Mazer Rackham

This is old ground. Until we win enough games and have enough clout to dictate back to the AFL where to go, we have to wear it.

I can't over the fact that every season we hear phrases such as "we're now interpreting this rule so that such and such" and "under the old interpretation of that rule" ... How badly framed are these rules that they require so much "interpretation"? Take tennis. "Under the new interpretation of the fault rule, a let service that would have been a clear winner will count as an ace unless the receiver had an opportunity to return that was denied by the early call of the word 'let' by the central umpire". Would be ludicrous but we get this all the time in the AFL. I recognise that to say they "should be black and white" is unrealistic -- human nature after all -- but fer chrissake, why don't the rules committee, the umpires director, etc, work towards getting them as black and white as possible, and eliminating "interpretation". Until they do, we will continue to see the weekly lottery of decision making.

Regardless of whether they're doing it for PR or not, it's still a good thing.

Here's your answer. http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/hall-cleared-to-play-in-grand-final/2005/09/20/1126982057281.html "Matter of law"? It's a sporting tribunal. Jones is a [censored]. <-- rhymes with "banker"

Let's see what tune Eddie sings next time the Pies are at the bottom end of the ladder.

Could work out well for McCartney if CAS end up having a quiet word with Mr Goodwin.

It's official. The winning formula requires Dawes = in, Hogan = out.

How much easier it is to win when we have players on the list who can really play. Also the Matt Joneses of the world pick up a notch when surrounded by real quality. Go Demons!!!!

Vince's career at Melb has already overtaken Sylvia's.

So we can win against decent oppo at a challenging venue without every player needing to have a "personal best" game. Great sign.

Please give us more of your prophecies. Do we make the 8 next year?

None even spoke to their own managers. Could it possibly be that the players were committed to this programme, even though they probably didn't know much of the hows and whys? Whatever it takes. "We're all this together, boys, and what they don't know won't hurt them, so shut your traps." Why was it that the players ran to Hird or Dank or whoever, and demanded indemnity, in the form of the consent forms (which actually indemnified Dank against the players!). Could it possibly be that the players realised that there was monkey business involved, but didn't want to turn over the rock in case they discovered a creepy-crawly? "The players were duped." One day this will be in the dictionary under "plausible deniability".

The article is on bigfooty. http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/asada-efc-hird-revenge-and-strange-bed-fellows.1101374/ Fiar dinkum, Chip should be embarrassed to be writing this fanboy stuff. Surely he can't actually believe it?

And probably quickly log off, shaking their heads in mingled bemusement and disgust.

And they're all stuck on a desert island

What was he going to do? Say "yeah, nah, I'm already locked in to Carlton and you'll never believe the dream gig they've given me .. ambassador for paper cartons or something. I dunno. It's not like I'll have to do anything."

All I can say is... stock up on popcorn.

I think you'll find it's your wrist.

Fake drama. He was never coming to us and about 0.001% chance to any club other than CFC.

In the cold hard light of day, I'm okay with that. Provided they learn from them. They won't learn anything from screwups in a game where we're down by 10 goals at half time and the only remaining hope is to lose by less than 15. But in an important game, big crowd, against good oppo where we're holding our own and playing (overall) decent footy ... then they can see that if they cut out the dumb mistakes, then we're in a pretty good situation. We can win those games. Bring on the next opponent.

Agree with this. It would be more like going to the circus.

Among the many reasons why we shouldn't permit drugs in sport is this most compelling one ... If drugs are permitted, then hopeful kids know that they will eventually have to take drugs to have any chance of making it. That will be the norm. And then the drugs arms race, previously confined to elite levels, will move down the food chain to where teens or even younger, will be "pushing the envelope" to get that edge over their peers. It's bad enough that the Essendon 34 took Christ knows what, fed to them by a bunch of shonky operators with little sense of ethics, but who wants to see kids in that situation? Taking unknown substances with unknown health risks because there's no other way to make it to the top. Disgraceful.

The result was disappointing but performance was encouraging. So many little areas to tighten up on, but we (a) scored goals in bunches without having to scrap one or two a quarter, and (b) fought back from a potential shellacking twice. Chin up boys. A lot of upside from that. Plus it was pretty entertaining, except for the final score. Can't say that about a lot of games in the last X years.

Oh, the Wiz. He said he loved playing for Melbourne and that he wanted to be a 10-year player and a life member and etc. Then he got a new manager and two weeks later, he had an unscratchable itch to "go home" to WA. Funny that.

Another "hair shirt" thread.