Mazer Rackham

Bookies would be wiped out after the first Weagles match.

Talk on 774 that this is what defines the first and second division in the AFL. The second division clubs are the ones who get kicked around and told to give up a home game so the first division clubs can live their dreams. Gotta love Port's attitude. "We're so in love with China we'll even play a match there but not so much that we'll give up one of our games at Adelaide oval. AFL, round up the sad sacks du jour to play us as a home game. Give them an elephant stamp and pay them minimum wage with a bonus for good behaviour." Lucky for Port they're currently considered "first division".

I like the idea that there is competition for spots and that we are trying out youngsters to see what they're made of even in games that are important for us. (all games!) Compare Hawks & Freo. Hawks turning over gradually all the time but at Freo the same players are in every week until they retire from accumulated injuries or die of old age. Hawks stay up the top while Freo are falling down a hole. Renewal is good, even in a young team like ours.

Misson: Attention our next opponent. Garlett will NOT be playing. Better factor that into your team selection and game plan. You don't want to have any nasty surprises on game day. We'd feel terrible.

We knocked over Geelong without him. Our mosquito fleet will out run and outwork the cold pies.

I predict it will go nowhere. It isn't. If it is there are quite a few people around town breathing big sighs of relief.

Who? The tea lady? The bloke out the back who does all the odd jobs?

That's why this will go nowhere. Even stuff he says that might be true will be treated with deep scepticism.

Dank is like the soldier in the war movie who's terminally wounded and seizes up and as he collapses his machine gun goes off sending bullets flying in every direction. Everyone has to duck for cover until it's over. His form of fair and equitable treatment is getting a payout like his mate Robinson.

The really galling thing was, we didn't play him into form. He was back to his mediocre usualness the following week. His game against us was an outlier in a season of ordinariness for him.

All we have to do is put in the effort we did last week and the rest will take of itself.

Announcing a new category of free agent: the Delisted Victimised and Cruelled by ASADA and CAS Free Agent. It's been introduced as part of the AFL's community support programme for women, indigenous communities, cancer survivors and Diggers. It's an integral part of growing the game in Australia and overseas.

Apart from numbskulls like Slobbo and unbiased and wholly agenda-free truth seekers like Chip, everyone is awake to the self serving and barely credible Dank agenda. 1. "I know where the bodies are buried" 2. "Do you really want to appear in a court/tribunal or would you rather shut me up? I can't talk with a mouth full of dollars." Even if he blabs I don't think it will go anywhere. Annoyance factor only.

"News Limited", "agenda". "Hand", "glove". "Peaches", "cream". New Limited, the ethics-free zone.

And yet they don't see that their efforts are counter-productive. They want people to come around to thinking that "Essendon have been hard done by". But by trying to drop Bock, MFC, Geelong in it, it becomes harder to maintain the idea that Suns, Demons, Cats were all on banned drugs ... but somehow Essendon weren't. It becomes harder to maintain the idea that "Dank went rogue" when you're trying to demonstrate that he was doping players with impunity everywhere he went. Journos like unbiased, agenda-free, only-seeking-the-truth-it's-got-nothing-to-do-with-getting-Essendon-off Chip "Essendon did nothing wrong, they were just victims of their own disorganisation and Dank-gone-rogue" le Grand, and d1ckheads like Robbo are not actually helping their cause.

The winning mentality is a peculiar thing that most of us do not properly understand. Anyone with the winning mentality would not even be tempted. One reason why coaches hate the press and doing interviews is that the type of questions asked interfere with the winning mindset.

They don't if they know what's good for them. It can do them no good to read it. For what possible gain? No player with a winning mentality would bother. They just can't afford to have their minds polluted with the noise and dreck that we all post here.

Nothing in the laws of the game about this. (There is a law about driving with the head.) Naturally, even though there is no law, there is an interpretation! From the AFL web site (videos explaining how the game will be reffed this year): "DRAWING HEAD CONTACT. 2. Ducking. Where a player ducks into a tackle, and is the cause of high contact, the umpire will call play on." So far, so good ... "DRAWING HEAD CONTACT. The onus will continue to lie with the tackler to avoid contact above an opponents shoulders." Make sense of that, if you can.

There is no rule. Nothing in the rules about stopping the clock, no time limit on taking a kick. The only thing mentioned about time is that when kicking out after a behind, a player must kick it within a "reasonable" time.

Yes, umpiring was infuriating. Yes, luck at the end could have changed the result. But the biggest factor was our mistakes. Destiny was in our own hands. We can all think of 2 or 3 passages, or more, where we could have done better either in attack or defence. Not just in the last. So good to see we can do it. A bit tighter, a bit more experience in being in a winnable position -- who knows. And even better -- fighting back from 7 goals down. Was a time when we would have packed up for the day, wind or no wind. And even better again -- going 3 goals down in the last and less than 10 mins to go. Could have put cue in the rack. "Brave loss. Pats on the back all round." But we fought back again! Danger game this week. Every game for us is a danger game one way or another. I don't want the team to think, well we showed em. We showed the world we can play good footy. Now we can ease off again. If they try that sh!t then we'll all really be pizzed off. Yesterday was the benchmark in effort. Skills may come and go from week to week, but the baseline is the effort shown yesterday.

If the players read this or other fan forums they are mad. And if they're not mad, they'd soon get driven mad.

I think the rule is fair as it is. The prudent coach will leave one or two interchange in credit for unforeseen circumstances. And if you need more, well, too bad. Sport, and life, is like that. However the AFL is so used to rolling over for the coaches, they will probably change it the way Scott wants it, and a little bit more just because.

Good thing Sheedy isn't around any more. Next thing we know he'd be clamouring for an allowance of 4 "blood rule" interchanges per quarter. And an extra 4 so the "blood" player can go back on. Before you knew it we'd be back to 120+ interchange per game. The current coaches will probably try it anyway.

From their very own rule book. The one that they're supposed to use to base their decisions on. (2015 version) 12. SCORING: GOALS AND BEHINDS 12.1 GOALS AND BEHINDS 12.1.1 Scoring a Goal Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team without being touched by any other Player, even if the football first touches the ground. ... 12.1.3 Clarification and Examples For the avoidance of doubt: (a) if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and then passes over the Goal or Behind Line, a Goal or Behind, as the case may be, shall still be recorded; (b) if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and does not pass over the Goal or Behind Line, the football shall remain in play; That's the ONLY mention in the rules about the ball hitting the ump. There is NOTHING in the rules about the ball hitting the ump AFTER the ball has crossed the line. Which it pretty clearly did in the Betts video.

From their very own rule book. The one that they're supposed to use to base their decisions on. (2015 version) 12. SCORING: GOALS AND BEHINDS 12.1 GOALS AND BEHINDS 12.1.1 Scoring a Goal Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team without being touched by any other Player, even if the football first touches the ground. ... 12.1.3 Clarification and Examples For the avoidance of doubt: (a) if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and then passes over the Goal or Behind Line, a Goal or Behind, as the case may be, shall still be recorded; (b) if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and does not pass over the Goal or Behind Line, the football shall remain in play; That's the ONLY mention in the rules about the ball hitting the ump. There is NOTHING in the rules about the ball hitting the ump AFTER the ball has crossed the line. Which it pretty clearly did in the Betts video.