you keep in your wallet. You have to show a pic of Joel Selwood. Then they show you a copy of the rule book and ask if you know what it is or if you've ever seen it before. ("No" is the correct answer.) A gatecrasher always runs the risk of being exposed, but given that all umps have major eyesight problems, chances are you won't be recognised. You can calm any fears they may have by telling a few war stories over cocktails. "So he marked it, one grab, on his own in the goalsquare. No defenders within 50. So I called it deliberate out of bounds and awarded 2 consecutive 50s against." Don't laugh at your anecdotes, though, as they are told not to entertain, but as a serious retelling of factual events. Real umps don't have a sense of humour. There is usually no food. It is traditionally the job of one ump to order some takeaway, but every year it seems another ump further away, with no clear idea of what's going on, cancels the order by mistake. The highlight of the evening is the awarding of the trophies. There is a bobble-head doll for most mind-boggling decision of the year, always hotly contested. There is a brandy glass full of dirt, the "Clear as Mud" award for most impenetrable decision that not even other umps can understand. And finally, to commemorate the "rule of the week", the umpire of the year gets a tiny motorised set of goal posts that when put on a table and switched on, move backwards and forwards and from side to side. At the conclusion of the evening, the umps are booed back to their cars by a crowd of bystanders who don't know what the event is, but by instinct have drawn near, and don't know why, but simply understand that booing is the appropriate thing to do.

Well thanks a lot! What have I ever done to you??

But they do! Didn't you see the one where Salem gave away a free for in the back? It was thought to be a legend of the ancients. This "push in the back" rule. Like the place kick. But it was paid! Like the sighting of a rare bird, that was thought to be extinct. A magical, breathtaking moment of sheer joy. (For the umps.)

Caro is not a football writer. She is a gossip writer, specialising in the world of AFL. Big difference. She has good sources and can and does get "scoops" but it's still firmly in the murky territory of "maybe it did and maybe it didn't".