Mazer Rackham

Driving your head into an opponent is considered having prior opportunity (15.2.3 a (iii)). So you've got to get rid it or give up a free. The umps dept should rule that if you CAUSE high contact, eg by lifting your arm in a tackle, that's prior opportunity and you have to get rid of it or give up a free. In the McLean video, (eg) where N Jones gave away a free because his arm moved high, McLean would have had prior opp and because he made no attempt to get rid of it, holding the ball. They already have an "interpretation" (in a video on the AFL web site, and naturally not in the official rules) where drawing high contact by ducking into a tackle is considered play on. (Yet they're still not allowed to be tackled high?? Gets more confusing the more I think about it.)

Good point. There are quite a few things that are not in the rules. Example: 6 seconds to kick after a free. Not in the rules. 30 seconds to kick if it's a shot on goal. Not in the rules. The word "seconds" does not appear in the rules at all. The AFL use their primary management technique, "make it up as you go", when it comes to the umpiring of the game. Who can forget Jeff Gieschen, when confronted with fact that Buddy Franklin when taking a set shot on goal actually plays on, inventing on the spot a new rule "natural arc". The AFL are perfectly happy to ignore the written word and rely on nebulous and shifting "interpretation", which seems not to exist in the rules of any other game. Given that, how can we expect any consistency from the umps when the rules are only one part of what they are expected to adjudicate by? Having said that, it does annoy the hell out of me when the umps disregard the things that actually ARE in the rule book. In the Essendon game Matthew Stokes had a set shot on goal and wanted to kick a banana. He chose a spot from where to kick, 2 or 3 metres off the mark line, so he could run more or less sideways to the line to have his kick. Not permitted in the rules. Umps happily allowed it.

Close. D. PURPOSE OF LAWS These Laws explain how a Match of Australian Football is played and seek to attain the following objectives: (a) to ensure that the game of Australian Football is played in a fair manner and a spirit of true sportsmanship; and (b) to prevent injuries to Players participating in a Match so far as this objective can be reasonably achieved in circumstances where Australian Football is a body contact sport. 15. FREE KICKS 15.1 INTERPRETATION 15.1.1 Spirit and Intention of Awarding Free Kicks It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall be awarded to: (a) ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner; (b) provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of the football their sole objective, every opportunity to obtain possession; (c) protect Players from sustaining injury; and (d) a Player who executes a Correct Tackle which results in an opponent failing to dispose of the football in accordance with these Laws.

They're now going to crack down on deliberate rushed behinds, as if that is something even worth cracking down on. And they will claim with a straight face that "rule of the week" is not a real thing. (Maybe because it's rule of the month?)

You can always tell when it's going to be holding the ball. First the ump blows the whistle. If it's a ball up the ump crosses his arms and runs in quickly. But if it's holding it, there is a monster pause while the ump is motionless, then he bends down and sweeps his arms out in a huge dramatic motion. I don't think it's attention seeking. I think it's that it's drummed into them that holding the ball is a big decision, momentous, don't pay it lightly, imagine what Eddie will say on Monday morning, you have to be 100% sure, etc. The conflicting message sent by the umps department to the umps accounts for 95% of bad umpiring in my view.

Gridiron is the king of concussion sports and they have heaps of retired players who exhibit personality change, memory loss, early dementia, and other frightening conditions, due to repeated concussions. Concussion is something you don't fleck around with. Keep Angus away from the ground, even the training ground, for as long as it takes, until the docs have given the all clear.

Time and again, when the dogs won it in defence, their forwards were already free. By the time the ball got to them, they were still free. That's a recipe for cheap goals no matter how hard our mids work.

The umpires are good men. The king told the umpires to read the rule book and do good umpiring. But an evil wizard put a spell on them. Now the umpires are trying to be good still. But because of the spell, they can't do good umpiring all the time. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It will be this way until a good prince comes and breaks the spell. But then there will be no more football ever again.

Why single out Stringer? We gave all their forwards a chance to get out where you needed binoculars to find them, and get some easy ball, a few early touches, some close range goal kicking practice. It builds the confidence. Why make them work for it when you can give them a training drill instead?

You could literally see the confidence ebbing away ... fortunately the guys kept it together and didn't collapse. But they were never able to get the run of 3 or 4 quick goals that might have turned the game around. Beveridge and his crew clearly studied our losses to see what we don't cope with.

The MRP will be well aware of that. They will do what they do each week for each incident: take into consideration all aspects of the clash, apply their expertise and, bearing in mind their high level of responsibility and duty to the game, spin the chooklotto wheel.

I reckon this idea has merit.

The mighty no 2 wasn't that bad. He was in the thick of the action all day without having any glamourous moments to excite the crowd. Like all our mids, was forced to scrap and fight in the trenches the whole day. He, Viney, Tyson did well in that they didn't take a backward step and made the dogs earn it. Without those players we would have gone down by 10+ goals.

If forced to choose between the two, I'd have Dunn every time, as at least he can lock down his man, nullify him and win his own ball too.

Tracc is still finding his feet but when he had the ball today and had time to do what he wanted (and not what the Dogs pressured him into) he was reminiscent of Judd.

Today was a lot like the Essendon game. They pressured us in close, refused to give us clean use of the ball, forced us to play dirty scrappy footy, which we don't like and aren't too flash at. The difference was we tried all the way through in this one. Just like Essendon, they moved it too easily when they had it. The zone defence does not work. Either it's the wrong strategy or we don't have the right players to perform it. Time and again the dogs won it at half back, you look down the ground, 2 and 3 dog forwards on their own. Imagine being a forward who doesn't have to win the ball. And they took advantage. Take away the 6-odd goals we handed to them on a platter and it's a close game! We worked so hard for our goals. Then they would whisk it down the other end, boom. Walk in goal. Easily snuffed out our embryonic attempts at a comeback. We had a day of dropped marks. Dunno if it was the dogs pressure or just an off day. Probably both. Scoreboard pressure will do that to you. But overall, we were outplayed by a good side. The dogs played in front. Some of our players seem to prefer playing from behind. To those players, please do that at Casey. Not on the G. The dogs are well coached. They are slick and work well together. They are clearly coached to play for the frees. And I don't mean moaning and appealing to the umps. I mean by dropping the knees or keeping their heads low to the ground like they're sniffing out truffles. The umps resisted for a lot of the game (I expect the umps department got their ears bashed early in the week) but eventually caved in and started giving them. They throw the ball a lot too. I expect they train for that. We were never going to win coming from behind. Our leaky defence is not tight enough. We needed to get a break on them, put on scoreboard pressure, and outscore them in a shootout from there. We were never going to win relying on holding them to a minimal score. It was an entertaining game in spite of the loss. All I want is to go to a game, knowing we have a reasonable chance to win, then see us give it our best shot. Finding out what happens is the excitement. Although outplayed, we were still a faint chance 10 mins into the last. It beats the hell out of wondering if we will lose by 10 goals or 20, and hoping for the 10 goal loss. We don't do that any more. We are a real footy club again.

Yes, Wise, that's exactly what everyone is trying to say. Your footy perception is impeccable. Premiership favourites, OR .... maybe we'll have a defender who doesn't play from behind all the time, doesn't take 45 minutes to decide what to do when he has the pill, and can give it to a teammate's advantage rather than creating another 50-50 contest.

A million dollar forward wouldn't miss the ones that Jesse does. He does need to work on his run up. "It's the ball drop!!!" I hear you scream. The run up is different every single time. His ball drop is variable because of it. He needs to come in off 5 or 7 paces instead of a Wes Hall pushing off the sightscreen run up. He can't reliably kick more than 40 metres, another thing a million dollar forward should be able to do.

Garland is simply not up to it. TMac wants a new contract on big $$$. He'd better start playing like a KPD who deserves big $$$. I think we should trade him while we can still get good value for him.

The AFL and the EFC each know where the others buried the bodies. It's detente. Mutually Assured Destruction.

Hogan: (thinks) "Football by the beach. That's what I want .... every second week!" (pause) Hogan: (thinks) "But should I believe GWS when they say they'll build a private beach in Blacktown for me? Maybe I should accept Geelong's offer after all."

Unfortunately our friend Jonathan Cainer, the world's foremost astrologer, is no longer with us, so we may never know. But I did read in today's horoscope that a tall dark stranger will soon be leaving my life ... to a place with water ... and bridges ... for a swap with another tall dark stranger ... the number 8 is prominent ... plus a first rounder and a second rounder.

No, my blind hatred for Essendon is totally objective.

It's a place where people smoke and chat and generally laze about dreaming of places with beaches and sunshine.

Yes, but have you got a giant ferris wheel overlooking an industrial area?