Mazer Rackham

We'll add this new failing to the existing list of not paying: holding the man, dropping the ball, in the back, throwing, short kicks ...... you know, the fundamental rules of the game.

We do have quality players. Where we lack quality is between the ears.

Good find. It happens that none of that is in the rules. Only in Kennedy's head. Kennedy said that he can't stand next to the man on the mark, as that would be two men on the mark. Rule only says one player from the opposing team can stand the mark. Says nothing about what happens if someone from the ball holders team also stands on the mark. (Although they would be in the protected zone, but rule is absent on that one too.) Even if we go by what Kennedy says as local by-laws peculiar to the AFL, we still didn't see them being enforced correctly. Dogs breakfast. Rules & "interpretations."

We may never know what the "interpretation" is (rules need "interpreting"? must be badly written then) as it will change from week to week and game to game. The nearest thing we have ... and we can only use it as a loose guide, like the AFL do ... is the actual rule. Nothing in the rules about where to stand behind the man on the mark. You can stand 2cm behind if you want. If you stand next to him, you are in the protected zone. Rule says NO player may be in the protected zone. But what is the penalty if that player is on the same team as the guy with the ball? Rule is silent. Poorly written, poorly "interpreted", poorly adjudicated, poorly everything. Could be a description of the AFL rules & umpiring! Oh hang on ... it is. Bugg deserves some kind of award. The Razor Ray Hanging Judge Sympathy Award for being the only bloke this season (past and future) to be penalised for that.

Coaches were warned off it a few years back when Malthouse was all over it. Dear old Heretia Lamumba, in his Harry O'Brien incarnation, was a gun at it. Now it's come back big time and the AFL are sitting on their hands. It's completely against the spirit of the game. It's just wrong. God they're inept. However! In the rules, NO PLAYER is allowed in the protected zone (unless they're chasing their oppo, etc). 50m penalty. But in true AFL "the real rules exist only in the head of the current umpires director" fashion, they say nothing about what happens when the player is on the ball carrier's team. So strictly speaking, they can do it. The only rule in play would be 15.4.2 (shepherding), where you can't block a player more than 5m from the ball. When was the last time you saw that being paid? Even though it happens week in week out in a huge number of "long ball" situations? But when the umps allow blatant and severe pushes in the back ... when they allow tackled players to slump to the deck and roll the ball away ... when they constantly allow short kicks ... throws ... why would they worry about a "technical" rule like this? The only rule in play seems to be that Clarkson is a genius, so why shouldn't he be allowed to do it? I note that after a few weeks of leniency, deliberate OOB made a triumphant comeback. I am convinced that after a "dark age" where the umpiring has been consistently terrible, it is now worse than ever before.

Well, he has never loved at all (rather than to have loved and lost).

but ain't kickin' no goal

"League CEO Gillon McLachlan, MCG bosses Steven Smith and Stuart Fox and Collingwood president Eddie McGuire began the conversation with the Premier" Spot the odd one out. Your questions about who runs football in Melbourne are finally answered.

Eddie won't admit to anything until they've put up his statue at the Insert Name Here Centre. And then it will only be that he deserves that statue.

It does face scrutiny. But the scrutiny gets pushback from two places. One, fanbois who shout down any criticism of Dear Leader. "Eddie single handedly saved our club from certain destruction 20 years ago. No one else could have done it then and no one else can do it now." And, "If you can't name a viable alternative candidate right now then obviously there are no viable candidates, so Eddie has to continue." And "Side by side! It's in our song so we can't possibly make any criticism, even constructive ones." Two, Eddie, who uses his media platform to assassinate and head off at the pass anyone who puts sticks their hand up. Although the last one who tried that got awarded the cushy job of conducting a review of the CFC. Brought inside the tent. I think a few before that copped some media attention (of the wrong kind) and decided it wasn't worth it. Things will have to get a lot worse there before they get better. Delicious!!! Long may it continue.

And next ... as inevitable as the sun rising ... Eddie's personal attack on Lyon. Lyon's part of a loser club ... Lyon's radio show has low ratings ... Lyon's TV show (I'm guessing he's on one somewhere) has low ratings / is boring ... or just generally a rant against Lyon. His mother wears army boots, maybe. Eddie can't help himself.

Genius holds melting plastic over his socks-clad feet. He deserves to barrack for St Kilda. At least a Pies fan would never do that. They're scared of fire.

Also let's have our game be a cracker like last year (but with a nicer newer and smarter outcome). And theirs a dull low-skilled slog fest leaving everyone frustrated and dissatisfied. Maybe a draw so none of them can take anything from it.

He means, some humans with asparagus don't get to bite it. But he loves banana fritters.

In the match fixing thing, Warne and Waugh were careless and thick-witted and were 5 minutes from being sucked into Hansie Cronje territory. They deserved to go for stupidity if nothing else. Can reasonably be seen as a F$&@k up. In the diuretic thing, after Warne missed games with a shoulder injury, his mum didn't tell him to back off the baked beans and chips and maybe hit the jogging machine. No, she (renowned sports scientist that she is) advised him to take a "weight loss" tablet which "just happened" to be a masking agent for steroids, which just happen to be great for recovering from shoulder injuries. I don't buy that that was a F$&@k up.

Not sure I see where the "mess" is. It's supposedly not on any banned list and looks like it's being tested by actual scientist/medicos. It seems to fit more into the pain relief category than the performance boost category. If it's suss the AFL can ban it. Whateley's nose for this kind of news is way off anyway. He tried to wave away the EFC drug scandal, and don't try to talk to him about Damien Oliver. You'll hear a whooshing sound from how quickly he changes the subject.

Embrace it. Enjoy the spectacle wherein each round we will learn that Jack is an unappreciated star / an eternal dud. Make your own worm, AFL score style, of the oscillation between star/dud. Correlate it with Port's win/loss record. Thrill to the flow on effects about Hinkey's genius and Goodwin's flubbery. (And vice versa.) It's going to be a 23 week (+ finals?) ride, so make the decision to enjoy it.

So, to sum it all up ... Watts is a star, and a good ordinary player. He has the complete set of skills, and major deficiencies in his skill set. He is the best kick for goal in the league, and doesn't kick many goals. He will tear it up at Port, and he will fail at Port. He will humiliate the MFC, and he will vindicate the MFC.

If the AFL ran international cricket ... Demetriou would have called Lehmann and Smith telling them they were about to be nailed Bancroft would have been made to swallow the sandpaper There would be no charge of ball tampering. The whole thing would be put down to governance failures Smith would be sent to France for a year on a management study course Lehmann would score a gig with a management consultancy firm Warner would spend a year in New York learning to be a barista Smith would eventually present the Alan Border medal Everything would be the fault of the media. The players would all be brave, hard done by, Some numpty would sue the ICC

It's only trying to keep pace with the modern game!

Seconded, for same reasons

At a minimum Smith & Warner should be sent home, serve out bans. Others should have to pay a price too. But the actions of the cricket board and/or ICC will be telling. Do they really want to root this out, or will they (try to) wriggle out of it? The game of cricket may be done and dusted before we live this one down.

Bancroft-gate was a stupid, reckless folly which should be quickly put to bed by cutting out the rot. Primarily, Warner. But Smith also has to be stood down. The EFC drug thing was a club-wide systemic attempt to subvert the entire competition. And the competition managers got involved to cover it up. It's like the difference between a robbery at a 7-Eleven and organised crime. The Aus cricket board now have a say in whether they are complicit and just as rotten.

You underestimate the power of the MFCSS! It is your destiny!!

Playing lists change but whipping boys don't. We can't sit around doing Jack. Watt's a DL poster to do? Wouldn't be right if there wasn't one of our own to lay into.