Mazer Rackham

2016 captain you think?

There is no such thing as dropping the ball. There is no such thing as throwing the ball.

The umpiring is sh!t. But it is every week. Not being able to find a teammate by hand or foot has blown us out of the game. Not being able to kick straight for goal has blown us out of the game. Having our forwards play from behind has blown us out of the game.

But that's just it. The coaches would do exactly as you say, 15 minutes or no, and the AFL would in turn say, "gee, they've gone and bent our beautiful rule. There's absolutely nothing we can do about it. It's out of our hands!!!" The option of saying "six rotations for any and all reasons, no exceptions, even for blood, corkie, broken neck, or hurt feelings. Tough [censored]" wouldn't occur to them as viable. That's how we get abominations creeping in to the game, such as the current scourge of throwing the ball. "Gosh, they're bending our rule. But it's impossible for us to do anything about that! Rather that ten players throw the ball without penalty, than even one player gets pinged for throwing when he actually handballed. Give me liberty or give me death!" ...When instead they should penalise everything less than a clear-cut textbook handpass. The players would clean up their disposal in a jiffy, and scourge removed. The AFL have brought this on themselves but we all pay the price.

Fcuking hell. This is old material. Seeing it rehashed again and again achieves nothing. Look forward, not back.

Jesus. How I would love to be able to use this new definition of "pathetic" in relation to our club.

Hallelujah! The coaches have had their way far too much in the past. Bouncing the ball at a ball-up... oh, the coaches don't like it because it might not go exactly where they would like it to go... re-bouncing the ball if it's not exactly vertical ... throwing up around the ground ... the centre line at ball-ups ... the extra circle around the centre circle ... ooooh we must give the coaches what they demand, otherwise ........ (otherwise what?) Subs ... oh we must have a sub because if we get an injury, we only get 3 rotations instead of 4 ... Now it's oh subs are terrible ... we need 4 interchange. The idea of subs at all was a coach innovation ... Sheedy in particular over the journey lobbied for lots of rule changes and generally got them all. The AFL need to decide what the game is and how it should be played. Change the rules accordingly if required. Then tell the clubs (coaches included) this is the way it is. And resist the inevitable whinge fest. I can't get over the hand wringing at the current state of the game. They know it's ugly. They know it's turning people away. Their idea of an improvement is to reduce interchange from 6,000 per game to 5,800. Why is there such a fear of upsetting the coaches?

"The Saint says, F*** THAT HURT!!! The Demon says, who put that there? The Tiger says, orta be a law against it." That reminds me of the one about the Saint, the Demon, the Tiger, the Irishman, Ronald Reagan, and the Pope. And they're all on the Titanic.

I think all Nostradamus quatrains are about Andrew Demetriou. The old Nost' was a footy tragic of the worst kind.

Unknown. Homo habilis relocated their franchise to the Gold Coast which caused prolonged expense and heartbreak, were not heard from after 1,800,000 BC. Homo sapiens drafted all their best talent as free agents and the rest is history.

In other news, Hannibal seized Cannae on this day in 216 BC. Also on this day in history. Australopithecus went down once and for all to Homo habilis after a protacted battle for supremacy in 2,000,000 BC.

It's not just us, it's not just this match. It's every match every week. Holding the ball: does not exist. Incorrect disposal: does not exist. Holding the man: does not exist. Blocking/holding someone more than 5 metres off the ball does not exist. Running more than 15 metres does not exist. Deviating from the line of the mark ( = play on) does not exist. Playing on after a mark ("oh, I've decided I don't really want to play on after all") does not exist. These "rules" get paid about once a match amidst usually many egregious instances.I I don't blame the umps. They are umpiring to direction given them by a horribly and perennially confused umpires department. Which buys into the idea that there can be "interpretation" of rules. "Interpretations"? How about framing the rules so that they are clear. I've never heard the word "interpretation" used with respect to the rules in any other sport.

Last week was a sh!tty, scrappy game where we got out-scrapped. And their key forward managed to get a bag. Difference between the sides. This week: a sh!tty, scrappy game where we out-scrapped them. And our key forward managed a bag. It's a long season. That thread about how you started barracking for the Demons reminded me of the Northey years where we played many many sh!tty scrappy games even when we were one of the top teams and winning most weeks. You can't have scintillating champagne football every week. This was a non-scintillating, non-champagne week. And we won. So suck on that. We won! I will celebrate. Go Demons!!!

Oh come on. We all know we tanked and we all know the charge and the penalty were massaged so the AFL didn't get investigated by external bureaus for running a rigged comp. What sets people off is the sheer unfairness of being investigated while the ones who wrote the blueprint got off scot free.

Yes, used to love Wellsy. Had his number on my jumper for a while. Was very disappointed when he jumped ship. But survived coz we still had Robbie.

Ha! That describes me. If it was a wet day I'd kick a matchbox around the living room to the commentary. While writing down the scores. On a dry day would play with a real ball (such a prize) in the empty block next door with a mate and we'd make the crowd roar noise as we played epic matches into the darkness of evening ...

Some years ago, Roos made a light-hearted comment during the NAB cup about not trying to win. The AFL investigated him. Libba spilt the beans about Carlton's tanking. Vlad's repsonse was to vilify and ridicule him. The Australia Football League. The byword in self-serving arbitrariness and vindictiveness. Basically they make it up as they go along. Meanwhile ... they were never going to slap Hird for his recent comments as they are too scared what he might let slip if they push him too far.

"Fell off". Right. Are there any lengths the AFL will not go to to, to silence this brave campaigner for truth and justice? But not even their hit men can overcome the protective powers of 3 Anzac day medals. I can see Gill in his lair right now, pursing his lips and drumming his fingertips together, saying "Why am I surrounded by fools and incompetents?"

Robbo in this instance is harsh but fair. Denham allowed his personal differences with certain officials to override his professionalism and he bagged us every single chance he got -- all knobs on 11 -- until that/those officials left. Overnight he became more balanced. Funny how that goes!

I didn't much like Sheahan but he hid his support (such as it was) well. It was our dear old Eddie McGuire who broke the mould and showed that journos could show their allegiances. To the enrichment of us all. Thanks Eddie.

Funny, that is exactly why I follow the Red Sox. Started following them in the late 90s. As a Demon fan I could totally relate to their catalogue of woes over many years.

1. Barracked for St Kilda as a kid. Swimming against the tide as it seemed like everyone else barracked for Collingwood. We lived in a Collingwood zone. Every home game one of the teachers would take keen kids to watch Collingwood at Vic Park. Collingwood??? No effin' way. (I knew some things at that tender age.) Years later that teacher got himself into a touch of bother with the law for taking little boys ....... to the football. Favourite players were Big Carl and Paul Callery. When they went to Melbourne, so did I. When they went back to St Kilda, I was old enough to barrack for the team, not the player, so I stuck with the Demons. 2. Big Carl was my first love, little Paul Callery second. But for perennial long lived favouritism, it has to be Robbie. He kept us alive through those dark years (you know, the ones before the current dark years. The second round I mean, and after the first lot of dark years ... I'm losing track of our dynasties of dark years ... that's the damage that following the Demons can do to a man's brain.) 3. Making the finals in 87 was stupefying for someone who had only experienced finals vicariously through other teams I was partially, slightly, temporarily going for ... usually only because they were against Collingwood. Beating up on North and South in the first two finals was incredible ... something totally outside of anything I could have imagined possible. But beating Carlton in 2000 ... nothing could top that. That's the only game I have ever sought out and watched again. 4. 87 prelim. Had to go to an engagement party. Sneaking out for occasional listens to the radio. Are we going to do this??? Is this really happening??? WE MIGHT WIN THIS!!!! Then the blow. Dammit, I felt ill. Everyone at the do thought I had had a seizure. It damn well felt like I had! 2000 GF was pretty bad too. Goddam I hate Sheedy. I'm glad he didn't coach us. 5. Hate the term "Dees". Makes us sound soft and cuddly and harmless. We should be Demons. Fierce, fearsome, intimidating, etc, etc ....... a man can dream .... going for the Demons in the seventies was a lot tougher than in current times. If you can believe that. We were NEVER on TV replay, NEVER in the finals. If you think we are irrelevant now, you didn't follow the Demons in the 70s. That was the decade that really gutted us as a club. However, I do not like going over ancient history. Even last Saturday is now ancient history. Onwards and upwards! Go DEMONS!

Is that where they learn once and for all what was stuck in them? It amazes me that they haven't spat it and demanded the club tell them. (I know one rookie has.) ... unless of course they already had a fair idea ....

And the beat goes on. You may recall that Athletics Australia was housed in premises in Swan St "Olympic Boulevard". Then Eddie Everywhere -- AA board member if you please -- got his sums wrong and decided Collingwood needed more space and asked for AA to get the half glass. Lo and behold, Premier John Brumby -- Collingwood supporter -- thought this appropriate and now "Olympic Boulevard" has no Olympics on it save for some statues. I thought Dan -- Essendon supporter -- might prove better than this but actions speak louder than words ...

Even Shakespeare says it! Caesar's wife. The issue is not really that the judges may have secretly been on the side of Essendon. Or that they may have been "corrupt". They weren't chosen for those real or imagined traits. Those individuals were specifically chosen from potential candidates because of their previously demonstrated disposition for certain types of outcome. Just look up the old Barry Hall case where he somehow was "in play" while he clocked McGuire and got to play in a grand final. http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/hall-cleared-to-play-in-grand-final/2005/09/20/1126982057281.html The AFL didn't explicitly engineer the outcome. They were rolling the dice, but they made sure that they provided the dice.