Mazer Rackham

There, there, Mrs McDonald. No one's condemning Oscar to death. Just saying he needs more time to develop, in the twos.

Fasolo and Elliott are their most dangerous forwards. Moore isn't ready yet to be KPF #1 and Cox, when he gets a game, doesn't hurt much.

Still "celebrating" yesterday's win?

A work of art, no doubt. Firing out that right leg behind him like a rapier, extending like a man possessed, his heel work, his leg height, his développé follow through ...... If only he could hit a target!!!

Cook's a great operator, one of the best.

Holy cow. Imagine how good he'll be when he gets on the drugs!

Fuggit. Can't they both lose in heartbreaking fashion?

I would like to know the financials of this. Before the upgrade, the Cats were making a tidy profit each game. But if the govt pays for the upgrade, do the Cats get the extra gate revenue? Seems that the state should get the extra. Well, good luck with that. Dan is a Ess supporter and before him Ballyhoo was Geelong and before him Brumby was Collingwood. None of them have ever given a stuff about the MFC. But neither should they as premier give a stuff more or less about any club.

They don't know that stuff. And the ones that do, have buried it so they can make in-jokes and be "entertaining".

Nathan had better be careful, being a second King Arthur. The first one was betrayed by his brother, and his best mate stole his wife. And he's still permanently suspended (until the British AFL team is threatened with relegation).

Overall the umpiring was okay in that they didn't make many howlers and were consistent in applying the interpretation of the week. (What a low bar to jump.) But seeing the Bugg one, I wasn't that surprised. It just wouldn't be an AFL match without there being some utterly inexplicable decisions or non-decisions being made, right in front of an ump with a perfect view.

Is that their way of "cracking down" on throwing the ball? How AFL that they would do it exactly backwards. One rule that needs cracking down on is in the back. It seems it's now possible to drop a piano on someone's back in a tackle or at the bottom of a pack with no penalty.

I know some people don't want to hear it, but that game was a sign of our improving maturity With something to prove -- that we can start the game in 4th gear and not 1st -- we flunked and put in an ordinary 1st quarter and a diabolical 2nd. (I thought the players were trying "too hard" to cope with the wind, both against and with.) But we didn't panic or throw in the towel. Even though at half time you could see on the players faces, WTF is gong on??? And the Suns were feeding on confidence. The players were rattled but Goodwin settled them down and got their minds back on the job. Big tick for Goodwin. 3, 4 years ago the disaster would have continued throughout the second half and it would have been minimum 10 goal reaming. This season more than ever, it's about what's between the ears. Just another turning point in our long succession of turning points! (We're taking this season one turning point at a time.) Hannan has X factor, knows where to go, what to do. Harmes: rough around the edges but puts in all the time. Rather than than ANB / Bugg who are so iffy. Having said that, prefer Bugg by a mile as he shows game sense even if his finishing the last two weeks has been too bad to believe. Whereas I can't see any hurt factor in ANB. Pedo another blue collar player. not prominent this time but you know what you're going to get, and that's grunt for 4 quarters, and not much stuffing up. Some players looked like they are not well. Carrying something. Flu or niggling injury. Watts. Tracc. Lewis. (Oscar, or is he just terrible.) Oscar has got to the point that Weideman did weeks ago ... the balance between getting an education and being ineffective has tipped, and he's not going to learn anything more in the seniors until he goes back to the VFL and consolidates what he has learned. His time may come. People say we're missing Gawn & Hogan, and we are, but we are also missing Garland and (dare I say) the Smiths.

There is a groupthink at play, with the AFL executive, the umps department, and the media all in it. They actually believe in "interpretation" of rules. In making up rules that don't exist (who can forget Gieschen's "natural arc"). In ignoring rules at various times for no good reason ("oh, that's a tiggy touch wood free!" .... "five minutes to go, the umps have put the whistle away!"). The media don't hold them to account because they have bought in to it and are too lazy to read the rules. Would have though that's one of the first things a new recruit into the footy media would do. They have made it so hard for the ones at the coal face ... the ones in green ... that with no clear guidelines -- let alone a rule book that the powers pay any respect to -- no wonder their performance degrades by the week.

Of course that will be written down somewhere. Or even in one of those explanatory videos the AFL put on their web site to explain the illuminations of the clarifications of the interpretations of the rules. But it's more elusive than the Yowie.

More craziness from the umps. Here's a rule that is actually written down ... if a player goes into the "protected area", it's 50 (unless following within 2 m of his opponent). Now here's the joke part... The "30 seconds to take your kick" is NOT IN THE RULE BOOK. Even if we give some leeway because it's commonly understood to be something that umps are supposed to rule on ... it's still bullsh!t because nowhere is it defined when the 30 seconds starts. Is it when the ump calls mark or free kick? When the player gets on the line of the mark and takes aim? No one knows. It's not defined. So the umps stare at a blatant 50 and do nothing, and then adjudicate on something not in the rules at all. The AFL has lost control.

"Never attribute to conspiracy that which can adequately be explained by incompetence" -- Churchill, Twain, Einstein, or Shakespeare I'm going incompetence here. It won't long before the umps start calling "let" on balls that hit the goalposts, or saying a player shouldn't be reported because the punch was going down leg side. Or requiring players to roll a double before they're allowed out of interchange. I just don't think they're up to conspiracy.

19.2 REPORTABLE OFFENCES 9.2.2 Specific Offences Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence: (a) intentionally or carelessly; ... (xiii) tripping another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg; These two might raise some eyebrows... (b) intentionally making contact with, or striking, an Umpire; (c) attempting to make contact with, or strike, an Umpire;

The media, be they reporters, callers, or ex players, also do not know the rules and work off an idealised version that only exists in their heads. Why oh why couldn't someone simply say, Schwabby, which rule mentions a "tangent"? Which one, Schwabby? Where in the rules does it say "attacking third"? Which rule? Meanwhile ... Schwab, the umpires boss, does not know the rules of game. God help us!

I've often been called soft in the head. After all these years, victory!!!

I think the umps are on a hiding to nothing. When they have people like Schwab and Kennedy in charge, who have bought in to the idea that there is such a thing as "interpretation" of rules, and who are guided by invisible rules in their head, what hope have the umps got faced with that. "Interpretation" of rules. I'll never get over that as a thing that actually exists. How about: rewrite the rules so they are clearer and do not require interpretation? Also jettison invislble rules that aren't written down anywhere.

Old joke: What's the difference between a computer and an AFL umpire? You only have to punch the information into the computer once. (And you'll only get a $1000 fine!!!)

I was going to post about that this arvo but ballsed up the post and dropped it. Here's the crazy thing. That has to be the most concentrated umpiring fuckup in the last 10 years. a Richmond player was in the "protected area", right in front of the ump, who did nothing there is no such thing as a tangent in the rules there is no such thing as "two thirds" of ANYTHING in the rules. Schwab is full of it. (Schwab said in the HUN: "it's two thirds east-west when you are defending and when you come into your attacking third and you're lined up with the middle of the goal, you can go on that arc." Anyone know what the fluck that even means?) the rules don't change if you are in your "defensive third of the ground". Nothing in the rules about a defensive third. Martin played on by running off the line of the mark in any event but wasn't called The lot of them, from the umps on the ground all the way up, have shown that they do not known the rules of their own game. They seem to be working off some unspoken version that exists only in their heads. No wonder they seem to get worse every week when they get "direction" like that from above.

Hibberd was offside.

Big deal. It all counts for nothing in the end, and there's only way to deal with it in any event -- win matches. (One day we may get around to doing that.)